A lot of IR instructors might not be able to document they have the TK without some form of ground school sign off, unless being qualified to teach a G1000 equipped aircraft applies. GPS was not covered when I did my exams, but LF four course ranges still were on the agenda on my first IR, and LORAN was cutting edge.
Practically are they looking for understanding on: database, RAIM prediction, CDI and RMI, fly-by and fly-over, lateral precision in NAV and APP, loading and amending flight plans, GPS TRK, GPS distance to next waypoint and DME, SUSP on go around, VNAV, integration with A/P and FMS?
Being qualified on an early Garmin 155, might not make you qualified on a glass cockpit, or understanding G1000 might not qualify you for Avidyne without a differences sign off, and so on and so forth.
huv wrote:
To fly “RNAV(GNSS) approaches” you should be able to “document theoretical knowledge in the subject radio navigation” (any IR rating does that)Well, the document specifically references LO 062 05 00 00 and LO 062 06 00 00 (see AMC to part-FCL). If you have taken the IR TK recently you will have this, but if your IR is old enough, you will not. This was definitely not included when I took the IR TK the first time in 1987. I don’t even think all of it was included when I renewed my IR in 2014!
If a pilot decides that he does not qualify, he needs ground studies in PBN and in GNSS, education in “Practical use of GPS in IFR flight…” and “Flight training”. The list of subjects to be covered in flight training is overwhelming and quite chaotic.Yes, but all of it is relevant.
But … if you do those 6 approaches you are home free and the syllabus and training program never applies. Right?If you have the required TK and if you have done those approaches, yes.
Today the Danish Transport Authority came out with this
I am trying to figure out how to make the document make sense.
To fly “RNAV(GNSS) approaches” you should be able to “document theoretical knowledge in the subject radio navigation” (any IR rating does that) and “have conducted at least 6 navigation performance approaches”. Ever heard of those?
But if the last bit means what we casually refer to as GPS approaches, I would say most IFR pilots with a G430 or better would qualify and not need to read any further.
If a pilot decides that he does not qualify, he needs ground studies in PBN and in GNSS, education in “Practical use of GPS in IFR flight…” and “Flight training”. The list of subjects to be covered in flight training is overwhelming and quite chaotic. But … if you do those 6 approaches you are home free and the syllabus and training program never applies. Right?
AMC 20-27 says in section 10
Prior to the operation, the operator needs to be authorised by his/her competent authority for such operations.
It’s daft, but it is currently the way it works. It should change from August 2016.
I think you’re covered on all fronts. in the Groningen EHGG example, it refers to AMC 20-27/28, which mention a specific Flight Crew Training Syllabus for RNP approaches.
So, if you’re received that training, and your aircraft meets the RNP airworthiness requirements, you’d be fine, even to conduct the RNAV (GNSS) at EHGG.
As mentioned, it seems in the future, RNP will be a default part of an Instrument Rating, so this is only a temporary issue during a transition period.
The logbook endorsement was for training received and RNAV/GPS approaches flown and included some theory according to a syllabus. So … I will just fly whatever GPS approach I want, even in Switzerland. Now, if that is legal or not, I don’t know for sure for 100% but I think I did what I could to comply.
Anders wrote:
My understanding is also that we as private pilots are our own operators.
Yes, if you own a plane by yourself and aren’t using any management entity or broker to rent it out or anything like that. Than it’s relatively safe to say you are the operator. In my view, an operator is linked with the asset just like an owner. AFAIK both owner and operator are in the registry around here. Whether it’s vehicles (cars) or aircraft. They can be the same person, but they don’t have to.
So the question is, does Swiss registry contain information about operators of planes? Somebody in another discussion (I don’t think it was in this thread) wrote that FOCA distinguishes owner and operator in the registry. I have a feeling it was tomjnx, but I’m not sure. So I would hazard a guess they indeed do track operators. Are you trying to suggest that you register yourself as an operator when you rent a plane (or a car)? I don’t think so.
Unless your idea of renting is, say, a year long dry lease where you would register the plane in your name in your country so you could, perhaps, use it commercially.
I can’t provide any definition because I always find holes when I attempt it. I just know what an operator is. Whether my idea is the same as EASA’s or ICAO’s, who knows.
PS: I’m inclined to believe my interpretation more because it doesn’t create such paradoxes.
Yes, right, otherwise all the ETA’s and fuel is wrong … I always wondered why a PROC would not replace the destination!
tomjnx wrote:
So if you rent an aircraft from a club, the club has control over when you get the plane, but not where you’re going to fly to. So within the time slot allocated to the renter, the renter decides what happens to the plane, subject to certain limitations, obviously. So according to your rule, the renter is the operator…
I wrote “simply put.” Because precise definition would be quite complex and I don’t want to mess with it. When I rent a car, I’m not the operator either. Would anyone thing otherwise? I doubt it. The decision where the plane flies goes with being the guy that is paying for it. But the operator can refuse to let you fly there. It get’s even more interesting when owner and operator are two different entities. Because operator has to respect owner’s rights. And they can further delegate. This can quite complicate any attempt at a definition. With “what’s going to happen with it” I was hinting at scheduling maintenance, upgrades, things like this, but as I already wrote, this is more complicated when an operator is not the owner (while an operator might decide than a WAAS upgrade is in order, owner might not approve; but there is no way the guy renting the plane could install a unit he preferred with approvals he wanted, not in anything remotely like a typical rental arrangement; at best they’ll listen to what their customers want).
Most pilots have no clue that there is the full waypoint list of the flightplan accessible on the Direct to dialog without using the Flightplan button. That is what I mean by hidden in plain sight. My wife uses that technique when there is some food she doesn’t want me to eat, she hides it right in front of me, very devious.
