Airborne_Again wrote:
I personally don’t see any issues with substituting a DME-based fix which is co-located with an RNAV waypoint,
Absolutely. The Challenge is specifically for the final approach segment this is rarely the case. The GPS-Fix is typically the runway threshold while the DME is located somewhere else.
Actually I have to admit I don’t know myself how I would program my GTN to show me the distance to a GPS-fix (at the location of the DME) where I am not flying to …
Ibra wrote:
In what cases DME provides lateral guidance on final segment? DME arc? DME distance?
That wording seems to point GPS can’t be used to track VOR/NDB radials between FAF/FAP and MAPt
GPS to give DME distance on final segment should be ok?
The two items are separate. Lateral guidance is the first item (which was included already in the NPA), the second item is no substitution for DME at all (which is new). So using GPS to give DME distance on the final segment is not ok according to the AMC.
The latter was actually exactly what happened in the Dundee crash. The DME at the runway had the same ID as the locator beacon. The pilot used the GPS distance to the locator thinking it was the distance to the DME and descended too early on a 2D approach. So there certainly are issues with DME substitution, but I think that the EASA Opinion goes too far by prohibiting DME substitution altogether.
Note: I’ve been told that the USA have neither offset DMEs nor use the same ID on facilities that are not co-located. In that situation there is clearly no problem with DME substitution.
ok thanks, I missed that bit !
Am I mis-reading it, or does that mean that if you are going to airport X which only has an NDB approach, they still want you to be flying this based on the needle rather than using GPS? Obviously in reality it will be overlayed and the needle “potentially” ignored, but I would have thought an update to the rules would have recognised that GPS is better than an NDB.
Pirho wrote:
they still want you to be flying this based on the needle rather than using GPS?
They want you to have an ADF in your aircraft (for own practical flying you can use dead recon on compass & watch if you wish)
For dual practical flying, it depends on who you ask? the typical UK FTO sunny weather IRI/IRE wanted me to fly raw NDB with no GPS, no iPad, hands only…or die hard trying, the guy who flew them comercially in some 3rd world countries for a living, wanted to see GPS overlay with magenta and FD/AP ON and SUSP for MAP (the ADF is tunned and used for monitoring the go-around only as well as ramp checks or bug ATC altitude, RBI = 030 means climb 3000ft 
)
Pirho wrote:
Am I mis-reading it, or does that mean that if you are going to airport X which only has an NDB approach, they still want you to be flying this based on the needle rather than using GPS?
No, they want you to tune the NDB and monitor the ADF needle. What actual course guidance you use doesn’t matter as long as the needle points the right way.
Ah thanks for clearing that up. That seems fine and practical enough to me, although I would be in the camp that would suggest that raw data for such a rubbish source need not be required. When I read it at first I thought it was essentially saying not to overlay.
Four years ago I joined @bookworm: in support of him to an EASA AWO (All Weather Operations) meeting at their headquarters in Cologne to make a presentation of GA Low Visibility Operations and with the aim to bring the takeoff RVR of 400 m requirement back to 150 m. I still have the PowerPoint presentation. I also tried at that time to get an LVTO approval (per aircraft type) with the Dutch authorities for the SR22 Turbo and Piper PA34-200T. I do remember that the price tag for one LVTO approval would be around 1000 euro, so I did not continue with the LVTO approval request but they would have granted me the approval if I paid. I still have the supporting documents related to the LVTO approval request as well.
I would find it interesting to know what the status is of the 150 meter versus 400 m RVR requirement at takeoff. Was this accepted?
AeroPlus wrote:
I do remember that the price tag for one LVTO approval would be around 1000 euro, so I did not continue with the LVTO approval request but they would have granted me the approval if I paid.
Do I get this correctly? They wanted you to pay 1000 Euros per take off????
That would be outpricing by it’s worst. We don’t want it, we can’t stop it legally so let’s put a price tag that nobody can afford.
No. 1000 euro for getting the LVTO approval per aircraft category. Once received and paid I could use it as often as I would need it.
