LeSving wrote:
That odd thing is point 2.2, but maybe not?
2.2 is important!
2.2 Forskriften gjelder ikke for ikke ervervsmessig luftfart som er regulert i forordning (EU) nr. 965/2012 som gjennomført ved forskrift 7. august 2013 nr. 956 om luftfartsoperasjoner.
That means that the regulation does not apply to non-commercial flights that are regulated by EU Air Ops which includes part-NCO. In other words it does not apply to EASA aircraft — only to Annex I aircraft!
SERA rules
Well, yes, but that doesn’t matter since the requirement for including an alternate only applies to Annex I aircraft.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Well, yes, but that doesn’t matter since the requirement for including an alternate only applies to Annex I aircraft.
So it may seem, but not really. SERA stands on it’s own. The “competent authority” is free to include whatever items it deems appropriate according to the list in SERA. The old national regulations, which is what the link refers to (although updated) makes it very confusing however. Today, they could just as well have removed 4.4.2a (they should IMO) because SERA takes care of it, which it didn’t before with the old BSL F. They do however explain what the alternate airport is all about – SAR.
Part NCO is valid, but only for EASA aircraft, and the linked to regulations are valid only for non-EASA aircraft. SERA is always valid. It’s really confusing, but this is about SAR.
LeSving wrote:
So it may seem, but not really. SERA stands on it’s own. The “competent authority” is free to include whatever items it deems appropriate according to the list in SERA.
Possibly — the sentence “A flight plan shall comprise information regarding such of the following items as are considered relevant by the competent authority” is open to interpretation. But that is not the issue here.
Even accepting your interpretation of SERA as correct, the competent authority still has to provide a regulation that states what parts of the flight plan are compulsory.
The regulation you referred to does this for Annex I aircraft but not for EASA aircraft. So unless there is another Norwegian regulation that requires an alternate and applies to EASA aircraft, the blanket demand made by the Norwegian ARO for an alternate in flight plans has no regulatory basis.
My guess is that the Norwegian ARO is simply not aware that since part-NCO went into force this requirement doesn’t apply to EASA aircraft anymore. It is a very unfortunate and confusing situation that operational rules for EASA aircraft are now determined by the EU while operational rules for Annex I aircraft are left to member states to determine for themselves.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The regulation you referred to does this for Annex I aircraft but not for EASA aircraft. So unless there is another Norwegian regulation that requires an alternate and applies to EASA aircraft, the blanket demand made by the Norwegian ARO for an alternate in flight plans has no regulatory basis.
Depends on the eyes of the holder. The fact is that nothing has changed since – forever regarding this point (50-60-70 years?) Legally in Norway there is something called “sedvanerett”. It basically means, if a certain way is customary since “ages”, it is de facto law unless explicitly changed. The regulatory basis is IMO 100% tight. Norway is NOT EU. We are NOT bound by the EU regulatory systems in any way. We use EU regulations in certain areas, for instance aviation for EASA planes, but the legal basis for this use is that the regulations are incorporated into Norwegian law.
We have an aviation law that is on the highest level. EU regulations are incorporated as " regulations " with any other Norwegian regulation. The distinction is that breaking a regulation or law, makes no difference, it’s equally illegal. But, you can only be prosecuted, judged, fined etc according to what laws you break. In theory, deliberately (against your better knowledge) filing FPs in error is up to two years in prison (+ any civil case that this may eventually cause).
I agree the way this is done here causes confusion (it took a couple of years before I “got it” 
but nothing has really changed for me). Especially for us who has to change between two set of rules, and for foreigners who would perhaps be better off with more explicitly written stuff. But I mean, SERA is crystal clear. I don’t see why specifications are needed, and why not they cannot be completely fluid regarding this point (changes with respect to time and space). There is no EU law other place that specify that more explicit specification is needed, and SERA is on a higher level than other regulations.
Send a mail to LT (Norway CAA), and explain to them this is confusing as hell. They do listen, and it wouldn’t surprise if they made this clearer, for instance in AIP or in an AIC or something. If no one complain, no change will be done. I wouldn’t mention the “lack” of regulatory basis, not without a Norwegian layer on your side, specialist in aviation law who agrees with you. For all I know, this could be 100% explicitly specified in SAR related regulations that has no relevant EU regulation, and is not specifically aviation related (I don’t see why it must be specified though for other reasons than making stuff less confusing).
Airborne_Again wrote:
My guess is that the Norwegian ARO is simply not aware that since part-NCO went into force this requirement doesn’t apply to EASA aircraft anymore
Make no mistake, it DOES apply to EASA aircraft! It applies to every aircraft filing a VFR FP, expecting SAR. Try to keep the ideas here separated. This has nothing to do with “operations”, fuel management, planning and those things. This is a SAR requirement. It has nothing to do with Part NCO, but very much to do with SERA.
Why is this such a big issue?
Specifying an alternate in a FPL is just to get the FPL accepted, according to whatever national rules apply for selecting it. Once one departs, the “real” alternate is whatever is chosen by the pilot, if an alternate is needed for whatever reason. If one hopes for eventual SAR assistance, the FPL alternate should probably be something sensible. However, as long as the pilot has communications contact and indicates his intentions, any in-flight alternate selection (change) should override/update the FPL value for SAR purposes.
LeSving, for all your verbiage you are constantly evading my point.
If the Norwegian authority requires an alternate in all flight plans, this must be written somewhere. It is written in the regulation you refer to but that regulation itself says that it doesn’t apply to EASA aircraft.
There is nothing about this in the Norwegian AIP — I have checked and so has, apparently, the Swedish ARO. Particularly, there is nothing in section
GEN 3.6 “Søk og redning / Search and Rescue” nor in ENR 1.10 “Reiseplan / Flight Planning”. Do you really expect foreign pilots to follow a regulation with is grounded in “sedvanerett” and not published anywhere? (If that is in fact the case.)
chflyer wrote:
Why is this such a big issue?
It is an issue because the Norwegian ARO imposes a restriction on flight plans (also for international flights originating outside which is not according to EASA rules andnot documented in the AIP either.
If it is a big issue? Well, regulations are supposed to be uniform within EASA member states. Many member states don’t like this and try to force their own ideas. That is an obstacle to GA in particular.
chflyer wrote:
Specifying an alternate in a FPL is just to get the FPL accepted, according to whatever national rules apply for selecting it. Once one departs, the “real” alternate is whatever is chosen by the pilot, if an alternate is needed for whatever reason. If one hopes for eventual SAR assistance, the FPL alternate should probably be something sensible. However, as long as the pilot has communications contact and indicates his intentions, any in-flight alternate selection (change) should override/update the FPL value for SAR purposes.
Agree 100% I just want to add that in Norway, due to terrain and weather (ceiling), being in contact 100% of the time is not always possible. Radio is not mandatory, but you can still file FPs. Also, if you look at accident reports, it’s when people starts to deviate from the main FP, due to weather mostly, is when they start hitting granite. This also makes it very difficult for SAR teams, as they suddenly get a huge area to search instead of at least start with the most probably route, a line.
Airborne_Again wrote:
It is a very unfortunate and confusing situation that operational rules for EASA aircraft are now determined by the EU while operational rules for Annex I aircraft are left to member states to determine for themselves.
Part NCO is a mess. It’s like it has been made by theorists living in a world that is perfectly flat, perfectly inhabited everywhere, gliding distance to nice fields at every point of the flight and where SAR teams consist of an ambulance on an autobahn. It needs to be fixed at many places before it will be good enough to replace the national regs.
LeSving wrote:
Also, if you look at accident reports, it’s when people starts to deviate from the main FP, due to weather mostly, is when they start hitting granite. This also makes it very difficult for SAR teams, as they suddenly get a huge area to search instead of at least start with the most probably route, a line.
This argument is weak, if you don’t end up at destination for random reasons? why you are expected to end up with 100% in alternate with other random factors?
Filing an alternate may make things easy if you made it to alternate but also could point search to the wrong place if you are not there for x reasons….
Also, if you look at accidents reports, those dead tend to be those who try to fly as planned
Airborne_Again wrote:
If the Norwegian authority requires an alternate in all flight plans, this must be written somewhere. It is written in the regulation you refer to but that regulation itself says that it doesn’t apply to EASA aircraft.
As I said, it’s confusing, and you are caught by it You have been confused. You are not alone
Part NCO is valid for EASA aircraft exclusively.
The “old” national regs are valid for non EASA aircraft exclusively.
SERA is valid for anyone operating in the air (except birds, bats, bees etc)
The heart of the confusion is that on the old regs (non EASA), there was/is a specification that alternate must be included in the FP for a VFR flight when SAR was wanted. It’s still there. Maybe a better place to put it was the old BSL F (now SERA), I don’t know, but it certainly would be less confusing today if it was. Anyway, the “alternate” is obviously a SAR related requirement, and that requirement is:
So the case is that the “alternate” requirement is in force (for all VFR flying), but reading the old regs, it’s very easy to believe it’s for non-EASA exclusively. You have to get this confusion out of your head, and then you will see I am not evading your point.
The heart of the error here is Part NCO, it does not include SAR requirements as a part of the FP. This is really unbelievable, because the only reason to file a flight plan in Norway flying below the ceiling level in G, VFR, is to help SAR teams finding you efficiently, instead of searching through thousands of square miles of wilderness for a needle in a hay stack.
Airborne_Again wrote:
There is nothing about this in the Norwegian AIP — I have checked and so has, apparently, the Swedish ARO. Particularly, there is nothing in section
GEN 3.6 “Søk og redning / Search and Rescue” nor in ENR 1.10 “Reiseplan / Flight Planning”. Do you really expect foreign pilots to follow a regulation with is grounded in “sedvanerett” and not published anywhere? (If that is in fact the case.)
Where in the EASA regs does it say it has to be explicitly clarified to be valid? SERA is very clear at this point. Every single item on that list may, or may not be required.
Confusing – yes.
