Emir wrote:
I would like to see this implemented in Croatia where no ATO has decent aircraft and PBN in these aircrafts in science fiction. Moreover, I seriously doubt that more than one or two instructors and examiners know anything about PBN.
As far as I can see, every ATS route in Croatia is designated RNP5 (sic). How does these aircraft satisfy that? How do the instructors and examiners teach and test it?
If your avionics does not support RNP APCH, then it probably does need replacement, but then, apart from a KNS80, what avionics satisfies RNAV5 and not RNP APCH?
Is RNP APCH a straight GPS approach? In the past, that term referred to special crew approvals, for e.g. the RNP approaches into Innsbruck.
The IR prof check as set out in the published regulation is changed only in that PBN procedures and approaches may be used
I did hear there was a move to enable a GPS approach to be the nonprecision approach in the IR initial test. Is that what this is about?
That option was not available when I did mine in 2012. It had to be NDB or VOR based.
Is RNP APCH a straight GPS approach? In the past, that term referred to special crew approvals, for e.g. the RNP approaches into Innsbruck.
Yes, and RNP APCH is a GPS approach. It may be a non-precision approach (LNAV) or approach with vertical guidance (LNAV/VNAV or LPV). More precisely, the regulation requires a 2D operation and a 3D operation, and the RNP APCH can be either (or both) of those. The approaches into Innsbruck that you mention are RNP AR APCH. AR stands for “Approval Required”. They require a specific approval under Part-SPA.Peter wrote:
I did hear there was a move to enable a GPS approach to be the nonprecision approach in the IR initial test. Is that what this is about?
That option was not available when I did mine in 2012. It had to be NDB or VOR based.
As far as I know, a GPS approach without vertical guidance has always been possible under Appendix 7 or 9 (the skill test or prof check respectively). The change enables the precision approach (inevitably an ILS) to be replaced by another 3D operation LPV, LNAV/VNAV or LNAV+V (or GLS).
As I usually write, I have no idea what the legislature envisaged when it passed the legislation, but I do know that the rulemaking group that drafted it considered that the only mandatory PBN element on the skill test would be an RNP APCH. The departure, arrival and enroute phases of flight could be entirely conventional. The changes there are simply to accommodate PBN if it is encountered on the flight.
Unfortunately (despite the valiant efforts of a small island in the NW of Europe) the requirement to obtain PBN privileges for the first time are left at the discretion of the pilot’s NAA, so some states will gold plate those requirements and may mandate ground or flight training. I hope most of them will just leave it to the examiner on the prof check.
The key difference will be that no operational/specific approval will be required (other than for RNP AR APCH) and the “PBN privileges” once obtained must be recognised by every EASA state.
Unfortunately (despite the valiant efforts of a small island in the NW of Europe) the requirement to obtain PBN privileges for the first time are left at the discretion of the pilot’s NAA, so some states will gold plate those requirements and may mandate ground or flight training. I hope most of them will just leave it to the examiner on the prof check.
What is the UK CAA position on this? After all, my JAA IR is UK issued.
I stopped the revalidations when the 7 year concession (flying on an ICAO IR keeps the JAA IR valid) came back but will do one at my next anniversary; Dec 2016.
Basically part 91 operators don’t need any additional certification or training to operate in the US. Only certificated carriers do or 91-K operators. The US has published several AC’s on related RNP type operations. These include mandatory training requirements for all but part 91 operators and describe to part 91 operators what they should be knowledgeable of.
AC 90-100A describes RNAV 1 operations on SIDs and STARs.
AC 90-101A describes RNP AR procedures and since they require FAA approval are not available to part 91 operators.
AC 90-105 describes RNP APCH operations using LNAV and LNAV/VNAV line of minimums.
AC 90-107 describes using the LPV and LP line of minimums
AC 90-108 Describes using GPS on conventional routes and procedures
Terminology has changed numerous times, particularly on approaches. We started with overlays using conventional or GPS for NPA procedures. Then along came stand alone GPS approaches. These were changed to RNAV (GPS) procedures with potential minimums of LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, and LPV. Later LP was added. Now almost every airport that has IFR approaches has one or more RNAV (GPS) procedures. RNP AR approaches were later changed to RNAV (RNP) with Authorization Required printed on the chart. They use Baro VNAV for vertical guidance. Most recently ICAO is going to switch RNAV to RNP in the approach title. What we call RNAV (GPS) will now be titled RNP 0.3. The US finally grew a pair and is unwilling to change its naming convention again and will stay with RNAV (GPS). However, the terminology is confusing to US pilots when the ICAO flightplan PBN codes for approach are used, as pilots associate PBN with the airline AR procedures. So S1 is 0.3 RNP APCH and S2 adds vertical guidance. As a factual matter, none of this makes any difference in the US as to if an RNAV (GPS) approach clearance is issued or not. There is also the basic sensor codes of B for LPV capable and G for GPS. Only the G is relevant as you will never be denied flying an RNAV (GPS) approach by a controller in the US if you have this code specified. The only PBN code that makes any difference what so ever in the US is the D series, usually D2 using a GPS sensor. If R is specified and a PBN code of D2 is used, pilots will be able to file, fly, and be cleared for RNAV SIDs/STARs. Without this they will be denied.
Currently, pilots flying in the US NAS can file using a domestic format that has none of the PBN capability built in. Starting in October of this year, all flightplans will have to be ICAO format. I estimate that roughly 85 to 90 percent of all flightplans filed today use the US NAS form.
Provided the FAA decides that FAA certificate holders satisfy 2.5.2.4(b) quoted above, the forthcoming change to Annex 6 Part II spells the end of operational approval requirements for Part-91 international operations too.
What we call RNAV (GPS) will now be titled RNP 0.3.
I hope you mean it will be called “RNP APCH”. RNP 0.3 is a separate helicopter navspec. I agree the terminology changes are unhelpful.
RNP APCH is also specified as RNP 0.3 by the FAA and therefore the note “DME/DME RNP 0.3 NA” is added to all our RNAV (GPS) charts or it would technically be allowed. There is a lot of unneeded confusion on terminology caused by a combination of “Johnny come lately” in combination with “Not invented here”. In the US, to get everything, file equipment code SGR and field 18 as PBN/D2. If you want to show that you are wearing your big boy pants, with a GNS530W/GTN750 you can file: SBGR and PBN Codes of PBN/B2C2D2O2S2. It will get you absolutely no advantage in the US. At one time early in the process, the FAA did not adopt PBN codes for filing RNAV routes and required Z and NAV/RNVD1E2A1. I have a UAT based ADS-B Out/In system and a mode S transponder with a KNS80 Rho/Theta RNAV unit (E99). So I could file:
Equipment Codes: SBDGRZ/SU2
Field 18 could be: NAV/RNVD1E2A1E99 SBAS CODE/A97514 SUR/282B PBN/B2C2D2O2S2, but what a waste!
I do file SBDGR/SU2 and field 18 of CODE/A97514 SUR/282B PBN/D2 and even this is overkill.
Peter wrote:
I did hear there was a move to enable a GPS approach to be the nonprecision approach in the IR initial test. Is that what this is about?That option was not available when I did mine in 2012. It had to be NDB or VOR based.
I was offered a 2D LNAV approach for the non-precision part of my IR skill test (in 2014 in UK), but declined because we hadn’t practiced it much during the training.
It wasn’t clear to me if the examiner would disable the advisory glideslope or not (it’s an LNAV+V) – I understand that it would be up to his discretion whether to do so.
Regarding the groundschool/theory element of the proposed new regulation, I would expect that to be met by reading up on it.
Something like the PPL/IR RNAV Manual (free download) should satisfy that requirement.
I would suggest that you could satisfy the RNAV approach in a suitable capable FNPT II simulator as part of a proficiency check – it doesn’t need to be flown. The number of LNAV approaches in the UK available for training flights is limited, LPV almost none (Exeter is the only practical option on UK mainland), so this means the RNAV APCH proficiency check would almost always be the non-precision one. At least that gets rid of NDB/DME and are more likely to be used in the real world.
The new paradigm is 2D and 3D. LNAV+V is 3D, so with a WAAS box you could do that rather than an ILS.
But bear in mind it will be more than 2 years before this takes effect. Hopefully we may see some more GPS approaches deployed in the interim.
bookworm wrote:
LNAV+V is 3D
Is it? The officially approved part is only 2D, so you still have to check step minima, much like a classic non precision approach.
