Peter, I think it is clear that a prosecution is very unlikely. But it is certainly possible. The CAA " no longer cares about exactly this for a G-reg" is not quite true. They have allowed self certification – that is not the same as saying we don’t care. Now until there is RNP1 airspace I doubt anyone would even look for PRNAV LoA in a ramp check but it is required.
In the UK, the CAA has authorised private pilots to self certify PRNAV compliance.
I don’t know how the rest of Europe has handled this. Any other CAAs are allowing self certification i.e. no national CAA approval is required?
Sweden does. But you have to have documented PRNAV training from an ATO approved for IR.
What is “PRNAV training”??
I think that King course (Jason’s post above) is little more than a compliance sham for commercial operators, who get their crews to do it and tick the box. I can’t see there could be anything in there which isn’t blindingly obvious to anybody who can spell I-F-R.
As I have said many times 
I think PRNAV is a job creation scheme, resulting from GPS having done the same thing to the navigation business which the CD did to the vinyl record business a decade earlier.
If course that doesn’t mean you don’t have to be compliant with XYZ regulation.
Peter, while I agree, the FAA required me to take it (or similar) before I could get the LOA.
Yes, but it sure isn’t “PRNAV training from an ATO approved for IR” as mentioned by Airborne. That’s what I was getting at.
bosco, I don’t quite see what you are asking?
Neither B-RNAV nor P-RNAV are included in the EASA IR syllabus. If you fly in airspace (on routes) where one of these are required, you have to get additional training through a ATO. I would guess that most ATOs today include B-RNAV in their IR courses, since in much of Europe the rating would be useless without it.
Formally, in Sweden the AIP says that you need operational approval for both B-RNAV and P-RNAV. More details are given in a Swedish RNAV regulation (which claims to be based on JAA/EASA regulations and guidance documents). For B-RNAV, the approval is automatic if you have taken a course at an ATO authorised to train for the IR and the syllabus of the course has been approved by the Swedish Transport Authority. The same thing holds for P-RNAV, except that the approval is automatic only for GA – if you have an AOC you have to get formal approval.
When I renewed my lapsed pre-JAA IR last year, B-RNAV was included in the course and I have now a B-RNAV endorsement in my log book.
I was saying the “PRNAV training” is not a normed term. When this is the case, and ATOs are involved, things always get dodgy. Apart from that, doing training for PRNAV is a joke in itself.
The more basic question is how could a say UK-based N-reg pilot be prosecuted for declaring PBN/D2 or whatever (on a flight plan) for flying without the FAA LoA, when the UK no longer cares about exactly this for a G-reg. Any half clever lawyer would make the CAA look ridiculous.
Which UK P-RNAV procedure do you want to fly, Peter? If you want to fly P-RNAV procedures in other EU states, I don’t see what being based in the UK has to do with it.
