bookworm wrote:
In the UK in 2016, for example, many NCO requirements were transposed into national law.
Swedish ops regulations for Annex I aircraft simply refers to part-NCO with two or three unimportant exceptions.
huv wrote:
@bookworm, so Annex I aeroplanes do not have to observe OPS and equipment rules stated in Part-NCO?
Not unless national law requires it. In the UK in 2016, for example, many NCO requirements were transposed into national law. Some were omitted, for example the ELT/PLB requirement, IIRC.
huv wrote:
so Annex I aeroplanes do not have to observe OPS and equipment rules stated in Part-NCO?
Carrying an ELT/PLB is a famous example for Part-NCO applicability for ops on Annnex 1 (e.g. vintage aircraft)
OK. Part-NCO is an EASA regulation, and does not apply to Annex I aeroplanes. The limitations on IFR are a matter of national law in the state of registration and operation.
Arne wrote:
Does NCO remove any of the previous limits concerning use of Annex I airplanes for flying IFR?
I would not think so. NCO only regulates OPS and equipment for those airplanes approved for IFR, typically by type certificate. I believe that Annex N airplanes are per definition airplanes outside of “EASA environment” which makes room for national regulation.
What used to be Annex II. Mainly Experimentals and orphan types in this case
What do you mean by Annex I airplanes?
Does NCO remove any of the previous limits concerning use of Annex I airplanes for flying IFR?
To add to the above:
The regulation says “you need to carry an ELT or PLB”.
An alternative means of compliance you declare can only specify how you carry that PLB, not something you do instead.
