I was checking GPS approaches in the Netherlands. It seems to me that all RNAV / LPV approaches available have an operational limitation.
For example RNAV Rwy 05 at EHGG (Groningen) has a note saying: RNP approach approval required
From the AIP:
For the use of an RNAV (GNSS) approach it is required that the operator holds an RNP APCH operations approval issued by their State of registry. In case LPV minima are used, this approval should be compliant with EASA AMC 20-28 or equivalent. In case LNAV/VNAV minima are used, this approval should be compliant with EASA AMC 20-27 or equivalent.
To me it seems that a private pilot can not legally fly this approach. Correct?
lenthamen wrote:
the operator holds an RNP APCH operations approval issued by their State of registry
This is a very strange sentence, it mixes operator/crew authorization with aircraft authorization. Why should the state of registry of an aircraft issue any approval for an operator if the state of residence or AOC issuance of the operator is not the same?
Apart from that, I’d assume I’m good to go (not that I have an irresistable urge to go to Groningen this time of the year, but still) because I passed this course, and that gives me the approval of my state of registry to perform RNP APCH, compliant to AMC 20-27 and 20-28. This covers operator and crew authorization.
In order to further gold plate private non complex IFR operations, carriage of suitable certified equipment is not enough for the swiss registry to approve PBN approaches, you need to apply formally by filling this form (if you can find a PDF reader that actually supports acrobat forms, not even Adobe reader on many platform does), and shell over a couple of hunderd more CHF. You then get an appendix to the CofA that lists the approved operations:
This should cover aircraft authorization.
As private pilots we are our own operators. I do not see any ambiguity in the Dutch wording based on the talk about approval for operators. But I see a problem in requiring operational approval for all operators a since it is not possible for all operators to receive such an approval. The Swedish CAA can for instance not issue any operational approvals for private IR pilots since there is no Swedish regulation regarding RNP approaches in existence.
It depends on the context. Very often, “operator” infers “commercial operator”, not private pilots.
But anyway; I guess that most authors of these guidlines don’t even know the difference between a commercial operator and a private pilot flying his airplane.
At this Lelystad meeting, the Dutch CAA mentioned this is for all operators, also private. They also said their was no current ATO which has an approved syllabus for this. So basically one can not get the the training that they require. For now this is all still under national regulations.
Why is it that when I hear or read the word “syllabus”, I get that uneasy feeling? 
Maybe you mix it up with syphilis?
;-)
Peter wrote:
The 1hr flight with an FI (it can even be a CRI) cannot be avoided, in the UK, AFAICT.
Unless you have been subject to a skill test for a type or class rating in the last 12 months.
Anders wrote:
The Swedish CAA can for instance not issue any operational approvals for private IR pilots since there is no Swedish regulation regarding RNP approaches in existence.
The absence of regulations for RNP APCH should really mean that in Sweden you don’t need an operational approval for them.
I actually asked the Swedish CAA if I was correct in that interpretation or, if not, what the legal basis was to require an operational approval. The answer was “hoo-hum”.
tomjnx wrote:
This is a very strange sentence, it mixes operator/crew authorization with aircraft authorization. Why should the state of registry of an aircraft issue any approval for an operator if the state of residence or AOC issuance of the operator is not the same?
Because Annex 6 says it should (though you may be right for CAT). Here’s the extract from Annex 6 Part II, which applies to us:
2.5.2.2 For operations where a navigation specification for performance-based navigation has been prescribed, an aeroplane shall, in addition to the requirements specified in 2.5.2.1:
a) be provided with navigation equipment which will enable it to operate in accordance with the prescribed navigation specification(s); and
b) be authorized by the State of Registry for such operations.
“Authorized” is interpreted as an operational approval, which has been copied into EASA regulations applicable Aug 2016. It is the absurdity of an operational approval being required to fly a GPS approach that led to the EASA rulemaking task to change Ops and FCL to incorporate PBN, so that no operational approval is required. EASA then took the package to ICAO and got them to change Annex 6. But at the moment, in principle, you need an operational approval to fly that GPS approach.
