I remember that when I got my initial SEP/IR, we specifically did some training flying RNAV/GPS approaches and this was signed off / endorsed in my logbook at that time.
Yes, and even then, you are now formally not allowed to fly RNAV approaches in Switzerland. Nice, innit?
I remember that when I got my initial SEP/IR, we specifically did some training flying RNAV/GPS approaches and this was signed off / endorsed in my logbook at that time.
It seems that you need an LoA from the State of Registry, which is almost impossible to get in most cases and is certainly very unlikely to be available for say a rental aircraft.
So unless this NL reg means something different, very few people can legally fly GPS approaches in the NL.
As I wrote, they need to overtly ask for the NDB/VOR procedure, and fly it using a GPS. It is OK but means you fly more track miles, due to the outbound leg. Usually the minima isn’t much different unless of course it is the LPV you want… then I guess many people will fly the LPV procedure anyway, at the end of the NDB/VOR one. I wonder how that can be done? Can you fly arbitrary headings all the way to the FAF and then engage the GPS approach? I think you can; in effect it is “vectors to final”, just before the FAF. ATC will never notice.
The world has gone mad.
boscomantico wrote:
Yes, and even then, you are now formally not allowed to fly RNAV approaches in Switzerland. Nice, innit?
What RNAV approaches?
Those we have are mostly just overlays to existing ILS, so…
But I don’t think it’s true what you write. Paragraph 1 of that bureaucratic oevre states:
All foreign pilot license holders may only fly RNP approaches in Switzerland if they can provide evidence of thorough training of the subjects as listed in this national directive.
I would very much doubt that they would challenge an RNP APCH authorisation, be it as a log book endorsement or anything else that other state deems acceptable, of any other EASA CAA.
Well, that Swiss thing talks, inter alia, about a test of theoretical knowledge. A logbook entry that you have flown x GPS approaches with an instructor does not prove that. Hence it is not in line with the Swiss regulation.
What I want to say is just that the Swiss thing is bogus and out of line with the other European countries’ regulations.
boscomantico wrote:
A logbook entry that you have flown x GPS approaches with an instructor does not prove that
It depends what the log book entry says.
boscomantico wrote:
What I want to say is just that the Swiss thing is bogus.
Agreed that it is completely over the top. But EASA AMC 20-27 and 20-28 are still in force, so technically they’re just implementing EASA regulation. Para 10.2 asks for “sufficient theoretical and practical training”, and appendix 4 gives the syllabus…
So technically if the instructor writes “x GPS approaches completed” as logbook endorsement then that is IMO deficient and I would ask the instructor to amend or send me my money back – a better logbook endorsement would be “RNP APCH training according AMC 20-27 and 20-28 completed”.
Peter wrote:
very unlikely to be available for say a rental aircraft
All HB reg (rental) aircraft do have this CofA appendix – but obviously not all are RNP APCH approved.
tomjnx wrote:
All HB reg (rental) aircraft do have this CofA appendix – but obviously not all are RNP APCH approved.
But if I want to rent this HB plane and fly an RNAV approach in the Netherlands, then I (the “operator”) now need an approval from the state of registry (Switzerland), despite my letter from the DGAC stating that I have had sufficient training?
I think you are mixing two things now: pilot training (obscure) and operator approval (even more obscure).
I don’t get it.
Allow me to pretend I’m American. I fly a Cirrus SR22 from the US to someone in Europe. The airfield has an LPV approach and I use it. Which rules do I violate?
