Good summary in that link, Silvaire.
I am amazed a heated pitot is not a requirement there, since the pitot is 100% sure to ice up in IMC anywhere near 0C.
Martin wrote:
Those are initial airworthiness requirements (not continuing which is maintenance). For EU registered aircraft, this is governed by regulation No 748/2012 (which covers certification of aircraft and also related equipment in Part-21). In other words, those instruments and equipment have to be certified. I believe AMC/ GM will support my interpretation.
That is so:
GM1 NCO.IDE.A.100(a) Instruments and equipment — general
The applicable airworthiness requirements for approval of instruments and equipment required by this Part are the following:
(a) Regulation (EU) No 748/20124 for aeroplanes registered in the EU; and
(b) Airworthiness requirements of the State of registry for aeroplanes registered outside the EU.
So I can safely assume that all the equipment that I listed for the trusty C172 further up in this thread will conform to that requirement, because if it weren’t then I wouldn’t find them in the panel of the aircraft if it has an airworthiness certificate, which I duly checked as a pilot?
LeSving wrote:
There are no “IFR airworthiness requirements” as such, except for IFR avionics obviously (GPS, VOR, etc), but none of the IFR avionics is what makes the aircraft OK for IFR, it’s the list in Part NCO.
So what about the OSAC document that AlexG found, which details the periodicity in which you have to check your transponder, radios etc. and the methods by which these have to be checked if you want to use the plane for IFR. Is that now bollocks? The same must apply to the famous German Avionik-Jahresnachprüfung (yearly avionics check) which is a money-printing machine for german maintenance shops. Maybe one of the german plane owners can step in and tell us if this is still required in Germany and based on what EU regulation. Then maybe I can get my head around if and how I as a renting pilot am supposed to verify that this has been done.
Rwy20 wrote:
So what about the OSAC document that AlexG found, which details the periodicity in which you have to check your transponder, radios etc. and the methods by which these have to be checked if you want to use the plane for IFR. Is that now bollocks?
I have no idea what they do in Germany. In Norway er have never had “IFR Certification” – ever, of any kind. The only thing is for one or two special (non-standard) approaches where CAT needs to have an approval. But I guess you can argue that a transponder is IFR equipment maybe ? Our old Saab Safir from 1949 is fully “IFR Certified” with it’s original equipment (It only has ADF 
) Seems to me there is a tendency in Europe/UK to make IFR more complicated than it is, it’s good that Part NCO cleans it up a bit.
that now bollocks? The same must apply to the famous German Avionik-Jahresnachprüfung (yearly avionics check) which is a money-printing machine for german maintenance shops. Maybe one of the german plane owners can step in and tell us if this is still required in Germany and based on what EU regulation.
Wishful thinking, I guess.
They never argumented this with reference to any EU regulation. Not do they have to, I would say.
Anyway, Part-NCO is now only 9 hours old, so let’s wait a bit and see.
boscomantico wrote:
Anyway, Part-NCO is now only 9 hours old, so let’s wait a bit and see.
But it hardly came as a surprise. Even though with EU regulations, you sometimes get this impression.
They never argumented this with reference to any EU regulation.
Well NfL II 25/09 states, that it is because of
VO (EG) 2042/2003 Anhang I (Teil-M) M.A.302 Abs. c) Zi. 2
which in english version reads
(c) The maintenance programme must establish compliance with:
…
2. instructions issued by the competent authority, if they differ from subparagraph 1 or in the absence of specific recommendations, or
My question also seems to be a systematic one: Can a change in OPS rules override older maintenance rules? Because these checks seem to stem from Part M, and that hasn’t changed.
To try to answer my own question, I think yes it can. If the operator no longer needs to assure certain things from the maintenance side, then that effectively means they have been abolished. @boscomantico will again say that that is wishful thinking.
Yes
I think nobody in the LBA is going as deeply into it as you are. They don’t care.
LeSving wrote:
There are no “IFR airworthiness requirements” as such, except for IFR avionics obviously (GPS, VOR, etc), but none of the IFR avionics is what makes the aircraft OK for IFR, it’s the list in Part NCO.
I would avoid “IFR avionics”. You can use radio navigation even when flying IAW VFR. The difference in minimum equipment simply stems from the fact that you have to be able to fly without visual reference (for a large part of the flight). So you have equipment that allows you to achieve that but nothing is stopping you from having e.g. P-RNAV approved box in a VFR only machine.
Silvaire wrote:
I have to smile about the Limitations Section of the POH being a guide as to whether IFR is prohibited. On the one hand you have people flying light duty IFR in Class E or higher in 1946 Cessna 140s with a very minimal non-standard handbook
I have no idea how they did it 70 years ago but I recall seeing IFR, VFR, flight in icing conditions prohibited, etc. in type certificates. And you can get the generic list of minimum equipment when nothing is provided in the AFM.
boscomantico wrote:
I think nobody in the LBA is going as deeply into it as you are.
All I want to know is if I can fly our C172 IFR or not. It shouldn’t be that hard of a question for a pilot to answer, don’t you think? And I wouldn’t say I am going very deep, there are other people on here who are much more versed in the regulatory texts than me, and who for some reason weren’t able to help me answer the question with a simple “yes” or “no”… :(
