Most of what you write clearly applies to commercial (bus / lorry) driving, not normal passenger cars. The only item relevant for private driving is about the auto/manual restriction (Cat B vs Cat B auto). Other than that, a driver with a Category B licence can drive any “normal” passenger car in any European country on any road and on any side of the road as long as it has 9 seats or less and weighs less than 3500 kg.
But I know that you are not seriously saying that private car driving is overregulated to the same silly level as private flying is…
Cobalt wrote:
But I know that you are not seriously saying that private car driving is overregulated to the same silly level as private flying is…
I would say that private car driving is seriously underregulated. Considering all bad habits you see all around you (and I’m not claiming I’m any better), a compulsory regular training session with an instructor would be a really good idea.
As someone who is subject to NCC, it is ridiculous for a single pilot, single aircraft “operation” to have to essentially create a variety of roles and to have various managers etc. The entire thing is a fiction and wastes time. Any concerns that there are over operating rules and procedures for larger or more complex aircraft could be dealt with in the rules without this AOC-lite construction.
If the concern was people essentially operating chaerter AOCs without being so regulated, go after them.
This push from iAOPA is a very good idea. And I don’t normally have much positive to say about AOPA outside the US.
Peter wrote:
With the definition of the ‘Complex Aircraft’ also deleted from the Basic Regulation
That depends on what you mean by “deleted”. The definition is still there — otherwise how would you know when to apply part-NCC? But it has been moved to a different article called “Transitional provisions”. Presumably this means that all references to “Complex Aircraft” will eventually be removed from the Implementing Rules, including the Air Ops regulation. Then what will happen instead?
It’s the same thing with “commercial operations”. The Basic Regulation itself now only talks about “commercial air transport” meaning “an aircraft operation to transport passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or other valuable consideration”. So the concept of “commercial operations” will presumably be removed from the Implementing Rules. Again, what will happen with the cases where non-CAT commercial ops and non-commercial ops are distinguished today?
Light twin turboprops are now non-complex
Just an interesting piece of news that I haven’t seen mentioned on our forum lately: with the new changes to EASA regulations coming into effect this year, sub-5700 kg single-pilot twin turboprops are becoming non-complex aeroplanes and thus subject to Part-NCO instead of Part-NCC in non-commercial operations. In particular, if owned and operated privately, they no longer require a Part 145 maintenance organisation and can legally be maintained by a sole Part 66 engineer. The types affected include Twin Otter, Mitsubishi MU-2, King Air (the non-Super models), Cessna 441, etc.
Post moved to existing thread.
Yes indeed; this threat has been hanging over twin TP operators for a good number of years. The general view, blatently obvious really, was that originally EASA did this to block Beech (King Air) from the European market, while allowing the TBM, and when Switzerland joined EASA, the PC12 
Later they had to change this because of some upcoming twin TP projects in Europe.
You still have this over 5700kg so e.g. a King Air 350 is “EASA complex”.
An NCC exemption for privately operated twin turboprops below 5700kg is not new. It was already in the 2012 air ops regulations.
