No they are not covered – you are right. The (15 year old) NfL ist just about Non-Precision Approaches.
There are some publications about APV/LPV Approaches, but those are about the approaches themselves not about how the pilots flying them should be qualified.
The LBA has this list of publications relevant to flight operations – I guess sections 3 and 33 mention publications about Precision RNAV Approaches.
This Publication by AOPA Germany mentions on page 6 under “Pilotenqualifikation” that the signoff is still the only requirement for now. It does also mention that RNAV Approaches are not officially a part of IR-Training in Germany but EASA is planning changing this to a theoretical and practical training requirement.
Apparently Switzerland already has developed a training standard for RNAV Approaches – found here-.
Maybe somebody here who recently aquired his EASA-IR can tell you how this topic was covered in his flight training / ground school.
I remember having an extra simulator session covering the RNAV Approach Qualification when doing my A320 Rating about 6 years ago.
But that is Commercial-Ops and many of the old A320s do not even have a GPS receiver installed … :)
I am just starting to prepare to get the IR for my US-Standalone-PPL and curious how the Americans handle this. I guess they will have a pragmatic approach as well.
Is there anything I should be worried about for my flying on FAA IR in Europe?
During my FAA IR training I’ve flown multiple LPV approaches and the practical exam included it as well. Home base was uncontrolled with LPV.
Maybe somebody here who recently aquired his EASA-IR can tell you how this topic was covered in his flight training / ground school.
I remember having an extra simulator session covering the RNAV Approach Qualification when doing my A320 Rating about 6 years ago.
But that is Commercial-Ops and many of the old A320s do not even have a GPS receiver installed … :)
I got an EASA-IR half a year ago. (Actually, it was a renewal, but it had lapsed so long ago that I had to do both ground school and flight training.) B-RNAV qualification (not P-RNAV or approaches) were integrated in both ground school and flight training. There was no use of RNAV in the flight test as RNAV is not part of the EASA IR curriculum. The ATO chief instructor signed off the RNAV endorsement in my log book.
Maybe somebody here who recently aquired his EASA-IR can tell you how this topic was covered in his flight training / ground school.
I did my EASA IR here in Austria in summer/autumn 2013. RNAV approaches were treated as just another NPA in training. In fact, I flew one on my checkride too in addition to an ILS and a VOR approach.
There was no signoff or separate entry in my logbook.
Is there anything I should be worried about for my flying on FAA IR in Europe?
I do not think there is anything to worry about. Get some training from an instructor knowledgeable of both systems (US and European) to familiarise yourself with the European IFR system, do one flight with said instructor to learn the ropes, and you should be fine.
Some the most noteworthy items to cover:
- filing the FPL – Eurocontrol – RAD
- pop-up clearances
- alternate minima
- departing from uncontrolled fields
- arriving at an uncontrolled field.
- IFR outside controlled airspace (OCAS)
I have some notes somewhere that I took when I did this a few years ago. There is not that much to it.
I was actually thinking about those RNAV approvals not about flying IFR in Europe in general. I’ve done that already a few times.
My memory on this is rubbish but I recall reading a post from a well known EASA committee member that mandatory training was coming in for all GPS approaches in the EU. It was a quid pro quo for something else being abandoned.
I’m not sure if you should be worried about the need for RNAV approvals in different European countries. The whole situation seems to be mess.
Sweden says:
Can the FAA even issue such an approval to you?
France seems to be more sensible.
I interpret this as for an FAA licensed pilot no additional approvals are needed.
Germany. Well. Maybe you just need a signature in your logbook saying that you are trained to fly RNAV approaches.
I will let some else clarify that.
Switzerland. They seem to require that you’ve basically have attended their training as described in this document
And the national CAAs and EASA seem to be of the opinion that the training requirements that are mentioned in AMC 20-27 and AMC 20-28 are too strict and are hoping for relaxed rules in NPA 2013-25. But that has not yet come into effect.
To me it seems weird that there is so much focus on getting out more RNAV approaches to LPV and/or LNAV/VNAV minima and at the same time the problem of allowing the pilots to fly them has not been addressed.
[links cleaned up]
Might it be that there is also a mess regarding the terms?
I think that RNP – as in the Swiss document – has something to do with those curved paths on approaches. There was a conversation on COPA a while ago and at least the people using Avidyne R9 said the equipment can fly those but the pilot needs to be qualified.
RNP is (or is going to be) the official wording for what was formerly called RNAV or GPS Approaches. I was told that this has something to do with changes in the ICAO PBN-Manual. The DFS will start renaming RNAV approaches to RNP Approaches on December 11th this year. The first airport to use the new wording is Hannover.
