Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Part NCO and ELTs - mandatory?

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Part NCO and ELTs - mandatory?

Old 1st Jul 2016, 22:12
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Luton
Posts: 453
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.
Jim59 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2016, 09:36
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
From memory, you need to look at the "Acceptable Means of Compliance" which allows a PLB be used instead.
dublinpilot is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2016, 09:53
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Luton
Posts: 453
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.
Jim59 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2016, 16:36
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
A; B; or C is intended to be read as A or B or C.

But indeed you will have to spend money on a PLB, with questionable return in safety value.
bookworm is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2016, 20:06
  #5 (permalink)  
GipsyMagpie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
And a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit
 
Old 5th Jul 2016, 20:12
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,607
Hi
is private use classified as non commercial ops (NCO) ?
md 600 driver is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2016, 07:09
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
A German once told me of a French saying, made with a typical Gallic shrug, "Hnnn, Paris is so far away".
DeltaV is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2016, 14:01
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: EBZH
Posts: 2,623
I hear rumours that certain countries might well continue to insist on a "real" ELT, permanently fixed in the plane - Holland comes to mind.
Jan Olieslagers is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 08:13
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Uxbridge
Posts: 782
Bloggs to CFI:


"Alright to go and do one circuit boss?"


Boss:


"Sure, but don't forget your PLB!"
MrAverage is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 11:05
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: essex
Age: 65
Posts: 176
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.
trevs99uk is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 12:53
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,078
Why do you refer to The Netherlands as Holland ?
Holland is a district within The Netherlands, a bit like an english county, so would you refer to the UK as Surrey ?
The Ancient Geek is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2016, 14:23
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,648
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.
A state can file a difference from ICAO SARPs. It cannot "file a difference" from an EU regulation. A state that persists in applying different regulation will eventually find itself the subject of infringement proceedings by the Commission.
bookworm is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 13:38
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Uxbridge
Posts: 782
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?
MrAverage is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2016, 13:48
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: EBZH
Posts: 2,623
Why do you refer to The Netherlands as Holland ?
1) because the Dutch do so themselves - only yesterday I drove behind a lorry showing it was from "Kerkrade, Holland"*. Or, if you can tolerate the noise, watch a match by their national teams of football or ice-skating or whatever and note the cries of "Hup 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
That's perhaps correct historically - I think Holland was a county - "graafschap" at one time - but today there's only the provinces of Zuid-Holland and Noord-Holland.

* 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.
Jan Olieslagers is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 08:07
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,272
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?
ChickenHouse is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 10:45
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Uxbridge
Posts: 782
Thousands in the UK.
MrAverage is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 13:02
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: EBZH
Posts: 2,623
... and a few more on the continent
Jan Olieslagers is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2016, 07:35
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
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?
DeltaV is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2016, 09:39
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Uxbridge
Posts: 782
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.
MrAverage is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2016, 09:40
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Uxbridge
Posts: 782
The search engine on the new CAA site doesn't appear to be any better than that on the old site..............
MrAverage is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.