When the EASA’s new Part-NCC (“Non-Commercial Complex”) rule takes effect on August 25, many of the smaller operations flying corporate aircraft or aircraft for individuals, including some owner-flown aircraft, in Europe will have to comply with a safety framework similar to that for AOC-holders. Less than a year before the rule takes effect, there is confusion and opacity on what Part-NCC involves and some key areas have yet to be resolved, according to speakers at a January 28 conference run by Aeropodium.

Joel Hencks of AeroEx.eu, who chaired the conference, warned that there is “less than eight months to go for this deadline, which is a challenging one as most of the operators affected are not used to the European regulatory environment. After the deadline you must comply or be grounded.”

Part-NCC requires an “accountable manager” to sign a “declaration” that Part-NCC has been complied with, and this must be done by August. Preparation means having a safety management system (SMS) in place that provides an operations manual, MEL, record-keeping and compliance with various requirements, among them training mandates. Performance and operating limitations and equipment all have to be covered in detail for each aircraft.

Tony Eagles, flight operations and policy specialist with the UK CAA, said that the declaration under Part-NCC started a clock that meant the competent authority has to do at least one inspection in the ensuing 48 months, and some inspections must be unannounced. “We’re still considering how we’re going to do that [and still waiting to be told] what ‘an inspection’ means.”

 Eagles noted that the law has been in place for two years now, “so there has been plenty of opportunity for everyone in aviation to get it right–for seven years, since the NPA went out. We haven’t got it right yet and there are 246 days to go until the rules become law.”

He noted that the basic regulation that governs the EASA is being reviewed, and could lead to the agency itself becoming a “competent authority” for AOCs should operators choose to use it rather than their national authority. He said that the Part-NCC regulation comes under EU 965/2012, which has been amended 10 times already. “So don’t just go to 965. It’s a nightmare keeping configuration control but EASA has been trying to be helpful by providing a ‘consolidated version.’ But even at the CAA we have trouble, so you do need a compliance monitor who is really on top of it.”

Eagles also said it is not clear how many NCC operators there actually are in the UK. “We’ll know when we get the declarations. It’s a chicken-and-egg situation.” The CAA is developing an online application process that he said “should be ready by June.” All declarations, from all states, will go into a “European declaration database.” Further information is available at caa.co.uk/NCC and it will soon have a large database of FAQs developed from a recent NCC workshop.

Complex Aircraft

A key feature of Part-NCC is the definition of “complex motor-powered aircraft”–max takeoff weight greater than 5,700 kg (12,566 pounds) or more than 19 seats, or a certified minimum crew of at least two, any jet and any turboprop with more than one engine (aircraft such as the PC-12 are therefore not considered complex by Part-NCC, but King Airs are).

The rules will affect operators in all 28 EU member states, as well as Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, for a total of 32 “EASA states.” But it will also affect “third country” operators from the rest of the world who operate aircraft into Europe. “This affects a lot of you as you have some aircraft registered in so-called third countries,” said Hencks. “This is one of the main challenges.”

Aside from the definition of complex aircraft, there is also “some legal confusion over what is a commercial operation, and one big question is who is the operator that is liable for the operation,” said Hencks. To make matters worse some operators themselves will be deemed “complex” in terms of their management system (broadly defined as having a workforce of more than 20 but there are eight other criteria).

NCC’s Wide Net

Given the broad definition of complex aircraft, Part-NCC could cover “an aero club, a state authority, private owner, a registered owner or a special-purpose company, said Philippe Renz, lawyer with Renz & Partners. He said the risks are huge in light of the potential aftermath of any accident, so the question of who should sign the declaration and admit to being in control is difficult, especially when “80 percent of accidents are put down to the pilots.”

For an AOC operator there is no declaration requirement; and “control” in the basic regulation is not defined–but it needs to be defined for business aviation, said Renz. He then cited another gray area: where the operator has its “Principal Place of Business,” which raises complex questions such as whether or not it is possible to delegate operational control to an organization in Dubai, Russia, the Isle of Man and so on.

Aeropodium will be hosting a seminar on this issue on March 14 in London. This will be of particular interest to operators with “aircraft registered in third countries and used ‘into, within and out of the community by an operator established or residing in the community,’” said Renz. This will be covered by Part-TCO, he said, signaling that “the EU wants to impose its system on third-country aircraft.”

The problem, said Renz, is that this creates additional oversight of such aircraft and duplication. “It doesn’t make sense from a practical point of view. It doesn’t work. You can’t have two with liability for the same operation.”

Simon Williams, director of civil aviation for the Isle of Man, picked up on this point strongly in his presentation. “We are working closely with the ICAO representative at the [UK] CAA to incorporate Annex 6 Part II by May 1 this year. We have as many aircraft registered that are operating outside Europe as are in Europe, so we work on implementing ICAO SARPs to the best of our ability.

“EASA did ask the Isle of Man Aircraft Registry to become a Part-NCC register. We couldn’t see how that was going to work, but we are working to ensure our regulatory oversight is recognized by EASA without duplication.”

This is precisely the problem that Part-NCC has spawned. “It is increasingly clear that Part-NCC doesn’t really reflect ICAO,” said Williams. “Of real concern is that there is a lot of confusion about Part-NCC, with the starting point being to decide if your Principal Place of Business is in the EU and weighing if you’re an NCC operator or not. NCC doesn’t really accept the reality of business aviation [operators often having operations and aircraft around the world].”

Worse than that, he said, “It looks like there is an additional inspection that the state of the operator has to do. EASA has perhaps trespassed on ICAO here, saying the state of operator [the relevant competent authority] has to approve something we do anyway. There is potential for a conflict of oversight through duplication, so it’s going to be quite challenging come August 26.” The Registry has a meeting on March 2 to discuss this issue with the EASA.

Asked whether the EASA is perhaps trying to force people from other registries (such as the M-register) onto EASA registries, Williams replied: “Yes, it worries me. It’s a great shame they’re not here.”

Razvan Prunean, the EBAA’s manager of safety, rulemaking and operations, said that the association has outlined preparatory tasks for Part-NCC operators. He advised that operators “become familiar with the new requirements as soon as possible and get in contact with your competent authority. Then ask them if a ‘gap analysis’ is available between your currently available national rules and the European rules.” Prunean said that the EASA held a joint meeting in Cologne on March 2, and he added that his association is proposing training courses for accountable managers “so they know what they’re stepping into.” o

IBAC Helps Out

Compliance with NCC is not as complicated as some suggest, according to Sonnie Bates, director of the IS-BAO program for IBAC. “The work’s done for you if you’re an NCC operator with our compliance matrix,” assuming you have already adopted the IS-BAO standards, he said. Operators that belong to any of IBAC’s 14 member associations can get IS-BAO, implement it and use the NCC matrix to set up compliance with Part-NCC and cover the requirement for compliance monitoring.

“IS-BAO and Part-NCC are close already,” said Bates. “There’s just a slight gap, so this past year we’ve closed the gap and now you can do IS-BAO and NCC and comply that way.” He said IBAC has teamed with two insurers, Global Aviation and USAIG, to offer discounts of 10.5 percent and 15 percent, respectively (as long as the operator meets certain simulator training requirements).

IBAC offers a generic manual for NCC operations. “You can create your manual by going through and tailoring it, using a selection process,” said Bates, “or you can use the IBAC NCC compliance tool.”

Bates pointed out that it is up to the national authorities, which will administer Part-NCC on behalf of the EASA, whether the IS-BAO approach leads to NCC compliance. But he said the first operators to carry this out will set precedents.

Affected Operators

Of the 21,450 business aircraft worldwide, approximately 2,428 jets appear to be with operators that have their principal place of business in an EASA state, according to Hamburg, Germany-based WingX Advance managing director Richard Koe. Of those, around 495 are with non-commercial operators, and he referred to these as “the candidate fleet.” Some 1,200 N-registered aircraft are active in the EU. The U.S. and Isle of Man together (N and M registers) account for 12 percent of aircraft.

Counting turboprops brings the number to 6,131 aircraft, by WingX’s records. But Koe noted that 75 percent of aircraft in Europe “belong to single-tail operators.” Many of these will fall into the NCC bracket, he said, suggesting there is a real business opportunity here for service providers.

TAG Aviation is one such company looking to suggest that organizations such as the CAA and EBAA point operators in their direction. Simon Drakeley, v-p of compliance with TAG Aviation (based at Farnborough Airport), said that he hopes Part-NCC has opened a “can of worms” as it aims to bring the safety assurance levels of AOC operators to non-AOC holders, and closer to the requirements of Part-CAT (commercial air transport).

“You can’t just plagiarize a set of manuals. NCC is difficult and will be a quantum leap in some cases. NCC is CAT with two or three items removed.”

He suggested that to be able to demonstrate what NCC requires, it is better for operators to put everything with one service provider. “The question is, can an individual NCC operator deliver a compliant NCC operation?” He also suggested that “the day an NCC aircraft runs off the end of the runway will be the day the line is drawn in the sand.

“So please don’t just tick the boxes.”