Sorry, I meant the use of flight path in other parts of Air Operations regulations, not only Part NCO. Often it is used in connection with take off and landing.
For instance in CAT.POL.A.210 this can be found:
For cases where the intended flight path does not require track changes of more than 15°-
So it is rather clear that EASA does not consider flight path to be one single track, but a series of tracks connected together.
LeSving wrote:
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.
Actually the industry uses the term in the way it is described here: the trajectory of a flying object. You mistake controlling the actual trajectory for the generation and following of a reference trajectory (THAT would be navigation). The last part can indeed be outsourced, even in IMC in a form of ground-based determination of desired vecotrs. Still, you need to be able to control the flight path according to the given vectors. It is that easy and if you don’t intend to misread, I think it is very clear. To most of the pilots / eingineers here, anyway.
Martin wrote:
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
Presumably in Swiss and Norwegian law it doesn’t say “European Union” but something such as “EEA” or “European Union and Switzerland”. The UK ANO quite clearly simply says “European Union”. The moment that the UK is no longer part of the European Union, owners of N-reg planes in the UK only need an FAA ticket – unless the ANO is changed to say something else that also includes the UK. And indeed, if a Manx or Jersey based pilot only requires an FAA ticket for N-reg, because a Manx or Jersey resident does not live in the European Union.
Martin wrote:
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.
Ironically you’ve just demonstrated just how wooly it is by giving several different definitions of what “Community” could mean! To have any force in law it’s got to be defined in a non-wooly and in a specific manner (e.g. if you look in the ANO there are definitions for various words whose meaning would be ambiguous, for example, the ANO defines what “operator” means). Otherwise I could just pick the one I liked the most (or the regulator could pick the one that screwed you the most, and only tell you which it picked when you arrive in court, which I don’t think is acceptable). On the other hand the term “European Union” has a very definite meaning and doesn’t really need any introduction in the ANO.
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘flight path,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘the stuff you measure with a 6-pack’ ”
“But ‘flight path’ doesn’t mean ’’the stuff you measure with a 6-pack,” Alice objected.
“When I use a phrase,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
(with apologies to Lewis Carroll)
Contra proferentem is a principle of contract law. It’s not a principle of interpretation of criminal laws and codes.
I believe you might know this guy @bookworm
Criminal law also has to work as I described – at least in the UK (possibly not in some countries which regularly pop up here). What happens is that if there is a grey area, the court is likely to let off somebody being prosecuted. The prosecuting body then either likes it, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t like it, it can get the law changed, or it can try to get the law clarified in its favour by filing an appeal to a higher court.
LeSving wrote:
For instance in CAT.POL.A.210 this can be found:
For cases where the intended flight path does not require track changes of more than 15° -
So it is rather clear that EASA does not consider flight path to be one single track, but a series of tracks connected together.
You’re being rather selective:
Part-DEF
‘take-off flight path’ means the vertical and horizontal path, with the critical engine inoperative, from a specified point in the take-off for aeroplanes to 1 500 ft above the surface and for helicopters to 1 000 ft above the surface
The rules that use ‘flight path’ tend to be about the tactical aspects of the trajectory.
CAT.OP.MPA.110
(5) the equipment available on the aircraft for the purpose of navigation and/or control of the flight path during the take-off, the approach, the flare, the landing, rollout and the missed approach;
makes it clear that ‘navigation’ is considered distinct from ‘control of the flight path’.
bookworm wrote:
makes it clear that ‘navigation’ is considered distinct from ‘control of the flight path’.
Yes, I saw that too. It doesn’t make things any clearer though as nothing of this is defined. Anyway, the distinction is made between navigation and controlling the flight path during special segments of flight (landing in this case). Landing doesn’t have to include navigation.
I think this is done to death now, LeSving.
mh wrote:
You mistake controlling the actual trajectory for the generation and following of a reference trajectory (THAT would be navigation).
Very well put!
Peter wrote:
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.
Yes, we have. And best for this would be to have your own strip without any neighbors nearby. And, as I believe was already written, big variable is how much effort are authorities willing to put in.
alioth wrote:
The UK ANO quite clearly simply says “European Union”.
Of course it does, you’re still in the EU. Point being who knows what it will say by the time you leave. If you intend to keep some of the EU law even after exit (like, you know, aviation related), it might need some tweaking. And it would have to be somehow introduced into your law because you wouldn’t be members anymore – without it, anything you didn’t put into national law (and you don’t have to do that with regulations) would just disappear overnight (well, that is just a supposition, I have no idea how this leaving the EU business works).
alioth wrote:
Ironically you’ve just demonstrated just how wooly it is by giving several different definitions of what “Community” could mean!
Different? For a large part, it’s the same community as it progressed in time (the name changed with subsequent treaties). Indeed, the Community from 1980 and the Community from 2000 are not identical. There is only one community remaining of the old communities, that is EURATOM. And each governed different area so it should be quite clear which one is talked about (e.g. atomic energy is EURATOM, customs union was EEC, coal production was ECSC). And back then, they all had the same six members. Do you really think an aviation regulation is referring to EURATOM? I believe what is the Community today should be in the Treaty of Lisbon.
In the current climate, it might be interesting to note that there was a treaty establishing European Defense Community back in the fifties creating a multinational military force (part of the plan was to rearm Germans without giving control to their government). The French failed to ratify it.
alioth wrote:
Otherwise I could just pick the one I liked the most (or the regulator could pick the one that screwed you the most, and only tell you which it picked when you arrive in court, which I don’t think is acceptable).
But the regulator doesn’t have a choice in this. They chose the wording, judge does the interpretation (so neither do you; it’s of no use to kid yourself). The regulation does define who an operator is, but the definition is quite useless. So good for you, that definition seems reasonable on a first look (I might have to think it through when it comes to using a management company).
It’s not really a problem here. The same concept exists with cars and our aircraft registry AFAIK has both the owner and the operator of an aircraft, just like vehicle registry. But it’s a problem with countries where registry doesn’t contain any mention of an operator (like US registry, but these days AFAIK FAA collects that data and knows the operators). Yes, it would be nice if they used a definition that can confirm which interpretation is correct. But I think it’s easy to infer it from who needs AOC.
alioth wrote:
On the other hand the term “European Union” has a very definite meaning and doesn’t really need any introduction in the ANO.
Because you are used to it.
