Here is the summary of the recent meeting of GA.COM (industry and associations) and GA TeB (authorities) that took place on 16 April in Friedrichshafen on the eve of AERO 2024.
Join your community
Join a community to be part of the discussion.
Michel MASSON posted in Air Operations
The May 2024 issue of ERA's Regional International magazine is online!
This digital-only issue, ERA's environmental special, also includes the latest information from ERA, exclusive comments from industry leaders, news from ERA members and this issue sponsor Fokker Next Gen.
The full issue is available to read online or download as a PDF for free.
https://cloud.3dissue.net/9237/9242/9271/112250/index.html?49064&utm_so…
Vladimir FOLTIN commented on Vladimir FOLTIN's topic in General Aviation
Michel MASSON created a topic in General Aviation
Francisco Molina commented on a post in Air Operations
Dear community,
According to the provisions of GM1 ORO.FC.100(c) , may a pilot with OML restrictions , fly an MPA with another pilot who has no OML restrictions , he is fully qualified to the type, but he is over 60 years old?
Hello Nikolaos. I agree with you. There is no limitation to pair two pilots over 60yo unless that they have an OML (Aircrew MED.B.001(d)(1)(ii)). On my eyes, what Benjamin mentioned is based on the old COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1178/2011 which has been amended several times (by the COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2015/445 and finally the Regulation (EU) 2020/359) which is mentioned in the Aircrew FCL.065). In that FCL point there is no constraint for pairing two pilots over 60yo as long as MED.B.001 is not applicable.
Cheers
JESSIE ARTHORO commented on a post in Cybersecurity
EASA Artificial Intelligence Days - High Level Conference
16 - 17 May
Join us at the EASA Artificial Intelligence (AI) Days where we will pave the way for the future of AI in aviation with the unveiling of the EASA AI Roadmap 2.0.
We will also engage in meaningful discussions with industry leaders and researchers at the MLEAP Stakeholder's Day.
Please share the link below to your contacts it would be great to disseminate this invite as much as possible.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/events/easa-artificia…
id be happy to , give me your details so we can share some email to get to know ourselves
JESSIE ARTHORO commented on Vladimir FOLTIN's topic in General Aviation
really
JESSIE ARTHORO commented on a post in General Aviation
Libya air lines on top
can you put me on
John FRANKLIN posted in Air Operations
It's been another busy week here in Cologne, lots to update you on.
1. 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐀𝐌 𝐇𝐔𝐁 - Firstly for anyone working in the field of Innovative Air Mobility (IAM), we have just added a second update to our IAM Hub. Some people refer to IAM or UAM by the more general term "Air Taxis", although the reality is this new part of the industry has lots of exciting possible - all that need to be safely integrated into the aviation system. Thanks to the work of Kai Bauer, Gonzalez Gomez Antonio, Natale Di Rubbo and Alberto Cunial, supported by Maude Haziza at CYLAD, our wonderful Web and Social Media Teams, the IAM Hub is full of great information. 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐮𝐛 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 ➡️ https://lnkd.in/eJQdrxtA
2. 𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐀 𝐅𝐮𝐞𝐥 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬 - On Tuesday afternoon, Francisco Arenas Alvariño, Daniel Brousse Rivas, Eduard Ciofu and I hosted the 4th Fuel Webinar. With the support of Andrada Bujor, Alex Olivera Ballarín, Spencer Norton, Tom Borer, Peter Ramroth, Tom Hakala, Antoine Dejean de La Batie, Claude Godel and Gabriel Arroyo we hosted over 400 people to talk about ReFuel EU and the New EASA Fuel Manual and statistical contingency fuel.
𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐮𝐞𝐥 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 ➡️ https://lnkd.in/evCFw5xj
𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤 (13𝐭𝐡 𝐌𝐚𝐲) 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 ➡️ https://lnkd.in/ej-CGiai.
3. 𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐀 𝐀𝐧𝐧𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 - Save the date for this major strategic event the will be held in Budapest, Hungary on October 30-31 in conjunction with Hungary’s EU presidency and in cooperation with the Hungarian Civil Aviation Authority. The theme for the conference is “Safety – technology – and the human dimension”.
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐮𝐩𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬: https://lnkd.in/eWzAVbmb
4. 𝐑𝐮𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐮𝐧𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 2024. We have continued to virtually run lots of runways this week. We started in Cluj, Romania on Saturday, moving through Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Italy, Malta and finally into Switzerland today. A huge thanks to Kleio Lamprianidou and her team for their support in Larnaca last week. Also to Petra Čubelić from INXELO TECHNOLOGIES Ltd for running Zagreb and Massimo Catusi and the team at Milan Bergamo Airport - SACBO S.p.A..
Looking forward to more next week. Drop me a message if you are in any of the following places and want to get invovled - Wiener Neustadt (AT), Brno (CZ), Senica (SK), Warsaw (PL) Lolland Falster (DK), Stavanger (NO), Saeve (SE).
Michel MASSON created a topic in Rotorcraft
Ricardo Pardo commented on a post in Air Operations
I have the following question about an ambiguity between the Cover Regulation Article 2 §7/SPO.GEN.005 and SPO.SPEC.MCF:
- Article 2 §7 considers Maintenance Check Flights as a specialised activity
"‘specialised operation’ means any operation, other than commercial air transport operation, where the aircraft is used for specialised activities such as agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, aerial advertisement, maintenance check flights"
=> My French SPO operator declares MCF as an activity and starts writing an SOP about it.
- Although SPO.GEN.005 (a) says that maintenance check flights are a specialised activity, the list under GM1 SPO.GEN.005 does not mention maintenance check flights as an specialised activity.
Under SPO.SPEC.MCF an SOP is not required.
=> The question is if MCF are a specialised activity an SOP is required by SPO.OP.230.
But under SPO.SPEC.MCF, an SOP is not required.
Can somebody resolve this ambiguity?
Would it be a correct conclusion if you give priority to SPO.SPEC which requires no SOP for MCF?
Thank you, Guy Wouters
Ian is right. For the Maintenance Check Flight Manual, follow this link:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/community/topics/maintenance-check-flights
Nikolaos Samaras posted in Air Operations
Dear community,
According to the provisions of GM1 ORO.FC.100(c) , may a pilot with OML restrictions , fly an MPA with another pilot who has no OML restrictions , he is fully qualified to the type, but he is over 60 years old?
Michel MASSON created a topic in General Aviation
Michel MASSON posted in Rotorcraft
Spotlight On Safety: Invest In Tech And Train To Proficiency
ROTORMEDIA, May 6, 2024
By Chris Hill, VAI, VAST Steering Committee
https://rotormedia.com/spotlight-on-safety-invest-in-tech-and-train-to-…
Good pilots use technology to enhance safety.
Exceptional pilots train to proficiency to use technology correctly and resume technology if technology fails.
Michel MASSON posted in Rotorcraft
Push to Talk with Bruce Webb: A Helicopter Podcast
32 episodes now available!
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/push-to-talk-with-bruce-webb-a-he…
Watch e.g. Episode 25 Flying In The Crowded Airspace of Today with Mike O'Donoghue, GASCo
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-25-flying-in-the-crowded-…
Guy Wouters posted in Air Operations
I have the following question about an ambiguity between the Cover Regulation Article 2 §7/SPO.GEN.005 and SPO.SPEC.MCF:
- Article 2 §7 considers Maintenance Check Flights as a specialised activity
"‘specialised operation’ means any operation, other than commercial air transport operation, where the aircraft is used for specialised activities such as agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, aerial advertisement, maintenance check flights"
=> My French SPO operator declares MCF as an activity and starts writing an SOP about it.
- Although SPO.GEN.005 (a) says that maintenance check flights are a specialised activity, the list under GM1 SPO.GEN.005 does not mention maintenance check flights as an specialised activity.
Under SPO.SPEC.MCF an SOP is not required.
=> The question is if MCF are a specialised activity an SOP is required by SPO.OP.230.
But under SPO.SPEC.MCF, an SOP is not required.
Can somebody resolve this ambiguity?
Would it be a correct conclusion if you give priority to SPO.SPEC which requires no SOP for MCF?
Thank you, Guy Wouters
Davide MARTINI commented on Davide MARTINI's topic in Cybersecurity
Spoiler Alert - we will talk about the ECSF in the Part-IS workshop in November
Jean-Claude Ribaux posted in General Aviation
Hello
A PPLor >CPL or ATPL Pilot want to fly SEP aircraft acc LAPL privileges (recency) Does he have to give up the higher licence ?
Problem for an ATPL pilot with a type rating (A350 f e) which want to fly also on SEP A/C...
Dominique SAVEL commented on a post in Cybersecurity
Hello Vasileios, today we received the information that EASA and EUROCONTROL are signing a cooperation protocol to strengthen cooperation for a safe and sustainable future of European aviation. Is it possible to know more about the cybersecurity part in particular given the fact that Eurocontrol has 41 member countries while Europe is still at 27 ?
... postpone the subject to a later date? Take the time to define what sensitive data is?don't get me wrong, it's just that the world is changing and there remains an impression that we treat things as if the dangers and threats had not multiplied
Davide MARTINI created an event in Cybersecurity
Davide MARTINI commented on Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU's topic in Cybersecurity
Hi Michal, thanks for the feedback.
As mentioned in the article, the use of EFBs in operations requires a risk assessment (by the operator) and specific approval (by the competent authority) as there may be an impact on safety that should be managed.
Like you wrote, one way to control this is to compare the results with other systems or another EFB, or to compare with manuals etc. From a security point of view, it is better if the comparison is made against a different /dissimilar system.