Part NCO and ELTs - mandatory?
Thread Starter
Part NCO and ELTs - mandatory?
The CAA having reminded us that Part NCO takes effect in the UK on 25th August prompted me to have a look. It seems to me that it makes ELTs mandatory in EASA light aircraft from that date. please tell me I'm wrong, but I cannot find a relevant derogation.
The existing CAA exemption will, I believe, only apply to Annex II aeroplanes after that date.
The existing CAA exemption will, I believe, only apply to Annex II aeroplanes after that date.
Thread Starter
I'm not sure how to read the regulation for aircraft older than July 2008 - it seems to say they must have an ELT but later aircraft have the option of a PLB. If they had put an "or" at the end of bullet 1 it would have been clear.
The AMCs and GM don't expand the options - just more practical detail on things like when to change batteries.
Either way they cost money whereas until now there has been an exemption for non-commercial.
NCO.IDE.A.170 Emergency locator transmitter (ELT)
(a) Aeroplanes shall be equipped with:
(1) an ELT of any type, when first issued with an individual CofA on or before 1 July 2008;
(2) an automatic ELT, when first issued with an individual CofA after 1 July 2008; or
(3) a survival ELT (ELT(S)) or a personal locator beacon (PLB), carried by a crew member or a passenger, when certified for a maximum passenger seating configuration of six or less.
(b) ELTs of any type and PLBs shall be capable of transmitting simultaneously on 121,5 MHz and 406 MHz.
The AMCs and GM don't expand the options - just more practical detail on things like when to change batteries.
Either way they cost money whereas until now there has been an exemption for non-commercial.
NCO.IDE.A.170 Emergency locator transmitter (ELT)
(a) Aeroplanes shall be equipped with:
(1) an ELT of any type, when first issued with an individual CofA on or before 1 July 2008;
(2) an automatic ELT, when first issued with an individual CofA after 1 July 2008; or
(3) a survival ELT (ELT(S)) or a personal locator beacon (PLB), carried by a crew member or a passenger, when certified for a maximum passenger seating configuration of six or less.
(b) ELTs of any type and PLBs shall be capable of transmitting simultaneously on 121,5 MHz and 406 MHz.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: essex
Age: 67
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref Holland and ELT..
I read on another forum that as Holland would need to file a difference to EASA
NCO.IDE.A.170 Emergency locator transmitter (ELT) requirements.
Which they have not yet done.
Then they cannot stop you from have an PLB over an ELT.
I read on another forum that as Holland would need to file a difference to EASA
NCO.IDE.A.170 Emergency locator transmitter (ELT) requirements.
Which they have not yet done.
Then they cannot stop you from have an PLB over an ELT.
Ref Holland and ELT..
I read on another forum that as Holland would need to file a difference to EASA
NCO.IDE.A.170 Emergency locator transmitter (ELT) requirements.
Which they have not yet done.
Then they cannot stop you from have an PLB over an ELT.
I read on another forum that as Holland would need to file a difference to EASA
NCO.IDE.A.170 Emergency locator transmitter (ELT) requirements.
Which they have not yet done.
Then they cannot stop you from have an PLB over an ELT.
Re:NCO.IDE.A.170
My interpretation of this section is; that the operator is responsible for equipping the aircraft with a PLB (in our particular case) but the PIC is responsible for carrying it or having a passenger do so.
This is important to our club as we use various aircraft, some of which we are not the operator.
How do other forumites read that section?
My interpretation of this section is; that the operator is responsible for equipping the aircraft with a PLB (in our particular case) but the PIC is responsible for carrying it or having a passenger do so.
This is important to our club as we use various aircraft, some of which we are not the operator.
How do other forumites read that section?
Why do you refer to The Netherlands as Holland ?
2) because the English generally seem to like vague postings, some even priding themselves in their ability of working it out just the same.
Holland is a district within The Netherlands
* Kerkrade being actually in Limburg - a term even much more profuse than Holland - but surely Kerkrade is not in Holland (properly spoken) and never has been.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ELT were mandatory for all aircraft in their airspace in certain EASA countries for quite some years now, so question: is there really still a noticeable number of aircraft without?
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm confused.
If I go to the CAA website and search for "Part NCO" the top hit is Part NCO | Commercial industry, which seems to me to cover what is being discussed in this thread, ie. not applicable to Private Flying.
Second hit is "Application regulations | General aviation" which linked page makes no mention that I can see of these requirements.
So what is the concern about all this in relation to private flying?
If I go to the CAA website and search for "Part NCO" the top hit is Part NCO | Commercial industry, which seems to me to cover what is being discussed in this thread, ie. not applicable to Private Flying.
Second hit is "Application regulations | General aviation" which linked page makes no mention that I can see of these requirements.
So what is the concern about all this in relation to private flying?
This is the document:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi...t-NCO%20IR.pdf
Amongst others, pages 9, 10, 19 and 30 are relevant to private flying.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi...t-NCO%20IR.pdf
Amongst others, pages 9, 10, 19 and 30 are relevant to private flying.