Should the IMCR be ditched in the quest for a greater prize?

[IO540]

There is no FAA conspiracy SAS But it's hardly worth debating this over and over. It's obvious to any pilot who flies anywhere for real that almost everywhere one goes one sees N-reg planes, and usually they are the classiest machines at the airport in question. Some weeks ago I flew down to Granada in Spain and about the only stuff that was flyable was all N-reg, with one Spanish reg AOC (pleasure flights) Partenavia being the exception. The two planes parked either side of mine had flat tyres and weeds growing around the wheels. The rest, including a couple of turboprops, was N-reg.

There isn't a great (or indeed any) cost saving on routine maintenance (I was 3 years on G and 3.5 years on N) but there is a big saving on any modifications, largely because Europe never got to grips with the whole subject of minor mods. This affects most of the slicker machinery because most owners tend to do mods, fit better avionics, etc.

[BEagle]

I'm sorry, but IMNSHO the 600ft cloudbase is far too restrictive. It's even above the present IMC RECOMMENDED minima (500ft for a precision approach).

You may well be right there. Perhaps:

(5) Minimum weather conditions:

(5.1) 600 ft cloudbase and 1800 m horizontal in-flight visibilty shall apply for any take-off;

(5.2) Cloudbase of not less than Class 2 IR minima for the available approach type and 1800m horizontal in-flight visibility shall apply for commencing an approach with the intention of landing at the planned destination aerodrome.

Or words to that effect?

[IO540]

600 ft cloudbase and 1800 m horizontal in-flight visibilty shall apply for any take-off;

What is the rationale for this, Beagle?

Traditionally, the reason for frowning on departures into eg. OVC002 is the SE engine failure scenario. But one could use this IFR qualification on a twin, and anyway this is wholly an attitude to risk issue. I happily depart into OVC002 - so long as I have a reasonable idea of the terrain in the vicinity.

There is nothing technically hard about a takeoff and then climbing at Vy+ while holding the departure heading. It's brainless really and the pilot workload is low. Far easier than flying an approach. And the difference between OVC002 and OVC006 is under 30 seconds.

Enforcement would also be hard since airports rarely report the cloudbase along the departure track. They report cloud according to standard rules, within N miles radius of the aerodrome. The CB along the departure track could be very different.

[LH2]

IO

The real question to ask is why the # of JAA PPL/IRs issued in the UK is around single digits annually - after adjusting for those in the commercial pipeline so looking at purely private pilots.

Do you reckon another significant factor might be having the option of doing the IMCR as an alternative? There is no question that going for an IMCR is much easier and cheaper than an IR, in the same way that an FAA IR would appear to be (I have no experience on that camp, so I can't comment).

What I am not convinced is that the JAA IR syllabus is objectively speaking as onerous as to put it out of reach of interested private pilots. It looks to me like a nice project to further one's flying skills, and if it takes a few months to get there, so what? what's the hurry? Incidentally, I fully agree that the syllabus could do with some revamping, but that's another discussion.

Btw, I wonder what's the relative percentage of instrument rated pilots on the continent, where the only other option for flying in bad weather is VFR on top. Somehow they do not seem to be as terribly uncommon as I would have expected.

Al

I made the point that the JAA IR is not really achievable (in a reasonable time frame) for the average PPL who is working and doesn't have a huge Director's salary and there is no alternative. Not to mention medical requirements.

Thanks for the clarification. So essentially are you saying that the current system is elitist? But isn't the whole of GA in Europe like that, compared to the States for example?

In principle I would agree with an accusation of elitism if compared to certain other systems, but in the absence of supporting evidence I cannot agree with your assertion that the "JAA IR is not really achievable" for a PPL. Having actually tried, I found it reasonably straightforward.

This is plainly obvious, even a JAR boy should be able to see this.

It's sometimes difficult for us to understand how these lesser cross-pond systems work. I hear they even let the poor and the ugly fly?

Looks like you need to get that arrogant chip removed from your JAR shoulder.

Nah, it looks good on me


SAS

The simple cost of getting a JAA IR is the main problem.

Then add in the reduced costs of operating an N reg aircraft and the renewal costs etc.etc.

Good point on the overall costs comparison (which does not only apply to aviation).

On the other hand, doesn't that presuppose an owner-operator? To my knowledge, there is not a lot of N-regs available in Europe to the general flying public (or perhaps there is and I'm just not aware?). So, and especially on the face of increasing difficulty to keep foreign-registered planes in JAA-land, doesn't that tip the costs scale back towards a "local" IR? I'm thinking of the typical club member who can't afford (or doesn't want) to buy his own machine.

Even though I know of a few big and not so big clubs in Europe which have IR-certified planes, to me the biggest hurdle to flying proper IFR in Europe is still the lack of suitable planes on the club, share, or self-hire markets. That in turn probably drives down the demand for IRs even more.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Been watching this thread for a while now and to be honest a lot of you are missing the point.

This is not about flying this is about politics.....

The only person who has even remotely addressed this is Beagle with his proposed regualtions. You will have to fight for what you have already.

IO540 and Englishal I've crossed swords with you over this before, but the FAA system over here is EXACTLY what the politicians are trying to get away from. You could fly a 1000 miles in the USA and not be within 50 miles of CAS so its just not relevant, legally yes (people quoting ICAO ) but practically no where near.

Everybody has got a great story about using their IMC rating to good effect, its quite entertaining to see and read, heartened by some and terrified by others at how simple they see hard core IFR is (Namely IO540 you talk a good game would love to see you in a steam driven 40yr old 401 on a dark and stormy night with a 5 degree out AI and a KNS80 doing the go around of 27 at le Bourget)

All this talk of glass cockpit and how outdated the 8 year old exams are is totally irelevant like it or not you have to be able to demonstrably deal with the lowest common denominator in terms of flight conditions and aircraft servicability and equipment, unless of course you wish to burden yourself with another layer of bureacracy to have your Class 2 IR apllied to certain types or airframes.

My Vision........

You should be coming together to legitamise a cross EU IMC rating that is called a Class2 IR, personally I feel it should be limited to FL90 (pressurised aircraft should require a Class1 qualified Pilot) grandfather rights conversion course to upgrade from an IMC of say 5 hours followed by an initial test by a non CAA IRE, 3 day 25hrs groundschool seminar, no precision approaches without a GPS overlay requirement, CAT1 minima plus 200 feet, 1490RVR or greater, 12 monthly renewals with a IRI designated for the task and bi yearly with an IRE.

ICAO IR holders should be given a class 2 straight swap with an abridged course to get to a class 1 either by a training syllabus in the aircraft plus a pressurised type checkride or a recognised sim course in a pressurised type simulator to enable proper emergencys to be demonstrated and dealt with

The Class 3 IR is what used to be called a IMC rating and the last renewal for a Class 3 should be in three years time allowing five years for people to upgrade.

This gives people an achievable upgrade path with appropiate restrictions removed by a demonstration of ability, it would also have a great side effect in that a new layer of training and testing has just been put in place that people will want to achieve (A lot of bureacracy for 7 JAA PPL/IRs last year) which will inject some cash into what will soon be a crippled training industry in this country and reinvigorate the concept of a career instructor/examiner

I had a CAA PPL/Multi/IMC and a FAA PPL/Multi/IR before getting professional licenses from both sides of the pond and imbetween, I am also an JAA IRI so feel somewhat qualified to have an opinion on what the average ability level of your typical IMC holder is and what is required for that average Joe to share airspace with commercial traffic whose crew happily has to demonstrate their proficiency every 6 months.

Remember its about POLITICS pick your battles wisely, ideally they should not be with each other.

Beagle - full marks to you sir please keep up the good work

[Say again s l o w l y]

There are many, many N reg machines available for people to use, especially in the South East. Most people who fly "proper" IFR seem to at least be part of a group.

There is a lack of good IFR G reg machines from clubs and schools, mind you, there is a lack of good VFR machines too!

[IO540]

Do you reckon another significant factor might be having the option of doing the IMCR as an alternative? There is no question that going for an IMCR is much easier and cheaper than an IR, in the same way that an FAA IR would appear to be (I have no experience on that camp, so I can't comment).

It is actually very true that most UK based N-reg PPL/IRs did go to the FAA IR from the UK IMC Rating, making use of their UK instrument training on the way.

Whereas had they done the JAA IR route, they would have got absolutely zero credit for any previous training and would have had to do the 50/55hrs (dual) all over.

That FAA previous-training credit is worth a lot of money, and time. It takes a fair bit of time to knock off 50/55hrs in the UK, slotting the flight training (which has to be booked via a proper JAA IR school, which itself drastically limits the geographical options) into the overlapping timetables of the school, one's own life, and UK weather which normally has to be pretty reasonable otherwise the instructor won't come along.

I suspect, but have no proof, that a much higher % of JAA IR private-owner-pilot candidates are ab initio, than FAA IR ones. However, looking at the published CAA issue figures, the absolute numbers are clearly much smaller in the former group. An IR is far harder to do ab initio, than after one has been hacking in and out of cloud in UK's Class G for a few years.

And this brings one to another little advantage (one of many little advantages, none too decisive by itself) of the FAA IR as it is delivered in the USA. You go to some school, any old Part 61 will do, do your PPL, and then do some flying, then come back to the same school, probably the same instructor, and do the IR. That rather nebulous situation amounts to a much improved accessibility than JAA. The exam can be sat anywhere anytime, for $90 (that's what my CPL one cost me).

As regards the JAA IR takeup outside the UK, firstly the GA population tends to be much smaller in most of Europe. France's GA scene is mostly VFR (mostly group flyouts) with very little serious touring going on - not sure why but that's what French pilots tell me. Germany is the biggest GA scene outside the UK but Germans are a different culture - very conformist; nevertheless Germany still has a big N-reg population as is evident on any visit there.

IO540 you talk a good game would love to see you in a steam driven 40yr old 401 on a dark and stormy night with a 5 degree out AI and a KNS80 doing the go around of 27 at le Bourget

I am sorry to disappoint you, Gspots, but I wouldn't get inside a piece of wreckage like that even if you paid me for it.

Maybe you had to fly it because you had one of those "commercial" jobs where you fly else you get the boot?

A KNS80 is good as a doorstop. Completely totally useless in today's airways system where ATC treat every waypoint as RNAV and half the time the nearest VOR/DME is well out of DOC. I can look at my notes from any recent IFR flight and it confirms this.

The reason I bought a new plane, some years back, was precisely because I had no intention of flying some piece of wreckage like you describe. I trained in them - never again!

The problem is how does one legislate for "wreckage"? The present IFR training system does indeed try to prepare for flying old wreckage. Yet, such wreckage (with a KNS80) wouldn't actually be much use. I don't know how to resolve this conflict.

[englishal]

It's sometimes difficult for us to understand how these lesser cross-pond systems work. I hear they even let the poor and the ugly fly?

Sorry I get heated when I discuss this The reason I get heated is that instrument flying, is instrument flying, it is not rocket science it is as hard or easy in JAR land or FAR land. I don't think an IR should be *easy*, it was the hardest thing I ever did after PPL, but I think the system of getting one should be as a) economical as possible and b) as little hassle as possible. Today in FARLand you can do self revision ($50), some ground school from an instructor who endorses your logbook and sit the exam ($90). Conversely in JARLand you need to sign up with a school, do god knows how many hundred hours of ground school, take a residential course, and sit about 7 exams at £50 a pop. Grand total about £1250 or more. I agree flying is cheaper in the USA but forget about that, that is NOT what I'm arguing about.

Secondly, in JARLand you need to go and see your AME and get a special hearing test done - something some people may not pass, but it makes bugger all difference to their ability to fly on instruments.

Thirdly in FARLand you are only *required* to do the 15hrs or thereabouts (lets assume for a minute). The FAA say this because they know that if you are at a bad standard you will a) fail, and b) they will come after the instructor to know why you were endorsed to take the test. * Most * people will take 40-50 hrs, but just suppose you are a natural, or have prior experience then you may not need to take this long. In JARLand they make no allowance for skill and don't trust the instructor and so you are subjected to a 170A, which adds further unnecessary cost to the tune of £500 or so. Not to mention that no allowance is made for your skill.

IO540 and Englishal I've crossed swords with you over this before, but the FAA system over here is EXACTLY what the politicians are trying to get away from. You could fly a 1000 miles in the USA and not be within 50 miles of CAS so its just not relevant, legally yes (people quoting ICAO ) but practically no where near

But equally you can fly around the LA Basin which is actually busier than the LTMA....And they have loads of these areas.

Glass cockpit and modern aeroplanes are totally relevant. The examiner in the US has the freedom to make you use any and all of the kit in an aeroplane, and equally fail that kit on you. If you intent to fly a G5 how relevant is a single VOR receiver? How relevant is ADF when your cockpit has WAAS enabled precision GPS approaches and synthetic vision** - not to mention FLIR which is fitted to some of the modern Bizjets? See my points..

I think the whole system needs a makeover - the Feds do it regularly (anyone read the FARs pertaining to night vision goggles - private ops?), the UK and Europe is still stuck back in the days of Ernest K Gann.....who said it was old fashioned then

** Relevant to the PPL because you can buy a DA40 with this lot fitted....

Just my humble view

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Quote:
IO540 you talk a good game would love to see you in a steam driven 40yr old 401 on a dark and stormy night with a 5 degree out AI and a KNS80 doing the go around of 27 at le Bourget

I am sorry to disappoint you, Gspots, but I wouldn't get inside a piece of wreckage like that even if you paid me for it.

Others may not have the high required standard of aircraft or as deep pockets, you would be licensed to do so and would therefore need to be tested to a demonstrable standard of competence or are you advocating a shiney new low hour airframe , glass cockpit, capable autopilot IR?

Glass cockpit and modern aeroplanes are totally relevant. The examiner in the US has the freedom to make you use any and all of the kit in an aeroplane, and equally fail that kit on you. If you intent to fly a G5 how relevant is a single VOR receiver? How relevant is ADF when your cockpit has WAAS enabled precision GPS approaches and synthetic vision** - not to mention FLIR which is fitted to some of the modern Bizjets? See my points..

FLIR & Synthetic vision have no relevance in a thread about IMC ratings, there are very few GPS approaches in the UK and will not be in place before the IMCR gets scrapped, lets get back to basics lets consider the lowest common denominator which is the level to which the legislation will apply and also the average IMC'er who has a warrior or a 172/182 (with a KNS80 )

The single 2 1/2 inch VOR receiver/Standby RMI is all that I had on the last two types of a/c that I've flown commercially when you have a instrument failure or electrical issues, if thats all you have between you /cloud layer/runway/safety then you need to be able to use it in anger - no?

[Say again s l o w l y]

Not yet anyway!

However, there are more and more aircraft about with decent avionics kit.

Fortunately the KNS80 seems to becoming rarer and rarer!

Most IR pilots tend to fly the same machine, so whilst they obviously need the basic grounding in using steam driven instruments, appropriate training should also be given on more modern kit if that is what they are to be using most of the time.

What we are forgetting is that in reality flying under IFR is a damn sight easier than long distance touring under VFR. Especially if you can get into the airways, then frankly it's a doddle.

Commercial IR flying is very different from what a PPL IR would generally put themselves through. We don't get a choice about going. If it's legal, off you go. PPL's haven't got the same commercial pressures on them that we blue and green book holders do.

It doesn't mean that they can't find themselves in trouble or in poor conditions though and given the lower currency of PPL's then maybe higher limits are needed for non-professional IR pilots.

[IO540]

are you advocating a shiney new low hour airframe , glass cockpit, capable autopilot IR?

The last one without a doubt. The others make far less difference to pilot workload.

But seriously, there is a problem which I acknowledge. Where does one draw the line on the equipment?

And are we talking about some national "Class G IFR, with D possible on a clearance which can always be denied" rating, or a generic international IFR privilege? For the former, people do indeed fly all kinds of hacks, albeit usually with a decent GPS - almost no private pilot is foolish enough to fly in IMC without a GPS these days. For the latter, all kinds of barriers come up to keep the worst hardware out of the airspace: most rental wreckage can barely make the Eurocontrol MEAs, never mind climbing to VMC on top and out of icing; most of it isn't airways legal (BRNAV, etc) and the equipment carriage requirements keep them out of the airspace. Finally, the range which makes IFR touring viable is not there at the bottom end of the market; with a range of say 300nm you cannot go anywhere useful, with reserves, and if that was all you had, you would certainly not bother doing an IR of any kind.

And, as most people who have tried renting out reasonably classy machinery have learnt, there is a strong element of selection in the pilot population: very few pilots with an IR, reasonably current, are to be found on the rental scene. The most obvious IFR-capable rental candidates - airline pilots - generally hate IFR and want to fly rag and tube types. Most IR holders are already owners; if they didn't have the budget for ongoing activity they would not, in general, have bothered doing the IR in the first place.

I know there are a lot of commercial IFR ops in very old decrepit planes with really basic avionics and often no autopilots (the Islander / Trilander type ops come to mind) but these often hack it by flying at 500ft above the sea which apart from the pilot workload is basically straightforward. Hilariously the CAA sanctions these, albeit by asking for a 6 monthly medical, while they would severely criticise a private pilot doing the same in a highly automated plane. I think most private owners with the airways paperwork are flying much better stuff today. Doesn't have to be new by any means but most of it is very well equipped.

If I had a KNS80 as the RNAV solution, I would have been lost on every airways flight I have ever done. Well, I would have had to say to ATC "sorry, unable to navigate to waypoint XXXXX due to no continuous navaid reception between here and XXXXX; request VOR-VOR routing (or vectors)". I know you can get a KNS80 BRNAV approved but that is just a useless piece of legalising a useless piece of nav kit which is a decade behind airways ATC assumptions about one's capability.

[julian_storey]

This is an absolute tangent to the thread and for that I apologise in advance

I fly around in the airways for a living in an aeroplane with an FMS which knows where all the waypoints are. Piece of cake.

Is there anyone on here old enough to remember how airways flying worked before RNAV?

[englishal]

FLIR & Synthetic vision have no relevance in a thread about IMC ratings, there are very few GPS approaches in the UK and will not be in place before the IMCR gets scrapped

But the post was about the replacement of the IMCr (if at all) and if this is the case any modern "PPL IR" should be re-written to reflect some of the kit around. ADF should be binned IMHO.

[S-Works]

If I had a KNS80 as the RNAV solution, I would have been lost on every airways flight I have ever done.

Ah well if you had a proper IR then it would not be a problem.....


Humorous dig at IO aside (which he will no doubt throw his toys out of the pram about), I did my JAA IR on tour across Europe using a KNS80........

[BEagle]

In the antique 4-jet I used to fly, 'Airways' would often clear us direct to some obscure waypoint. This used to require a hunt through documents various by the navigator, followed by entry of the lat/long into the aged INS and a heading to fly would be announced from the back.


Which was fine, except no-one cross-checked the lat/long entry as there was no way of doing so easily.

Then we had an FMS fitted - but still controlled by the navigator. I have seen scribble 'electric spiders' on the screen after he/she has entered an incorrect waypoint - but at least we could query it! Fortunately it did at least have a waypoint database though.

One fine day 'Airways' cleared us direct to 'VENLO' on our way to Bruggen. Not in the database and not in the en-route document. Having been to Bruggen a few times, I knew that there was a nearby Belgian town called Venlo, but it wasn't on the aeronautical chart. Exasperated, we checked with 'Airways' and yes, that's where he wanted us to go to!! So the lat/long had to be measured and the point entered manually....it pointed in the same direction as the Bruggen TACAN, so seemed OK to us!

Bad enough to fly something without a waypoint database - but when you're cleared to somewhere which isn't even published.....

As for the KNS-80, it is a great piece of kit if used within its limitations. But if you try to measure the range and bearing from a VOR to a non-VOR waypoint in flight, single pilot, IMC in turbulence without an autopilot, you will probably become a statistic. Either for an airspace bust or as an accident. Pre-planned waypoints on a 'homemade' route in VMC or IMC within DOC of the appropriate VORs and it's absolutely fine though.

[IO540]

The problem, Beagle, is that a KNS80 or similar "VOR shifter" has to be in reception of the real physical navaid the whole time. Ideally (legally) it should be in its DOC but let's be practical about it...

On every airways flight I've done I have had at least one DCT of over 100nm, and on the last one I got about 3, one of which was over 200nm (I write down the GPS distances of these long DCTs, just for fun).

The only way to navigate these long legs with a VOR shifter would be to dig out the airways chart, draw the ATC-specified DCT track on it, pick out VORs along that track, and set them up one by one as they pass by, and change them as each comes in/out of reception range. And in between the VORs, fly a constant heading.

I really really fancy doing the above, IFR, single pilot, thank you very much. In most GA cockpits there isn't even room to spread out the airways chart and draw a 200nm DCT track on it. Totally nuts.

If somebody claims to have done their IR with a VOR shifter, and if that claim was true, it would only prove the JAA IR to be a bogus IFR qualification for the real world. I have never heard of anybody having to demonstrate anything so ridiculous on their checkride.

It also won't work in much of France, which for the most part doesn't have DMEs colocated with its VORs. I wonder how the DME/DME corrections in FMS systems work over France? Do they pick up the TDMEs from ILS approaches?

[S-Works]

If somebody claims to have done their IR with a VOR shifter, and if that claim was true, it would only prove the JAA IR to be a bogus IFR qualification for the real world. I have never heard of anybody having to demonstrate anything so ridiculous on their checkride.

Tell you what call Bonus Aviation at Cranfield and ask them what the standard equipment fit for the PA44 Seminoles they operate for instrument training and exams is?

Shall we have a little exam question on what we need to file on a flight plan that indicates we are not capable of 200nm directs to waypoints and what we file to indicate that we can accept them?

You might want to quit while you are ahead on this one IO, you were doing well at blagging to us all about how great an Instrument pilot you are but now we are starting to see some very revealing holes appearing in your experience.

What I am seeing here is the GPS kid with very limited practical IFR experience outside his own customised cockpit. In fact I would bet that if we put you in one of the standard IFR approved and CAA approved test machines I doubt very much that you would pass a JAA IR. It also does explain now why you are so keen on seeking a way of doing a JAA IR in your own N Reg aircraft.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

KNS80 is RNAV certified and therefore legal to go fly with, thats my point, you only need BRNAV above Fl95 I think,

There is way to much reliance on GPS perfectly demonstrated by being given a 600 mile direct in the US, only to have both GPS's go into DR mode... Unless you want to spend a lot of cash on a dme/dme vor/vor solution then VOR and NDB are here to stay and despite all their shortcomings thank god for that.

GPS has been around for 15 years or more and been mature for GA use for say 6 years, despite that in the UK we have what 5 or 6? airports with GPS approaches. How long do you think before we see then published at every airport, how long before say Shoreham gets one and dispenses with the NDB, Carlisle, Blackpool, Humberside, Cambridge, Eglington all have routinely used NDB approaches. How do you think Jet2 will feel having to upgrade all their 1980's 73's to be able to take advantage of the new approach as the requirements for transport category aircraft and big bizjets will be much more stringent than GA aircraft. They cant just stick a Garmin430 in with a blue light next to the HSI you know

Trust me whan the day comes to switch off NDB's in this country there will be a lot of resistance, until then the required training to operate these facilities is here to stay and will need to be taught and tested in the replacement for the IMCR however much you think they are outdated

Al

Certifiable EVS and FLir are $500k! still want to talk about them in the context of IMCRs? and there are no plans to install them in anything less than 12,500lbs so even in the US we are talking type ratings

IO

If I had a KNS80 as the RNAV solution, I would have been lost on every airways flight I have ever done

Just how did people manage to fly anywhere before GPS....errrr hang on never mind GPS what about before RNAV!!!!! Common sense thing to do could be to have just asked for a heading or wind corrected DR it until back in coverage - nothing wrong in that at all, perfectly acceptable.

Some would argue its these basic IFR skills and knowledge that should be demonstrated on IR tests not how good you can program the Garmin.

[IO540]

you only need BRNAV above Fl95 I think,

Yes, which is more or less the airway base in Europe.

GPS has been around for 15 years or more and been mature for GA use for say 6 years,

A lot longer than that in the place which runs some 90%+ of world's GA - the USA.

Trust me whan the day comes to switch off NDB's in this country there will be a lot of resistance

I am sure you are right. I like the old navaids too, and always tune them in, when available. But the fact is that CAT no longer needs them 99% of the time when enroute - except DME/DME INS fixes - because IFR flight is now a purely RNAV exercise.

Just how did people manage to fly anywhere before GPS....errrr hang on never mind GPS what about before RNAV!!!!!

Do you mean the earliest adventurers, or do you mean CAT?

The early guys were very good traditional navigators, with the sextant etc. Also, flying from say the U.S. E Coast to Ireland, you have to fly the right heading within about 10 degrees - not so hard. They didn't get busted for busting the Shannon CAS - there wasn't any. And the not so good ones just drowned.

CAT has had INS for some 30 years now, which is good enough for oceanic stuff etc, and in Europe the whole business is under radar control. They just carry on as before, except DME/DME fixes get gradually replaced by GPS fixes. But the DR solution from the INS is still what is driving the plane.

It is for GA that things are changing.

Say 20 years ago (I was not flying then) you had just NDBs and VORs. In Europe, you still had total radar control. And flight was on airways, which have VORs at the junctions, and the MEAs are set so as to guarantee navaid reception at the MEA (what the FAA calls the MRA).

So you tracked the VORs, and then joined the published STAR or whatever, then flew the approach just like at present.

What has changed, I don't know when but guess within the last 10 years, is that ATC started to treat all enroute airspace (which is almost entirely CAS, in Europe) as RNAV airspace, disregarding the physical navaids. I can see why - it opens up the whole world of shortcuts and tactical traffic management, and pilots love it because it makes for easy flying, easy comms with ATC, less fuel used, etc. But, without INS, this is navigable only with GPS and indeed GPS is an approved and certified solution for RNAV, BRNAV and PRNAV. It meets PRNAV accuracy requirements easily - unlike INS systems which won't unless they had a recent DME/DME or GPS fix.

The death of the KNS80 came with GPS (after which anybody still developing RNAV products based on navaids dropped out), and the final nail came with FM Immunity, which can be achieved only by spending a wad on antenna filters.

The emotional transition to GPS approaches should not be too hard. The USA has been banging them for over 10 years.

[julian_storey]

Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.

Mark Twain