LeSving wrote:
There was talk about “NCO-ifying” local regs for all non EASA aircraft, but no changes as of yet, and no more talk either.
Sweden did that recently. (And fortunately.)
hardly an issue, just put in some airport. It is completely meaningless, other than IFR where fuel requirements are tied to it.
I would be tempted to put in KLAX and see what they say…
Airborne_Again wrote:
there is no legal basis for that requirement.
Norway is not part of the EU. We are not bound by any EU law except when this is explicitly written into the Norwegian laws. Anyway, I don’t know exactly where this come from. Is the corresponding EASA regulation to be found in part NCO? if so, I probably can found out.
I’ve tried to find some reference for this, but could not. I know that you need to put something in the alternate for all VFR flight plans, but I’m not event sure how I got this knowledge, it could have been via the instructor when I got checked out after arriving in Norway 11 years ago or that my first flight plans got rejected without it.
If someone can find a justification for this ‘requirement’, that would be interesting, otherwise, I’ll probably start filing my flight plans without it just to make a point that the rule that does not exist should not be enforced :-)
Airborne_Again wrote:
I have asked the Swedish ARO for a reference to the Norwegian regulation and will report back here.
On a slightly different topic, from your posts above, you appear to be “connected” in Sweden so to speak, so may I politely ask if you questioned them about the the PPR for Malmo airspace that came up in another thread?
Regards, SD..
skydriller wrote:
On a slightly different topic, from your posts above, you appear to be “connected” in Sweden so to speak, so may I politely ask if you questioned them about the the PPR for Malmo airspace that came up in another thread?
The ARO is unlikely to know the reasons for this nor are they responsible for writing the AIP or NOTAM text. But this Malmö PPR thing certainly needs following up. I was hoping someone based in the Malmö area would do that. I am based in the Stockholm area.
Just had a quick look. It’s explicitly written in the regulations. Technically it is perhaps not “valid” for EASA aircraft, but that part is not entirely clear, as the reference does not point to Part NCO from what I could see (although I would almost swear it did a few years ago, really odd).
It clearly is “the law” IMO, but weird still. I can take a closer look when I got the time.
LeSving wrote:
Just had a quick look. It’s explicitly written in the regulations. Technically it is perhaps not “valid” for EASA aircraft, but that part is not entirely clear, as the reference does not point to Part NCO from what I could see (although I would almost swear it did a few years ago, really odd).
Can you give a reference to what regulation and where in it?
It’s here, 4.4.2.a
It’s written clearly that it’s for SAR purposes. A full VFR FP will always include SAR. The reference to BSL F is to be viewed as a general reference to SERA (BSL F is replaced with SERA). SERA 4005 starts with:
A flight plan shall comprise information regarding such of the following items as are considered relevant by the competent authority:
(1) Aircraft identification
(2) Flight rules and type of flight
(3) Number and type(s) of aircraft and wake turbulence category
(4) Equipment
(5) Departure aerodrome or operating site
(6) Estimated off-block time
(7) Cruising speed(s)
(8) Cruising level(s)
(9) Route to be followed
(10) Destination aerodrome or operating site and total estimated elapsed time
(11) Alternate aerodrome(s) or operating site(s)
(12) Fuel endurance
(13) Total number of persons on board
(14) Emergency and survival equipment
(15) Other information
So I guess the legal reference is pretty obvious.
That odd thing is point 2.2, but maybe not? SERA rules 
Great thanks for the reference!
