Martin wrote:
From where do you have this 2017 deadline?
From the NLF and LT. They (LT) had a questionnaire a couple of months ago, to get better data of the cost effect on owners of private aircraft. I don’t think the reason for exemptions that you put up is relevant. Each country can do whatever they want, as long as it has “limited impact on the network” according to the “Eurocontrol Network Manager”. But all suggested exemptions must be in before January 1 2017.
Sure. The LAA can only make exceptions for UK airspace. For aircraft on a permit, every state can make their own conditions for letting them in.
We have had many past threads here including one with data on the selectivity of some common radios (KX165A and GNS430, IIRC) and I very much doubt that transmitting with a 1990s or later 25kHz radio will cause any problem anywhere whatsoever.
The issue is that a 25kHz radio has less receiver selectivity and when tuned to say 125.000 could pick up a transmission made on 125.008333. But it would be unlikely and any interference would be there only while the 125.008333 emission is actually taking place.
The rest of the argument concerns carrier frequency tolerance (e.g. if the marginal-spec 25kHz radio is actually tuned to 125.003 instead of the selected 125.000, it would be much more likely to pick up a 125.008333 transmission) but frequency tolerance is normally very good these days because accurate and stable TXCOs (temp compensated crystal oscillators) are cheap and have been for decades.
The problem could be the 40 year old radios which some UK GA is still using… like this fine museum piece
I know a radio repair shop which is constantly fixing the above type, because the clients say they cannot afford to replace it. A lot of GA runs right on the financial cliff, with zero capital budget and just enough running cost budget to pay for stuff when it breaks. Especially disfunctional syndicates where they can’t agree on upgrades but do pay up for breaks otherwise nobody can fly.
AeroPlus wrote:
How about such LAA Permit aircraft flying from the UK to The Netherlands?
CAA-NL required an ELT for all international flights, so also for foreigners flying into the Netherlands. Now they changed this to all flights, so also for local flights within the Netherlands you need an ELT. In doesn’t matter where the aircraft is registered. See the AIC-B pointed out earlier.
I have one box 8.33 and a second box 25 Hz
I do carry a PLB but no ELT.
I have an AOPA membership. Should I get into trouble with equipment that is regarded OK in one country and not OK in another country based on the same legislation I trust someone with regular meetings and contact with EASA must be able to find someone there capable of sorting it out.
AIC-B seems to be in conflict with Part-NCO.
NCO.IDE.A.170 Emergency locator transmitter (ELT)
(a) Aeroplanes shall be equipped with:
(1) an ELT of any type, when first issued with an individual CofA on or before 1 July 2008;
(2) an automatic ELT, when first issued with an individual CofA after 1 July 2008; or
(3) a survival ELT (ELT(S)) or a personal locator beacon (PLB), carried by a crew member or a passenger, when certified for a maximum passenger seating configuration of six or less.
(b) ELTs of any type and PLBs shall be capable of transmitting simultaneously on 121,5 MHz and 406 MHz.
A; B; or C is intended to be read as A or B or C.
The current Dutch law seems to differ from Part-NCO and is more restrictive. Can that be possible? Are they able to be more restrictive than Part-NCO or file a difference to EASA NCO.IDE.A.170? My opinion is that a state can file a difference from ICAO SARPs. It cannot “file a difference” from an EU regulations.
Peter wrote:
The problem could be the 40 year old radios which some UK GA is still using… like this fine museum piece
I know a radio repair shop which is constantly fixing the above type, because the clients say they cannot afford to replace it. A lot of GA runs right on the financial cliff, with zero capital budget and just enough running cost budget to pay for stuff when it breaks. Especially disfunctional syndicates where they can’t agree on upgrades but do pay up for breaks otherwise nobody can fly.
I have several of these. Anybody interested? Free to a good home.
AeroPlus wrote:
The current Dutch law seems to differ from Part-NCO and is more restrictive. Can that be possible? Are they able to be more restrictive than Part-NCO or file a difference to EASA NCO.IDE.A.170? My opinion is that a state can file a difference from ICAO SARPs. It cannot “file a difference” from an EU regulations.
This is the tricky bit. I am with you and IMHO what they trying to do is not possible, though ramp inspectors seem to follow CAA-NL. Again one should do what they think is right.
One other tricky bit is that Part NCO is from EASA regulations. The aircraft your did refer to are ANNEX II and thus not under EASA control. It could be that AIC-B is valid for them because of that.
pmh wrote:
I have an AOPA membership. Should I get into trouble with equipment that is regarded OK in one country and not OK in another country based on the same legislation I trust someone with regular meetings and contact with EASA must be able to find someone there capable of sorting it out.
It is a shame that this didn’t happen before. On the other hand I don’t know of anyone who actually got a fine. Most just co-operated with CAA and got away with a warning. Which is a way a bad situation, as it doesn’t become clear which regulation is correct for both dual 8,33 kHz and ELT.
At what point will the ground stations be switching from their 25 kHz to the equivalent 8.33 kHz frequency? Will that happen right at that deadline, or take years?
Cobalt wrote:
At what point will the ground stations be switching from their 25 kHz to the equivalent 8.33 kHz frequency? Will that happen right at that deadline, or take years?Again it depends. NL seems to be pushing along quite nicely already now, while some other countries or regions are dragging their feet as much as they can.
