Please explain, Part NCO is wrong and Bookworm is right? I only sited Part NCO.
Fly310 wrote:
I think most people understood what it meant anyway
I disagree. Part NCO is very specific about what is meant, and it is: the aeroplane cannot be maintained in a desired flight path without reference to one or more additional instruments
This is very different from: or where there is no visual horizon
What does that even mean? “no visual horizon” ? There is no visual horizon flying in valleys and lower than the mountain tops, but visual navigation is fully possible.
LeSving wrote:
Please explain, Part NCO is wrong and Bookworm is right? I only sited Part NCO.
Now it’s my turn to tell you to relax. Ha! 
It’s the difference between just looking at the words (and siting them) and understanding what they mean. You didn’t cite the whole paragraph. It reads:
(b) Aeroplanes operated under visual meteorological conditions (VMC) over water and out of sight of the land, or under VMC at night, or in conditions where the aeroplane cannot be maintained in a desired flight path without reference to one or more additional instruments, shall be, in addition to (a), equipped with:
(1) a means of measuring and displaying the following:
(i) turn and slip;
(ii) attitude;
(iii) vertical speed; and
(iv) stabilised heading;
(2) a means of indicating when the supply of power to the gyroscopic instruments is not adequate; and
(3) a means of preventing malfunction of the airspeed indicating system required in (a)(4) due to condensation or icing.
Now look at the list of instruments – an artificial horizon, a turn coordinator, vertical speed and directional gyro. These instruments have nothing to do with navigation, as you purport, but with keeping the airplane straight in a situation where you couldn’t do so without instruments. I wouldn’t know a better way to describe such a situation than to say it is when you fly in VMC but without a discernible horizon. One thing is for sure, flying “where there is no visual horizon” is definitely one case (and the most prominent one) of “where the aeroplane cannot be maintained in a desired flight path without reference to one or more additional instruments” so it is wrong to call that statement “factually wrong”.
But this discussion reminds me of the one we had where I said that you need a language proficiency in order to fly and use the radio, and some smart-ass came on to tell me that you didn’t need it to fly, but needed it to exercise the privileges of your licence. I still fail to see the difference to date.
My interpretation of no visual horizon is shitty weather with few visual landmarks. I never said Part-NCO is wrong, I said that it was correct and the summary was less correct but still good enough for most pilots.
Rwy20 wrote:
Now it’s my turn to tell you to relax. Ha!
Good, we should say that more often here (I mean it).
Rwy20 wrote:
You didn’t cite the whole paragraph
I did indeed. The additional things (except the list of equipment) are not in the official version for Norway, they must have been amended at some point in the last two years (Part NCO has been in effect for two years here already).
Anyway, it doesn’t change the meaning of part NCO. The point is that you have to have additional instruments to be able to navigate according to your intended flight path. Having the required stuff (by Part NCO) is not enough. In addition you must have instruments that enables you to navigate your path. NCO does not specify what those instruments should be. Horizon or not has nothing to do with it, it’s irrelevant, off topic. It’s your ability to navigate, and the implicit requirement for additional navigational instruments that is the point part NCO is making.
Maybe “no visual horizon” has a special meaning in the UK, I don’t know. But “no visual horizon” is literally not what NCO.IDE.120.A is about. It’s exclusively about your ability to navigate without additional (navigational) instruments. The questions this rises is what about a moving map app on a pad, is that “additional instruments” ? IMO it is not, additional instruments must be ADF/VOR/DME/IFR GPS or something else installed in the airplane.
@LeSving, maybe it could help if you took a step back, go for a walk, take a deep breath and then consider the following: bookworm spends a considerable amount of his time dealing with EASA, as a volunteer, helping to draft regulations, and we can suppose he is familiar with the language used in such regulations. He invests a considerable amount of his free time to do a write-up of a new regulation that will greatly impact us all, sparing us the hassle to weed through it ourselves. Everyone here praises his efforts, and I don’t think it is just because we want to suck up to him. Then you come onto the discussion and make the following bold statement:
LeSving wrote:
Looked at it, and it is oversimplified to the point where it is wrong.
You take one point where you clearly misinterpret Part NCO to prove that it is all rubbish what he wrote. Others step in to try to help you grapple the concept of that said regulation. You don’t try to accept that but you take words out of context in order to prove that you are right with your interpretation. Which in any case is a futile effort with such a regulation, because it is there to read for everyone.
Why are you doing this? What are you trying to achieve here?
That being said, I will make one last effort to help you comprehend the concept. “Maintaining a flight path” has nothing to do with “navigation”. And you interpreted the rule the wrong way around. If you cannot keep the plane going where you want by just looking outside, then you need the whole list of instruments. So yes, if you need an iPad to fly straight, then I am afraid you will need to carry the whole list of equipment (AI, TC, DG, VS). Up to you to decide!
And one last thing, I noticed I quoted Part NCC instead of NCO. In non-complex operations, (3) doesn’t apply, so no need for pitot heat. The rest is the same.
I can assure you people would be more willing to help if you come on and ask questions (“I don’t get this NCO.IDE.A.120, how is it meant exactly”) or if you at least make it clear you are stating an opinion (“In my view, this means…”).
Rwy20 wrote:
Why are you doing this? What are you trying to achieve here?That being said, I will make one last effort to help you comprehend the concept. “Maintaining a flight path” has nothing to do with “navigation”.
I have no idea who this Bookworm is, or why he feel the urge to “simplify things”, or how that should help me. As I have said, we have had Part NCO in effect for 2 years, and we have discussed it in clubs, LT has made lots of info, online tests, online quiz, online teaching. This is not new.
Maintaining a flight path has everything to do with navigation. The flight path can be from A to B or from A to Z via B, C … . It can be straight lines, or curves or whatever. What else should it be? “flight path” is not defined (not in part NCO) at least.
IMO Part NCO is rather straight forward. If you cannot maintain a flight path (from A and to end up at point B, for simplicity and the sake of argument) by looking out the window, but need at least one additional instrument, then you also need (the list of instruments and equipment in Part NCO). Why obscure this with a reference to visual horizon? This will, IMHO, be misleading to the wordings in the regulation.
Just stop.
