Peter wrote:
If this is PBN, then this concession is not usable for IMCR holders, because the PBN signoff isn’t a requirement for the IMCR.
It is not required, but you could use all the PBN procedures/methods anyway. Although UK CAA strongly recommends you have training before that.
RNAV substitution shall be restricted to operators/pilots authorised for either RNAV 1,
RNP 1 or Advanced RNP.
That is for crew, IR & IMCR private pilots are de facto authorised to fly RNAV1 & RNP1 as long as they can RTFM their AFM/AFMS
I doubt for Adavanced RNP (RNP0.1?), it needs load of equipment
I don’t know a single pilot that would react to a “D-… cleared direct TRA” other than typing TRA in the GPS
I doubt it’s for en-route as you are already in “GPS airspace”? as you said direct ADC is on GPS, you don’t even need to carry a VOR to fly that? I can fly VOR-VOR Airway with INOP VOR, it’s legal in PBN airspace as long as I have the required RNAV capability in my panel
It’s for terminal airspace where things gets interesting: the approach as they require specific panel equipment, especially for the missed…however, to fly the final approach segment, you need to carry it’s equipment !!!
So without ADF, I can ask ATC for NDB approach, load it on GPS, fly it up to FAF & and go missed on MAP? which already brilliant, it’s better than nothing 
It is also pretty ridiculous.
Especially the bit above, where they say you don’t need to have an ADF etc but don’t use this guidance as an excuse to remove the one you have…
As quoted before: The CAP1926 UK CAA guidance explicitely states that it is not applicable to final approach segments.
It does nothing more than establish what you call “GPS airspace” for enroute flying.
Fully agree to your conclusion that therefore it is not really interesting…
Malibuflyer wrote:
The CAP1926 UK CAA guidance explicitely states that it is not applicable to final approach segments.
That’s not actually what it says. It says that it is not applicable to lateral guidance in the final approach segment.
All ILSes have a glideslope check fix. Traditionally an NDB (and before that MKR) is used. These days DME is increasingly being used.
That means that if you don’t have an ADF or DME (depending on how the fix is defined), you can’t fly the approach even if you do have an ILS. With RNAV substitution you can!
Again, I have to grumble over EASA’s removal in the final proposal of RNAV substitution of DME fixes. But that’s in the AMC and for part-NCO you don’t need to have AltMOCs approved, so I’m going to write my own.
Malibuflyer wrote:
It does nothing more than establish what you call “GPS airspace” for enroute flying.
You don’t need ADF for initial, intermediate, missed, departure and arrival around aerodromes…previously it was required, you can’t fly ILS/NDB plates and there are zillions of these…since 2018, you don’t need specific en-route equipment
Final approach segment, it’s easy I always see UK runways and ground from the FAF, who has the authority to say NO?
Since 2018, you don’t need specific en-route equipment
What is that?
I always see UK runways and ground from the FAF
Really?
It says that it is not applicable to lateral guidance in the final approach segment.
My recollection (@ncyankee will confirm) is that the US has a similar limitation on its substitution rules.
If you can fly NDB approach until FAF and you can see the runway from there what prevents you from flying the final segment?
Peter wrote:
What is that?
Things have shifted from sensor based to performance based…
Ibra wrote:
If you can fly NDB approach until FAF and you can see the runway from there what prevents you from flying the final segment?
Nothing at all – if you can do a visual approach from there (and get clearance for it if in CAS).
In such cases, however, you typically do not need to substitute anything at all because in most cases ATC should be able to vector you to the FAF…
Ibra wrote:
Final approach segment, it’s easy I always see UK runways and ground from the FAF, who has the authority to say NO?
Sure! Who needs this IMC/VMC thing anyways. But this is special BS when it comes to approaches: If the field has OVC005 and the guy at the tower can confirm that nobody would believe your “I’ve seen the runway from FAF”
As far as NCO rules are concerned, you can fly an approach without carrying instrumentation required in your panel if the approach is conducted with ground in sight: assuming you are damn good to navigate IFR plates visually
This is not the “IFR visual approach”, you are flying NDB approach as per your current FPL: final & missed visually using landmarks
So if you see the ground at the FAF, you can proceed on NDB final segment down to MDH, if you see the runway at MDH & MAPT you land, no need to ask ATC for “visual approach clearance”, you are flying the “NDB approach”, if you go missed you do the NDB missed on GPS RNAV1
Practically an NDB is only useful for 500ft agl while the 3nm FAF is roughly 1000ft agl, between us you are not losing much flying without an ADF
If the field has OVC005 and the guy at the tower can confirm that nobody would believe your “I’ve seen the runway from FAF”
Who cares what the tower guy say about cloud ceiling when flying? I decide at my MDH or FAF if I see the runway/ground when flying, all that matter is legal planning minima (TAF ceiling > NDB FAF), the controlling visibility ( METAR visibility > FAF) and legal equipment carried (GPS)?
