Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Mandatory PBN training (merged)

Timothy wrote:

But there is a massive amount of stuff in the LOs which people really, really don’t need to know, which is out of date and pointless.

I have an interest in this, because I drafted the PBN LOs — they were tweaked a bit, but not much. I took the ICAO PBN manual and turned the conceptual stuff into LOs. That seems to be consistent with the way the other LOs are constructed. I don’t think any of it is outdated, but I agree some of it is fairly pointless; much of the content of the LOs (as a whole) is.

Peter,

the German implementation of all of this (i.e, applying to all LBA IR holders) is very nice and easy. You merely have to do some (undefined) GPS approach work with your examiner during your annual IR renewal. The examiner will then give you a GPS approach endorsement in your logbook. In August 2018, that endorsement will be grandfathered into the EASA PBN qualification. Job done.

Other CAAs, like the UK CAA, seem to make a much bigger fuss out of it, which will lead to much higher cost.

Of course, any LBA license holder may choose to do more training if they wish so, but the bare minimum is, well, minimal (this of course also depends a bit on the examiner), but the important bit is that there is no mandatory ATO involvement.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 18 Jun 10:31
Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

So, could IR holders from other States go to Germany for the renewal and get the endorsement?

bookworm wrote:

I have an interest in this, because I drafted the PBN LOs — they were tweaked a bit, but not much. I took the ICAO PBN manual and turned the conceptual stuff into LOs. That seems to be consistent with the way the other LOs are constructed. I don’t think any of it is outdated, but I agree some of it is fairly pointless; much of the content of the LOs (as a whole) is.

Sorry, I was in a rush. What I should have said was that a lot of it is out of date and pointless for the private GA Aeroplane pilot

Of course, everything is useful for someone – but all the stuff about PinS, BaroVNAV, PBN Principles, RNAV10 & RNAV4, AR APCH, Path Terminators, System Error classification, A-RNP can be safely ignored by the private IR going to revalidate.

It is much better that people learn what they need to know (what to do if the annunciation changes from LPV to LNAV at 800’) than fill their heads with “State that the airworthiness approval process assures that each item of the area navigation equipment installed is of a type and design appropriate to its intended function and that the installation functions properly under foreseeable operating conditions”, “State that the safety of the application is contingent upon the accuracy, resolution and integrity of the data” or “State that aircraft incorporating dual inertial navigation systems (INS) or inertial reference units (IRU) have a standard time limitation”.

EGKB Biggin Hill

So, could IR holders from other States go to Germany for the renewal and get the endorsement?

No. As I said, it’s the single CAAs who decide and these rules then apply to the holders of the licenses issued by that state.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 18 Jun 13:13
Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

Timothy wrote:

Of course, everything is useful for someone – but all the stuff about PinS, BaroVNAV, PBN Principles, RNAV10 & RNAV4, AR APCH, Path Terminators, System Error classification, A-RNP can be safely ignored by the private IR going to revalidate.

I agree in part. At the risk of sounding a bit defensive…

We could invent different qualifications for e.g. RNAV10 & RNAV4, and A-RNP, but that adds to granularity. Actually what is included is so trivial that it doesn’t justify an extra qualification. For RNAV10 & RNAV4, you have to know they’re oceanic specs (that’s useful) and one other thing about the sort of equipment, which was pretty much all I could find that distinguished them. A-RNP is probably coming to private aviation soon enough. Some GA already does BaroVNAV, so I don’t think you can omit that. PinS should really be heli-only, other than knowing that it’s for helicopters, though there is suggestion that it could be used for cloudbreaks for fixed wing. I think the error classification is important, but I agree that knowing about particular path terminators is overkill.

The example that you give of what people need to know is equipment specific, and at a level that exceeds the analogies in conventional navigation — there is no LO that describes “what to do if the” flags on the ILS come on — that’s something for the flight training. In the GNSS context, it’s better covered as part of the prof check than in a TK exam.

If you’re suggesting that practical application of knowledge should trump multiple-choice tests then I agree strongly, but that’s a much more fundamental fight to initiate in the EASA system.

The CAA guidance implies that a renewal / revalidation can just have the endorsement added. Does everyone agree?

For the purposes of revalidating, or renewing a rating that is still shown in Section XII on the licence when a proficiency check has been successfully completed, the examiner must sign the pilot’s licence with PBN endorsement in the following format

We're glad you're here
Oxford EGTK

The CAA guidance implies that a renewal / revalidation can just have the endorsement added.

The troubling/confusing aspects are these:

3.1 All Approved Training Organisations (ATO) conducting training for the addition of PBN privileges before 25 August 2020 must ensure that the training satisfies the flight and theoretical knowledge requirements stated in the Regulations.

3.5 A Course Completion Certificate that confirms the pilot has received the required technical knowledge and flight training, as applicable, must be presented to the examiner before the Skills Test or proficiency check is undertaken.

There is an implication that an ATO might need to be involved in the “addition of PBN privileges”, even if the privileges are added as part of a reval/renewal prof check.

UK CAA Information Notice to Pilots on PBN implementation

Relatively straightforward, if you can find an examiner to sign you off. Else it’s a trip to a TK test at an ATO…

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/InformationNotice2017034.pdf

We're glad you're here
Oxford EGTK

Interesting!

So you have a year to get yourself signed off if you can to continue flying GPS approaches, and any Eurocontrol IFR.

I wonder if this applies to flying IAPs in Class G on the IMC Rating? Are these flown in accordance with PBN requirements? The 2nd para above suggests Not. However that would mean an IMCR holder flying a GPS approach into EGHH (Class D) would be exempt while an IR holder doing the same would have to comply.

Also this is curious:

The two references there both point, somewhat circularly, to the famous SRG2140 – last mentioned here. Taking the FAA context (i.e. not other 3rd countries) that doesn’t cover PBN. It is a signoff that you know air law etc.

So does an FAA IR holder (who as currently apparently required) has sent in his SRG2140 need a PBN signoff? In reality around zero % of pilots entering the UK from abroad, on FAA papers, will have such a signoff

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

I wonder if this applies to flying IAPs in Class G on the IMC Rating?

They are keeping us in suspense on that:

The UK CAA will issue further information via Skywise on the impact of the PBN regulations on the IMC/IR(R) Rating and update Standards Document 25, later in the year.

We're glad you're here
Oxford EGTK
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top