Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

New Version of PBN Manual

PPL/IR Europe has produced a new revision – rev 12 – of the PBN manual.

We have done this as a bit of a rush job for Friedrichshafen, in the knowledge that what is really required is a full rewrite of Edition 3, but nonetheless the changes are fairly substantial, even from the last published revision – rev 8.

A lot of the changes are to nomenclature, from a world of GNSS to RNAV and RNP, others are reflecting changing regulations, such as the requirements to get a PBN sign-off and finally, possibly most importantly, are the changes to the Learning Objectives for the PBN exam. Most of these are more style than content, but there are new LOs and some previous LOs have either been deprecated or wrapped into others.

I am not sure that I would advise those who have read earlier versions to start again, but certainly anyone starting out afresh should be sure to look at rev 12.

EGKB Biggin Hill

Thanks Tim – great resource!

Spending too long online
EGTF Fairoaks, EGLL Heathrow, United Kingdom

Timothy wrote:

I am not sure that I would advise those who have read earlier versions to start again, but certainly anyone starting out afresh should be sure to look at rev 12.

Invaluable resource in fact. Should even be a refresher for those who already read an earlier rev.

France

I just received the printed manual last week – “2nd Edition (rev 7) – August 2017”
So – 5 new revisions since August?

huv
EKRK, Denmark

Technically, yes, but most of them have been quite tiny – even just one spelling correction.

Rev12 (actually now Rev13, but the difference lies only in the copyright notice) is the first really big revision since 2nd Edition came out about three years ago.

EGKB Biggin Hill

(it’s a very dynamic time, changes to legislation, examination, AMCs and technology happen every week.)

EGKB Biggin Hill

I must admit that even though I have been flying IFR around Europe for 12 years, this stuff does my head in. If I ever have to memorise e.g. this

I may as well learn the IR Air Law all over again… the one whose QB was reportedly written by a Portugese ATCO.

Never before in the history of navigation have so many people generated so much classification for so few simple things.

Here’s something I never knew – my KLN94 needs to be scrapped immediately!

There is some good stuff in there; the issue I see is: how does a new IR holder find out which 10% of this lot he needs to know? Clearly the answer is same as it ever was: fly with an experienced IR holder who does some decent trips.

One thing is for sure: aircraft systems knowledge is essential, but it always was, even for a KI525 HSI and then for the KLN94. But that’s a different topic…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

All this stuff is nice, but in reality this is how it works

(1) you press some buttons to program the GPS navigation system
(2) It will show 1 or two needles
(3) you keep the needles in the middle
(4) if you can’t keep them near enough to the middle, or lose integrity, you go around.
(5) if you arrive at the minimum and can’t see enough, you go around.

Whenever you read those threads, people struggle with the following three questions:
(a) Which buttons do I press?
(b) When do or do I not get a vertical guidance, and what is it worth?
(c) What is my minimum, and why?

and the one they never ask, which is
(d) how do I know the thing is working and not trying to kill me?

So while I love the depth and theory, and this is an EXCELLENT resource (I particularly found the section on ARINC paths very enlightening) it suffers from the same issue as most European theory – 80% stuff that is jolly interesting, but unnecessary.

Biggin Hill

Peter wrote:

Here’s something I never knew – my KLN94 needs to be scrapped immediately!

That surprised me, too. @Timothy, what regulation says you can’t use e.g. a non-SBAS G1000 as primary nav source for enroute IFR? It is approved for LNAV approaches where there is no other nav source, so it seems a bit nonsensical. The AFMS our G1000 C172 simply says that it is “approved” for enroute IFR.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Yes – exactly. These details (including stuff like whether you can fly with an out of date database IF you manually verify all waypoint coordinates preflight) are as per the AFMS, and different CAAs have approved different texts there. It cannot be generalised in an RNAV document. One previous thread.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
45 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top