Mandatory PBN training (merged)

I know this has been said before but what I don’t get is why somebody with an IR can fly departures, sids, stars, enroute, navaid procedures including the gold-standard (ILS), but with the devil’s own invention (GPS) suddenly everything changes and all IR holders need [re]training.

What I could understand – but it would be massively controversial – would be mandatory training for each “advanced” avionics system, starting with an EHSI! That would amount to an “avionics type rating”. But if you look at accidents in “advanced” aircraft you see a great deal of evidence that the pilot didn’t understand the avionics.

I know I get accused of conspiracy by the usual crowd but the aviation regulatory scene is driven by politics and job protection and self-interest as much as any other area of business, and I can’t help thinking that this is one or more of

• job protection / job creation at ICAO and NAA level (in true Seebohm “there are areas where there is no legislation, which is not acceptable” style, they ran out of things to legislate)

• work generation in the FTO business… in the right hands, GPS has caused the bottom to drop out of navigation and thus rendered useless much of the traditional flight training syllabus which now looks quite ridiculous

• an attempt to do something about the issue in my 2nd para above, but without calling it a “type rating” (which would start a civil war), so by forcing every aircraft owner (most advanced aircraft are owned, not rented, especially if actually used for real IFR… most rented SR22s etc are flown on short VFR trips) to appear before an examiner, it might generate some useful education for some owners who bought a nice plane but don’t know what the knobs do. The FAA has solved this one – albeit almost certainly by accident – very cleverly: on an IR checkride you are required to demonstrate all installed equipment. But there are other difficulties with this motive e.g. the dire lack of instructors or examiners who know how to fully use a GNS430, never mind something “modern”.

Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense if one assumes an IR holder is of moderate or better intelligence and has a nonzero amount of self preservation (ok; evidently not true for some but surely most would fit that description?).

Can anyone offer a view on what is driving this? No circular references e.g. “mandated by ICAO”

Can anyone offer a view on what is driving this? No circular references e.g. “mandated by ICAO”

Having to learn how to do a GNSS approach is not totally ludicrous. There are some things that you should know.

A while back I did a GNSS approach at Dinard with a IR (FAA but I bet EASA would not have made a difference) holder in the right seat:

• he did know about RAIM
• he knew nothing about the increasing sensitivity of the CDI, especially the transition from TERM to APR and when it took place

I bet he did not know anything about the different types of path terminators and the way they are coded in the GPS database.

I have been taken by surprise by the latter myself.

So I do not think that requiring GNSS training is such a bad thing.

It is no big deal. My examiner did it with me on the IFR checkride some years ago and issued the extra certificate. There’s some more stuff one should know, for example that RAIM is necessary for non-WAAS avionics, etc.

There is no question that there is a non-ludicrous element in this. As many people will know, I roll out a two hour seminar on the subject, in which I only put stuff that people need to know, and two hours is barely enough.

But there is a massive amount of stuff in the LOs which people really, really don’t need to know, which is out of date and pointless.

So my view is that something needs to be done, but it is not the something that is being done, and could be much, much lighter touch.

There are about 20 things that everyone using PBN/RNP needs to know. That material can be covered quite easily and most people would come away saying “that was really useful and interesting, thank you, I now feel a safer pilot.” The rest is just frippery put in place by bureaucrats who don’t have a clue about this stuff.

@Timothy
Care to share the 20 points? I would be interested!

You should come to one of my talks

Although I would not start myself from the EASA LOs, I thought it might be a useful exercise to go through them and highlight the ones where a GA pilot flying an aeroplane equipped with something in the GNS430-G1000 range really should understand the underlying concept, if not the jargon.

I have put the complete LO list, with those (they turn out to be 25) items emboldened, here.

Please bear in mind that I have done this as a quick exercise to answer Alexis’ question on a Sunday morning before dashing out to the gym, so E&OE

The page numbers are references to the relevant page in the PBN Manual

[ LO list in case the dropbox link goes dead ]

Thank you very much, will study that later!

It is no big deal. My examiner did it with me on the IFR checkride some years ago and issued the extra certificate. There’s some more stuff one should know, for example that RAIM is necessary for non-WAAS avionics, etc.

The syllabus doesn’t seem to exist yet… was that some German version from years ago?

You should come to one of my talks

Where do you run them, and are they open to all?

Peter wrote:

Where do you run them, and are they open to all?

The last four I ran were at Friedrichshafen, where they are open to all, of course.

I have also run them at a lot of flying clubs, in AOPA HQ, in PPL/IR seminar weekends, the usual suspects! It is then up to the organisers to say who it’s open to, but so far, no-one has been unwilling to take non-members, I think.

I am happy, within reason, to run them anywhere that people are interested.

Peter wrote:

Can anyone offer a view on what is driving this? No circular references e.g. “mandated by ICAO”

Well, ICAO was a driver for this, without a doubt, though there is an argument that much of ICAO’s heavy handed approach to such things comes from European regulators’ input — look at AWO.

I think there is a genuine misunderstanding about the magnitude of the change involved in moving from conventional navigation to PBN. As previous posts indicate, there is some education required, but pilots have always had to keep up to date with technology progression. In typical old-school regulator fashion, regulators who are not familiar with how PBN has already pervaded IFR Ops believe that if an incident occurs and they have not mandated some sort of intervention, they will be blamed.