Mandatory PBN training (merged)

Timothy wrote:

If that meets EASA standards, then what are all the other countries messing around at? I would worry that EASA will step forward and invalidate that ruling. Let’s hope not. @Bookworm, any insight?

“3. The requirements of paragraph 2(a) and (b) shall be deemed to have been fulfilled where the competent authority considers that the competence acquired, either through training or from familiarity with PBN operations, is equivalent to the competence acquired through the courses referred to in paragraph 2(a) and (b) and the pilot demonstrates such competence to the satisfaction of the examiner at the proficiency check or skill test referred to in paragraph 2(c).

4. A record of the successful demonstration of competency in PBN shall, upon completion of the skill test or the proficiency check referred to in paragraph 2(c), be entered in the pilot’s logbook or equivalent record and signed by the examiner who conducted the test or check."

I’ve seen dodgier interpretations than the LBA grandfathering chwinter’s GPS approach endorsement as PBN. The EASA standardisation team tend to have bigger fish to fry. There was one state, for example, that used to allow IR skill tests to be conducted in VMC without simulated IF…

Airborne_Again wrote:

There are lots of different issues with PBN and it would lessen the confusion if people try to keep them apart:

Whether PBN as a concept is a good idea.
Whether a pilot trained in the use of VOR/ILS/ADF/DME will need additional training to fly PBN
Whether such training needs to be done in a formalised way (e.g. by an ATO)
Whether there is a need to check the knowledge and skills on a PC or skill test
Whether EASA or an individual country has implemented such checks in a reasonable way.

NCYankee wrote:

US pilots do not have training mandated. Too many think [LNAV+V] is an equivalent to an ILS.

The sad thing, NCYankee, is that the formal training and checking that we end up with in Europe will probably ensure that pilots are able to recite the 5 “basic functional requirements of RNAV and RNP” systems, but will not make them aware that they can fly the +V glidepath into a hill below MDA.

Yet, arguably, the +V feature is currently the most operationally useful thing of a WAAS GPS

bookworm wrote:

The sad thing, NCYankee, is that the formal training and checking that we end up with in Europe will probably ensure that pilots are able to recite the 5 “basic functional requirements of RNAV and RNP” systems, but will not make them aware that they can fly the +V glidepath into a hill below MDA.

Good point!

Peter wrote:

Yet, arguably, the +V feature is currently the most operationally useful thing of a WAAS GPS

Only in the UK. The rest of Europe has proper LPV and LNAV/VNAV approaches.

Peter wrote:

Yet, arguably, the +V feature is currently the most operationally useful thing of a WAAS GPS

Might be true in UK, but in the US:

As of July 20, 2017, there are 3,815 Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance (LPV) approach procedures serving 1857 airports. 1097 of these airports are Non-ILS airports. Currently, there are also 626 Localizer Performance (LP) approach procedures in the U.S. serving 474 airports.

Of course; however Europe still has loads of airports with a GPS approach that isn’t LPV, and this is true all over Europe. More or less true according to where you are…

I am sure this conversation will be different in 10-20 years’ time, but then they will all be

Cobalt wrote:

@AF, over to you for the atmospheric refraction…

Pardon my delay, I’ve been helping a friend build a shed… :)

The calculations for refraction are very dependent on altitude, temperature, pressure and humidity.
As those are (nearly) random (varying according to locations, seasons, etc.), a full multi-variable solution with a range of possibilities would be required to provide a detailed answer.
In the interest of brevity, I’ll stick to the basics and use the commonly accepted correction for short-range optical measurements. (that means negative, as light bends down due to refraction)

Distance squared (in ft) / Radius of the earth (ft) = Refractive vertical difference (ft)

Distance = 5nm = 30380.59 ft
Radius @ 45deg N = 20874990 ft
Thus… 30380^2 / 20874990 = -44.2 ft

Thus, the actual photon path is 13.4m lower than a linear path following the same angle of emission.

Has enough time elapsed to attempt answers to Timothy’s test questions.

Has enough time elapsed to attempt answers to Timothy’s test questions

My view is that they should be left to hang there to serve their original purpose of asking people to cosider whether they really know enough to safely dismiss the concept of PBN theoretical testing.

I have been asked to do a short presentation at the PPL/IR PBN conference on “what every pilot needs to know about PBN”. Maybe I’ll publish the slides here. They will contain all the answers to the questions and a bit more (on the ‘conceptual’ side.)