Hi,
In an effort to clarify the Swedish position regarding RNAV approach approvals for operators (pilots), I would like to know what the situation looks like in other EASA countries.
I would very much for instance like to understand what the RNAV approach pilot requirements are for Danish pilots. (The Swedish CAA exused them selves for applying stricter SERA rules by pointing to that it was “needed” because of the Swedish-Danish Functional Airspace Block.)
There is a Swedish AIC that says:
[Trying to upload picture. But I only get an error message.]
The operator must have an approval for APV SBAS issued by its Civil Aviation Authority (with reference to EASA AMC 20-28 or equivalent)
But so far there is no clarification from the Swedish CAA on how to actually get this approval.
When it comes to Germany. Some Googling gave me this document "Hinweise zur Beantragung von Genehmigungen nach § 24a LuftBO (RVSM, MNPS, PBN) für den nichtgewerblichen Einsatz eines Luftfahrzeuges "
Link
Have I found the correct German document? Does it say that a self declaration is all that is needed for German pilots to be allowed to fly RNAV approaches?
The UK CAA seems to be very pragmatic. They do not require any type of training or approval for RNAV approaches – LPV and LNAV and LNAV/VNAV
The French CAA does seem to require that pilots attend formal training with both a theoretical and practical part. French training requirements
[Edited many times to try and upload an image.]
What are these “stricter SERA rules” you are referring to?
The “need” to apply IFR like minimum altitudes when flying VFR at night. There is room in SERA to relax that. But one argument by the Swedish CAA to not do that was to align with Denmark.
The “need” to apply IFR like minimum altitudes when flying VFR at night. There is room in SERA to relax that. But one argument by the Swedish CAA to not do that was to align with Denmark.
This is not at all my impression. The Swedish CAA said at an early stage that they would use the leeway in SERA to reduce the minimum altitudes to 1000 ft above obstacles within 3 km and that this would be harmonised with Denmark. CAA staff I spoke with recently said that EASA had flatly refused that and insisted on the 8 km radius. They were not happy about it.
The “need” to apply IFR like minimum altitudes when flying VFR at night. There is room in SERA to relax that. But one argument by the Swedish CAA to not do that was to align with Denmark.
Ha, the Norwegian CAA did it without any argument whatsoever. I have sent them a mail several weeks ago, but heard nothing. Things like “mountainous” and “high” terrain are used, but no definition exist anywhere. These terms are used by ICAO, but as relative terms such as “high terrain” close to an airport.
They also got their own old regulations wrong. The old regulations said all night flying in controlled air space shall be IFR, but exemptions would be given an a case by case basis for VFR in controlled air space (in practice a call to the tower was needed). No such restrictions existed in G. In their explanation for adopting the SERA rules, they managed to write that NVFR was not allowed according to the old rules, but would be allowed according with SERA. The real changes will be the minimum altitudes, but also that NVFR in controlled airspace is allowed on a general basis. Part-NCO was also recently taken in effect, which meant NVFR also was allowed on top. All in all, very little has changed, except NVFR in controlled air space is in the regulations as it should be.
I think maybe, as is evident with the EIR regulations thread, that we interpret the regulations in the wrong way. We have a tendency to assume things, we interpret stuff into the regulations, things that aren’t there (the requirement for TAF for EIR for instance). It’s the same with NVFR. The regulations say “except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except when specifically authorised by the competent authority…” This should be interpreted “as is”: Take off and landing phase, which also has to include approaches – no limits exist. The phrase “except when specifically authorised by the competent authority” is more or less the same wording used in the old regulations that restricted NVFR to G, but for all practical reasons didn’t. If there is a need to fly lower, the permission will be given.
@Peter I tried both to drag and drop .jpg and .png versions of the picture with Explorer and I tried to use the insert image button to select and upload images. Neither worked. I just got an error message. But I was just trying to insert an image showing text, so nothing important really. I did try using to computers. One Windows XP and one running Windows 7. Both with Chrome.
@Airborne Again Maybe I was overly negative towards the Swedish CAA. When they sent out the SERA implemetation proposal I remeber that they motivated the IFR-like minimum altitude for Night VFR by referencing to increased safety. This without quantifying how by how much the safety would improve or saying that the current Night VFR minimum altitudes were unsafe. And in the CAA’s reply to comments on the proposed SERA implementation Link I got the impression that they did want to invest the resources to come up with an alternative to having the IFR minimum altitudes.
Transportstyrelsen har bestämt att VFR-flygning under mörker ska vara tillåtet. Transportstyrelsen har inte för avsikt att enligt SERA 5005 c5 fastställa någon nationell minimiflyghöjd utan SERAförordningen 5005 c5 gäller. SERA-reglerna är säkerhetsbedömda av EASA. Ifall Transportstyrelsen skulle fastställa andra minimiflyghöjder måste dessa säkerhetsbedömas nationellt av Transportstyrelsen.
My translation below.
The CAA has determined that VFR flight at night shall be permitted. The CAA has no intention to according SERA 5005 c5 to establish any national minimum flight altitude so SERA regulation 5005 c5 applies. The SERA rules are safety assessed by EASA. If the CAA would establish other minimum altitudes these would then have to be safety assessed by the Swedish CAA.
But back to my original question.
Does anyone know the pilot traning or approvals that are needed by Danish or German pilots in order to legally fly RNAV approaches? Or in other EASA countries for that matter.
And for the sake of compleness. This is the image that was unable to upload in my first message.
@Anders: with regard to your question “But back to my original question. Does anyone know the pilot traning or approvals that are needed by Danish or German pilots in order to legally fly RNAV approaches? Or in other EASA countries for that matter.”
I can only tell you that I have asked my examiner to provide me with a seperate declaration stating that I have shown sufficiant qualification to fly RNAV approaches. That’s what he did and I keep this document together with my other flying-related documents.
You can find information about the qualification for RNAV Approaches in Germany in two publications – called “Nachrichten für Luftfahrer” or short NfL.
For commercial ops look for NfL II-97/98 and for GA-Ops it is NfL II – 120/99 – find a copy of that here.
It gives some information about what to cover and also states that the qualification should be signed off in your logbook.
Thanks @simonsorcerer
Those rules seem straightforward. Basically a signoff in you logbook.
Do you know if there any updated rules? The link that you provided talks about “GPS standalone-Nichtpräzisionsanflugverfahren” eg. non-precision approaches.
Are APV SBAS/LPV approaches also covered by this NfL?
