It would be hard to justify 50 hours training for the IR if they didn’t have to spend a decent portion of it hammering NDB holds to a high level of accuracy
IFR training required to use “3D GPS” with Direct IAF or Radar Vectored ILS for approaches is about 10h max 
currencywise, with one IAP per 6months (maybe 1h IMC with approach) you should be able to launch in hardcore IMC and fly straight-in to runway threshold ahead: it’s always in front of GPS or ILS by design…
IFR training required to master procedural IFR flying on conventional navigation or legacy “2D GPS” (holds, axes, approaches, departures, arrivals) is about 100h and you need 1h every week in bumpy IMC to keep enough currency to shoot an offset VOR/NDB at it’s minima without killing yourself !
The hours numbers are for illustration only, as “low currency single pilot IFR”, I tend to stick to WAAS GPS and Radar ILS as it increases my life expectancy: I decided to leave VOR/NDB approaches to ATO masters and sky God’s who seems to know how to fly these in real weather in unfamiliar places 1000nm away down to 300ft agl in clouds, it’s hard to maintain enough currency for that unless you are teaching it or transporting pax in the Isles in Scotland 
Ibra wrote:
You will need an ADF to fly GPS approaches in UK as 95% of GPS approaches need the NDB for the missed (it’s not a mistake I mean it), it’s even written in CAA IR test document: you can’t even use radar to fly missed or dead recon your way to IAF !!!
I’m beginning to feel that this quaint obsession with NDB holds is endearingly British, like having pipes on the outside of buildings and separate taps for hot and cold water.
Graham wrote:
Lack of EGNOS means no wholesale shift to LPV approaches. The UK future will be ILS for precision and 2D RNP for non-precision, meaning NDBs still feature on the former and thus no change to testing or training requirements.
I don’t want to believe this. Is it your opinion, or is that actually some official strategy? Keep in mind that SBAS (in this case EGNOS) and GBAS are used in many more applications than just GA. I would think that UK will find a way to use and be a part of EGNOS coverage. With all due respect, to me spinning your own SBAS sounds like a bad idea.
Graham wrote:
Lack of EGNOS means no wholesale shift to LPV approaches. The UK future will be ILS for precision and 2D RNP for non-precision, meaning NDBs still feature on the former and thus no change to testing or training requirements.
@Graham, please note that a year or two ago the UK CAA has permitted the use of LNAV/VNAV approaches (the GPS ones, Baro-VNAV were already permitted), which means you can continue using the 3D approach marked presently as LNAV/VNAV or LPV, but NOT the LPV minima, only to LNAV minima.
Although, as the others pointed out as well – there are no many RNP IAPs in the UK anyway on the airfields without ILS. Yes, that number is increasing, but…
arj1 wrote:
Sorry, @tmo, but the British goverment is very specific – no to EGNOS, period.
Then what, strike a deal with the US and expand WAAS coverage to the UK? Or go back to tape measures and such? I realize this is off-topic for the thread, but I can’t wrap my head around this. Then again, maybe I’m the doofus.
tmo wrote:
arj1 wrote: Sorry, @tmo, but the British goverment is very specific – no to EGNOS, period.Then what, strike a deal with the US and expand WAAS coverage to the UK? Or go back to tape measures and such? I realize this is off-topic for the thread, but I can’t wrap my head around this. Then again, maybe I’m the doofus.
:) No, the UK government wants to (pay attention!): design and implement their own SBAS system!
L/VNAV is still available in UK using EGNOS, it’s pity it was never counted as “precision for IR tests” due to mysterious reasons (it has everything to be eligible: it’s 3D with official glide path & down to 250ft with no ceiling restrictions or obstacle obstructions, you can even fly its vertical guidance bellow DH down to 1ft agl after making the decision to continue at DH )
Putting aside L/VNAV with Baro, as not many in EuroGA have these in their cockpits, the difference between LPV and L/VNAV with SBAS is very academic, they are same thing for all practical purposes (just like LPV200 & LPV250), the OCH delta to LPV can be measured in Max Planck’s units !
arj1 wrote:
please note that a year or two ago the UK CAA has permitted the use of LNAV/VNAV approaches (the GPS ones, Baro-VNAV were already permitted), which means you can continue using the 3D approach marked presently as LNAV/VNAV or LPV, but NOT the LPV minima, only to LNAV minima.
@arj1 sorry, my poor use of terminology. What I meant in very simple terms is:
this quaint obsession with NDB holds is endearingly British
No, it is the work of old farts who make a living out of it. Ever since GPS dropped the bottom out of navigation (same as the CD dropped the bottom out of the HIFI business) those making a living have been creative at… making a living. It’s not British; it’s universal.
L/VNAV is still available in UK using EGNOS, it’s pity it was never counted as “precision for IR tests” due to mysterious reasons
They should allow +V to be used as the precision approach in IR training and tests. It is practically same as LPV. It remains available despite this. But it won’t happen, due to the old farts.
the UK government wants to (pay attention!): design and implement their own SBAS system!
Just a PR floater; it will never happen. Once the “hate you for brexit” heat cools down in Brussels, deals will be done – including cross license validation. I bank on 2022.
expand WAAS coverage to the UK?
Not with existing WAAS sats; the sats are in the wrong place so the antennae are pointing the wrong way. It’s true that any geostationary sat, with a suitable transponder on it, can radiate a WAAS/EGNOS signal, and IF the UK was doing its own SBAS they would do that, but it would still be expensive. Millions a year, and for what? Nobody will spend 1p for GA here, and airlines don’t need LPV (they have CAT3 ILS).
I agree with Graham above.
