Peter wrote:
while the full – circle is an emergency-only MSA (and is totally universal on Jepp plates)
The quadrantal MSA is referenced to the airport, while the IAF ‘part’ circles, the base IAF being 90 or 110 degrees and the central IAF 180 degrees, are referenced to the IAF. EGFF Cardiff has quite a few stepdown MSA notes at 25 nm and 10 nm both for IAFs and the airport MSA.
Perhaps where an IAF MSA is below the approach plate crossing altitude this is used for one engine out obstacle clearance planning purposes? @Mooney_Driver might have the answer from his CAT Ops experience.
Airborne_Again wrote:
It’s kind of funny how it has repeatedly been claimed here that PBN ops are so easy that there was absolutely no need to require training (or previous experience) to get PBN privileges, still over and again we find ourselves in discussions like this one.
I am fully with you there and not only PBN. It is often scary to see how people perform operations for which they have not had any training and therefore don’t know what they are doing. I think it is high time that training requirements are reviewed and adapted to actual needs rather than old fashioned b.s. taught which nobody needs.
PBN ops is a completely different ballgame than conventional IFR, lots of GPS receivers are not straightforward to use and need training and in general, IFR needs regular refreshers in order for folks to keep up with new regulations. Wether this can be covered by the yearly proficiency checks is not so straightforward either. Particularly people who fly different airplanes with different equipment need to stay on top of all of the airplanes, which is no easy feat, seeing that most people don’t even know how to use the most common navigators like the GNS or GTN series properly. Maybe the use of such equipment should need proper training and recurrency as well.
(Not mentioning the fact that far to many people fly airplanes they have no idea about and never have really worked through the POH, particularly performance and WnB properly…. and also don’t know what most of the avionic really is capable of or does)
It’s kind of funny how it has repeatedly been claimed here that PBN ops are so easy that there was absolutely no need to require training (or previous experience) to get PBN privileges, still over and again we find ourselves in discussions like this one.
This complexity is artifically created because humans getting paid for something will always generate more complexity. It’s not necessary. Nothing hard about flying an IAP via the IAFs, and it is as risk-free as any navigation can be.
For example I have no interest in being at GODOT at anything other than 2200ft, and if I came in at 2000ft then I would be intercepting the “GS” from underneath which is completely silly.
The 198 page PBN manual is mostly a tour de force in invented junk.
Maybe the use of such equipment should need proper training and recurrency as well.
That’s another argument, which leads to an “avionics type rating” in GA, which nobody wants, except those for who the training puts bread on the table at home. Yet it is clearly needed. The airline business deals with as a part of say the B737 TR.
I don’t think any of those 100pages of ICAO PBN training is mandatory in an ideal world where the aircraft is taken care by Radar ATC and fly properly designed RNP procedures that are well integrated in airspaces & routes (e.g. US airspace with Part91 aircraft)
In the other hand, I don’t think 10000 pages of ICAO PBN training covers RNP junk you see when you fly an aircraft:
It seems to me one just have to fly his aircraft more often and use avionics regularly while being careful (what Peter did going to LFMT and asking for LEKLA)
Most airports where I fly require teleportation: the runway and the in/out procedures are not properly connected to existing airspaces & routes and likely not well deserved by ATS services: it’s PBN approach without PBN airspace, departure, arrival…you may fly 30nm or 50nm direct DCT with no clue which altitude you should fly (no radar & no airspace)
Long story short one has to keep awareness of the ground underneath him (like when IFR on GPS not talking to anyone), the other alternative is Farnbrough-LeBourget IFR type of flights 
Peter wrote:
For example I have no interest in being at GODOT at anything other than 2000ft
Actually, you should be at GODOT at 2200 ft… 2000 ft being the minimum you can be at within 10 NM of GODOT and northeast of it within the limits shown.
I honestly don’t know what is so complex about this. These circles/segments do nothing else than give you information. Good information IMHO.
Peter wrote:
Yet it is clearly needed.
Exactly.
I don’t advocate ratings on each avionic system, but in general, I personally do not feel comfortable using ANY technical appliance without either self-study (RTFM until I really understand how the darn thing works and what it’s capable of) or training with someone who knows it and is able to teach it (which can be a huge difference…) In flight and single pilot IFR is not the place to figure out how a particular bit of avionic works.
Actually, this should be covered with airplane familiarisation, which most organisations which rent out airplanes ask anyhow. While not a TR, it is something which should cover most of one. Clearly, it is hugely dependent on the experience of individuals what training is appropriate, but I honestly can’t figure why people don’t want to know or don’t care about the capabilities of avionics and airplanes alike. Why spend thousands into fancy avionics if you don’t care what they do. Why buy an airplane which is capable of a lot and then forego most of this because one can’t be bothered to actually understand the performance section or know how the systems work.
Makes a lot more sense than insisting on bloated theory exams for pretty straightforward stuff.
That’s another topic though – here.
To some extent it is needed but then it would kill the PPL training business unless it was all done in really basic planes with no avionics – which almost nobody wants. Some FTOs already get around a lot of training by loading an out of date database which prevents the IRT examining total competence on the kit (in the US you can’t do that).
If you buy a plane then you need to RTFM, for sure. If you rent one? Lots of people fly G1000/etc rented/syndicate planes with an Ipad, ignoring the PFD etc.
But as I say it’s another topic. It is easy to fly any proper GPS procedure with a KLN94. There were some oddball ones published which needed a GNS+ but I can’t remember what they were called (multiple entry options on a STAR).
These circles/segments do nothing else than give you information
That’s not the claim here.
@Peter, I read these quandantial things as that I can be flying in that sector not below that altitude, but if I want to start the procedure, I have to be at certain fixes at or above certain altitudes as specified fr these fixes.
@Airborne_Again, did I understand this correctly?
Well, sure, I agree with that. My argument is: why not just fly the IAP as published, reduce the risk of a mistake, and reduce the workload (not having to program a DCT to some waypoint and before that reading the plate extremely carefully, checking absolutely everything on the page twice).
There are reasons why the US is not covered with wreckage. Europe says it should be, but it isn’t. The reason it isn’t is because pilots there fly IAPs as published and since doing so is completely obvious, you get a good level of safety. And you don’t need the PBN training BS.
A great friend of mine probably read the (confusing) map a bit too quickly.
arj1 wrote:
@Airborne_Again, did I understand this correctly?
At least your understanding agrees with mine.
Peter wrote:
The 198 page PBN manual is mostly a tour de force in invented junk.
The point it that even if it is invented junk, you still have to understand the junk in order to correctly and safely fly RNP procedures. I have no issues with your actions at LFMT. You were uncertain and requested an alternative clearance – that’s perfectly fine. What worries me is that you had no idea what the circle sectors were or what a TAA is. TAA’s may be junk, but unnecessary or not they’re part of how RNP approaches are designed.
