An NCC exemption for privately operated twin turboprops below 5700kg is not new. It was already in the 2012 air ops regulations.
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”.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
- Would we have differences training for hybrid cars? Or for front / rear-wheel drive?
In many countries, you won’t be allowed to drive a car with a manual transmission if you passed your driving test on an automatic.
- Would we have a rating for driving vans with more than six seats?
For more than 9 seats, you need category D.
- Would we have different licences for left-hand and right-hand driven cars?
Some countries don’t recognise foreign licenses from countries driving on the other side.
- Would we insist that everybody logs every trip they make, even if they do not need to prove driving time to anyone?
Exactly so for heavy lorries and buses, except that logging is automatic by the tachograph. Failing to log your driving time incurs a huge fine.
- Would we all need medicals to drive?
We do need them in most countries of the world.
- Would we all be forced to pass 12 exams, including subjects such as road construction (with special attention to types of tarmac), the history of the traffic police, and the exact contents required of the medical kit on board?
Not exactly so, but a few decades ago in some countries one had to pass an exam in vehicle systems and maintenance, and even nowadays in some countries the driver is responsible for maintaining the medical kit in accordance with the regulations and replacing the items with expired calendar.
- Would we be required to re-take the driving test if we do not drive for two years?
- Would we be required to re-take the driving test every year if we drive a car with more than 200HP?
Commercial drivers in some countries have to renew their licenses at regular intervals by attending refresher classes.
From the latest IAOPA newsletter:
Interesting… I wonder what the thinking behind this was. It could be good or bad news.
