In the US, we get cleared for the RNAV approach, not for the LPV approach. The controller has no knowledge of which minimum we intend to fly, nor do they care. AC 90-105 for LNAV and LNAV/VNAV and AC 90-107 for LPV and LP procedures provide guidance for approval. A part 91 operator does not need approval to fly these procedures unless the chart specifically states “Authorization required”. The Authorization mostly applies to RNAV(RNP) procedures. The AC’s and the AIM are not regulatory and the only regulation on the topic is 91.205(d)(2) which states that for IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.
I do think it is valuable to have ground and flight training for RNAV(GPS) procedures before flying them, but it is not mandated. I normally spend about 4 hours of ground and an equivalent amount of time in the air for training on the differences with flying these procedures verses using conventional ground based navigation systems.
I have not flown a ground based approach in actual IFR conditions other than for practice for the last almost 9 years. I don’t have any authorizations other than my pilot certificate.
NCYankee wrote:
I have not flown a ground based approach in actual IFR conditions other than for practice for the last almost 9 years. I don’t have any authorizations other than my pilot certificate.
That is the part I was getting at. Someone like you flies to Europe and expects to use all available approach types unless stated otherwise on the chart itself. Anything else were close to a legal trap.
An example where the chart states that authorization is required are those RNAV approaches that use curved RF legs. I may not understand the reasoning but at least it is known to me by looking at the chart.
In the US, we get cleared for the RNAV approach, not for the LPV approach.
It’s the same here. You cannot know, anyway, if the LPV approach is available the moment you arrive. Right? You always get a clearance for an RNAV/GPS approach.
Rwy20 wrote:
But if I want to rent this HB plane and fly an RNAV approach in the Netherlands, then I (the “operator”) now need an approval from the state of registry (Switzerland), despite my letter from the DGAC stating that I have had sufficient training?
When you rent a plane, you are not the operator. I suppose you could rent a plane you operate but that doesn’t make much sense to me. And it’s not the typical rental situation. Just like when I let a friend fly my plane for free, he doesn’t suddenly become the operator. Or when I hire a professional pilot to fly it for me, he doesn’t become the operator. It’s still me and it’s my job to get the paperwork for the aircraft. Simply put, operator is the entity that has control over the plane, decides what’s going to happen with it. PS: And in the EU, operator will probably be named in the registry (just like an operator of a car, not just its owner). I doubt you register yourself as an operator when you rent a plane.
Controllers are supposed to only use the approach name on the chart, not any parenthetical stuff like GPS or RNP. So the clearance is for the RNAV RWY 2 approach. Except in rare circumstances, the LPV will annunciate if it is charted. Even if the SBAS integrity is below that needed for the LPV it will annunciate as LPV, but the color of the annunciation will be amber and not green. The downgrade, if it occurs, is 1 min prior to the FAF and is always to LNAV without vertical guidance.
Even if the SBAS integrity is below that needed for the LPV it will annunciate as LPV, but the color of the annunciation will be amber and not green. The downgrade, if it occurs, is 1 min prior to the FAF and is always to LNAV without vertical guidance.
Thanks!
Is it correct that when I fly an RNAV approach with my GNS430W i can only go direct to the IF but not to the FAF? I guess it’s not possible to get a vector to the FAF, right?
Peter wrote:
The world has gone mad.
I think this is the best summary of the current situation. Fortunately the rules will change.
Flyer59 wrote:
Is it correct that when I fly an RNAV approach with my GNS430W i can only go direct to the IF but not to the FAF? I guess it’s not possible to get a vector to the FAF, right?
You can go direct to any fix on the approach prior to the FAF, but not the FAF. If you do the latter, you will get a message at 2 NM prior to the FAF that the approach has been cancelled or something to that effect. You can always select VTF or activate the leg going to the FAF to obtain lateral guidance and the approach annunciation will then be seen.
One very useful technique with the GNS/W when flying a visual approach is to activate the leg that ends at the runway. This forces the vertical guidance on and is particularly useful if you are on a base leg inside the FAF.
Martin wrote:
Simply put, operator is the entity that has control over the plane, decides what’s going to happen with it
So if you rent an aircraft from a club, the club has control over when you get the plane, but not where you’re going to fly to. So within the time slot allocated to the renter, the renter decides what happens to the plane, subject to certain limitations, obviously. So according to your rule, the renter is the operator…
My understanding is also that we as private pilots are our own operators. Regardless of whether we rent the aircraft we fly or not. I am always the operator. ( @Martin My view is therefore the total opposite of yours.) Then one can argue whether the concept of operator should be brought into private aviation at all.
I would like to know more about the definition of operator. Does anyone know where that can be found?
