Hi, I was wondering if some of you operates on aerodromes where GRF does not apply ? also if GRF info is not available, how do you proceed ?
Join your community
Join a community to be part of the discussion.
John Franklin created a topic in Air Operations
Iry Razafintsalama commented on John FRANKLIN's topic in Air Operations
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
Miguel Galea commented on a post in Air Operations
Boris Zec
3 years ago
Public
Dear Part145 colleagues,
I need I cannot understand requirement GM2 145.A.30(e) related to “Knowledge on EWIS when relevant” for “Quality audit staff”.
Concerning mark “X”, it look likes EWIS is mandatory for “Quality audit staff”.
But what is the meaning of “….when relevant”?
In which cases EWIS is not mandatory for “Quality audit staff”?
For “Quality audit staff” working in approved maintenance organization with scope of base and line maintenance for passengers commercial aircraft is EWIS knowledge consider mandatory or not?
Thank you in advance for prompt answer.
Hi there colleagues, does anyone have news about the EASA AMC20-22 Appendix B?
In particular, I am interested about with ground OPS, handling, .... (Target group 6)
In my experience there is a a wide criteria about the application of it.
Markus Buensen commented on a post in Air Operations
Han DAUW
2 years ago
Public
Dear Colleagues,
Under SPO.POL.140, the requirement for complex aircraft at planning stage is to fit in the Landing Distance Available, without application of any coefficient (unlike CAT operation where it needs to be demonstrated to be able to land within 60 or 70% of the LDA)
Then under AMC1 SPO.OP.210 (e), the inflight landing distance calculation requires to apply a factor of 115% to LDTA that needs to fit inside the LDA.
This means that the in-flight calculation becomes more restrictive than the before dispatch calculation, which would be opposite to the normal logic.
Is this a mistake in the regulation, or an omission, or did I miss something?
Thank you for your help
Well, Han, SPO.POL.140 requires you to make allowance for "expected variations in the approach and landing techniques" in regards to the POH data (which is flight test data, usually derived under perfect conditions). And in reference to AMC2 SPO.POL.140 you need to state this allowance in the OM.There is a similar statement for take-off in SPO.POL.130, which requires you to clear obstacles by a "adequate margin". These margins are not described in Part-SPO, but reference is made to ICAO Annex 6 Part I. And if you look there, you'll find the same margins as described in Part-CAT. So all in all you have more flexibility in Part-SPO, but you still need to define your margin (which obviously cannot be 0).
The in-fligth determination has actually a bit less margin required, if you have actual performance information (i.e. weather and RCC), if you have made a proper allowance in your pre-dispatch planning. Let me give you an example. In our operation we use a landing distance factor of 80% (which equals a factor of 1,25).
Now, if the LD is 1000m, the LDR therefore is 1250m (pre-dispatch). In-flight the LD would still be 1000m (if no values like mass have changed), but if we have landing performance information, we only need to apply 115%, which gives us 1150m. If we do not have performance information, the LDR would remain at 1250m.
Hope that helps ;-)
Best regards,
Markus
Han DAUW posted in Air Operations
2 years ago
Public
Dear Colleagues,
Under SPO.POL.140, the requirement for complex aircraft at planning stage is to fit in the Landing Distance Available, without application of any coefficient (unlike CAT operation where it needs to be demonstrated to be able to land within 60 or 70% of the LDA)
Then under AMC1 SPO.OP.210 (e), the inflight landing distance calculation requires to apply a factor of 115% to LDTA that needs to fit inside the LDA.
This means that the in-flight calculation becomes more restrictive than the before dispatch calculation, which would be opposite to the normal logic.
Is this a mistake in the regulation, or an omission, or did I miss something?
Thank you for your help
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU commented on Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU's topic in Cybersecurity
Maybe we are not too far from this..
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
Dominique Piepers commented on a post in Air Operations
Dominique Piepers
3 years ago
Public
Dear colleagues,
I have a question concerning the Table 5 in AMC2 SPA.LVO.100(b). In this table a difference is made in the roll-out control/guidance system for operations with DH between 0-49ft or NO DH.
According CS AWO.B.CATIII.113 point (c) and (d) the landing system must always be fail-operational but the ground-roll control can be fail-operational or fail-passive. Does this mean that there are certain aircraft types that can have a fail-operational landing system but a fail-passive roll-out control/guidance system?
Many thanks.
Dear Carsten,
Thank you very much for your answer and clarifiaction.
John Franklin created a topic in General Aviation
John Franklin created an event in Air Operations
Volker Löschhorn commented on Volker Löschhorn's topic in General Aviation
You must have another text than I in the Balloon Rule Book, I just downloaded from the EASA Site - see attachment.
John Megarry commented on a post in Air Operations
John Megarry
3 years ago
Public
Training of CRM trainers (flight crew and cabin crew)
EASA states that 'the training of flight crew CRM trainers should be conducted by flight crew CRM trainers with a minimum of 3 years experience' and that 'the training of cabin crew CRM trainers should be conducted by cabin crew CRM trainers with a minimum of 3 years experience'.
Am I correct in assuming that means that joint 5 day CRM trainer courses (attended by both flight crew and cabin crew) are no longer permitted, and that flight crew and cabin crew will each have to do separate courses, conducted by their respective trainers?
Many thanks, John
Michel, many thanks for your thoughts, I agree with your view. Not only do we gain from the exchange of views in the classroom, but from my experience many flight and cabin crew welcome the opportunity to share their views on CRM during coffee breaks etc and I think it would be a shame if we missed out on that interaction.
As you say, it would be great to get a formal answer from a Flight Standards expert!
Best wishes, John
Dominique Piepers posted in Air Operations
3 years ago
Public
Dear colleagues,
I have a question concerning the Table 5 in AMC2 SPA.LVO.100(b). In this table a difference is made in the roll-out control/guidance system for operations with DH between 0-49ft or NO DH.
According CS AWO.B.CATIII.113 point (c) and (d) the landing system must always be fail-operational but the ground-roll control can be fail-operational or fail-passive. Does this mean that there are certain aircraft types that can have a fail-operational landing system but a fail-passive roll-out control/guidance system?
Many thanks.
Stefano Daniele commented on John Franklin's topic in Air Operations
SAFETY PRMOTION FIRST : https://www.steiaviation.com/sms-news/news-from-easa
John Megarry posted in Air Operations
3 years ago
Public
Training of CRM trainers (flight crew and cabin crew)
EASA states that 'the training of flight crew CRM trainers should be conducted by flight crew CRM trainers with a minimum of 3 years experience' and that 'the training of cabin crew CRM trainers should be conducted by cabin crew CRM trainers with a minimum of 3 years experience'.
Am I correct in assuming that means that joint 5 day CRM trainer courses (attended by both flight crew and cabin crew) are no longer permitted, and that flight crew and cabin crew will each have to do separate courses, conducted by their respective trainers?
Many thanks, John
Volker Löschhorn created a topic in General Aviation
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
John Franklin created a topic in General Aviation
Toine Delnoij commented on Toine Delnoij's topic in Air Operations
Ah no, sorry, I didn’t mean the training part, I meant the convincing part: we have some collegues who haven’t had the FRM training and they want to see a written explanation/interpretation. If the FAQ gives us a clear interpretation, we use that to show it to those collegues.