Personally, I think it is a good idea to be conspicuous with the equipment available now, particularly if capable of ADS-L. Then it might be still compatible even after 2030+.
Join your community
Join a community to be part of the discussion.
sojol khan commented on AOPA Finland's event in General Aviation
sojol khan commented on AOPA Finland's event in General Aviation
Vladimir Foltin commented on Mikko Sinervä's topic in General Aviation
John Franklin created a topic in Rotorcraft
ame cunad commented on Richard Mornington-Sanford's topic in Rotorcraft
ame cunad commented on Patrice Portmann's topic in General Aviation
Uchenna Felix Nwachukwu created a topic in General Aviation
Michel Masson commented on Thomas Hytten's event in Rotorcraft
Thanks for sharing, Thomas.
Wishing you success with this important event!
ame cunad commented on John FRANKLIN's topic in Rotorcraft
Michel Masson created a topic in Rotorcraft
Michel Masson created a topic in General Aviation
rubel haque posted in General Aviation
Thomas Hytten created an event in General Aviation
Thomas Hytten created an event in Rotorcraft
Thomas Hytten created an event in General Aviation
Dominique Piepers posted in Air Operations
Dear aviation colleagues,
I would like to hear your thoughts on following topic regarding Low Visibility Operations.
According AMC3 SPA.LVO.100(b) Table 6 when performing CAT2 approach on a runway with 2 or more RVR assessment units one may be operative.
Imagine following scenario where the MID and ROLL OUT RVR assessment unit are U/S. You perform a landing distance computation and the calculated landing distance is within 2/3 of the landing distance available meaning you will not enter the third part of the runway.
Although the table states that only 1 RVR assessment unit can be U/S, you know that you don’t need the ROLL OUT RVR.
Is it allowed to perform the approach and so disregarding requirements in the Table 6, or will the airport not allow LVP’s when two RVR assessments units are U/S?
Thank you for your inputs/considerations.
Georgios Kipros commented on Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU's topic in Cybersecurity
Good morning Vasileios,
here in Germany, we have to state that small and medium-sized companies in particular have not yet really realized that they need to do something.
Many companies believe that their activities do not pose any information risks to aviation. To make matters worse, the national authorities have also shown little to no activity so far.
From my experience as a former accountable manager for a small operator (AOC, 145, ATO), I know that many of the requirements of PART-IS have already been implemented, but rather out of common sense and therefore not documented in a proper way.
We are trying to persuade these smaller companies to at least have a risk analysis carried out using a checklist. Even if there are hardly any or no risks for aviation, companies can identify and mitigate general information security risks, as these can, in the worst case, ruin the company, for example through scams.
We are also convinced that potential clients will in future increasingly insist on the introduction of an information security management system, since they usually provide internal information for the execution of the order and must therefore ensure that it is handled carefully.
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
Michel Masson created a topic in Rotorcraft
Chester Armstrong commented on a post in Rotorcraft
EASA Video Teaser Carriage and Use of Personal Electronic Devices (PEDs) and portable Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs) in the Cockpit, October 2024
This year, EASA has invited Mathieu Vandenavenne, Safety for Flight, to make a safety promotion video on Carriage and Use of Personal Electronic Devices (PEDs) and portable Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs) in the Cockpit.
The video will be launched in the Rotorcraft Safety Zone at EUROPEAN ROTOR in RAI Amsterdam.
Looking forward to meeting you there.
Some refreshed consideration of the use of PED/EFB would be welcome. Current requirements for full use of T-PED include the aircraft certification or EMI assessment processes, which are perhaps not universally understood, applied, verified or necessarily practical for small-scale operators. (CAT.GEN.MPA.140/141 & NCC.GEN.130/131 refer).