Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Part-NCO summarized

whose operators are established or resident in an EASA member state.

Where is the primary legal reference for this wording?

I am not doubting it, but the EASA FCL anti N-reg stuff used

which will IMHO have a very different meaning post-Brexit.

Obviously, I would expect airspace regs to apply to all.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

which will IMHO have a very different meaning post-Brexit.

That depends on how UK defines Member State and Community in terms of EASA “membership” and also relating to certain parts of the EASA regulations. Besides, will the UK be a member of EASA at all? I seriously doubt it.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Maybe, maybe not.

If the EU law says “Community” then post-Brexit the UK will not be in the “Community” regardless of what they do regarding adopting EASA regs.

Laws which seek to impose a restriction have to be read as they are written, and the benefit of an ambiguity is construed against the party seeking to impose the restriction. Otherwise, there is no justice because any dick could pass a totally vague law and screw everybody.

That’s unless the UK passes a regulation saying “all EASA regs apply here as if we were in the EU”, which I heard Switzerland has done.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Laws which seek to impose a restriction have to be read as they are written, and the benefit of an ambiguity is construed against the party seeking to impose the restriction

Where do you read this construction Peter?

EGTK Oxford

Peter wrote:

Laws which seek to impose a restriction have to be read as they are written, and the benefit of an ambiguity is construed against the party seeking to impose the restriction

Just about every aviation related regulation and law are restrictions. The UK will have to have some kind of agreement with the EU. The sentence you quoted looks more trade/business related than aviation related, so who knows what that will end up like. What exactly is it?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

I have just read Bookworm’s excellent summary

A few points arise for me:

1) Page 2 – The “established or resident in an EASA member state” – where is the reference for those words?

2) Page 7 – ELA2 is given as less than 2000kg. Elsewhere here, in the ELA1/2 threads, 2700kg or so has been mentioned as the ELA2 limit.

3) Page 11 -

Only one 8.33 radio is required. There are still major avionics shops which tell you this is wrong. Somebody needs to educate them.

An intercom with headsets is required for (in effect) training flights. Most planes I did the PPL in had no intercom; they had the headsets wired in parallel I realise the effect is comparable but you get issues with different headset brands.

Life jackets are required in SEPs when out of glide range. Do they need to be worn, or merely carried?

4) Page 12 -

“The relevant PBN navigation specification…” – this is a clear statement of the need to have an AFMS approving BRNAV, GPS approaches, etc. Most GA planes don’t have this.

“Any navigational database … must be current” – this is of interest to those whose GPS AFMS authorises flying with an out of date database cycle provided the pilot has verified the IAPs etc have not actually changed. The relevance of this is on a ramp check by a well briefed policeman who is out to get you

Jason – the default position under the law (of any civilised country; I am not 100% sure that applies to all of what we call “Europe”) has to be like that. If I draft a law saying you have to wear yellow underpants while flying your Mustang, then immediately you know that you are OK if wearing black ones, or flying a PA28. That’s even if it is obvious that my intent was just to make sure you are wearing underpants of some sort. If I then see you flying with black underpants, and don’t like it, and my prosecution has failed (obviously) I can take you to a higher court and try to generate some case law, or in due course try to re-draft the original law. But as I say the initial prosecution is almost certain to fail.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

2) Page 7 – ELA2 is given as less than 2000kg. Elsewhere here, in the ELA1/2 threads, 2700kg or so has been mentioned as the ELA2 limit.

No, 2 730 kg was not stated as the limit for ELA2. The following is correct motorpowered aeroplanes:
ELA1 – Up to (and including) 1200 kg MTOM
ELA2 – Up to (and including) 2000 kg MTOM

2 730 kg is a somewhat obscure limit where I am not entirely sure of its origin, it might be the equivalent of 6000 pounds. The simple reason for Part-M Light being up to 2 730 kg is due to the simple fact that includes a lot more airframes than 2000 kg does. With 2 730 kg you cover most piston twins and SET up to just under the PA-31.

ESSZ, Sweden

Peter wrote:

I have just read Bookworm’s excellent summary

Looked at it, and it is oversimplified to the point where it is wrong. For instance the summary say (my emphasis):

For VFR at night (or where there is no visual horizon), in addition to the above
• turn and slip,
• attitude indicator,
• vertical speed indicator and
• direction indicator
are required, as well as a low vacuum/power warning for the gyros

This is factually wrong. What Part NCO say is this (my emphasis):

Aeroplanes operated under visual meteorological conditions (VMC) at night, or in conditions where the aeroplane cannot be maintained in a desired flight path without reference to one or more additional instruments, shall be, in addition to (a), equipped with:

Visual horizon or not, has nothing to do with it, Part NCO does not mention it. You can fly far out at sea for instance, or above the wast forests of Sweden in slightly poor weather. It’s your (in)ability to navigate by visual clues that is important.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

I think you are wrong, and bookworm’s right.

LeSving wrote:

This is factually wrong.

I think most people understood what it meant anyway. This is always the problem when you are doing your best to simplify. The rule is as simplified as it gets, without leaving facts out. As soon as you simplify it you will have to drift away from the actual facts. I think this summary is excellent for most pilots. But for those who really wish to understand the rules, there is not better way to do it than to simply read it.

ESSZ, Sweden
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top