Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Part-NCO summarized

LeSving wrote:

Part NCO is not law in Norway, it’s regulation

If I am not mistaken, it is called EU Commission Regulation, isn’t it?

Regardless it has force of law by virtue of “Luftfartsloven” and the EØS (EEA) adoption process.

Last Edited by Aviathor at 07 Sep 16:34
LFPT, LFPN

Aviathor wrote:

If I am not mistaken, it is called EU Commission Regulation, isn’t it?

From what he wrote in the past, I believe regulation in this case is ordinance of the aviation authority (just to put it in other words). I’m assuming that power is given to them by an actual national law.

I have previously described the EU regulation adoption process in Norway and given references.

What the no.CAA do is write a position document to the Norwegian EEA committee which is used as the basis for the decision. But the EU regulations adopted this way have the force of law although they are called “forskrifter” instead of “lov”. “Luftfartsloven” give the framework, define the administration bodies and their prerogatives.

Last Edited by Aviathor at 07 Sep 20:34
LFPT, LFPN

Aviathor wrote:

Regardless it has force of law by virtue of “Luftfartsloven” and the EØS (EEA) adoption process.

That is not how I understand it. A law can only be made by the parliament. Luftfartsloven cannot “make” other laws, and neither can LT, and certainly not EASA. The EEA agreement dictates that certain EU regulations (forordning) shall be included in the legal order of the contracting partners. The way it is done with EASA regulations is by making them “forskrift”. A forskrift is exactly as legally “binding” as a law, but you cannot be prosecuted for braking a forskrift, if it’s not validated with a reference to a law. You will be prosecuted according to the law referenced to in the forskrift. The whole of EASA OPS is only made legal by 6 specific laws.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Since Part NCO has this in it…

NCO.GEN.101 Means of compliance
Alternative means of compliance to those adopted by the Agency may be used by an operator to establish compliance with Regulation (EC) No 216/20081 and its Implementing Rules.

and this is about AltMOC

What is the difference between regulation, AMCs and Guidance Material (GM) – what do I need to follow?

The regulation is the legally binding law that you must always follow. If you follow the Acceptable Means of Compliance you are certain to comply with the law.

The regulation however also allows you to create your own Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMOC). This must be compliant with the regulation. For non-commercial operations with a complex aircraft (NCC) you must submit your AltMOC to the Competent Authority as stated in ORO.GEN.120. An approval of the AltMOC is not required but the Competent Authority must review the AltMOC and forward it to EASA. For non-commercial operations with non-complex aircraft (NCO) there is no requirement for you to submit your AltMOC to an Authority since Part-ORO does not apply for NCO operations.

I could therefore write my own AltMOC.

for the requirement to carry a ELT/PLB

My AltMOC would say i have a mobile phone that is fully charged and has the emergency services contact number on .

And as for documents to be carried..

I would say i have all the documents photographed and available on my phone..

Southend, United Kingdom

trevor_s wrote:

I would say i have all the documents photographed and available on my phone..

That’s fine (for all but the ones which are required to be originals). There’s already AMC there that allows that anyway.

trevor_s wrote:

My AltMOC would say i have a mobile phone that is fully charged and has the emergency services contact number on .

That’s not. An ELT or PLB has a specific meaning that is elaborated in the GM. You cannot redefine it.

Last Edited by bookworm at 10 Sep 14:08

To add to the above:

The regulation says “you need to carry an ELT or PLB”.

An alternative means of compliance you declare can only specify how you carry that PLB, not something you do instead.

Biggin Hill

Does NCO remove any of the previous limits concerning use of Annex I airplanes for flying IFR?

ESMK, Sweden

What do you mean by Annex I airplanes?

What used to be Annex II. Mainly Experimentals and orphan types in this case

ESMK, Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top