I don’t have the exact details but I heard that the DGAC was doing ramp checks this Friday in Calvi and giving trouble to aircrafts who crossed without a raft. It is a little surprising since the raft is only listed as an AMC. Does anyone have more information ?
I really hope that this is not true. There is absolutely no support for that in the rule.
Interesting indeed! @Airborne_again, do you see this?
Indeed I am!
the very same document stated that to commence an approach it had to be an OPEN instrument airport, either TWR or AFIS. (Swedish Transport Agency LFS 2007:58)
I think more or less the same goes for the crosswind component, if I am not mistaken it stated clearly in our rule that the demonstrated CWC shall not be exceeded during take off or landing.
Yes, it was very clear!
As I’ve said in other places about 20 Swedish regulations have been replaced by part-NCO. Once pilots are used to it, things will be very much simpler rule-wise than it used to be.
Except for people also flying Annex II aircraft, of course..
Yes, according to the head of Air Operations Regulation at EASA. He has been asked specifically since many have doubted it. He also mentions that this is different from Part-NCC (and of course part-CAT).
Is this is writing somewhere? The Swedish CAA has stated the opposite.
They also claim that TMGs under power should follow national rules and not part-NCO. The German LBA has the opposite view. Interesting times…
It might depend on if they make use of an opt-out for balloons/sailplanes (IDE.B, IDE.S). There are going to be separate, simplified Air Ops Regulation books, one for Balloons and one for Sailplanes, in a couple years. Other than that there cannot be any confusion because NCO is very clear which rules apply for TMGs.
They also claim that TMGs under power should follow national rules and not part-NCO
A TMG can be two different things. It can be a sailplane and a PPL plane. Both are EASA though.
Autopilot/DME/ADF/Dual Altimeters/Slaved Gyro/and much more not required anymore for single pilot IFR and the whole IFR certification got removed.
Our club was considering fitting a DME to another one of our planes in order to make it IFR capable – is this no longer necessary?
What about the annual checks of the IFR necessary equipment, is that being impacted?
You should take a look at the maintenance forum, there are a couple threads about this topic. Short answer: No you don’t need a DME, except you actually need it for example because an approach requires it. Maintenance is not affected by NCO as such, the transponder/static system check etc. remains, as far as I know (because NCO is part of the Air Operation Regulation and you are asking about continuing airworthiness).
A DME is however really desirable because many non GPS approaches use it.
Maintenance is not affected by NCO as such, the transponder/static system check etc. remains, as far as I know (because NCO is part of the Air Operation Regulation and you are asking about continuing airworthiness).
I agree. However, the connection IMHO lies in documents carried. If the practice was to have some sort of “certificate” proving such check was completed, it won’t be on the list. So they can’t really demand you present it.
In Germany it was according to § 11 LuftBO only necessary to breath supplemental O2 >30 minutes >12.000ft, according to NCO one has to use supplemental O2 >30 minutes >10.000ft. However the compulsory use of O2 any time >13.000ft remains.