Peter wrote:
I wonder if this applies to flying IAPs in Class G on the IMC Rating? Are these flown in accordance with PBN requirements? The 2nd para above suggests Not. However that would mean an IMCR holder flying a GPS approach into EGHH (Class D) would be exempt while an IR holder doing the same would have to comply.Obstacle clearance and the general “flyability” of a RNP (GPS) approach procedure are certainly based on PBN requirements.
Isn’t an ILS? 
This debate always comes back to the same thing: you hold and IR or you don’t hold an IR. If you hold an IR you can fly any IAP (that doesn’t require crew/aircraft approval) which anybody sticks under your nose. To argue any extras for GPS approaches etc leads to an “avionics specific type rating” which (a) nobody wants and (b) would be severely restrictive operationally. The PBN signoff is accordingly meaningless in terms of pilot competence. IMHO this whole RNP/PBN/RNAV thing is just some old guys hanging onto their national CAA or ICAO jobs in the face of the bottom having dropped out of the navigation market some 20 years ago.
Spot on Peter this is going to be a nightmare.Why do they have to make this so complicated.I have held a a full single crew IR for 34 years this may be reason enough to let it it lapse.Difficulty of meaningful access to the airways system makes it of little use to me I just keep it as a useful aid to inadvertent Wx encounters whilst touring especially in Europe.Fortunately I operated heavy aircraft on RNAV operations till last year so will be able to claim the previous AOC experience PBN credit.An IR is an IR pity it can be kept current with experience as in US for private purposes.The testing regime is a very expensive annual chore for experienced pilots.
But this is an offer for a shortcut, isn’t it?
Some think the PBN business has been overdone, some do not. Indeed the initial PBN TK syllabus was somewhat extensive, and was subsequently reduced by elimination a good part of the not operationally important issues.
I see it as an attempt to prevent us old pilots from becoming IFR illiterates as many of the very basic IFR concepts change. The confusion it can create is seen in discussions like this .
The confusion it can create is seen in discussions like this .
Well, dylan22 was a pilot with 8900hrs of bush flying in Alaska but he didn’t actually exist 
I think if I didn’t actually exist then I would be entitled to be really confused about an ILS, never mind RNP, RNAV, PBN, PRNAV… I find these things confusing enough even I do exist
Stampe wrote:
Why do they have to make this so complicated
If by “this” you mean the IFR system and rules I agree. The problem being that “they” are not an identifiable entity, but a multinational system that is not completely under control.
But given the development in concepts and equipment and procedures, any IFR pilot will have to spend time and efforts to keep up anyway. With PBN syllabi you have some kind of “harmonised” guidance as to what is required to stay current – and formally what is required to pass your next IFR proficiency check.
Peter wrote:
but he didn’t actually exist
Establishing requirements and tests for IFR pilots to fly GPS approaches is nothing new, it is a more than 15 years old thing. But by now airspace capacity demands and the decomissioning of NDB’s and VOR’s makes it impractical to have IFR pilots/planes flying around without RNAV/GNSS/PBN/whatever capability. So, isn’t this just about updating the old GPS-rating and making it compulsory for all IFR flying.
Is this not a further reason for ‘N’ registration and FAA papers?
Establishing requirements and tests for IFR pilots to fly GPS approaches is nothing new, it is a more than 15 years old thing. But by now airspace capacity demands and the decomissioning of NDB’s and VOR’s makes it impractical to have IFR pilots/planes flying around without RNAV/GNSS/PBN/whatever capability
OK; what I still don’t quite get is what is supposed to be difficult about GPS approaches (GPS enroute is trivial) relative to the old navaid-based approaches, some of which were an absolute bastard to fly accurately (e.g. the NDB ones, the staple diet of the “gold plated IR”, which even if you flew them perfectly would often place you a long way away from the desired track).
Provided the pilot understands the aircraft systems, of course. But the standards discussed here are concerning familiarity with the procedures, not familiarity with aircraft systems which is the bit that is IMHO the weak point in the real world.
Actually flying a GPS approach is quite easy. You fly it all in NAV mode with the autopilot tracking it
Is this not a further reason for ‘N’ registration and FAA papers?
It might be but I am not sure it helps – if this stuff is an airspace requirement rather than a country of aircraft registry requirement. Admittedly it does appear to be the latter at present, nothwistanding the UK CAA’s recent moves against N-rg pilots.
Peter wrote:
what is supposed to be difficult about GPS approaches … old navaid-based approaches, some of which were an absolute bastard to fly accurately (e.g. the NDB ones …
According to Julian Scarfe & his crew the keyword is management. See page 28 in their excellent PBN manual:
Traditional Procedures: Execution is demanding; Management is easy (select the right chart and then follow the execution steps)
RNAV procedures: Execution is easy; Management is more complex (valid database, correct procedure loaded and verified; RAIM availability checked; GPS, CDI and autopilot mode section; avoidance of gross errors and “WIDN”? (what’s it doing now?) confusion with GPS receivers)
I would like to add that I have had many WIDN moments myself and witnessed many more as an instructor.
not familiarity with aircraft systems which is the bit that is IMHO the weak point in the real world.
IMHO, too, and I agree that although equipment-specific training is important, it should not be the base of a PBN course. But most of the critical concepts are not equipment-specific; a basic understanding of databases, procedure anatomy, RAIM and failure modes is arguably essential whichever RNAV eqm you are using.
