what_next wrote:
That’s not an EASA thing, but an ICAO reqirement.
I don’t think you should let EASA off the hook. The ICAO Annex 6 Part II requirement is:
2.5.2.4 In establishing criteria for operations where a navigation specification for PBN has been prescribed, the State of Registry shall require that the operator/owner establish:
a) normal and abnormal procedures including contingency procedures;
b) flight crew qualification and proficiency requirements, in accordance with the appropriate navigation specifications;
c) training for relevant personnel consistent with the intended operations; and
d) appropriate maintenance procedures to ensure continued airworthiness, in accordance with the appropriate navigation specifications.
The ICAO PBN Manual differentiates commercial from private quite clearly, e.g.for RNP1
3.3.2.3.2 Training documentation
3.2.3.2.3.2.1 Commercial operators must have a training programme addressing the operational practices, procedures and training items related to RNP 1 operations (e.g. initial, upgrade or recurrent training for pilots, dispatchers or maintenance personnel).
Note: Operators need not establish a separate training programme if they already integrate RNAV training as an element of their training programme. However, the operator should be able to identify the aspects of RNP 1 covered within their training programme.
3.3.2.3.2.2 Private operators must be familiar with the practices and procedures in paragraph 2.3.5, “Pilot knowledge and training”.
ICAO does not envisage mandatory training for private operators.
I agree with Timothy on his assessment of EASA’s performance as a regulator on this topic.
Guillaume wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but for now RTF segments are only part of RNP AR APCH and not RNP1 navigation specification.
So for now, RTF segment are only applicable to highly restricted airport (in term of environment) such as NZQN.
RF legs are actually a part of the RNP1 nav spec. So in principle they can be built into an RNP1 SID. The regulatory discomfort with RF (which means that even the FAA AFMS for the GTN navigators excludes RF legs) probably stems from the original examples being part of RNP AR APCH procedures, and therefore having an RNP value of 0.3 or even 0.1.
Thanks. So far, I’ve never a RF leg in SID’s / STAR.
In Paris, our point merge is RNAV1 specified and made of straight legs so we don’t use RF legs.
Using RF in SID / STAR makes sense as RF legs can be useful for noise abatement too.
But as mentioned earlier, most airlines are not capable / authorized to fly such legs.
I agree that most private IFR pilots no longer understand all this stuff in all its details. The language has just become too complex, with too many, too similar abbreviations thrown in etc. and too complex regulations. No amount of “seminars” will change this simce most people will forget most of it the day after the seminar.
However, RNP1 and such stuff really doesn’t concern most private pilots. What they are interested in is to be able to legally fly “normal” GPS approaches (LNAV and LPV) and what they need to do for that.
For LBA (Germany) license holders, it’s easy: just make sure you have the German GPS approach endorsement (existing sonce 1999, and very trivial to get) by August 2018. This will then be grandfathered into the EASA PBN endorsement. Don’t know how other countries will deal with it, but it sounds like other CAAs will make it much more onerous for pilots to get to that point.
boscomantico wrote:
What they are interested in is to be able to legally fly “normal” GPS approaches (LNAV and LPV) and what they need to do for that.
Interestingly, LPV has always been exempt from the PBN training requirement. Probably because it is so similar to flying an ILS.
boscomantico wrote:
I agree that most private IFR pilots no longer understand all this stuff in all its details.
I also think that it is not necessary to understand it in all details. Maybe those mandatory seminars are not really necessary. But what really is required is a solid understanding of the actually employed airborne equipment. That must/should be trained in the aircraft, e.g. when performing the annual IFR checkride. Especially the combination of radar vectors and PBN procedures has a lot of pitfalls.
The GTN series recently added support for flying RF legs. The AFMS requires an EHSI or PDF that has auto slew for the course pointer. There is a speed limitation of 180 knots IIRC. Look at the RNAV (GPS) X RWY 24 at KCRQ for an example of an RF leg that may be flown by the GTN if it has the RF support. The procedure is not RNP or RNP AR. KCRQ RNAV (GPS) X RWY 24
boscomantico wrote:
No amount of “seminars” will change this simce most people will forget most of it the day after the seminar.
I think that it’s quite rude both to put seminars in quotes and to say that most people forget it the next day (I am working on the assumption that you are not one of the thousand-odd pilots who have come to hear this seminar?)
I try to explain only what people need to know, only in the context of Garmin Navigators, and the feedback has been extremely positive. Most people go away feeling that they have learnt what they need to know and came to find out.
Rather than being dismissive, why not come to one and see? They are always free (unless the organiser charges for food and drink, I certainly get nothing from it, although it costs me a lot to put them on.)
We are thinking of expanding it to a whole day, maybe for next year’s Friedrichshafen.
NCYankee wrote:
The GTN series recently added support for flying RF legs.
My understanding is that the software release is still two version numbers away for EASA aircraft.
boscomantico wrote:
Sure, anything up to 5 or 6 degrees I don’t even call.
And in the Brave New World of PBN?
