Welcome

Become a member or log in to the aviation community

This community is for aviation enthusiast to meet and share their passion. Keep yourself updated and share the latest news & events.

Upcoming events
in the EASA community

RNP Visual with Prescribed Track: What you should know.

28 May '25 12:00 - 13:30

Certified in Cybersecurity Training Part 1

4 Jun '25 18:00 - 28 Jun '25 20:00

Newest topics
in the EASA community

Birdstrike, a Seasonal Risk

Michel MASSON · 22 May

Join the ESPN-R Groups on LinkedIn

Michel MASSON · 16 May

Newest communities
in the EASA community

Cybersecurity

Public community · 7155 members

Air Operations

Public community · 20353 members

Join your community

Join a community to be part of the discussion.

Jürgen Leukefeld commented on Michel MASSON's topic in Rotorcraft

15 hours ago

Birstrike article 2025, opening picture (Credit BBC)

Are You Prepared for Birdstrike Season?

23 Apr 2025 •

Michel MASSON

Comment

Jürgen Leukefeld • 15 hours ago

Very good to adress this issue. Only last year we lost a friend by birdstrike during cross country flight at reasonable altitude.
In Germany they have an Association for biological Flight safety (DAVVL) which investigates an informs about risk. Very interesting to leaf through those annual documents.
=> https://www.davvl.de/
And they have a strong recommendation to pass "aircraft relevant bird areas" at reasonable hight only (>2.000ft) to take care of breeding animals and to reduce risk of up flying bird and consecutive risk of colliding. The much our firt interest is focused on our own saftey, we must always arrange with nature as well.
=> https://www.cbd.int/cepa/cepafair/2008/germany-2008-05-en.pdf

And can anybody from EASA check following alert:
=> https://aviationreporting.eu/AviationReporting/
Thank you!

Show all 2 comments

Axel Wegener commented on a post in General Aviation

1 day ago

Eric Schoonderwoerd

3 days ago Public

From Recruitment to Workplace Performance

As the aviation industry evolves with innovation and regulatory change, building and maintaining workforce competence is more critical than ever. According to EASA - European Union Aviation Safety Agency's latest European Plan for Aviation Safety highlights this as a strategic priority—but bridging the gap between regulatory requirements and real-world application remains a challenge.

We want to hear from aviation professionals

JAA Training Organisation is developing new learning and knowledge services to better support capacity building and lifelong learning across the aviation sector.
- How competencies are defined and assessed
- Challenges in meeting regulatory and operational expectations
- What services would support your workforce development goals

Your voice will help shape future-ready solutions that respond directly to industry needs.

Take the survey now: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JAATOSolutions

Axel Wegener • 1 day ago

quote: bridging the gap between regulatory requirements and real-world application remains a challenge....

Dear Eric, this is a major and general problem your mentioned here. There is no feedback channel from the 'real aviation world' and the national authorities (oversight) to EASA (rule making) - and this seems to be by will in between...?
So there is no real improvement as long as EASA will become more self-critical and open up the bunker-doors...

Henry Pottkämper posted in Rotorcraft

3 days ago Public

Applicability of Regulation (EU) 2023/203 to Small ATOs Operating Mechanically Controlled Helicopters

Dear colleagues,

Our ATO recently received a notice from our national aviation authority that, under Regulation (EU) 2023/203, we will be required to implement a full Information Security Management System (ISMS). We operate a small helicopter flight school using non-networked, mechanically controlled aircraft such as the Robinson R44 and provide PPL(H) and LAPL(H) training.

We are concerned about the proportionality of this requirement, especially considering:
- AOC holders operating similar helicopters under commercial conditions are explicitly excluded from the scope of the regulation (Art. 2 (c)(iii)), even though they are typically subject to stronger regulatory oversight.
- Our systems are not connected to external networks, and our aircraft have no digital interfaces that would allow a cyberattack to impact flight safety.
- The ELA2 exemption for ATOs under Art. 2(d) does not apply to helicopters like the R44, although their risk profile is comparable to ELA2 airplanes.

We are interested in learning how other small ATOs are interpreting this regulation and whether there has been any guidance or flexibility from your competent authority regarding implementation.

Does anyone else feel that a risk-based, proportionate approach would be more suitable here?

Looking forward to your insights and experiences.

Best regards,
Henry

Diego Magrini commented on a post in Cybersecurity

1 week ago

Thomas Dall Pedersen

3 weeks ago Public

Hi all

Do you know why EASA has elected to use the word "appoint" and not "nominate" in the selection of the person/group being responsible for the ISMS?
I'm referring to IS.I.OR.240(b) Personnel requirements.

I've been through the video from the EASA Part-IS workshop in November '24 and on day 1 at timestamp 5:34:00, Gerrit Neubauer asks if there is any difference from authority perspective between a "nominated person" and a "appointed person".
To this question, Angeliki Karakoliou from EASA replies, that they consider it as being the same.

But, why not just use the term "nominated"?
Can I find references for how EASA interpret those terms other places than in the YouTube video?

The reason for my questions, is the way the regulations set requirements for "nominated persons", but not as much for "appointed persons". Unless of course, those two terms are considered the same.
There are many references to "nominated person" like:
In AMC1 ARO.GEN.330 Changes - organisations, the compentent authority must make sure the nominated person is suitable before acceptence.
In ORO.AOC.135 Personnel requirements, a list of "nominated persons" is described, but no mention of ISMS.

How have you interpreted this and do you know how the authorities will interpret it?

Diego Magrini • 1 week ago

It seems like they purposely decided to avoid using the term "Nominated Person" to avoid confusion with the term used for authority-approved figures.

A Nominated Person is usually someone nominated by the organisation and approved by the authority.

The Appointed Person in the context of Part-IS doesn't require approval from the authority, therefore is directly appointed by the organisation.