Part-NCO and its changes in your country?

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

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.

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!

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?

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.

@Bosmantico

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.