Yes it is a concern to GA, however not for biz jets nor turboprops. Even a TBM850 or Mustang is PRNAV approved without any modification necessary, it is the OEM standard equipment. Dinosaur planes might have a problem, but they will have a much bigger problem with noise certification.
Let me guess who you work for, Denti...
Your posts make sense on the "I am allright Jack" principle. So common in some branches of this business
A TBM850 at £3.2M is cheap at twice the price... let me go and buy one and then I won't have to worry, hey?
Your "Dinosaur plane" comment shows how totally and utterly clue-less you are about general aviation.
the costs of not implementing PBN are just way out of proportion with the needs of a few GA pilots like you and me.
Why is that? The traffic growth forecasts are for the most part bogus and the work of people whose jobs hang on making traffic growth forecasts look dramatic. I've been to ATC and Eurocontrol presentations where the data presented was so obviously total bull. Even long after Eclipse went bust and the "VLJ" scene was practically dead and buried they were still banging on about "thousands of VLJs clogging up European skies". But you take one look at the people plugging that stuff and you can see what they are
really looking after.....
The good news is that (1) the regulator in the UK is very aware of the needs of all airspace users and will do a good job of balancing them
Is there any reference for that?
Maybe we will get the IMC Rating to continue
It sounds pretty similar.
and (2) EASA seems to be finally seeing sense over some certification/approval stuff.
which is of limited help because PRNAV compliance for something like 99% of the private IFR community will still run to five digits if they have to rip out avionics, which most will. I meet many pilots and I see what kit they have. EASA AML acceptance (god knows how Garmin pulled that off) just means that Garmin will sell loads of GTN650s, at a good few k per installation, but that unit is too small for serious IFR, without an MFD.
What I don't get is why one needs PRNAV for PBN objectives when PRNAV is a concept whose original requirements were rendered obsolete by GPS about 15 years ago. The old concept of RNP 5 and RNP 1 predates today's accurate means of nav (GPS for GA including most bizjets and INS with DME fixups for CAT). Any IFR (BRNAV/GPS) GA aircraft can fly a programmed route to RNP 1 and in most cases to RNP 0.3 - but ATC won't give you a programmed route to fly, most of the time. They want to tactically manage traffic so they vector everybody around.