Choice of 3D/2D during exams?

AIUI the examiner chooses the route and then it’s up to you to plan it including the taking into account the expected weather and runway most likely to be in use. The key factor is that you must somehow do a 2D and a 3D approach (although in my day it was simply called a precision and a non precision approach) along with a hold, limited panel etc in order to complete the exam.
I have only flown a PAR once and that was in training and to a military base when weather and an ILS failure forced me to land there
I only did VDFs in training also, at Le Mans.
Never since I passed the skill test.

Ibra wrote:

in real life, runway in use and the type of approach is decided by the ATC and broadcasted in the ATIS

That is for sure almost true – type of approach is indicated in ATIS, but ATC can give you a different one. For small airplanes they often even ask for preferences – esp. if they realize that you are in a training or skill test situation.

But what does that have to do with the original question? It is still not the candidate who decides. If ATC for whatever reason (say: ILS is inop) gives you a VOR approach and you do not want to fly it, you have to discuss with the examiner and better have a good reason. Just: “I don’t want to fly VOR approaches” is not a good one. It is definitely not a pass in the exam, if you insist of deviating to an alternate because you do not like to fly an approach which is perfectly doable given weather and equipment.
Also practically spoken, in many exams it is not even the candidate who “negotiates” this with ATC. As the program often includes some “non standard procedures” (which are actually standard but very rarely flown in real life like flying the missed really to the end w/o vectors before or doing a hold at the IAF after the missed) typically the examiner takes over the radio communication and let you focus on flying the airplane.

Ibra wrote:

You can say on the ground if ILS/RNP is not available at destination you would divert to alternates, as long as your flight goes as planned what’s the issue?

Yes, you need to demonstrate (at least) one 3D and one 2D approach to pass. And obviously you can plan in advance what to do if no 3D approach is available for whatever reason at your destination (as this is a highly unlikely scenario, this is typically only done in the air after you got the fact). Obviously these days you also plan the flight in a way that it includes one RNP.

All I’m saying is that if you tell the examiner “I don’t fly an VOR approach because I’m not able to and in my interpretation of the rules I only need to master one specific type of 3D approach and one specific type of 2D approach to pass and I can decide which they are…” you will most likely fail the exam. If you do this before the departure, you will most likely not even depart.

It’s the same if you tell your examiner in the PPL test: “I only fly to fields with left hand traffic patterns because I’m not able to do right hand patterns and the examination rules do not explicitly state that I have to demonstrate right hand patterns” ;-)

Ibra wrote:

How about ATC/IRE proposing you timed NDB? or timed VOR? it’s very common to assume that DME has suddenly failed on VOR/DME or NDB/DME,

You need to be able to fly them! For NDB – as said before – the easy trick is to label the ADF inop as it is not required in most planned skill test flights.
You can try to do the same with DME – but you will get some nasty questions from the examiner on if you are sure you can fly the entire plan w/o DME and obviously will immediately fail the exam if you commence a segment that does formally require one.

And yes: You can plan what you want to fly and propose that to the examiner. In many cases the examiner won’t even ask why you planned this and just go fly.

Ibra wrote:

how about the 3D PAR & 2D SRA during youyr exam?

PAR and SRA are not “pilot-interpreted” approaches. See para 3 on page 31 of UK CAA Standards Doc 01 concerning initial IR test:

Both approaches must use pilot-interpreted aids and so a PAR or SRA is not acceptable as a 3D or 2D approach respectively.

There is no mention of SRA or PRA in Standards Doc 14 concerning IR revalidation/renewal, but logically the same restriction applies as for initial tests. In the examiner’s report, the 2D and 3D approach sections have an asterisk by them, which means the exercise must be conducted by sole reference to the instruments. In my opinion, being told by ATC “left 10 degrees” or “slightly above glideslope” is not flying by sole reference to the instruments.

Standards Doc 01 is clear on what happens if an RNP approach is unavailable:

3.8.1
Whilst Article 4a of Part-FCL requires that an RNP approach is flown on every instrument rating test or check, the UK has currently derogated from this requirement and is retaining the option of subsequently adding PBN privileges to a non-PBN IR. However, the IR skill test should be normally be planned with the expectation of being able to fly an RNP approach during the test and every effort should be made to achieve this. If, on the day, circumstances mean that an RNP approach is not available, the test may go ahead, and 2 approaches using terrestrial aids (NDB, VOR, ILS) should be flown. The SRG 2131 should be annotated by the examiner to indicate that PBN privileges have not been granted.

3.8.2
PBN privileges may subsequently be awarded following a successful test in an SP aeroplane, FFS or FNPT2 with an IRE or a CRE/IRR during which an RNP approach is flown to either go around or land. In this case, a form SRG1157 should be completed and submitted to the Authority. The expiry date of the original IR remains unchanged.

The above does has not been transposed accurately into Form SRG1157, which has a tick-box for “The PBN priviliges of the IR does not include RNP APCH” (rather than no PBN priviliges at all, as the last sentence of 3.8.1 suggests).

In my personal experience of IR initial and revalidations in the UK, flying LNAV (2D) and ILS (3D) has not been a problem. Perhaps due to the UK quirk of needing to book test approaches in advance and reconfirm on the day. Lydd, for example, is good at accommodating an LNAV to runway 21 where the prevailing wind means 03 is in use, but the active danger area precludes the use of the LNAV to 03.

Ibra wrote:

How about Radar Vectored ILS/LOC?

Those are quite obviously pilot-interpreted from the point where you are “localiser established”