- If the seatbelt in an aircraft has an upper torso restraint system, it has to have a single-point release. I don't see any exception anywhere, so it seems Hooker harnesses are now illegal.
Doesn't a Hooker harness have a "single point release"??
- Aeroplanes operated by more than one flight crew member (and I assume this is worded so that single pilot aircraft being used for flight training falls under this article as well) shall be equipped with a flight crew interphone system, including headsets and microphones for use by all flight crew members. That's going to be fun for the gliding fraternity.
It doesn't apply to gliders, only aeroplanes and helicopters.
- I'm not quite sure, but it seems aircraft with less than 9 seats are not required to carry an installed ELT. A PLB would also suffice, and is only required for flight over water anyway. (But the rules wrt. ELTs are spread out across the whole document so it's hard to find the appropriate text.)
The rule for aeroplanes and helicopters is that a PLB can be used in place of an installed ELT "when certified for a maximum passenger seating configuration of six or less". It is required for all flights, with no "over water" criterion.
And I found this: A personal locator beacon (PLB) should have a built-in GNSS receiver. But that last sentence might not be applicable throughout the entire document - I'm still trying to get the hang of the structure of the document.
That's part of the AMC, and is therefore not mandatory. If you'd seen the alert times and location precision for GNSS vs non-GNSS PLBs, you'd never buy one without GNSS.
- A means of measuring and displaying the time in hours, minutes and seconds may be a wrist watch capable of the same functions. But a "means of measuring and displaying the time" is a requirement in all types of aircraft, including gliders and balloons.
I don't understand the issue. It's in the AMC for all types (categories) as well, isn't it?
Except for those things, I must say I find the document well thought out. No undue regulation seems to have been imposed as a result of this. And in some cases the requirements are actually less than what's currently common.
I wouldn't go as far as "well thought out", but it's not bad.
Actually I still find it difficult to get my head around the purpose and legality of the various documents that make up Part-NCO
That's an important point.
a) None of it is law yet (still in comitology)
b) AMCs in Part-NCO are not mandatory. You can satisfy the implementing rules in a different way, without any approval. See NCO.GEN.101 Means of compliance. GM is of course, never mandatory.