LeSving wrote:
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.
Judging from the Norwegian reg. you referred to the national Norwegian ops regs are quite similar to the old national Swedish OPS reg, which have now been replaced by part-NCO also for Annex I aircraft.
I disagree with your assessment of part-NCO. I find it a major improvement over previous national regulations in that it is goal-oriented rather than solution-oriented. Just to give an example: The old Swedish regs for noncommercial flights required the landing distance available to be 143% of the distance required. This was clearly intended to provide a safety margin. Fair enough, but the required safety margin varies a lot with local conditions. If you don’t have any obstacles in the approach and nothing very dangerous after the runway end you can do with a much lower safety margin. Part-NCO lets the pilot make this decision. I could give more examples.
Ibra wrote:
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
We are not talking in absolutes here. The issue for the SAR teams is where to first start searching to have the highest probability of finding them. You have to take weather and terrain into account. Then you have two possibilities:
It’s the same principle as when you do make a successful landing out in the wilderness. You stay put, hoping the SAR teams will find you, making yourself as visible as possible. You don’t start walking in a random direction hoping for the best. You always want to decrease randomness, increase predictability.
Anyway, if possible, what chflyer say is the best. Sometimes you can get outside those parameters however.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The old Swedish regs for noncommercial flights required the landing distance available to be 143% of the distance required. This was clearly intended to provide a safety margin. Fair enough, but the required safety margin varies a lot with local conditions. If you don’t have any obstacles in the approach and nothing very dangerous after the runway end you can do with a much lower safety margin. Part-NCO lets the pilot make this decision. I could give more examples
We have never had any such requirements. Better or worse? some are better, some are worse. It will be different from country to country, and from regulation to regulation. 95-99% is probably very much the same, more or less, and there are certain details here and there. But, it’s been a long time since I have looked at this stuff. LT had these online courses for SERA and part NCO with tests at the end, maybe they are still there somewhere. As I remember it SERA is rather good, Part-NCO is much more messy and “odd” in a theoretical sort of way.
LeSving wrote:
As I said, it’s confusing, and you are caught by it You have been confused. You are not alonePart 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)
I’m not at all confused about this. I understand it perfectly well.
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.
Please. Of course the competent authority has to say somewhere what is required and what is not. It can’t be determined by speculation, word of mouth or old repealed regulations.
Anyway, I finally found it. It is stated in §11 of this regulation. I still think it is very strange that there is no mention of this in the AIP as this regulation is published in Norwegian only.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Anyway, I finally found it. It is stated in §11 of this regulation. I still think it is very strange that there is no mention of this in the AIP as this regulation is published in Norwegian only.
Ahh, SERA 
Who would have guessed
Almost all regulations are published in Norwegian only, that’s just the way it is with regulations. The exceptions are of course EU regulations, but not the exemptions/changes/specifications from/of those regulations, which I think is the standard all over EU as well ?
As I remember we had a thread about differences in SERA a couple of years ago. I don’t know if that list is being updated ?
LeSving wrote:
Almost all regulations are published in Norwegian only, that’s just the way it is with regulations. The exceptions are of course EU regulations, but not the exemptions/changes/specifications from/of those regulations, which I think is the standard all over EU as well ?
The standard “all over EU” is that such “exemptions/changes/specifications” are published in the AIP, in English. For some reason Norway has not done that.
From ICAO yes, but from EU regs?
LeSving wrote:
It’s here, 4.4.2.a
You’re confusing two things different things.
An ATC flight plan (FPL) is an AFTN message about the flight sent to ATS providers etc.
An operational flight plan (OFP) is what is usually in GA known as “Plog” (Pilot’s Log). The examples are given in the Appendices to the document.
The requirements in 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 are for an operational flight plan.
I find it extraordinary that Norway mandates an OFP for non-commercial flights with so much detail that is, in the modern world, extraneous. EASA regulation requires an OFP only for CAT. Even NCC, let alone NCO, doesn’t require an OFP.
bookworm wrote:
I find it extraordinary that Norway mandates an OFP for non-commercial flights with so much detail that is, in the modern world, extraneous.
Sweden did the same before part-NCO…. I agree with you.
Germany used to mandate a flightlog for IFR, but not for VFR.
