Guys.
I’m a bit concerned about all the incorrect information that is spread here by more than one person. When we are talking about equipment for “minimalistic IFR”, we need to distinguish very carefully between two things:
We can have different opinions about the second item, but for the first one there is no discussion as long as we are talking about EASA aircraft in EASA-land. It is all in part-NCO. National legislation or national AIPs that say something else don’t have legal force.
Please read my article here, where I cover the regulations in detail.
Wow, this topic touches nerves. That was never my intention.
I am actually looking for the minimum needed IFR equipment by regulations for a D-reg Cherokee which is normally only flown VFR; not what is generally considered safe or wise as I know that quite well after years of GA IFR flying, following this site and reading Peter’s articles.
In PART NCO I find:
QuoteAeroplanes operated under IFR shall be equipped with:
(a) a means of measuring and displaying the following:
(1) magnetic heading;
(2) time in hours, minutes and seconds;
(3) barometric altitude;
(4) indicated airspeed;
(5) vertical speed;
(6) turn and slip;
(7) attitude;
(8) stabilised heading;
(9) outside air temperature; and
(10) Mach number, whenever speed limitations are expressed in terms of Mach number;
(b) a means of indicating when the supply of power to the gyroscopic instruments is not adequate; and
(c) a means of preventing malfunction of the airspeed indicating system required in (a)(4) due to condensation or icing.
And thanks for the link to FSAV
Niner_Mike wrote:
In PART NCO I find:
This paragraph (NCO.IDE.A.125) is only the requirements for flight instruments. You also have to check NCO.IDE.A.190, NCO.IDE.A.195 and NCO.IDE.A.200 for avionics.
And thanks for the link to FSAV
Several of the points in that paragraph contradicts the air ops EU regulation and thus has no legal force.
@Airborne_Again I just read your quoted article. It is very clear and answers my questions. Thanks.
Question for @Airborne_Again: would it be possible to put this article into a PDF file so that @Peter can publish it here somewhere?
I think these questions are being asked about once a month…
Multiple identical threads on this topic merged 
Not sure what has changed recently…
The gotcha is usually not enroute requirements, and anyway you aren’t likely to get busted for it unless somebody is not only really smart but is also really out to get you.
The gotcha is approaches, where you are supposed to carry all equipment specified on the plate. In Europe, this usually means you need DME ILS and ADF to be legal and with a useful mission capability. It also means the autopilots which can’t fly an ILS are basically useless.
The practical requirements are a yet different debate. Of course a fuel totaliser is key, but I would say that Well, without one you are wasting about 1/3 of your expensive plane.
If someone can put together an article I would be happy to put it under Resources, but the problem is that this stuff changes over time, which is why maintaining a “merged” thread (something I spend a bit of my time doing here) is probably a good thing. The alternative would be a “wiki” approach but then somebody has to maintain that, and then you have the issue of differences of opinion on something…
arj1 wrote:
Question for @Airborne_Again: would it be possible to put this article into a PDF file so that @Peter can publish it here somewhere?
I think these questions are being asked about once a month…
Fine with me — or just a link. It’s up to Peter.
Peter wrote:
In Europe, this usually means you need DME ILS and ADF to be legal and with a useful mission capability
“With a useful mission capability”, I agree. But Niner_Mike wasn’t after that but the bare minimum to fly the occasional IFR.
Also, we should keep in mind that an revision of part-NCO is in the works which would legalise the already widespread practise of using GPS in lieu of ADF and DME.
OK here we go… I’ve just had a look at AA’s article above, and the EASA letter referenced in
In particular this means that if a COM radio is not required, then all radios in the aircraft can have 25 kHz channel spacing. Obviously, with such radios you are not allowed to use 8.33 kHz-spaced channels even if it would be technically possible. (E.g. the 8.33 kHz-spaced channel 118.005 uses the same frequency as the 25 kHz-spaced channel 118.000.)
but it isn’t clear. In my opinion, the first highlighted part is something the official has made up on the spot (well of course he would do – you will hardly get a different reply from a “policeman”; try walking into a police station and asking whether 31mph in a 30 limit is legal and anyway a “clarification” from an EASA employee does not create or amend a law; the law, and this is all criminal law, remember, remains exactly as it is written and in any functioning justice system any ambiguity is supposed to be construed against the party seeking to enforce it) and the second highlighted part says that if you are 2-reg or N-reg etc then this restriction does not apply to you and you can use a 25k radio on 8.33 channels if the frequency is actually the same (and most “8.33” channels in much of Europe are indeed 25k frequencies, especially in the UK). I use a 25k radio for 8.33 comms all the time…
which would legalise the already widespread practise of using GPS in lieu of ADF and DME.
I would be amazed if they did that. It would amount to implicitly publishing a GPS overlay for every IAP. Actually using GPS is indeed widespread but that’s a totally different debate. This one is about equipment carriage not equipment usage. 47.3% of internet bandwidth is taken up with confusing these two, with the remainder used for p0rn
Peter wrote:
I would be amazed if they did that. It would amount to implicitly publishing a GPS overlay for every IAP.
I was a bit too fast there…. The proposed amendment does not permit you to use GPS instead of ADF or VOR for lateral guidance on a final approach course. But it would be fine to replace DME fixes on an ILS approach with GPS fixes. It would also be fine to replace an NDB used for a stepdown fix/glidepath check or missed approach hold with GPS fixes.
The proposal passed the request for comments stage a year ago and is planned to enter into force at about this time next year (2022Q2). You can read the proposal here.
