It's just an update to the Ops regulation 965/2012 from October last year. In order to understand it, one has to incorporate the modifications to 965/2012 item by item which is tedious.
Being a regulation, it's directly applicable in all member states.
Aeroplanes operated under IFR with a single pilot shall be equipped with an autopilot with at least altitude hold and heading mode.
That's a bombshell, for some ops...
Old autopilot = no IFR.
INOP autopilot = no IFR.
I cannot believe the UK will mandate an autopilot for IFR in Class G, not least because you can do it non-radio.
But there are commercial services that fly IFR without an autopilot. Piston twins in most cases. I don't know about right now but the Islander and Trilander flights to the Channel Islands didn't have autopilots as of a few years ago and they were single pilot.
Aeroplanes shall be equipped with a headset with a boom microphone or equivalent for each flight crew member at their assigned station in the flight crew compartment
That's a joke, surely.
I noticed those were in the NCC section = non commercial complex. That's for the bigger stuff like Cheyenne. We fall under NCO where none of this is required.
OK well spotted.
EASA "Complex" = 5700kg+ or 19+ seats or ME turboprop or turbojet or multi pilot - IIRC.
The real definition....
EASA Complex = King Air or other American manufactured aeroplane
EASA "Simple"= Pilatus or TBM
:)
[edited for text formatting]
To be fair, EASA has been harming the EU manufacturers by banning single engine turbines from commercial service, requiring European companies to use US made aircraft at higher hourly costs.
The French have decided to ignore this rule and granted an AOC to Voldirect, of course using TBM850s. This means Voldirect can deliver you faster (more than 300KTAS) and for much less cost than its European competitors using King Airs and the like.
Looking at their webpage, 490 € for a 1:30h flight in a TBM850 (with 4 passenger seats) seems highly attractive.
I wish we had the French attitude here, and stick a finger up to obtuse regulations.
You need to flogg the brit who wrote up a highly useless "research" paper on SE-IFR for the JAA (at the time). Basically, his recommendation was to limit SE-IFR to better than VFR conditions based on personal subjective assumptions.
At the time, Sweden had the highest time on SE-IFR turbine ops in Europe. Never got a call from the so called "expert" to provide facts or operating knowledge.
