Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Part-NCO and its changes in your country?

Now that Part-NCO has been implemented in most (or all) member states it would be interesting to know the effect it has had.
Has Part-NCO taken care of any previous issues in your country that you know of?

For Sweden I would say the following:

  1. Instrument approaches no longer restricted to open “instrument airports”.
  2. Aircraft documents can be kept on board as copies or in digital versions.
  3. Simplifies weather minima.
  4. Simplifies performance requirements for take off and landing.
Sweden, Sweden

5. Removes imposing “demonstrated crosswind component” as a limit

Biggin Hill

Autopilot/DME/ADF/Dual Altimeters/Slaved Gyro/and much more not required anymore for single pilot IFR and the whole IFR certification got removed. That is a very good change that will promote IFR flying. After all I did my IR in the USA and never flew with an autopilot/slaved gyro IFR. I understand that’s all very good for safety, but when I was really current I felt very safe going to minimums without autopilot etc. Part-NCO gives me the responsibility to think about those risks and manage them as I learnt it. Also ELT was required and PLB forbidden, now we can fly cheaper and remove an antenna for a knot more. :-) And I heard the ELT antenna is about the first thing that breaks in an actual crash. So, the change to PLB is great too. Then PBN approvals are not required anymore, less paperwork. IFR approaches and departures without IAPs are legal now (however it will take time until anybody but euroga knows about it). We don’t have procedures like Clearances by phone etc., and I’m afraid it will take time to implement something as simple and useful like that…

It’s interesting, on the Flyer forum most people are complaining, because NCO makes flying more complicated for them (journey log, PLB, etc.). However in my country almost all changes are alleviations. The worst rule I can think of is the First Aid Kit ;-) For us the changes through NCO are very good.

Last Edited by ArcticChiller at 28 Aug 09:36

I think most communities which fly only locally will complain, because these changes highlight requirements which, while they may have existed, nobody bothered much about them.

This is a very good thread!

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Instrument approaches no longer restricted to open “instrument airports".

Where is this written in Part-NCO?

Simplifies weather minima

I think you are confusing Part-NCO and SERA, no?

Removes imposing “demonstrated crosswind component” as a limit

Where was this written and where does Part-NCO remove that?

Last Edited by boscomantico at 28 Aug 11:10
Mainz (EDFZ), Germany

Well, since Part-NCO replaced the old national rules this will be very different among the member states.
In Sweden we had something called “flightplanning weather minima” which a little bit different from the operational ones. This regulatory document has now been replaced with Part-NCO and since it does not contain anything similar we just have to look at Part-SERA to get VFR minimas. Same goes for instrument approaches, the very same document stated that to commence an approach it had to be an OPEN instrument airport, either TWR or AFIS. (Swedish Transport Agency LFS 2007:58)

I think more or less the same goes for the crosswind component, if I am not mistaken it stated clearly in our rule that the demonstrated CWC shall not be exceeded during take off or landing.

Hence the question regarding different member states since it can vary a lot between countries.

Last Edited by Fly310 at 28 Aug 12:18
Sweden, Sweden

I think a lot still remains to be discovered/interpreted. The equipment requirement bit has been partly acknowledge by our authority, but some obscure national rules have not been cancelled, although they have been effectively overruled.
The instrument OPS-rules are somewhat puzzling. The 550 m minimum RVR is nowhere to be found, nor are any numbers for take-off minima. RVR/VIS requirements for planning and initiating approaches are now just “Guidance”.
Even the AMC’s in all of Part-NCO can be regarded lightly (legally, perhaps not operationally), since NCO.GEN.101 states that any operator (i.e. pilot) can make his own Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMoC) without having to prove equal level of safety or anything. This is unlike other EASA regs, where every AMC that I know of should be obeyed unless there is an authorised AltMoC to replace it.

EKRK, Denmark

huv wrote:

since NCO.GEN.101 states that any operator (i.e. pilot) can make his own Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMoC) without having to prove equal level of safety or anything.

Is that really what the following means?

NCO.GEN.101 Means of compliance
Alternative means of compliance to those adopted by the Agency may be used by an operator to
establish compliance with Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 and its Implementing Rules.

Sweden, Sweden


Instrument approaches no longer restricted to open “instrument airports".

Where is this written in Part-NCO?

NCO.OP.115 gives the freedom of landing IFR without procedures, same goes for departures, if no official ones are availabble for the runway. The comparison of CAT/NCC/NCO rules is very interesting in that regard (thanks bookworm for the heads up on this one, NCO.OP.115/NCC.OP.115/CAT.OP.MPA.125). The history behind the rule is also telling that what we interpret is the intention of the rule, if you look at the original CRD to the NCO rules: CRD 2009-02b

The interesting bit of the CRD is this (IS (GA) = GA stakeholders, below the answer of EASA):

OPS.GEN.160 Departure and approach procedures

2. IS (GA): proportionality – re-align with ICAO Annex 6, Part II and exempt non-commercial operations from using only published, approved procedures.

2. The new proposed text is in compliance with Annex 6 Part II and adds further alleviations consistent with Annex 6 Part II.

That’s by the way exactly what I, too, was talking about in my first post above. I don’t think anybody at LBA etc. know about this. For the UK that’s no change, for all other memberstates that’s a huge benefit.

ArcticChiller wrote:

NCO.OP.115 gives the freedom of landing IFR without procedures

I have for a long time wondered what it means. Thanks for the info! I have also compared it to NCC and CAT and the difference is significant.

Sweden, Sweden
35 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top