Peter wrote:
And a GTN650 (or the IFD440) is not much better. It makes a nice keypad for a GTN750 (or an IFD540)
I was in the US earlier in the year. I did some IFR flying, including some LPV approaches with a GTN650. It seemed perfectly adequate to me. Sure, a huge moving map display is nice, but there was nothing “bodged” or wrong with doing an approach with the GTN650.
I feel the same way. the large screen is nice, but it’s reasonably likely that one will have an iPad running georeferenced plates (Garmin Pilot for instance), which gives you a decent amount of situational awareness.
The GNSS approach is more dependent on following certain points so I feel being able to see what’s planned / about to happen next on a screen has more value than with, say, an ILS (where you are likely to be vectored or follow a very standard procedure), but they are simple enough to to be able to be seen on the small screen.
DavidC wrote:
However there is a new requirement from automonous vehicles, which will need to be accurate to 1 meter in moving vehicles.
I believe that that kind of accuracy, which has to work in various surroundings with a very high degree of reliability, will be obtained using radar and cameras.
An MFD is nice to have, but is totally not required to fly an LPV. A used GNS430W can be installed with a CDI and annunciator for $6000 to $8000 in the US and is totally adequate. For N reg aircraft there is an STC for these devices. The screen, although small is valuable for situational awareness and is a good display for traffic when used with a TAS or TCAS system.
Peter wrote:
I don’t agree…. all the “required equipment” regs, private flying context (non AOC, etc) in Europe and the USA, reference equipment to be carried, not equipment to be used.
I wouldn’t expect this logic to hold for a minute in a court. At least on the continent. It just stinks of negligence to my nose. And if you try to explain, that you can fly an approach using a crystal ball (or whatever you prefer), they might just as well have you committed. It would hang on whether they can convince the judge that what you did wasn’t reasonable (a pilot should have known better) and in no way equivalent in terms of safety. It’s certainly not the way it’s taught, is it. Also, that doing it by the book would have in all likelihood made a difference.
Obviously, you would have to screw up (e.g. injure a passenger in a botched landing). E.g. fining you just because you do it that way (no harm done) would be a different matter but how would they find out in the first place?
Peter wrote:
So, yeah, the general view is that you need to carry an ADF to fly an NDB approach (although to be honest I have never actually seen this written anywhere – has anyone else?)
The French (DGAC) had a document that said so (even when the NDB was only in the missed approach) and it had to be operational as well IIRC (what a shocker). On the other hand, it allowed substitution for en-route navigation.
Peter wrote:
moreover in Europe LPV is only barely operationally relevant (i.e. which airports have LPV and not ILS but attract typical IFR traffic i.e. need to have customs/immigration).
I find that a rather UK-centric point of view.
I wouldn’t expect this logic to hold for a minute in a court
Can you cite a test case clarifying this as meaning that an NDB approach must be navigated solely using an ADF, etc?
The French (DGAC) had a document that said so (even when the NDB was only in the missed approach) and it had to be operational as well IIRC (what a shocker). On the other hand, it allowed substitution for en-route navigation.
Can you find a reference in EASA regs?
The DGAC has all kinds of fun stuff, deep down in various websites… every so often somebody digs up some long-buried gem, probably written by some DGAC official working quietly in the basement and writing stuff nobody knew about 
The UK CAA has also published a lot of stuff which has zero legal basis.
I find that a rather UK-centric point of view.
Well, the UK IFR community is pretty big – similar to Germany’s and those two are way way bigger than that of any remaining European country.
huv wrote:
I believe that that kind of accuracy, which has to work in various surroundings with a very high degree of reliability, will be obtained using radar and cameras.
IMHO, one meter accuracy would be useless for keeping you safely on the road. I think you would have to do an order of magnitude better than that. Problem would be the accuracy of data. I don’t know what they would need it for in an autonomous vehicle that’s not relevant to vehicles driven by humans, but there are already applications that would benefit from this level of accuracy. Data from navigation is used for example to illuminate curves before you even start the turn.
Martin wrote:
The French (DGAC) had a document that said so (even when the NDB was only in the missed approach)
make it says
There are also some requirement for PBN use (i.e. use of RNAV approaches) which I think make it not so clear who can actually use RNAV approaches these days….
Peter wrote:
Can you cite a test case clarifying this as meaning that an NDB approach must be navigated solely using an ADF, etc?
I won’t even try to look as I think it’s a waste of time. Anyway, if I’m taking a risk, I’m counting with the consequences and I don’t see what good it would do to me to change my opinion on this (our courts don’t have to respect any precedent even when there is one). And the reasoning (AFAIK) is that the approach was not checked using alternative means which to me is quite solid.
Peter wrote:
The DGAC has all kinds of fun stuff, deep down in various websites…
It was in the french AIC. It’s old, I think it was published something like ten years ago. It was still there about a year ago IIRC. Canadian AIC also has something about having to monitor the underlying navaid. FAA as well (about substitution of navaids with RNAV) in the AIM and I believe there is an AC as well (I vaguely recall it’s not allowed to substitute the navaid providing lateral guidance in the final approach segment).
As for EASA, my brain is still at sea and it simply refuses to think about their rules. It kind of reminds me of the single-handed sailing conundrum – you’re supposed to keep watch (international rules on preventing collisions) but you also have to sleep, sooner or later. Does that imply that single-handing for too long is illegal? Or is napping for 15 minutes at a time sufficient strategy? For example France is famous for their single-handed offshore races so it’s at least tolerated there (including insurance companies). However, should you injure or kill someone, the criminal aspect is hard to escape.
Actually, the circualr about NDB/ADF in france has disappeared !
It was AIC A 09/07
But as now they have one about PBN and the use of RNAV/GNSS…
