I need to update that writeup with the recent developments, but the reference to the EASA FCL reg is in there.
It is really interesting that the UK has chosen to implement this in favour of based N-reg owners, while Norway and Switzerland have decided to screw theirs. Really interesting politics involved!
Well, Norway never allowed based N-regs anyway, according to reports, though I don’t know how (exactly) this was enforced. I heard some years ago that Norway had only 4 based N-regs anyway.
LeSving wrote:
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.
The EASA person I worked with on this is on leave for about a week. If I get any info on why the change from attitude to flight path was made, I’ll let you know.
I can’t find the same wording in 216/2008 as in your reference up there.
Anyway, This is what the EEA agreement say about 216/2008:
(a) Unless otherwise stipulated below, and notwithstanding the provisions of Protocol 1 to the
Agreement, the term ‘Member State(s)’ contained in the Regulation shall be understood to
include, in addition to its meaning in the Regulation, the EFTA States. Paragraph 11 of Protocol
1 shall apply.(b) As regards the EFTA States, the Agency shall, as and when appropriate, assist the EFTA
Surveillance Authority or the Standing Committee, as the case may be, in the performance of
their respective tasks. The Agency and the EFTA Surveillance Authority or the Standing
Committee, as the case may be, shall cooperate and exchange information as and when
appropriate.(c) Nothing in this Regulation shall be construed so as to transfer to the Agency authority to act on
behalf of the EFTA States under international agreements for other purposes than to assist in the
performance of their obligations pursuant to such agreements.
Followed by pages of amendments. If I understand that correctly, paragraph (c) would render such “screw N-reg” illegal according to the EEA agreement due to ICAO and other bi-lateral agreements ?
Peter wrote:
Well, Norway never allowed based N-regs anyway
No it’s illegal for longer than 6 months.
bookworm wrote:
The EASA person I worked with on this is on leave for about a week. If I get any info on why the change from attitude to flight path was made, I’ll let you know.
My guess is that because it is not only about attitude, but also about keeping a particular heading. (Which is not navigation, by the way.)
alioth wrote:
Actually, it does matter
Of course it doesn’t matter. As long as you want to adopt it. If you don’t want to adopt it, if you want it to have a different effect in your country than in EU MS, than that is a different matter. You can, of course, choose to forgo that part (not change the meaning or reword it so it includes UK) as long as any agreement you might have in the future allows it.
Of course, as I wrote, the regulation was written for the EU so it means the EU. However, this same rule (adapted a bit so it has meaning) AFAIK applies in Switzerland or Norway and those are not in the EU. But we, residents of the EU (and you’re still in the EU), don’t have to care in this case. IMHO it’s a dog’s breakfast.
The Community is not “wooly” but it has historic significance. Which you should know since UK has been there since the seventies (you were in EFTA before). Perhaps you’ve heard of European Community, European Economic Community or European Coal and Steel Community. You might also know that before European Commission was called European Commission, it was Commission of the European Communities. This happened in 2009. Not that long ago. The Basic Regulation (which is from 2008, before the Treaty of Lisbon was in force) where this all comes from references the Treaty establishing the European Community, you might know it as the Treaty of Rome.
Peter wrote:
That puts to bed all the opinions that “community” in this context would include a post-Brexit UK.
I’m not saying it would. I’m saying it could. And this is not the only way to assure it still has a meaning (i.e. it has the same effect). But it might be easier than trying to amend all the occurrences of “the Community” and it would be understood in that way (non-EU state as part of the Community) only in that particular document where they decided to do it. In either case, the original regulation would stay the same, it wouldn’t reflect any of that.
Aviathor wrote:
It is actually not so much “screw N-reg” as “screw FAA certificate holders that reside in the community”.
For me it’s “we want to control people and equipment within our borders.” Obviously they want to avoid genuine foreign visitors hence the residence business. And ICAO won’t object. Just as they won’t object to so called long term parking restrictions.
Airborne_Again wrote:
My guess is that because it is not only about attitude, but also about keeping a particular heading. (Which is not navigation, by the way.)
My guess as well. And there is also time. So you have time, speed, heading.
The problem, Martin, and I don’t want to go over all this all N-reg stuff over again (we have multiple other threads) is that long term parking regs are not enforceable.
For a start, a plane sitting in a hangar is totally immune from the reg. Especially if unairworthy 
which incidentally is/was one workaround for the 2004/05 proposals. Then, who keeps an eye on it? If it pops out of a hangar once a week, no Mode S, preferably no radio calls, and the owner doesn’t p1ss off anybody on the airfield (that can be tricky) nobody will care. That is exactly how large chunks of the “6 month limited” homebuilt community operate, for example, and obviously they know exactly how to do it, but you could do the same with 6 month limited N-regs, or whatever.
You just lose a lot of fun and utility value because you have to keep such a low profile, but that suits a lot of people just fine.
So the national regulatos skirt around this, using a necessarily vague law combined with FUD. Denmark used to fine that famous VAT lawyer with the N-ancient reg twin, a few hundred DK.
ICAO gives each contracting state the right to prevent its “nationals” (=citizens i.e. passport holders) from flying on foreign licenses within its airspace. Each state retains total sovereignity. Nobody would have signed the treaty otherwise.
IMHO the UK is taking the same view that it has taken for many decades i.e. allowed N-regs. In the last 15+ years (basically post-JAA, which in 1999 totally f-ed up the IFR options) there has been a big growth in the N-reg scene, driven by the FAA IR mainly. That is now very much slowing down, so the issue is under control and will probably decline naturally as those pilots get old etc. We had some resistance from the Dept for Transport (where the 2005 proposal originated, but it got killed the moment it reached a certain political level, like happened in France a year earlier) but the CAA never did anything to kill the N-reg community. The CAA here is largely pro-GA (some silly certification inspectors notwithstanding) and the N-reg community is hugely important because IFR pilots are the biggest spenders (i.e. GA airfield supporters) everywhere… in a scene where the UK aviation chat sites are filled with whining and whinging over a £20 landing fee, but are happy to need rubber boots to use the airfield toilet (Elstree, Popham, etc) because there is no money to clean the floor.
Just my opinion 
Airborne_Again wrote:
My guess is that because it is not only about attitude, but also about keeping a particular heading
Whatever it is, you have to stretch your imagination rather hard if flight path used in Part NCO (in this particular regulation) is only one segment of a flight path as used in the rest of the aviation industry, and other parts of Part NCO.
Another thing, this is VFR. VFR minima is 1500 m of visibility, clear of clouds and visibility to the ground, and in G,F exclusively. There is no shred of a visual horizon in this case. How is this supposed to add up with what is literally IFR equipment requirements? In these conditions you have to keep your eyes outside at all times.
EASA does all sorts of strange things. NVFR minima as defined in SERA for instance, making it impossible to fly NVFR in Norway. This has been sorted out eventually, and we have our own rules now. I guess the same will eventually happen to this one, as it is impossible to say with certainty what is meant.
The first mention of flight path is in NCO.IDE.A.100.
NCO.IDE.A.100 Instruments and equipment — general
(a) Instruments and equipment required by this Subpart shall be approved in accordance with the applicable airworthiness requirements if they are:
(1) used by the flight crew to control the flight path;
(2) used to comply with NCO.IDE.A.190; [COM]
(3) used to comply with NCO.IDE.A.195; [NAV] or
(4) installed in the aeroplane
I can definitely explain that occurrence of “flight path”, because I put it there. Without (1), one could use unapproved portable equipment to satisfy NCO.IDE.A.120 and 125. So I needed to distinguish between the instruments in NCO.IDE.A.120 and 125 and other required equipment like first aid kits and PLBs. I could not use the phrase “maintain in a desired attitude” because the DI, altimeter etc. are not used for that. So I borrowed the phrase “control the flight path” from Annex 6 Part II which says:
2.4.2.1 An aeroplane shall be equipped with instruments which will enable the flight crew to control the flight path of the aeroplane, carry out any required procedural manoeuvres and observe the operating limitations of the aeroplane in the expected operating conditions.
When I introduced the phrase “flight path” to the draft, I intended it to encompass the instruments in a standard 6-pack. I did not intend it to encompass navigation.
I cannot recall a discussion about changing NCO.IDE.A.120’s “cannot be maintained in a desired attitude” into “cannot be maintained in a desired flight path”, but can see how someone might have thought that it added consistency later. I’ve asked for more info from EASA.
