Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

PRNAV and PBN

@Airborne_Again – I’ve read the Swedish regulation regarding P-RNAV, link. I only come to the conclusion that as a private pilot I am expected to attend an approved training course in order to get P-RNAV approval. Could you please advice on how I should read the regulation to come conclusion P-RNAV approval is automatic/implicit?

You wrote:

Formally, in Sweden the AIP says that you need operational approval for both B-RNAV and P-RNAV. More details are given in a Swedish RNAV regulation (which claims to be based on JAA/EASA regulations and guidance documents). For B-RNAV, the approval is automatic if you have taken a course at an ATO authorised to train for the IR and the syllabus of the course has been approved by the Swedish Transport Authority. The same thing holds for P-RNAV, except that the approval is automatic only for GA – if you have an AOC you have to get formal approval.

ESTL

Could you please advice on how I should read the regulation to come conclusion P-RNAV approval is automatic/implicit?

Section 8.4.4.1.1 states that if you have an AOC, than you have to get an operational approval.

Section 8.4.4.2 states that for GA you have to a training course. Nothing is said about operational approval.

So because the need for operational approval needs to be explicitly mentioned for the AOC holder case, but not for GA it follows that approval is not required for GA.

To be absolutely sure, I did contact the Swedish Transport Authority and I have in writing from them that my interpretation is correct.

1) Skall LFS 2004:27 §8.4.4.2 tolkas så att operativt godkännande av operatören för P-RNAV i samband med privatflyg är automatisk (dvs inte behöver sökas) om flygbesättningen har genomgått angiven utbildning?

- Ja, om utbildningen har genomförts vid en IFR-godkänd flygskola eller motsvarande och utbildningen är dokumenterad.

Med vänlig hälsning/ Best Regards

Jan Eriksson
Flyginspektör/ Flight Inspector
Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 27 Jan 16:52
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4No1045.pdf

Does anyone know the implications, if any, of the above General Approval expiring on 1 Feb 2015?

Ah. I think I missunderstood your point @Airborne_Again. I thought that you meant that GA didn’t have to do “anything” to qualify as P-RNAV capable.
It was just that I did not really see much difference in having to get a specific operational approval compared to having to attend a P-RNAV course that is approved by the Swedish CAA. It’s a hassle either way. Especially since I do not think that many (any?!) ATO’s are able to offer such a training.

On a similar point I can share that currently Swedish GA pilots do not need to do anything particular to be allowed to fly APV SBAS approaches. This is actually contradicting what is written in this AIC Link

This is what I received from the Swedish CAA:

Efter konsultation med mina kollegor har vi kommit fram till att det inte krävs något särskilt tillstånd/godkännande för privatflygare för APV-inflygningar inklusive SBAS baserade sådana.
Däremot kommer det att krävas dokumenterad utbildning i form av teori och inflygningar i flygplan.
Uppläggningen av utbildningen kommer EASA att fastställa senast till våren/sommaren 2016, men Transportstyrelsen behöver under mellantiden tillsammans med branschföreträdare utforma en temporär lösning, som även uppfyller de kommande kraven.

My translation:

After consultation with my colleagues, we have concluded that it does not require any special permission / approval for private pilots for APV approaches including SBAS based ones.
However, it will require documented training in the form of theory and approaches in aircraft.
EASA will define the training requirements later in the spring / summer of 2016, but the Swedish CAA need in the meantime, together with industry representatives, design a temporary solution that would also meet the future requirements.

This I interpret to read that currently there is no regulation in place that requires anything particular in order to fly APV SBAS procedures. But in the future there will be some requirements. Those requirements are not yet known.

ESTL
It was just that I did not really see much difference in having to get a specific operational approval compared to having to attend a P-RNAV course that is approved by the Swedish CAA. It’s a hassle either way. Especially since I do not think that many (any?!) ATO’s are able to offer such a training.

I expect that you would need documented training in any case, so surely training only is better than training+approval?

Also, I took the reply from the Transport Authority to imply that any ATO approved for IR training could give such a course, but maybe that’s not true.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I do not think that it is that simple. Any ATO approved for IR training could get an additional approval for a P-RNAV course. At the moment I do not think that just being an ATO that can give IR training is sufficient.

From the regulation. My emphasis in bold.

Alla övriga piloter kan erhålla RNAV-utbildning vid en IFR-godkänd flygskola eller annan kompetent
organisation. RNAV-kurser skall vara godkända av Luftfartsinspektionen. Godkänd teoriutbildning
och praktisk utbildning skall intygas i pilotens flygdagbok av de godkända utbildarna.

RNAV courses shall be approved by the Swedish CAA.

ESTL

LPV / RNAV approach operator approval to go away

This has apparently appeared on the German AOPA site here

Good news.

It was a complete farce anyway, because anyone could fly the old navaid-based IAP using the GPS unofficially…

Can anyone translate the article for us?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Can anyone translate the article for us?

I’m in a bit of a hurry right now, so the short version: Operator approval (at least for private and other non-commercial operations) for RNAV procedures is expected to go away with the next release of the EASA ops documents in spring. Pilots don’t need specific approval either, however some kind of proof is required that they are able and current to fly these procedures. AOPA suggests to do this by having the examiner of IFR checkrides make a signed entry in the logbook. However, there is no definded format for this logbook entry yet. (My addition: Until now, logbook entries are not common practice in Germay, there is not a single signature in any of my logbooks that I have kept since 1978. Many examiners around here will therefore be very unsure about what to enter in your book…).

EDDS - Stuttgart

anyone could fly the old navaid-based IAP using the GPS unofficially

That’s not the point. Many airfields in Germany have only GPS approaches.

BTW, AOPA Germany seems to abe a little of track with their views on pilot training. They say you will be fine (in all of Europe) if you have an entry in your logbook confirming completion the GPS approach training with references merely to some 15 year old very obscure German NfLs.

See the recent thread we had here, duscussing the swiss rules. You would clearly have to prove that your training was in conformance with the applicable European regs…

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

The changes described require amendments to both the FCL and OPS regulations. Neither of these were voted on at EASA Committee in November, and have gone to written procedure. The OPS amendment in particular needs to get passed soon in order to be effective by August 2016. Individual member state rules would then be superseded.

The latest proposal is that the state of licence issue should decide what if anything is required in the way of training for PBN, and that successful demonstration of PBN capability should be shown as a logbook endorsement following the annual prof check for the IR.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top