OPS regulations for Annex I (formerly Annex 2) aircraft

LeSving I understand the rationale but sought confirmation that the Air Operations Regulation did not generally apply to Annex I aircraft save for odd exceptions. One exception appears to be that some ex-military Annex I aircraft when operated in a cost-shared flight must be conducted in accordance with either Part-CAT or Part-NCO regardless of national requirements.

alioth wrote:

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.

With DTOs it might be somewhat easier in terms of the paperwork required on their end by the local CAA…

The basis is simply to get the same regulations, for simplicity or whatever. Every nation is free to create national regulation (Annex I), but cannot change EASA regulations.

What’s the basis for applying Part-NCO to Annex I aircraft? The implementing rules made under the Air Operations Regulation exist to ensure compliance with the essential requirements for air operations applied to certain aircraft regulated by the Basic Regulation. The Basic Regulation however excludes from its scope most aircraft listed in Annex I.

Is a Commission Regulation such as the Air Operations Regulation, made in pursuance of the basic Regulation, capable of applying its implementing rules to Annex I aircraft in spite of this?

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.

Indeed you can – see here and here.

You have to own it.

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.

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.

So cost sharing is not part NCO?