Timothy wrote:
The USA has had RNP approaches for nearly 20 years, and no specialist training or authorisation requirement.
There has not been a spate of related accidents.That is almost the definition of pointless regulation.
You yourself have on several occasions lamented many pilot’s poor understanding of what’s involved in flying an RNP approach safely, so I don’t really understand this comment. (I have no idea how IFR training is done in the US.)
I did LNAV approach today just for the sake of doing it 
(I have no idea how IFR training is done in the US.)
As stated earlier very pragmatically:
understand the approach has to be loaded from a current procedure database, so no DIY nonsense
fly overs and fly by
temperature correction
understand the scaling sensitivities enroute, terminal, lead in to FAF, LNAV, LNAV/V+, LPV
use of SUSP on missed approach
pre flight and initial approach checks
general knobology (loading, removing, vectors to final, activating)
standby terrestrial navigation
vertical profile monitoring
Your DPE will ask some practical questions as part of an IR.
You will fly an RNAV and also a missed approach including the hold.
As limited panel approach is potentially part of a checkride the RNAV is usually the preferred nav source for this.
Don’t worry EASA doesn’t require this, or a formal ATP checkride.
RobertL18C wrote:
Don’t worry EASA doesn’t require this, or a formal ATP checkride.
No?
No limited panel approaches and the ATP is a line proficiency check by the airline/operator.
ATP? Nope its a British Aerospace Advanced Turbo Prop, which I know quite well!
Don’t you just hate TLA’s :-))
Airborne_Again wrote:
You yourself have on several occasions lamented many pilot’s poor understanding of what’s involved in flying an RNP approach safely,
I do, but that is a problem with the training industry, it doesn’t mean we need regulation is needed. Most UK ATOs, IREs and IR Instructors have (or have had until recently) almost zero knowledge of GNSS and RNAV, or indeed glass of any kind. They have been working on the basis that conventional aids and instruments were all that was required.
I think that is would have been perfectly reasonable to say, for example, that pilots need to be tested on RNP approaches before they can use them, with a certain amount of relevant TK, but this whole PBN thing is just unnecessary overkill, as the Americans have proved for 20 years.
RobertL18C wrote:
No limited panel approaches and the ATP is a line proficiency check by the airline/operator.
According to FCL.520.A a checkride (“skill test”) with an examiner is required for the ATPL.
Timothy wrote:
I think that is would have been perfectly reasonable to say, for example, that pilots need to be tested on RNP approaches before they can use them, with a certain amount of relevant TK,
Isn’t that exactly what’s happening? I was “tested on RNP approaches” and then got the PBN endorsement in my logbook.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I was “tested on RNP approaches” and then got the PBN endorsement in my logbook.
Well, technically you should have done TK. But the main point is that people are being debarred from PBN routes because they haven’t validated on RNP approaches. At the highest, they should be debarred from the approaches.
