I think it is an excellent document. PBN is complex and it is clearly meant to be exhaustive on the subject. Of course there is plenty not needed in the real world but as a “bible” on PBN offered free to the European IFR community it is quite a piece of work.
I agree, Jason. There have been a lot of books written on GPS, but I’m not aware of any publication, worldwide, that is as complete or current a reference, at any price let alone being made available to the IFR community without charge. All those in PPL-IR who have contributed deserve a huge round of thanks.
NCYankee wrote:
There is nothing new here. Just means that it is not acceptable to conduct a flight without a functional VOR and any other navigation equipment (DME or ADF) on board as needed to comply with 91.205.That’s not how I understand the expression “primary source of navigation”. I take it to mean that you can navigate without reference to other navigation equipment.
OK; fair enough. It appears moot since everybody with an IFR GPS and flying in the Eurocontrol system already carries a VOR and some large % have a DME also.
The KLN94 (or whatever) has to be a “primary” nav source because the European IFR system is wholly RNAV, with all waypoints being virtual even if they happen to be real navaids. The navaids are referenced (in flight plan development, or by ATC) regardless of whether you might be within their DOC 
Most of Europe is mandatory-BRNAV above some level like FL095 and the only GA-applicable means of BRNAV compliance are an IFR GPS, or a KNS80 with antenna filters for FM immunity. However, a KNS80 would not actually work much of the time because the next physical VOR/DME is too far away to receive.
I agree the PBN manual is a very good “bible”; I just feel a bit sad because most people who are working towards an IR will take one look at it and tear their hair out. I sort of understand almost everything in it (through being in electronics for 50+ years, 18 years of exposure to IFR, general interest, and an interest in avionics) but no way in hell could I learn it to pass an exam. Only an obscessive person working in IT could learn that stuff.
There is also a fuzzy boundary between the PBN theory and what is specific (and perhaps obscure) avionics behaviour. For example we have the distinction between fly-by and fly-through waypoints. In reality even my ancient KLN94 dues some primitive turn prediction so there is no such thing as a fly-through waypoint (unless you go into the config and disable predictive turns, which would be stupid). Isn’t even the original GNS430 the same? Near the end of my SN3500 writeup I show the tracks the plane flies. This isn’t a computed turn which produces a clean fillet between the two track segments (which is what GPSS “should” deliver, because the rate of turn is tapered according to the track distance, implementing a simple control loop) and it certainly isn’t a “radius to fix” turn (which, via GPSS, flies an arc fillet between the two track segments which is the same regardless of aircraft speed) but it is so close that most of the time it doesn’t matter. You have to know your avionics.
As mentioned by others, a really excellent document! Thanks for sharing this.
I did my IR PC a few days ago and am now officially PBN approved, woohoo! Interesting fact, the Swedish authorities require a copy of the POH stating that the aircraft has the proper approval to be accompanied to the PC documentation.
JasonC wrote:
I think it is an excellent document. PBN is complex and it is clearly meant to be exhaustive on the subject
But while the PBN Manual is a bit overwhelming, I believe that it is still too early to know what could be left out. Very soon we will know what is in the EASA IR Question Bank about PBN, in a year or two we will see what is the PBN emphasis in Skill Tests and Proficiency Checks, how the training is done, and what real life problems pilots encounter when flying PBN. Based on all that I would then hope for a “PBN Essentials” document with maybe 30 pages, with the present PPLIR PBN Manual for reference.
Except things will keep changing, with new equipment entering the GA sphere, new equipment requirements, GALILEO, new leg types, maybe new procedure anatomy details…
Peter wrote:
For example we have the distinction between fly-by and fly-through waypoints. In reality even my ancient KLN94 dues some primitive turn prediction so there is no such thing as a fly-through waypoint (unless you go into the config and disable predictive turns, which would be stupid). Isn’t even the original GNS430 the same?
The distinction between fly-through and fly-by waypoint doesn’t depend on the avionics. As you say, both the KLN94 and the GNS430 do turn anticipation. The distinction is that some waypoints in instrument approach procedures are designated as fly-through waypoints and you must not use turn anticipation on them. As both the KLN94 nor the GNS430 are approved for LNAV, I’m positive they don’t apply turn anticipation in such cases.
As both the KLN94 nor the GNS430 are approved for LNAV, I’m positive they don’t apply turn anticipation in such cases.
How could this be tested? Is there a way to find out which waypoints are a given type?
Peter wrote:
How could this be tested? Is there a way to find out which waypoints are a given type?
I don’t know if there is a way to find out from the boxes, but on the charts the symbols for fly-over and fly-by waypoints are different. If the waypoint symbol is inside a circle, then it is a fly-over waypoint otherwise a fly-by waypoint.
(I was wrong to say that fly-over waypoints are only found in IAPs. You can find them in SIDs and STARs as well — I would even guess they are most common in SIDs.)
I had a quick look and a typical pattern for IAPs seems to be for them to be all fly-by except for the runway location which is a fly-through e.g.
I found the same for Gatwick EGKK.
Looking at RNAV SIDs/STARs, mostly fly-by and very occassionally fly-through where there is a tight turn.
It would not surprise me if this differed between countries.
For waypoints where the track angle change is small, say 30 degrees or less, there is no practical difference because the aircraft turns tightly enough.
