Would you kindly refer me to the specific FAR?
My statement was based on my last BFR where I was told I needed to carry interception procedures....however just looking now I can find no reference in the AIM or Part 91 or Part 99... Also the FAA guidelines for ramp checks does not mention it either....so, mea culpa.... I was under a false impression....carriage of interception procedures is not required by the FAA!
There is another document here which (page 75 of the PDF) contains
INTEGRATED INSTRUMENTS
1. Individual equipment requirements may be met by combinations of instruments, by integrated flight systems or by a combination of parameters on electronic displays. The information so available to each required pilot should not be less than that required in the applicable operational requirements, and the equivalent safety of the installation should be approved during type certification of the aeroplane for the intended type of operation.
2. The means of measuring and indicating turn and slip, aeroplane attitude and stabilised aeroplane heading may be met by combinations of instruments or by integrated flight director systems, provided that the safeguards against total failure, inherent in the three separate instruments, are retained.
So, subject to the requirements, you don't need the TC.
But what does "inherent in the three separate instruments" mean?
Normally you have a TC which is electric, an AI which is vacuum, and a DI or HSI which is obviously going to be either electric or vacuum (normally electric) so you don't have three independent gyros anyway, unless you have two separate electrical sources (two alternators, for sure).
I think the Interception Procedures is an ICAO requirement.
My statement was based on my last BFR where I was told I needed to carry interception procedures
Well, that is indeed not untrue, because (I guess have done it in the UK) the current requirement for the carriage of interception procedures is an ANO thing which is specific to UK airspace. Therefore, even in an N-reg. You have to carry these when flying in the UK.
But it definitely is not an FAA reg.
Pretty much everything commented on is straight out of ICAO Annex 6 part II which is the requirement for international flying.
On PEDs, the wording is hopeless, as you suggest. But it seems harmless enough.
Journey log, interception procedures, life jackets are all from Annex 6 part II.
Oxygen is not Annex 6 part II, and is something EASA has decided to make "safer". Yes, I know.
What do you think a well briefed German policeman would be looking for in a journey log, bookworm?
I think the ICAO concept is that it should describe the journey of international air navigation, in other words since the aircraft left its home state. That would still serve the purpose of allowing other authorities The most extreme view that is justifiable for the EASA regulation would be journeys since the regulation came into force (which will be in three years or so for most of us).
It's probably worth having some explicit AMC -- I'll see if we can get it into the OPS tidy-up task. Anything else like that you've noticed? (i.e. clarity not substance of the rule).
Anything else like that you've noticed? (i.e. clarity not substance of the rule).
I think the most clarity is needed for stuff concerning the police inspections.
For example does "original" include a certified copy? It should because it does in every other area of documentation e.g. a Power of Attorney.
It is stupid to carry originals of some documents, due to difficulties of replacing them if lost.
For example my Cert of Free Circ for VAT cannot be replaced (notwithstanding the fact that it is meaningless for a plane which was made in the EU and never left the EU, but French policemen like to see it).
The scenario is that you get turned over by a French policeman who doesn't like something. You can't argue with him any more than you could argue with an AK47-armed policeman in Angola. Your options are (a) do as he says or (b) leave the plane in France, fly back home on an airline, and buy yourself a new plane.
The airport inspection ("ramp inspection") rules should be very clear.
Oddly enough the oxygen rules state carriage not usage... so somebody who wants to fly at FL100-110 but doesn't like a cannula up his nose can just carry a little cylinder without any means of breathing the stuff 
I wonder what EASA was trying to achieve there, because they achieve nothing at all.
Re the oxygen, isn't the FAA wording the same for passengers?
The FAA rules say you have to make oxygen available to passengers if above 15k at any time, but they do not have to use it (which is just as well since how is the pilot going to force them?). FAR 23.1447.
More here under "legal requirements for oxygen".
15k is awfully high IMHO, and most people will get a headache at 15k after any length of time.
But more to the point, in Europe, one is taking quite a chance if departing on a Eurocontrol IFR flight, in a non deiced aircraft, because as you have to climb to stay VMC on top, you could easily end up at oxygen altitudes, so a provision has to be made for passengers. I never do IFR with passengers unless I have sorted out the cannulas and briefed them.
