Thank you, Vasileios. I'm sure this will be of great help to the community.
Join your community
Join a community to be part of the discussion.
Axel Wegener posted in Air Operations
1 month ago
Public
CAT III FO with DH<50ft and RVR75 - does the rule EU 965/2012 make any sense regarding this point? Isn't it wrong and dangerous to imply such operation? I would appreciate some thoughts...
Carlos Sorel commented on a post in Cybersecurity
Carlos Sorel
1 month ago
Public
Hello!
At the November workshop we were introduced to a self-assessment tool to check the level of compliance of our organizations which honestly looked very impressive. Is it published somewhere or is it already available for download?
Thanks and best regards.
Michel Masson created a topic in Rotorcraft
Carlos Sorel posted in Cybersecurity
1 month ago
Public
Hello!
At the November workshop we were introduced to a self-assessment tool to check the level of compliance of our organizations which honestly looked very impressive. Is it published somewhere or is it already available for download?
Thanks and best regards.
Michel Masson commented on John Franklin's topic in Rotorcraft
See also Sunny Swift: Collision avoidance - make yourself seen - Issue 22 (https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/news/sunny-swift-coll…) and the article 'UK CAA research on Human Factors in using Electronic Conspicuity devices' (with VIDEO) published on Feb. 2024 in the EASA Community General Aviation (https://www.easa.europa.eu/community/topics/uk-caa-research-human-facto…).
Note: i-Conspicuity is commonly referred to as Electronic Conspicuity.
Michel Masson commented on John Franklin's topic in General Aviation
See also Sunny Swift: Collision avoidance - make yourself seen - Issue 22 (https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/news/sunny-swift-coll…) and the article 'UK CAA research on Human Factors in using Electronic Conspicuity devices' (with VIDEO) published on Feb. 2024 in the EASA Community General Aviation (https://www.easa.europa.eu/community/topics/uk-caa-research-human-facto…).
Note: i-Conspicuity is commonly referred to as Electronic Conspicuity.
John Franklin created a topic in Rotorcraft
John Franklin created a topic in General Aviation
Michel Masson posted in General Aviation
2 months ago
Public
NTSB Final Report On Fatal 2022 North Las Vegas Collision
Pilot and controller error cited, ATC staffing issues also noted.
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/fatal-collision-report-restates-acc…
A lot can be learned for this NTSB Aviation Investigation Final Report on a fatal midair collision accident between a Piper Malibu (trajectory in blue in the picture below) and a Cessna 172 (red) in July 2022.
Picture credit: NTSB.
Michel Masson created a topic in General Aviation
Bünyan Öztürk commented on Bünyan Öztürk's topic in Air Operations
Cool Thx.
I found only this and nothing about ETOPS ALTN
ALTERNATE AERODROMES
The alternate aerodromes for which the landing mass is required to be determined in accordance with CAT.POL.A.230 are:
(a) destination alternate aerodromes;
(b) fuel ERA aerodromes; and
(c) re-dispatch or re-clearance aerodromes
John Franklin created a topic in Air Operations
Bünyan Öztürk created a topic in Air Operations
Ralph Kossmann commented on Michel Masson's topic in General Aviation
Thanks Michel for the inspiring read ... let's get ready for the new season!
Michel Masson created a topic in General Aviation
RONNY KIENER commented on Michel Masson's topic in General Aviation
Dear Mr. Eriksson,
Many thanks for the correction and sorry for the late reply. Indeed, they are not regulated and the wording may be misleading as translated from the French. Suitable for flying would be more accurate as it is written in NCO.GEN.125 and the associated AMCs.
I hope this clarifies the issue.
Kind regards
Ronny
Nika Khvedelidze posted in General Aviation
2 months ago
Public
Dear GA community,
I want to bring your attention about portable fire extinguishers that need to be located in NCO aircraft (airplane and helicopter). Based on articles "NCO.IDE.A.160 Hand fire extinguishers" and "NCO.IDE.H.160 Hand fire extinguishers" of Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 (Air Ops), NCO operators (except ELA 2 airplane and helicopter) are required to install at least 1 hand fire extinguishers:
(1) in the flight crew compartment; and
(2) in each passenger compartment that is separate from the flight crew compartment, except if the compartment is readily accessible to the flight crew.
In the meantime EASA does not clearly defines what types of fire extinguishing agents are acceptable to be used in aircraft. The only regulation I found is Regulation (EU) 2015/640 (Part-26 - "26.170 Fire extinguishers" - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02015R064…) which states that large airplane and helicopter shall not use halon as an extinguishing agent if the first individual certificate of airworthiness is issued on or after 18 May 2019.
Alternatively, I found FAA's "Advisory Circular 20-42D (Hand Fire Extinguishers for use in Aircraft - https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-42D.p…)" which clearly states and recommends types of extinguishing agents allowed to be used in aircraft.
In general, ICAO's Annex 6, Part II (International General Aviation Operations) states that:
"2.4.2.3 Any agent used in a built-in fire extinguisher for each lavatory disposal receptacle for towels, paper or waste in
an aeroplane for which the individual certificate of airworthiness is first issued on or after 31 December 2011 and any
extinguishing agent used in a portable fire extinguisher in an aeroplane for which the individual certificate of airworthiness is
first issued on or after 31 December 2018 shall:
a) meet the applicable minimum performance requirements of the State of Registry; and
b) not be of a type listed in the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer as it appears in the
Eighth Edition of the Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Annex A,
Group II.
Note.— Information concerning extinguishing agents is contained in the UNEP Halons Technical Options Committee
Technical Note No. 1 — New Technology Halon Alternatives and FAA Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-99-63, Options to the
Use of Halons for Aircraft Fire Suppression Systems."
I wonder to get to know practice you follow when determining whether certain type of extinguishing agent is suitable for aircraft use or not.
Thank you your attention for this matter!
Lars-Henrik Eriksson commented on a post in General Aviation
Claes M Johansson
2 months ago
Public
Topic: National CAA interpretation of Part DTO.GEN.210 (a)(2)
We have in a DTO experienced our national CAA requiring the appointment of a temporary HoT substituting the ordinary HoT in order to continue flight training operations due to the latter having knee surgery. The CAA references AMC 1 to the mentioned rule as the rationale for this decision.
Since this AMC deals with the competence and experience required to be suitable for appointment to the role of HoT, it seems a bit fare fetched to interpret the ”acceptable means” of holding an unrestricted instructor certificate as implying that a temporary unfit situation during a pre-planned period, not affecting mental or managerial abilities, would disqualify the HoT from fulfilling his responsibilities during that period.
Indeed it seems that, would such an interpretation be relevant, then all HoT :s must also stay current on all ratings, and classes their DTOs or ATOs provide training for. Surely not the case is it?
My questions are:
Has any other CAA:s (than Sweden) made a similar interpretation? Is there any other EASA guidelines apart from the AMC that may be referenced?
As the AMC in question refers to the "qualification and experience" of the HoT and does not mention medical certificates, I suggest you appeal the decision of the Swedish CAA to an administrative court.
Claes M Johansson posted in General Aviation
2 months ago
Public
Topic: National CAA interpretation of Part DTO.GEN.210 (a)(2)
We have in a DTO experienced our national CAA requiring the appointment of a temporary HoT substituting the ordinary HoT in order to continue flight training operations due to the latter having knee surgery. The CAA references AMC 1 to the mentioned rule as the rationale for this decision.
Since this AMC deals with the competence and experience required to be suitable for appointment to the role of HoT, it seems a bit fare fetched to interpret the ”acceptable means” of holding an unrestricted instructor certificate as implying that a temporary unfit situation during a pre-planned period, not affecting mental or managerial abilities, would disqualify the HoT from fulfilling his responsibilities during that period.
Indeed it seems that, would such an interpretation be relevant, then all HoT :s must also stay current on all ratings, and classes their DTOs or ATOs provide training for. Surely not the case is it?
My questions are:
Has any other CAA:s (than Sweden) made a similar interpretation? Is there any other EASA guidelines apart from the AMC that may be referenced?
John Straiton commented on a post in Cybersecurity
Marc-Ch. Reichle
2 months ago
Public
Hello and a happy new year to everyone!
I've got a question about how to deal with a new kind of ICAs, affecting every airline operating e-enabled aircraft.
OEMs are providing Aircraft Security Operator Guidance (ASOG) (e.g., Security Handbook or (U)ANSOG) to operators to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft. These documents - or to be more precise: the contained instructions - are categorized as ICAs (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness). Usually, it is the responsibility of CAMO to ensure all ICAs are taken care of.
The topics addressed in, and tasks required by the ASOGs are exceeding the common CAMO scope, reaching into areas of others responsibility (e.g., Flight Ops for Crew Processes and Procedures), IT for Digital Certificate management). The instructions are written, following the form of "The operator shall" or "xyz shall be ensured...".
EUROCAE ED-204A is recommending, operators are having an "Aircraft Information Security Center" (AISC) with trained specialists, "acting as the operator's point of contact for aircraft information security events".
Has anyone any experience or is willing to share his/her thoughts about how this could be implemented? Thinking of actions falling into the area and responsibility of others: Does each such tasks need to be interpreted as "subcontracted continuing airworthiness management tasks" (SCAMT)? Is there any more efficient, but regulatory wise acceptable, way to manage this kind of new type of ICAs?
Thank you very much in advance and with kind regards.
Hi Marc-Christian,
The EU 2023/203 regulation more commonly referred to as EASA Part IS is requiring all EASA Approved Organisation to introduce an Information Security Management System, that will cover the needs of the ICA you are highlighting, please see the Cybersecurity Community Network for more details.