Snoopy wrote:
I was ramp checked (NCO flight) and actually „caught“ a finding. It was the first flight from the factory in a new airplane (within EASA). It did not have a first aid pouch on board (for NCO, this can be uncertified equipment). A quick 6€ Amazon order later the issue was resolved.
Well noted. Thank you.
QuoteSnoopy wrote:
A „IFR light“ permit (eg IFR in VMC) for any type of plane would be cool.
It would be cool, yes. Obviously the legislation and limitations within IFR ops, is not really down to IMC vs VMC, but related to the instrumentation and navigation precision (RNP etc. compliance) – where´s say, maintaining and IFR route by reference to some “substandard” equipment would possibly jeopardize the airspace and “commercial” operations operating within, and in accordance with, that airspace.
I was ramp checked (NCO flight) and actually „caught“ a finding. It was the first flight from the factory in a new airplane (within EASA). It did not have a first aid pouch on board (for NCO, this can be uncertified equipment). A quick 6€ Amazon order later the issue was resolved.
A ppt from a national CAA in german:
https://www.austrocontrol.at/jart/prj3/ac/data/uploads/ACE/DC_LFA_SAFA_003.pdf
DC_LFA_SAFA_003_pdf
The discussion is interesting in the sense that IFR permits a broad range, from flying in controlled airspace in the clear down to really nasty IMC weather. The former I’d do in an experimental in a heartbeat, and some App would be sufficient for navigating. The latter I wouldn’t do in many planes and I’m particular about equipment and redundancy.
A „IFR light“ permit (eg IFR in VMC) for any type of plane would be cool.
One nice thing for flight plan submission is that all Rallyes, from MS.880 to Rallye 235, share the same ICAO type designator, RALL, so Eurocontrol has no way of knowing whether the a/c is an MS.892 or an MS.893, short of accessing the national registration database, which is hardly feasible technically (no common format of registration data, etc.)
Peter wrote:
There is/was a Madame Klinka at the DGAC who ran the Socata-DGAC projects and was very nice once contact was established, but good luck getting hold of her or her successor, since the DGAC don’t reply to foreign language comms, and IME hang up the phone immediately when they hear English. But if you really want to dig it out from the horse’s mouth, get a French speaker and start there.
Bloody hell, thanks for the run down… I think I´ll pass on that temptation. I´m in no rush – might either wait it out for a possible “better” option (such as MS 893), or work harder on figuring out if the MS 892 TCDS is in fact limiting for IFR flight, if equipped and configured in accordance with the most recent EASA regs.
Who controls what an EASA TCDS is based on?
EASA must have some people who write these docs. They never see the actual plane. What do they read?
For a Socata, they would dig out some DGAC doc. But, like I said, the DGAC docs are often old garbage – written in another era, disregarding current European equipment requirements and thus effectively crippling an aircraft type without good reason.
The DGAC docs, in turn, are based on Socata paperwork (and were written as a certification co-operation job between the DGAC and Socata) and I have already mentioned Socata’s middle-finger-up “TB20=VFR/night-VFR” approach. There is/was a Madame Klinka at the DGAC who ran the Socata-DGAC projects and was very nice once contact was established, but good luck getting hold of her or her successor, since the DGAC don’t reply to foreign language comms, and IME hang up the phone immediately when they hear English. But if you really want to dig it out from the horse’s mouth, get a French speaker and start there.
Actually I wonder how much of the UK LAA IFR programme is based on the same dodgy premise of a dodgy VFR-only restriction on the permit. Who benefits from this VFR-only? Well, with Annex 1 the answer is fairly clear: “VFR-only” is a political-regulatory quid pro quo for the reduced regulation, in return for which these planes are kept out of the airspace reserved for “real professionals”.
Silvaire wrote:
Silvaire14-Dec-22 16:0133
On topic, I’d say an IFR flight plan for the inbound flight plus a clear statement in the aircraft’s TCDS disallowing IFR might be something to avoid. I’d say that regardless of the equipment installed (or not), which I could imagine is never going to be checked in detail.
I don´t want to beat the dead horse, but I wouldn´t (as a none native English speaker (or French!!)) say that the TCDS is actually “disallowing IFR” in the case of the MS 892, it “only” makes reference to the “Approved Operations Capabilities”. Quite possibly, in EASA “language”, this means “not approved”, using the analogy that the MS 893 in fact mentions IFR.
Silvaire wrote:
@Silvaire Would you say that the MS 892 Type Certificate is “explicitly limited” from IFR operation/capabilities, considering the TC PDF
page 18 (MS 892) vs/page 25 (MS 893).I would say that is correct. It’s the downside of older aircraft certified by European national authorities in the past, when they alone had this practice. However even then and there the practice was not uniform and I suppose it likely varied between countries. My N-registered plane was originally certified in Germany (the FAA certification was done by treaty over 50 years ago, a paperwork process only), however neither the current EASA TCDS nor the separate FAA TCDS which is relevant to me have any statement about VFR, night or IFR operation. The only ‘fly in the ointment’ is a placard requirement in the MM, which is less definitive and raises the question of whether the placard can be removed when the plane is equipped differently than when manufactured (none were delivered with all the equipment required by German authorities at that time for IFR operation). I fly in good weather and have no interest in flying IFR in the plane, so I have never needed to push the point.
Thanks for your reply. I´ve got some considerations, and further investigations, to do in this selection process.
On topic, I’d say an IFR flight plan for the inbound flight plus a clear statement in the aircraft’s TCDS disallowing IFR might be something to avoid. I’d say that regardless of the equipment installed (or not), which I could imagine is never going to be checked in detail.
I agree, although if somebody got actually busted, I doubt they would post about it.
The level of inspector training would have to be truly awesome and I doubt there is anybody clever enough working in any European CAA.
Yes; what I meant is that it does not exist in practice. I have not heard in 22 years that some private aircraft, in a routine, ad-hoc inspection on an airport was checked to the extent that someone actually went on board (to play with stuff to check what equipment is effectively installed and operative, and to check the status of on-board databases, etc.). One would have heard about that. It would also require someone quite clued-up on avionics. I don‘t even know if one would be legallly required to let some official showing up on board of his private aircraft, just for a routine „inspection“.
I think all this belongs more to the world of fairy tales.
