Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Part-NCO summarized

Of course, “flight path” is a term known to the industry. But the industry makes the important distinction between following a given flight path and determining what that flight path should be.

mh
Aufwind GmbH
EKPB, Germany

LeSving wrote:

There is a whole industry working with flight path monitoring and flight path optimization.

…and that includes the vertical path – not only ground track.

flight path
n
(Aeronautics) the course through the air of an aircraft, rocket, or projectile. Compare approach10, glidepath
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

LFPT, LFPN

Airborne_Again wrote:

The top of the cloud deck is not a reliable horizon — it could very well be slanted!

It gets dangerous only if you can’t recognize you’re turning and stop it. This is something that can happen and I do believe in being prepared. But it’s one thing to have, say, a single gyro instrument to have a way out if you inadvertently wander into such conditions and planning to fly in such conditions and having to install the whole kit. Usually, people are more worried about being trapped above a cloud layer and having to descend through it without a gyro than about losing control while above it.

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.

And I interpret it as meaning anything additional. Additional to what? To that already required. And that is covered in the previous point. What is the relationship with 195? Let’s say I can’t navigate visually so I have a GNSS and the box tells me bearing and distance to the next waypoint. I apply wind correction which gives me heading I intend to fly (this becomes the desired flight path). As long as I can manage it using instruments from 120(a), all is fine.

alioth wrote:

The UK may not even be in the EEA.

That doesn’t matter. If you want to adopt EU law, there has to be a mechanism to adapt it so it makes sense since it was written for the EU. Hence it makes no sense to argue that you won’t be part of the Community anymore. IIRC, Switzerland used to be member of the EEA but left long time ago (in the nineties), they have these regulations under some other agreement and they have to be somehow adapted as well. That specific case was discussed here I believe.

mh wrote:

Of course, “flight path” is a term known to the industry. But the industry makes the important distinction between following a given flight path and determining what that flight path should be.

Exactly. To follow a flight path you need you need visual clues, or if you have none, use some kind of instruments. You have to know where to point your nose – and – actually point your nose in the right direction by maneuvering the controls. When you know where to point your nose, then you can use 120 b, c to make sure the nose the nose stay in that direction, with the right speed and alt and upright (even without visual clues about orientation, wing leveling etc). You need a reference (visual clues or instrument) and you need instruments that enables you to follow the reference with wanted accuracy, alt and speed.

Cambridge dictionary

flight path
noun [ C ] UK ​ /ˈflaɪt ˌpɑːθ/ US ​ /ˈflaɪt ˌpæθ/

a route followed by an aircraft

It boggles me why you are so determined to prove me wrong without actually delivering any proves at all. I think it’s best to wait until Bookworm comes back after he has investigated this in detail.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Aviathor wrote:

and that includes the vertical path – not only ground track.

Ground track is not a flight path according to the definition, but merely a projection of the flight path on the ground.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

What happened to the thread title “Part-NCO summarized”?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Martin wrote:

alioth wrote:
The UK may not even be in the EEA.

That doesn’t matter. If you want to adopt EU law, there has to be a mechanism to adapt it so it makes sense since it was written for the EU. Hence it makes no sense to argue that you won’t be part of the Community anymore.

Actually, it does matter, the most recent UK ANO which just came out says this about flight crew licensing (the “Screw N reg” regulation):

(2) This paragraph applies if the operator of the aircraft is neither resident nor established in the European Union, and the person acting as a member of the flight crew is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or the State of the operator.
( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/article/149/made )

It doesn’t say “community”, “EEA” or anything else. Once Brexit has taken place, the UK will no longer be part of the European Union, so if you have an N-reg TB-20 and live in the UK, you will only need an FAA license to fly it. If the CAA ramped someone in an N-reg, and found they lived in the UK but had only FAA papers and they attempted to prosecute they would lose because the ANO quite clearly and very specifically says “European Union” and not something wooly like “community”. The judge would throw the case out in minutes. (In any case, the CAA is not antagonistic to 3rd country licenses, the following section reaffirms that 3rd country license holders may still fly nationally regulated (e.g. Annex II permit) aircraft on a 3rd country ICAO license for as long as they like for non-commerical purposes. So I doubt the CAA would even try after Brexit.

Last Edited by alioth at 01 Sep 11:13
Andreas IOM

Well found, Alioth!

That puts to bed all the opinions that “community” in this context would include a post-Brexit UK.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

alioth wrote:

It doesn’t say “community”, “EEA” or anything else

The point is, if you want to adopt a set of law, such obscure items as “the community” etc has to be defined in the local law for each particular law. It requires a law to adopt a law, and in the local law, such things has to be defined, or the law wouldn’t make any sense. Therefore, arguing what “community” means, is very much theoretical before the local law is in place. The EU regulations means nothing and anything without the local law.

Edit: Where exactly is the “Screw N-reg” within EASA laws? This could be important. If it’s not within FCL, NCO or SERA, there is no problem in any case, not for a private light aircraft at least.

Last Edited by LeSving at 01 Sep 13:53
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

Where exactly is the “Screw N-reg”

It is actually not so much “screw N-reg” as “screw FAA certificate holders that reside in the community”. Look at the Basic regulation AND Part-FCL

LFPT, LFPN
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top