Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Need to be sure of your avionics doing this

That FOCA document is a nice bit of gold plating because it requires special training for any GPS approach:

And anybody landing from a GPS approach in Switzerland could get interrogated to see if they received the special training. That’s tricky since there is no such training required elsewhere (that I know of) so there isn’t going to be a logbook entry for it. Unless “RNP” is literally “RNP” which cannot be flown by light GA anyway…

It probably also means most Swiss pilots are already illegal flying GPS approaches outside Switzerland

I’ve put that Swiss doc here, OCRd so it can be searched.

Last Edited by Peter at 19 Nov 20:02
Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

And anybody landing from a GPS approach in Switzerland could get interrogated to see if they received the special training. That’s tricky since there is no such training required elsewhere (that I know of) so there isn’t going to be a logbook entry for it.

For years now, in Australia, we have been required to undergo a brief training session/course to be allowed to use GNSS in ops under IFR (completion of this training must be documented by an appropriate log-book entry). In addition, to be allowed to perform GNSS NPApproaches, one’s proficiency in executing these procedures is assessed (during the initial and then every annual IR renewal/revalidation flight test) with specific (i.e. to conduct GNSS NPAs) authorisation recorded in one’s licence.

P.S. For those of you who are looking for some “light reading” on the subject, may I recommend these few pages :)
Civil Aviation Order 20.91 (Instructions and directions for performance-based navigation) 2012

Last Edited by ANTEK at 19 Nov 19:17
YSCB

…because it requires special training for any GPS approach

As far as commercial operations are concerned this has been the case since GPS was invented almost anywhere in Europe, not only in Switzerland. The “special training” was usually just a signature on a piece of paper…

EDDS - Stuttgart

Australia, from the little I know about it, is somewhat unusual in the way they have “graded” their route from their version of an IMC Rating, all the way to the full ICAO IR (the Command Instrument Rating, IIRC). So it does not suprise me they need training for each different type of instrument approach.

Otherwise, it is slightly bizzare to require such training when tracking a GPS (LNAV) is just like tracking anything else, and if one adopts the position that GPS is somehow different then the only logical conclusion is a full type rating for every different type of panel mounted GPS (because they really are pretty different and mostly non-obvious).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Otherwise, it is slightly bizzare to require such training when tracking a GPS (LNAV) is just like tracking anything else…

If you look closely, there are a few differences. Most importantly, the monitoring of the signal quality can be very different for various installations, especially the older ones. For example where VOR/LOC display orange “NAV” flags, many GPS installations flash an amber “MSG” light somewhere else on the panel. Also, in many GPS installations (but not in all!) the deviation indicator shows distance, not angle as in VOR/LOC mode which is insignificant in the cruise but can be somewhat confusing in short final on an approach. Then, important stuff like “RAIM” requires some explaining for pilots who are not technically minded (in the world of commercial aviation, the majority are not!).

EDDS - Stuttgart

…. if one adopts the position that GPS is somehow different then the only logical conclusion is a full type rating for every different type of panel mounted GPS (because they really are pretty different and mostly non-obvious).

Maybe not exactly “a full type rating” but we do require here in Australia a logbook “sign-off” for each “new” GNSS installation we intend to use during IFR ops. For example, G1000 must be singed-off separately from units of a G400/500 series.

Last Edited by ANTEK at 19 Nov 22:03
YSCB

For example where VOR/LOC display orange “NAV” flags, many GPS installations flash an amber “MSG” light somewhere else on the panel.

So? Different NAV receivers have different knobs to twiddle, yet I don’t need an instructor sign off a “King rating” or “Narco rating”.

And then we have class ratings, where a pilot could, shock horror, just fly with a different aircraft without asking an instructor.

It’s a sad world where we don’t trust pilots to be responsible enough to read the manual of their gadgets or ask anyone competent if they don’t understand it.

LSZK, Switzerland

It’s a sad world where we don’t trust pilots to be responsible enough to read the manual of their gadgets or ask anyone competent if they don’t understand it.

It is essential to behave responsibly.
Reading the manuals and asking for advice of others is commendable, but….
formalised training and obligatory periodic re-training are, in my opinion, absolutely essential, regardless of one’s past experience.
“Difference training” often deals with nothing more than getting one accustomed to new positioning of familiar switches and knobs

Last Edited by ANTEK at 19 Nov 22:28
YSCB

It’s a sad world where we don’t trust pilots to be responsible enough to read the manual of their gadgets or ask anyone competent if they don’t understand it.

As far as private pilots are concerned, I couldn’t care less. (And this is also the authorities view in my part of the world.) But when I get onboard an airliner as a passenger I insists the the colleagues up front have received type and installation specific training. Firstly because I want to survive and secondly because I have helped to train enough pilots to know about their ability to read and understand manuals… And luckily the authorities in my part of the world see it the same way! As I wrote above: A lot of commercial pilots are not technically minded or even interested. They chose this profession for completely different reasons.

Last Edited by what_next at 19 Nov 22:39
EDDS - Stuttgart

There are differences between flying RNAV procedures and those based on ground Navaids. Many of these are academic and don’t seem to affect pilot performance, such as what is the difference between RAIM prediction and an integrity alert due to a bad RAIM calculation or how does the CDI differ on a LNAV approach with a TSO C129a GPS verses the same approach using a TSO C146 GPS in a SBAS service volume. Other issues are more important, such as how do I get the box to do what I have been asked to do by ATC. How do I control a hold, what is OBS mode and how does it affect navigation including transitioning back out of OBS mode. What is the difference between a Direct-to a fix and activating a leg, How can I fly to intercept an airway by following a radial from a VOR. How and when should I initiate a missed approach navigational guidance. How do I get the autopilot to do what I want on those 90 degree turns to the final approach course. Why activate an approach, what does it mean. I could go on.

KUZA, United States
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top