Where to find EASA (or UK post-brexit) regs?

I think EuroGA is great (but I would say that, wouldn’t I ) because they give you pointers to what to look for, as well as where to look.

A lot of the time it isn’t obvious which reg is applicable.

It’s like the old joke about ISO standards: they are great because there are so many to choose from

Actually there is a huge amount of accumulated expertise here. 100x more than in any flying school clubhouse I have ever seen.

And if you get an IR then your “need to know” shrinks massively. But VFR is easy enough too.

Peter wrote:

But VFR is easy enough too.

I’ve already seen quite a few people raising concerns about VFR in Europe here on EuroGA (which makes me feel one of the group ) so there is obviously a problem. However I start believing it is not the rules per se but the way they are available, presented and taught.

Aviathor wrote:

You do need to take what you learn on forums, or in the club house for that matter, even from people that are generally considered as knowledgeable, with a grain of salt and nothing beats backing it up with first hand knowledge of the regulations.

That is the difficult part, and a real problem. The more inaccessible the regulations are, fewer people will bother to look them up. It is rather obvious that the basic structure is made by lawyers for lawyers (and bureaucrats). It is as if they have completely ignored that the regulations are first and foremost for the pilots. They don’t even have proper names or any obvious structured numbering. The content itself is OK, and is getting better.

20 years ago every club house had a copy of the regulations. A hard copy with lose pages that where updated on a regular basis. Things were structured, orderly and they had proper names with meaning, the numbering were logically created, not like it is today with “SERA” “part NCO” and cryptic numbering, 800/2008 for instance which also is how documents are named. I mean, how many non english native speakers can remember what SERA stands for (for more than a minute at a time)? How many native english speakers can do the same? not to speak of 800/2008. The Norwegian CAA has tried it’s best to keep the old naming and numbering also for EASA regs, so there is some order and system on line, but it is a complete mess compared with how it was, with links to PDFs and it’s practically impossible to keep this in updated hard copies.

I don’t think it will become better in a long time. Each country will try to fit these regulations into their old system, order and naming schemes. This is only natural because the regulations themselves lack logic structure. I very seldom look at EASA regs on EASA web pages, I use the pages at the Nowegian CAA. If I for some reason have to find english versions or the “source”, then I just google it up.

Peter wrote:

Actually there is a huge amount of accumulated expertise here. 100x more than in any flying school clubhouse I have ever seen.

EuroGA is way better than most forums. What I meant is that no matter what you “hear”, you need to have a critical mind and not accept everything you “hear” as a reality.

Vladimir wrote:

I’ve already seen quite a few people raising concerns about VFR in Europe here on EuroGA (which makes me feel one of the group ) so there is obviously a problem. However I start believing it is not the rules per se but the way they are available, presented and taught.

I do not see it that way. There are no “concerns” about VFR in Europe. It is just that long distance VFR requires some more planning than IFR, particularly due to P- and R- areas that may or may not be active at the time of your flight. Especially when the weather is marginal and you need to consider your ability to avoid those areas in case you cannot fly over them because of the cloud base. Then you have those airports where you need to strictly adhere to a specific track in the pattern, avoid overflying R-/P- areas or towns in close vicinity of the airport to avoid getting fined. In my immediate surrounding this concerns LFPT and LFPN, the latter being particularly intimidating since it has a nuclear plant right next to it as well as Paris CTR/TMA and very hostile neighbours.

Some of us that fly IFR may be giving the wrong impression. Maybe some of us grumpy old men should be less vocal about the difficulties of VFR. I mean, I did fly VFR before I got my IR and never really complained about it. Every long-distance flight was an adventure that required hours (!) of preparation, but that used to be part of the fun . I do not want to become one of the grandfatherly figures complaining about how things used to be so much better and easier in the good ol’ days.

Also now, with all the tools at our disposal, VFR should be easier than ever as long as you have an iPad with charged battery.

So go out and fly, and enjoy it!

Aviathor wrote:

VFR should be easier than ever as long as you have an iPad with charged battery

It is piece of cake in my opinion. But there is also the “no brain no headache” principle. Those apps gives you loads of information you do not need, and lots of it may be wrong or outdated and you can never know for sure. Air space infringement wasn’t a crime either.

Aviathor wrote:

I do not see it that way.

I’ve now followed several threads on the topic and I see three types of people:

• Those who think the information is not (easily) available and/or they do not know exactly how to get it. These are probably people with less experience in flying VFR in Europe.
• Those who consider weather to be the main issue. These are probably people who want to make longer flights and trips but have more experience in general.
• Those who say everything is easy. These are probably people with experience and good enough planes to fly IFR and maybe even in worse weather.

One thing that is always on my mind is that bad visibility, a front, wind or hail are the same everywhere. You encounter them less or more often at different locations but you still know what (not) to do when weather is good or bad, even if you only flew in your country. That’s why I think the considerations of the second group are valid but not for flights in a foreign country – they are valid for all flights. While the considerations of the first group are especially about foreign countries and inconsistency in regulations and organization.

WRT EASA regs, I ended up printing about 1000 pages before a long holidays in March/April just to read it all at least once (at least all that concerned me). Of course i did not need to read it all but the cross referencing is very annoying and the fact that once you’ve read it you can also be impacted by GMs and AMCs made it kind of necessary.

Then I realised that some of it was still not applicable which makes the cross referenceing even more annoying (PART-FCL referencing part NCO I think while the latter is actually not in force yet…)

I hope this will calm down at some point, once the more GA friendly regs are all out, but I fear it won’t…

As for flyinf abroad VFR I think getting the maps and read the AIP is the real cuplrit.
Now the map is much easier thanks to the apps. but the AIP reading is till a burden

There are specific rules in the UK and Italy for example for VFR and reading the AIP is a nightmare because they are huge and not always organised in the same way although the structure is supposed to be harmonised…

I find searching for what I’m after in EASA regulations incredibly difficult, even if I know exactly what document I’m looking for. You end up with a poorly designed webpage, with 6 to 8 clickable links, some of which will be NPAs or CRDs, some of which will be older versions of what you are after, and one of them will be the actual document you’re after (a crappy PDF with no links in it, in the horrible 2 column format,) and if you don’t save a local copy you’ll never find it again.

Part NCO/NCC seems to be the hardest to find in my experience, and I now have local copies of most of the rest to avoid having to use the website too much, but that is taking a punt that they don’t change them and you end up with an out of date set of regs!

Josh wrote:

Part NCO/NCC seems to be the hardest to find in my experience

• Visit EASA main website.
• Select “Regulations”.
• Scroll down to the “Air operations” section.
• Click on the heading “Air operations” to open the list of regulations.
• Now you have a list of the original regulation and the amendments. Below the list of regulations there are no less than two links to consolidated versions with all the amendments included (one version made by EASA, one by Eur-lex).
• By clicking on the NCO panel further down, you get links to the AMC and GM.

I actually find this pretty straightforward…