Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

OPS regulations for Annex I (formerly Annex 2) aircraft

Too bad that Norway has separate ops regulations for experimental

It’s not ideal. But it’s not clear to me how Sweden will do that, and how that will work out in real life. An experimental homebuilt aircraft cannot be used in any commercial or semi-commercial activity for instance, so there has to be some differences also in Sweden?

Where exactly can I find the “complete and updated” Part NCO without having to open up several obscure documents. I mean complete with GMs (or whatever it is called) and everything.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

An experimental homebuilt aircraft cannot be used in any commercial or semi-commercial activity for instance, so there has to be some differences also in Sweden?

Right, but part-NCO is about non-commercial flying, so there doesn’t have to be any differences there.

Where exactly can I find the “complete and updated” Part NCO without having to open up several obscure documents. I mean complete with GMs (or whatever it is called) and everything.

Here.

This document is the complete EASA Air Ops rules including commercial air transport so it is very large. Part-NCO is only a small part of it (Annex VII). Part-NCO itself also includes material for helicopters, sailplanes and ballons which is not relevant to powered airplanes. But the PDF includes a table of contents in the metadata so the file it is easy enough to navigate in with a pdf reader.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Right, but part-NCO is about non-commercial flying, so there doesn’t have to be any differences there.

But there is. The difference is seen when you are self employed and want to use the aircraft somehow in your work. You can do that with an EASA aircraft, but not with an experimental homebuilt (except transporting yourself from A to B). There is also cost sharing rules. Also in training there is a difference. An experimental homebuilt cannot be used for ab initio training, but for everything else (that may change though, independent of Part NCO)

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

But there is. The difference is seen when you are self employed and want to use the aircraft somehow in your work. You can do that with an EASA aircraft, but not with an experimental homebuilt (except transporting yourself from A to B). There is also cost sharing rules. Also in training there is a difference. An experimental homebuilt cannot be used for ab initio training, but for everything else (that may change though, independent of Part NCO)

None of this is related to part-NCO.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 29 Aug 13:31
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

So cost sharing is not part NCO?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

So cost sharing is not part NCO?

Cost sharing flights are done according to part-NCO. But the regulation that says that cost sharing flights are not commercial even though money is exchanged is not in part-NCO. It’s in the Air Ops cover regulation.

Note the distinction. Part-NCO gives operational rules for non-commercial flights with non-commercial aircraft, but it does not say for what flights you should apply it. That’s in the cover regulation.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 29 Aug 15:10
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

The difference is seen when you are self employed and want to use the aircraft somehow in your work. You can do that with an EASA aircraft, but not with an experimental homebuilt (except transporting yourself from A to B).

I am sure this is country dependent.

I think the usual rule, for a PPL flying for his employment, will be along the lines of “you can fly there in your plane, but the company cannot force you to fly your plane” and I don’t see why you then cannot travel via a hot air baloon The rationale behind this is that if you must fly the plane, you will need to have a CPL (not least because nobody can pretend you aren’t getting paid, directly or not). Then you would be into the standard “company pilot” scenario. It is still a “private flight” i.e. no AOC needed,

And you can submit travel expenses to the company, in the usual way applicable to the tax regime. Insurance is another matter…

There is also cost sharing rules.

Also country specific.

Also in training there is a difference. An experimental homebuilt cannot be used for ab initio training

That’s definitely true, for ab initio the business is tightly stitched up (they don’t want students getting killed in a “homebuilt”; it makes awful headlines )

but for everything else (that may change though, independent of Part NCO)

Again, it varies. In the UK for example you can receive recurrent training etc in a homebuilt which you own, and there is some latitude around the “own” bit which I am not up to date on (used to be that a spouse etc owning it was ok). This must be allowed otherwise the owner of a homebuilt would have to rent a CofA type every 2 years. In fact such a reg was recently introduced in France and everybody was hoping it would get squashed.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

IIRC you can use a homebuilt in the UK for ab-initio training, legally. You’ve just got to find an FTO that will accept that, which, as always, is the stumbling block. If we could have truly freelance instructors then it would be practical.

Andreas IOM

Indeed you can – see here and here.

You have to own it.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

Part-NCO gives operational rules for non-commercial flights with non-commercial aircraft, but it does not say for what flights you should apply it. That’s in the cover regulation.

So part NCO is not enough, we have to open an additional 1000+ pages of regulations.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top