Peter wrote:
Isn’t an ILS?
No, an ILS is not based on PBN requirements.
There are lots of different issues with PBN and it would lessen the confusion if people try to keep them apart:
For (1) there is no doubt in my mind that it is a good idea. The whole point of PBN is to make the TK, flying techniques and procedure design independent of the navigation system (or “sensors”) used. Unless you believe that the current GPS system is the end of technical development in air navigation that can only be a good thing.
Timothy has already shown by his questions that the answer to (2) is yes. In particular, lack of knowledge of his item #2 could kill you. Lack of knowledge of the other items can at the very least cause you to mess up royally (ATC will not be pleased) and/or fail to get the nav box into approach mode.
Items (3), (4) and (5) are not so clear. Given what Timothy calls “self righteous group think” I – unfortunately – believe the answer to (4) is “yes”. I wish it were not.
Timothy wrote:
Well, the UK CAA tells us that it is hamstrung by EASA requirements.
The German LBA also like to justify their wrong and unnecessary unpopular decisions with EASA requirements.
The PBN course that I took in Belgium did address the majority of the questions.
I now also inderstand why that slide is wrong: LNAV+V is a specific Garmin thing, and it is officially a LNAV approach (non-precision) where the Garmin box calculates itself a vertical guidance portion.
Is that worth 500 euro and two days of my life? Not really but I enjoyed every minute of it because its my passion … so count me in the camp of the believers
If that meets EASA standards, then what are all the other countries messing around at? I would worry that EASA will step forward and invalidate that ruling.
Per commission regulation 2016/539
Pilots, holders of an IR, who have obtained on the basis of the applicable requirements of national law or otherwise theoretical knowledge and practical skills in PBN operations, prior to the date of application of this Regulation, should be deemed to have fulfilled the additional requirements, where they can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the knowledge and skills thus obtained are equivalent to those obtained through the courses and trainings required under this Regulation. The competent authorities should base their decisions on the equivalence of such knowledge and skills on objective information and criteria.
Guillaume wrote:
Per commission regulation 2016/539
Pilots, holders of an IR, who have obtained on the basis of the applicable requirements of national law or otherwise theoretical knowledge and practical skills in PBN operations, prior to the date of application of this Regulation, should be deemed to have fulfilled the additional requirements, where they can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the knowledge and skills thus obtained are equivalent to those obtained through the courses and trainings required under this Regulation. The competent authorities should base their decisions on the equivalence of such knowledge and skills on objective information and criteria.
In Sweden it will be up to the IRE doing the PC to determine if the additional requirements are fulfilled. The Swedish CAA has published a checklist, but its use is not compulsory.
I know two IREs who plan to read up on the TK, shoot some PBN approaches and then endorse each other for PBN. (The Swedish CAA is clear in that an IRE may give endorsements for PBN without holding one him/herself as long as (s)he has the necessary knowledge.)
Timothy wrote:
There is a PBN lexicon at the back of the PPL/IR PBN Manual
I would like to recommend the reading of this Manual. I would never have even understood the questions 1 to 17 above without that reading. It is a well done manual to me, enriching my knowledge and giving me the useful terms to know and to deepen my understanding. Thus, I feel ready to take a chance and answer the questions to myself. At least I heard about all that stuff and now I can use it for my own.
I made wide recommendation around me to fellow pilots as I saw them being confused by the varying concepts between yesterday and today’s use of terms. There is a real need of further instruction on this subject I think.
And as Bosco says: something is done which is still better than nothing.
Peter wrote:
The +V glideslope is a Jeppesen database feature.
Source?
Peter: I stand corrected.
