Martin wrote:
Well, if you fly above a solid layer of cloud and sky is clear above you, you shouldn’t have trouble controlling the aircraft (you should have nice horizon).
In this case I agree with LeSving. If you fly above a solid cloud cover you do not have a discernible horizon. The top of the cloud deck is not a reliable horizon — it could very well be slanted!
Martin wrote:
That’s certainly not the case. Norway isn’t in the EU, newer was and yet it’s considered part of the Community for the purposes of certain regulations. As was written before, regulations are written for EU MS. If some other state adopts it based on an agreement with the EU, nothing changes in the regulation itself. Which means some parts have to be amended or understood differently for it to make sense. I’m not a fan of this system, but that’s what we have, at least in EFTA/ EEA
The UK may not even be in the EEA. The Brexit referendum was largely fought over a single issue: immigration from the EU. Those who voted for Brexit won’t be satisfied with anything that retains the free movement of people from the EU to the UK – there will be riots if “we can’t keep European immigrants out”, unfortunately, so the UK is likely to be more like Canada than Norway in terms of relations with the EU.
Martin wrote:
How you get this I can’t fathom. Instead of interpreting it within 120, you somehow connect it to 195
Because it makes no sense to interpret it within 120 alone. Connecting it to 195 and it suddenly makes perfect sense. These regulations aren’t made as stand alone blocks. They all relate to each other, either explicitly or as in this case implicitly.
Those who voted for Brexit won’t be satisfied with anything that retains the free movement of people from the EU to the UK – there will be riots if “we can’t keep European immigrants out”, unfortunately, so the UK is likely to be more like Canada than Norway in terms of relations with the EU.
People voted out for a variety of reasons. Immigration was the biggest headline reason for sure.
It is way too early to tell which way things will pan out in adoption of EASA regs. IMHO the UK will adopt most of them and the CAA has said so, but they are likely to cherry pick a bit eg the IMCR will obviously stay now.
IMHO Norway and Switzerland are not good precedents because they did their negotiations from a much worse position, because the EU was vastly more politically powerful then. Say 7 years ago an EU official could stand up in a conference and tell everyone their only option is a large jar of Vaseline… Also eg Switzerland took a lot of pain because it was Europe’s central bank for tax evasion avoidance and banking secrecy was a huge issue to give up.
It is a different time now. Maybe better maybe not but definitely different.
Peter wrote:
People voted out for a variety of reasons. Immigration was the biggest headline reason for sure.
But you have to admit, it is a very peculiar situation. For Norway, the “4 freedoms” have definitely been good, and the vast majority agree on that (except farmers). What is not equally good is what is called “deficiency of democracy”. EASA is a prime example of of that. IMO Norway would be better of as a EU member, but the majority voted no (two times), and the EEA agreement was something the prime minister at that time, Gro, made in a coup like fashion to save the economic benefits by trading our democracy and independence. We can shut down the EEA at any time though, but it’s definitely a trade off. What I wonder about is what kind of trade off the UK is likely to make. In my head the answer to that is none.
LeSving wrote:
Because it makes no sense to interpret it within 120 alone. Connecting it to 195 and it suddenly makes perfect sense. These regulations aren’t made as stand alone blocks. They all relate to each other, either explicitly or as in this case implicitly.
Final attempt, this time the other way round.
120 – all equipment mentioned is about keeping the aircraft flying straight and level.
The rule says that if you can’t keep flying straight and level, you need more instruments that allow you to do so.
There is one interpretation: “flight path” —> “straight and level”. You interpret “flight path” —> “getting to the destination”. Given that none of the instruments actually help with navigation beyond DR, your interpretation makes less sense.
Compare that with
195 – the equipment mentioned is about flying where you want to go.
The rule says if you can’t get there by using ground references.
Flight path is a normal aviation term. There is a whole industry working with flight path monitoring and flight path optimization. A flight path may even include taxi from/to the runway. The normal definition is the route an aircraft takes to get from A to B, where A and B are airports. It may consist of lots of segments.
Cobalt wrote:
Given that none of the instruments actually help with navigation beyond DR, your interpretation makes less sense.
Read what it says, please. It says one or more additional instruments. It literally say, if you need one or more additional instruments to maintain the flight path, then you also need the equipment in 120 b and c (as you also need for NVFR). The logic of that is straight forward, and clean and easy to grasp. But the reference to additional instruments is rather obscure.
There is even an industry working with Space Shuttle flight paths…. do I need a Space Shuttle gyro?
Not really. It makes absolutely no sense for a rule to say “If your trousers don’t stay on on their own, you are required to have a hat, an umbrella, and a raincoat”.
Hence the instruments required are the clearest indication what maintaining the flight path means.
LeSving wrote:
The normal definition is the route an aircraft takes to get from A to B, where A and B are airports
Well clearly the “normal” definition doesn’t apply in a “VFR on top segment” context.
This horse is really really dead by now.
