The authority surprises (Norwegian CAA seminar on European flying)

That link don’t work, try this.

Airborne_Again wrote:

What did they do?

I had not planed on telling that here, but why not. What happened was this:

Just before Christmas 2019 I took the theory. Due instructor problems (he moved to another location), I didn’t get started before the end of February 2020 with a new instructor. Then came Corona. The CAA (LT) with AVINOR shut down all VFR flying for a month. Then, because the club is a member of NLF, which again is a member of NIF, we had to follow NIF’s corona rules. This meant no flying until May. When we could fly, it was too light for night flying.

No problem I thought, just postpone it until it gets VFR night condition again. The fall of 2020 I was very busy with longer and sudden business travels, and could not plan anything. The instructor had lost his main job in the airline due to Corona, and was generally not available, occupied with more important stuff. In January 2021 we started again. But then he told me that this 6 month rule would cause a problem. What 6 month rule? I have never heard or read of this 6 month rule. He showed me in Part-FCL.810. The course from beginning to end shall not take longer than 6 month. I thought WTF, how could I have missed this. I also thought it was LT and AVINOR and NIF who shut me down when I should fly in February-March. I could not be blamed for this. A kind of force majeure augmented by LT, AVINOR and NIF. I contacted LT, sent all my course details, when I started and finished my theory (the diploma from the school), how many hours flown etc. They answered all right, both by phone and mail and explained that this is how it is, and they make no exceptions, end of story!!!

I was a bit angry with myself that I haven’t seen that rule, haven’t done my home work, but also angry with LT and their stubbornness. I had no plans of starting all over again, and if I should, then I would start as soon as it gets dark in the fall. There was also Corona still, and anything could happen. I put everything in the back burner.

In the summer of 2021, I was reading the brand new modified Part-NCO for UL that came into effect suddenly in July. By coincidence I came across a FCL.810, but without that 6 month rule. I thought WTF again, what was this. It turns out that the 6 month rule came in 2018 in EASA. For EASA regulations to be legal in Norway it takes some more time, because Norway is not part of EU. When did that rule come into effect in Norway? After some detective work in the legal materials it turns out it came into effect late December 2019. That rule came into effect well after I had finished my theory. Then I got really angry with LT. They of all people should know when their rules starts working, but they didn’t mention this to me, even when I sent them everything, dates and all, and that 6 month rule was the entire issue!

IMO LT had done a severe error, probably deliberately so (IMO). I can not be held responsible for their changes of rules, and they should at least have picked it up as the time when that rule came into effect was of outmost importance. There was no warning of the change, and no procedures for how that rule was to be handled in the transition period. So I contacted the Ombudsman. Sent them everything and a long explanation. After a while I got an answer. They simply said that in this case LT has not decided anything. They have taken no stand, there exists no legal “resolution” or whatever the English word is (that I am entitled to). The Ombudsman could not do anything before I have received a real decision from LT. Again WTF?

Then I contacted LT again repeating what the Ombudsman had said, and was very particular about the dates of the rule and when I started. A month ago I received the answer. LT said that I, in cooperation with my school, should create a plan for how to finish the rating and send it to them for possible approval.

At least now we are heading in the right direction. But Corona is also over, and their last answer is more or less exactly what I suggested more than a year ago. Then I didn’t know about the 6 month rule and when it came into effect, but they should have known and acted upon it. I’m pretty fed up with LT, they could have solved this so smoothly, but chose to be complete a$$es instead. Going to the Check Republic or something and get it done (from scratch) in 2-3 days seems like a much better option. There won’t be enough time for LT to “approve” a plan anyway before it becomes too light here this year. I have already contacted one school in the Check Republic, but if someone has good suggestions of some school, that would be much appreciated.

Yes, it’s kind of “wow” indeed, but it’s not all of it. There is one more issue they started nagging about. It’s a bit more difficult because it involves AMC, and I’m not 100% sure I understand everything about AMC and AltMoCs. This issue is no big deal for me personally, but it very well could end up being sort of a big deal – legally.

My assumption is that a regulated person when following the AMC is 100% in compliance with the regulation. Following the AMC you are guarantied that your license is in fact issued in accordance with Part-FCL. Then there is the AltMoC. As I understand an AltMoC is mostly for the regulated person to demonstrate compliance with the regulations instead of the AMC. The competent authority can then approve this AltMoC. The competent authority can also issue AltMoC on it’s own behalf, typically if no AMC exist. The competent authority must then notify EASA of this AltMoC, which is then made public. If no notification is done, no AltMoC exists. Further, the competent authority cannot oblige regulated person to follow an AltMoC instead of EASA AMC, which is a consequence of the very definition of an AMC. Consequently, the exact legal binding (if any) of an AMC is mute IMO. When followed, compliance with the (EASA) regulations is assured – by EASA, which is the only important point.

I got my PPL in 1992. It was a Norwegian PPL issued in accordance with ICAO. Then, by encouragement by LT, this was converted to a JAR-FCL. In 2016 I converted the JAR-FCL to a EASA-FCL, also after encouragement by LT. What I got is an EASA FCL issued in accordance with Part-FCL on an EASA Form 141 Issue 2. A bog standard EASA PPL. This is important here. I have a legal document, a license, saying it is issued in accordance with (EASA) Part-FCL (Not JAR, not national regulations).

The point is. When I got my license in 1992, there were only 2 hours of instrument flying. Today there are 5 hours. What LT is saying is that since I have only two hours, I need to take the 5 hour course with instrument in addition to 5 hour night flying. The same “instrument course” LAPL holders must take to get PPL. They justify this by saying the night rating is divided in two parts. One instrument part and one night VFR part of 5 hours each. Well, this is not what the AMC say, but this is what the old (national/JAR) regulation said. In essence what they are saying is that my EASA FCL is not 100% a EASA FCL, only 98% or something Then they also are saying: screw the AMC, we have our own and will use that! This “LT version” consists of:

• For those with a “new” EASA FCL PPL (5h of instrument) – only 5h flying.
• For those with LAPL or “old” PPL – the same 5h as above plus 5h of instrument.

What if you have taken those 5h of instrument 10 years ago? What about 20? This doesn’t make sense at all.

The EASA FCL.810 and the AMC can be found here

The FCL.810 itself has a clause where LAPL holders must complete the basic instrument flight training (they have had none whatsoever)
The AMC don’t have this 5h of instrument and 5 h of night. What the AMC say is:

The exercises of the night rating flight syllabus should be repeated as necessary until the student achieves a safe and competent standard.

and

at least 5 hours of flight time in the appropriate aircraft category at night, including
at least 3 hours of dual instruction, including at least 1 hour of cross-country
navigation with at least one dual cross-country flight of at least 50 km (27 NM) and
5 solo take-offs and 5 solo full-stop landings.

Then, regarding instrument flying the AMC say this:

The [instrument] flying exercises should comprise:
(i) exercise 1:
(A) revise basic manoeuvres when flying by sole reference to instruments*;
(B) explain and demonstrate transition from visual flight to instrument flight*; and
(C) explain and revise recovery from unusual attitudes by sole reference to instruments*;

(ii) exercise 2:
explain and demonstrate the use of radio navigation aids when flying by sole reference to instruments, to include position finding and tracking*;

(iii) exercise 3:
explain and demonstrate the use of radar assistance*;

My point is that FCL.810 with AMC makes perfect sense no matter how many hours of instrument flying you have and when you did those hours, or have forgotten everything about it. LT is in no position to require me to follow anything but the AMC. Legally this is potentially extremely bad. I have a EASA PPL according to EASA FCL. If this is something “else”, well than my license is false, because it is not in accordance with Part-FCL as it literally say. Also, when LT do not follow the AMC and have not made an AltMoC, then the night rating is also false, because it is not done in accordance with Part-FCL.

Legal matters aside. I don’t have the legal competence to follow this up, or to even be sure something is wrong. I may probably notify EASA about it though, because something is definitely fishy. But I know that in “real” EASA-land I will (hopefully) get a training that is in accordance with Part-FCL. Besides, I’m fed up with this nonsense over getting a simple night rating. It’s beyond ridiculous when it can be done within a few evenings. The instrument flying we did a couple of years ago was fun, and I sure want to hone those skills before flying VFR at night here in Norway with weather and geography. I’m not completely stupid. This is not what this is about.

I also must say that except from this episode, my experience with the Norwegian CAA (LT) has always been very good. Why this change? New kids on the block?