GPS substitution for navaids - Europe generally - is it allowed? (and low vis ops)

Pilots of my generation had a whole career of flying timed NDB approaches (ie, not even a DME).

The Canadian IR forty years ago still required competence in four course LF range holds and approaches, although there were only a few of these which remained operational. In some ways the four course range was more reliable than the ADF which in many cases should have been got rid of as a mater of safety when GPS came on the scene. Fortunately the French seem to have seen the light.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-frequency_radio_range

AT EKRK (my home airfield), the Locator/NDB has just been replaced by RNAV waypoints for missed approach reference and for the racetrack on the GPS approach procedures. In fact, any reference to ground based facilities are steadily being removed from the procedure plates. This detracts from the pilot’s situational awareness, but prepares for the day when the ground facilities are decommissioned, as the RNAV plates will not have to be revised.

It appears that instead of (ever) allowing the use of GPS navigation for procedures based on Loc/NDB, VOR and DME, all GPS procedures in EASA-land are or will be amended to include only RNAV (GPS) waypoints.

Anyone following this? Interesting proposed amendment here
https://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_441

There are actually some “interesting” points in it. Not sure if everything gets easier for us, e.g.:

When a pilot-in-command uses information provided by a third party for aerodrome operating
minima, the pilot-in-command remains responsible for compliance with the implementing rules.

I.e.: You can’t assume that e.g. Jeppesen plates are right. If you didn’t check with AIP and did your own calculations, you are busted.

The pilot-in-command should use the available space weather information to ensure that
no space weather phenomenon is predicted to disrupt GNSS reliability and integrity at
both the destination aerodrome and the alternate destination aerodrome

I can already feel the breath of German ram check agents…

But by far the greatest thing (this time completely w/o irony) is hidden at the very end: When this becomes law, we legally no longer need ADFs or DMEs as long as our GPS fulfill certain minimum requirements!!!!!

FIX SUBSTITUTION
(a) Area navigation systems that meet the requirements of (E)TSO-C129/-C145/-C146 (or later
equivalent standards) installed in aircraft that meet the requirements of NCO.OP.116(a) for RNAV 5, RNAV 1, RNP 1 or RNP APCH, may be used as a substitute for conventional navigation
equipment to:
(1) determine aircraft position relative to or distance from a VOR, marker, DME fix (including
a DME distance in the final approach segment); or a named fix defined by a VOR radial,
TACAN course, or NDB bearing
(2) navigate to or from a VOR, TACAN, or NDB.
(3) hold over a VOR, TACAN, NDB, or DME fix.
(4) fly an arc based upon DME.
……

I think only GNS430W, non W 430 is not RNAV1/RNP1/P-RNAV IIRC?

Malibuflyer wrote:

Not sure if everything gets easier for us

It is open for comments until 9th of March. So you could make that point or propose some alternative wordings.

Peter wrote:

(a) Area navigation systems that meet the requirements of (E)TSO-C129/-C145/-C146 (or later
equivalent standards) installed in aircraft that meet the requirements of NCO.OP.116(a) for RNAV 5, RNAV 1, RNP 1 or RNP APCH, may be used as a substitute for conventional navigation

So a KLN94 cannot be used (not approved for RNAV1) but a GNS430 can (?).

I guess it depends how the “RNAV 5, RNAV 1, RNP 1 or RNP APCH” is interpreted. With the “or” my reading is that your AFM (or supplement) mentioned in NCO.OP.116(a) needs to have one of the PBN spec. I read it RNAV5 or RNAV1 or RNP 1 or RNP APCH

Peter wrote:

Looks like somebody has gone through a large pile of regs and is trying to simplify them.

Who would be daft enough to do that?