RobertL18C wrote:
I believe GA needs to fly on an IFR GPS to satisfy RNP for airways, older big iron might be able to meet the RNP using DME/DME
DME-DME is RNAV1 in terminal space? RNAV5 is still possible on VOR/DME and there are not that many RNAV1 Airways, yet…
Yes GPS is the only way for GA to satisfy RNAV1 Airway above FL95, RNAV1 for departure & arrival and RNP APCH for approach
Bellow FL95,
- In UK, you can still fly RNAV5 under FL95 without PBN/GPS, one can still practically fly on KNS80 (finding an immune one that is cheaper than G430W will be tough), the reason is everybody under FL95 will either fly OCAS VOR-VOR or get ATC Vectors, in terminal space there are no SID/STAR on RNAV1 for GA, in LTMA everybody gets sent in/out in VOR at DET or CPT, ATC rarely give directs to GPS WPT in clearances 
practically, people can use SkyDemon to avoid airspace…
- In France, you can still fly RNAV5 under FL115 without PBN/GPS (it’s +FL95 in EU guidance but France decided it’s FL115 in national law), there are plenty of +FL65 Echo Airways but without IFR GPS in terminal space I looked like a muppet: there are load of RNAV1 SID/STAR for GA, load of RNP APCH and you have to let know ATC on first contact that you are not RNAV1 capable or even call them by phone one day before to check they have radar for you !
gallois wrote:
IIUC you only need the equipment necessary for the intended flight
DME is obligatoire for IFR in some places in France (Paris TMA, other TMA and remote places like Wallis-et-Futuna), for Paris TMA while it’s PBN airspace it still require DME sensor, someone in ATC rumored that it has to do with the particular lost comms procedure (not the ICAO standard of 7min) while on departures from LeBourget, Toussus, CDG, Orly… you have to stay on what is assigned HDG/ALT or assigned SID until 40D POY or 28D PGS before reverting to the FPL, this was pre-GPS days as now 1/ it’s easy to know 40D POY on GPS screen and 2/ you can’t file DCT in Paris anyway in Eurocontrol: any valid FPL will have max DCT = 0nm 3/ it’s mandatory to stick to SID departure and all of them take you 50nm-70nm away !
PS: plenty of SR22 are flying without DME across these corners, I have not heard anything about them (not that they lost comms )
I see parallels at work with the attitude of various regulators to systems and training.
At work our teams deal with large complicated spreadsheets (a dozen tabs, 6mb empty template) which model the specifications and costs of large complex projects costing tens of millions of dollars.
As you might expect, periodically we introduce entirely new models or make minor / major changes to the existing ones. Whenever this happens, certain parts of our leadership becomes obsessed with ‘training’ the teams on the new systems as a box-ticking exercise that they can declare they have successfully implemented. As a result, people with razor-sharp Excel skills find themselves forced to sit through 3-6 hours of tedious death-by-Powerpoint – usually covering something that could have been surmised for them in about 10 minutes – or in the case of new models a painstaking walkthrough of the entire thing. This usually results in people switching off altogether through sheer boredom, or in this increasingly-remote world minimising the presentation and getting on with their work.
These certain leaders are then perplexed when a few weeks later person A, who was on holiday and missed the training, is magically able to fully use the new tools and person B, who was at the training but whose day job never involves that tool, appears not to have knowledge of some obscure aspect of it at their fingertips.
I sometimes get challenged over this because it can be my team members who e.g. don’t recall some detail because they never use it….. “but they’ve been trained on it!” comes the challenge. I have tried explaining that smart people generally ‘train’ on software by playing with it, with recourse to the manual if unsure. But no, they are convinced of the superior value of ‘training’ and believe that when someone is formally ‘trained’ and the box is ticked then that person has that knowledge and expertise which can and should be relied upon, regardless of circumstances.
PBN theory is largely irrelevant. The relevant part (there are waypoints defined in space, navigate with reference to them and be quite accurate about it) is so laughably simple that to make a training course out of it seems almost farcical. The important bit is knowing how you use your avionics and that’s a case of playing with them and reading the manual. If one can’t do that and actually needs the avionics explained step-by-step, then it’s perhaps questionable whether one has the nous to be allowed to fly an aeroplane.
@Graham I agree. In the case of PBN, you are right, "there are waypoints’ but you missed the important bit which takes up about 10 pages in some training manuals and that is. “Some way points are fly by others are fly over.” (Wow 😂).
Why do some need to spend hours explaining why? As pilots we need to know what they are and how to fly them (5 mins max).
If we want to know all the reasons one is fly over and one fly by, we can read up on it, in our own time with no need to be tested on it.
Ibra wrote:
DME-DME is RNAV1 in terminal space? RNAV5 is still possible on VOR/DME and there are not that many RNAV1 Airways, yet…Yes GPS is the only way for GA to satisfy RNAV1 Airway above FL95, RNAV1 for departure & arrival and RNP APCH for approach
RNAV 1 is RNAV 1. There is no difference in the specification for terminal procedures, or enroute procedure. DME/DME works for RNAV 1. In the unusual case that an RNAV 1 procedure really does require GPS, then that is charted. OTOH, I don’t think DME/DME can be used for RNP 1 which would be used for terminal procedures without radar coverage.
gallois wrote:
Graham I agree. In the case of PBN, you are right, "there are waypoints’ but you missed the important bit which takes up about 10 pages in some training manuals and that is. “Some way points are fly by others are fly over.” (Wow 😂).
Why do some need to spend hours explaining why? As pilots we need to know what they are and how to fly them (5 mins max).
If we want to know all the reasons one is fly over and one fly by, we can read up on it, in our own time with no need to be tested on it.
Do you really think that this is the only important thing to learn about PBN?
Airborne_Again wrote:
RNAV 1 is RNAV 1. There is no difference in the specification for terminal procedures, or enroute procedure. DME/DME works for RNAV 1. In the unusual case that an RNAV 1 procedure really does require GPS, then that is charted. OTOH, I don’t think DME/DME can be used for RNP 1 which would be used for terminal procedures without radar coverage.
Yes I was just pointing that DME/DME is not necessarily RNP but surely it’s RNAV1…
But can’t they do RNP1 with 3 or 4 DME/DME sensors? (likely the case in places like Schiphol or Orly)
Airborne _Again wrote: “Do you really think that this is the only important thing to learn about PBN?”
Perhaps not, but I really don’t remember learning anything I didn’t already learn during my IR course so the PBN part didn’t need a book or an exam. Actually I didn’t have either in getting my PBN and wouldn’t really have known I was doing anything extra. What did you learn or teach when you got your PBN. I will admit I was probably an early recipient of the PBN in France as it was issued as an attestation because it hadn’t been decided how it would be entered on a licence. It wasn’t entered on my licence until a year or 2 later, and I had to carry a piece of A4 paper with me.
I really don’t remember learning anything I didn’t already learn during my IR course so the PBN part didn’t need a book or an exam
I agree.
Anybody flying in the European IFR system will already know what is needed for safe flight.
The rest is aircraft systems specific stuff, which “something” should cover but PBN doesn’t cover it, and never will, in the context of the existing training machinery.
Many years ago, King ran a 1-day course on the KLN94, which was quite good. I see nothing similar today, today’s boxes are vastly more complicated, and people have youtube videos, which I suppose is OK.
IMHO “PBN” was devised for
* as I like to say, the music business got the same when the CD came along c. 1985, with 16 bit linear sampling and 44kHz packet rate, which would never be surpassed in terms of the biology-limited precision of human hearing, and moved to gold plated mains plugs and €500 phono leads to make up for the expected total destruction of their business… very similar to the Swiss watch industry actually where they repackage a CHF 100 ETA7750 in cases for up to 10k (google for the classic Patek Philippe ads for how it is done well, although they don’t actually use the 7750)
While lengthy, this video provides a lot of good information on the basic facts of using GPS in the IFR system. It is fair game to ask candidates on some of these basic aspects of GPS in the context of an IR practical. It even raises some points where it is worth understanding the reasons behind the answers, eg temperature correction, and where it may be worth doing some more research.
Aviation is full of this stuff.
When I started my IMCr (as it was then) I bought a book on instrument flying. It began by taking some 10-20 pages to say “look principally at the AI and peek at the other instruments briefly”.
That is a good assessment by @Peter. GPS rendered navigation trivial, although only after the PPL training establishment had spent a decade or two trying to prevent widespread adoption. This wasn’t too much of a problem so long as most pilots didn’t have sophisticated GPS boxes and they could maintain the illusion that ‘real pilots’ didn’t use it, so of course once it became ‘official’ and everyone’s cockpits were filled with RNAV plates, a whole world of theory needed to be constructed to protect various vested interests. So much revenue depends on it! You can’t have something as massively important as navigation and instrument approaches being taken care of by something a 10 year old could operate!
The natural consequence of what the regulators have done is to make the whole regulatory system surrounding it as complex as possible. Ironic considering how simple it is to use.
Do I understand the regulatory environment for PBN? Not in the slightest.
Was there any PBN training, or even anything to do with GPS, in my IMCr (IR(R)) course? Of course not.
Have I ever had any PBN training since? No.
Can my GPS box do them? Yes.
Am I actually allowed to fly RNP (or RNAV, or whatever they’re called this week) approaches? I don’t know.
Do I fly them? Very occasionally, if an ILS isn’t available.
Do I care whether it’s legal or not? Not really.
