NCO_JUILLET_2016_EQUIPEMENT_V1_P1_pdf
I hope I have managed to upload the correct pdf.
If I have you will see that the French instructors say 2 × 8.33 radios are necessary for IFR.
The DA40D POH lists 2 radios required for IFR.
A_As letter from EASA however, says that one 8.33 radio is sufficient.
In trawling through French legislation to see if this is a French difference from EASA or a supplementary to it, I have yet to find a definitive answer, although there are several mentions of the need to constanlty monitor 121.5 outside of the procedures associated to take off and landing.
In fact for the IR you tend to be taught here to use radio 1 for nearly all 2 way communication and tune radio 2 tuned to 121.5 and for listening to ATIS.
It’s why if an examiner at a revalidation asks me “how many VHF radios make up the MEL for IFR flight?” I answer 2 rather than to get into an argument.
An interesting angle is if Diamond have 2×8.33 on their TC for IFR, then you are stuffed and need two of them. Same old problem with other Diamond issues… the TC holder has control.
That funnily patronising (reminded me of this) PDF is from 2016 which is a long time ago in terms of both regs and how many people, especially those of, shall we say in cheese terms, more “mature” condition 
and who are not likely to be reading EuroGA
I hope I have managed to upload the correct pdf
Thanks, looks like I always needed the second 8.33khz radio for IFR in France
Puzzled why 2×8.33khz are not required for NVFR/NIFR? I failed to switch PCL on takeoff with auto-info because of this (I was using 25khz setting in COM2 and on GNS530W by mistake as COM1 supports both 8.33 & 25, the PCL did not like 25khz but it seems to work fine with 8.33kz)
gallois wrote:
If I have you will see that the French instructors say 2 × 8.33 radios are necessary for IFR.
That may be what the instructors say, but that doesn’t mean it’s the law. The DGAC also has no right to impose a 2 radio requirement. (See below.)
The DA40D POH lists 2 radios required for IFR.
That’s a different matter. If the limitations section of the POH says so, that’s what you need to have.
A_As letter from EASA however, says that one 8.33 radio is sufficient.
In trawling through French legislation to see if this is a French difference from EASA or a supplementary to it, I have yet to find a definitive answer, although there are several mentions of the need to constanlty monitor 121.5 outside of the procedures associated to take off and landing.
Again, neither France nor any other country can have laws or regulations that “differ” or “supplement” EU regulations (unless the regulation itself allow it). Another thing is that some do anyway. The only way to do something about that is complaining to EASA (which actually can make a difference) or through the court system all the way to the ECJ, which is no fun.
Ibra wrote:
the PCL did not like 25khz but it seems to work fine with 8.33kz)
Was your COM2 a 25 kHz-only radio? In that case it suggests that the frequency is off. (It may still be within limits for 25 kHz separation.)
Yes COM2 is 25khz only
gallois wrote:
Basically, once you have filed a flight plan and opened it with an ATS (an examiner confirmed at my latest revalidation that you could do this by telephone with any local(?) ATC) it constitutes an implicit clearance for the flight plan even if one takes off from 1 FIR and to land in another at the other side of the country.
“Opening” a flight plan is a colloquial term that leads to many misunderstandings because it has no clear legal definitions and therefore no clear legal consequences. Legally you can not “open” a flight plan in Europe. What you can do is to ask for a clearance that references to a certain flight plan.
And yes: If you have a clearance you can fly according to your clearance and do not need to worry about “ATC internals” like sector or FIR boundaries, etc. If you get a “Clear to destination, flight planned route” you can fly exactly that. The challenge only comes up, if you get a clearance limit (at some FIR boundary) and not follow on clearance in time so that you are stuck in the hold over the clearance limit.
Malibuflyer wrote:- “Opening” a flight plan is a colloquial term that leads to many misunderstandings because it has no clear legal definitions and therefore no clear legal consequences. Legally you can not “open” a flight plan in Europe. What you can do is to ask for a clearance that references to a certain flight plan.”
I accept that, I chose what I thought was nearest English phrase to what I was trying to say.
Here we ask for “mise en route”, which basically puts you in the system so to speak and everything after that happens automatically.
The phrases cleared and cleared to are often not used because once you have made communication you tend to have, without anybody saying it, clearance for your flight plan as filed from beginning to end. Of course changes can and are made in flight but OCAS and CAS are ignored as concepts. You might be told you are OCAS but all that means is that you are free to do what you want (again so to speak) but you still have a FPL and ETAs to adhere to unless you inform ATS that you are for instance running late.
I guess what I am trying to say is once you’ve got your “mise enroute approved/authorized” ATS will guide you along your FPL, no need for further clearances until you get to the other end when you will be " authorized or approved " for the approach and then cleared to land (authorized).
In between, unless they ask you to deviate for eg traffic or you ask them to deviate for eg weather, your only other communications with ATS are on change of frequencies.
Sometimes things are simpler if you are a foreign pilot, I guess.
Even in France, I would not fly in airspace where I need a clearance to do so without having heard the phrase “cleared to…”. Might be that under local pilots and ATC it is not common to use these words, but a foreign pilot I can impossibly know the local habits of all the countries I’m flying in.
Therefore if ATC does not use the words “clear to…” I’d actively ask “confirm cleared to …”
Imagine someone shrugging their shoulders as they answer “well yes of course, you are cleared as planned.”🙂
