I’ve got the following endorsement with my last IR Check (where I was specifically trained for Non-precision GPS approaches as well as RNP):
I hereby confirm the qualification of NAME regarding the use of non-precision GPS approaches (according NFLII-120/99 and NFLII-26/00) and RNP procedures.
@chwinter, that is not a PBN validation.
@Peter, you are wrong about the personal choice aspect, all my questions have got exact answers. Once we have let people think for a couple of days, not now, it would be interesting to have a discussion on whether any of my questions are not important for an IFR pilot to know. Because, if, as I believe, they are all important things to know and most people, like Peter, don’t know most of them, maybe there is a justification of PBN TK?
that is not a PBN validation.
Well, it is. Germany has stated that the way they will implement this is that these previous logbook endorsements will be grandfathered into the PBN license entry starting 2018.
To add to Timothy’s questions, most pilots won’t know how to activate a leg, fly a course to a point, fly an offset course, if an activate of an approach is required in order to fly an approach, what will the GPS do if you do nothing but have an approach loaded into the flightplan after your enroute portion, can you go direct to an IF or stepdown to join an approach, can you go direct to the FAF to begin an approach?
In the US, these kinds of issues are discussed in AC 90-100A, AC 90-105A and AC 90-107, AC 90-108 and the AIM, but if you ask most US pilots if they have read this, they will not have a clue of what you are talking about. This goes for corporate pilots that fly Gulfstream’s, most under part 91 as well.
I spend up to six hours on the ground discussing various knowledge issues including how to interpret the charts and fly the procedures. My extra credit questions are what does the note fly visual to the runway mean, where is the MAP and what does the note Visual Segment Obstacles mean.
boscomantico wrote:
Well, it is. Germany has stated that the way they will implement this is that these previous logbook endorsements will be grandfathered into the PBN license entry starting 2018.
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. Let’s hope not. @Bookworm, any insight?
Sorry to disrupt the thread a little, but I’m curious if there is an IR lexicon somewhere that one of you might be willing to point me to.
I’m not IR rated, but would like to learn, and reading all of your posts makes me curious which is usually a great way to learn…
It seems that 1/2 of IR lingo is in acronyms, so I’d be glad to learn them.
Haven’t found such a lexicon yet. If there is one, would anyone mind providing a link to it for me?
Thanks in advance.
There is a PBN lexicon at the back of the PPL/IR PBN Manual.
Thank you
If that meets EASA standards, then what are all the other countries messing around at?
The difference is that Germany has had a GPS approach qualification (which, in practical terms, is most of what the PBN stuff is all about) for almost twenty years now, whereas most other Europeans countries, like the UK never had one. Hence there can be no grabdfathering in these countries and an ab-initio training has/had to be devised.
It’s the competent authority’s job, i.e. that of the license issuing CAAs, to implememt the stuff, so they decide on the details.
To me, the PBN qualification is much like the well-known EASA difference training requirements. Really not to the point, really not effective in terms of learning the exact aircraft/equipment flown, but it’s probably “better than nothing” and doesn’t do any harm. Having done “something” is important for rulemakers, so that’s what we get.
Well, the UK CAA tells us that it is hamstrung by EASA requirements.
