Welcome

Thanks, Nicolas!
And thanks to the DGAC for the English translation.

Interesting, I recently had a chat with a colleague about that.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary APPOINTED means "to choose someone officially for a job or responsibility", that implies a decision that has been made, not pending any approval.

Whereas NOMINATED means "to officially suggest someone for an election, job, position, or honour", implying that that person may or may not get the job, position, pending approval.

Therefore, it shouldn't be seen as "the same", and in the context of Part-IS it seems consistent to "APPOINT a person or group of persons".

Very helpful! Cheers

I disagree.

I believe the spirit of the ED is to have NAA Inspectors trained on auditing the implementation of Part-IS witin organisations, not to audit the internal implementation within NAAs.

That will most probably be the first requirement, as Part-IS.D.OR becomes applicable before Part-IS.AR.

For example, point number 3 reads:
"Evaluate how an organisation has identified and documented the aviation safety relevant assets that are in the ISMS scope."
It specifically talks about an organisation implementation, and yet it is mapped to IS.AR.205(a)(b)

IS.AR.205(a) reads "The competent authority shall identify all the elements of its own organisation [...]"
So it has nothing to do with "Evaluate how an organisation has [...]".

This is a common misconception I encounter when talking to NAAs, so I am not surprised to see it. However, I think it should be corrected for the sake of clarity.

Or at least, there should be no reference to AR/OR when the requirements are identical in AR and OR.
Or there should be two mappings, one for NAA inspectors auditing Organisations (under D.OR or I.OR) and one for NAA inspectors auditing Authorities (under AR).

Hi Nazariy,
That’s a very relevant question. As far as I know, there isn’t an official cross-reference tool between SERA and OM-A Section 12 content. Some operators develop internal compliance maps or use gap analyses especially useful now with the updates from Reg. 2024/404.

I’ve wondered the same. If NCO.OP.143 applies to all IFR, shouldn’t it also apply to BIR flights? Would be great to get clarification.

Great to see EASA and key industry players addressing the shift toward RNP Visual with Prescribed Track. As this innovation gains traction, it's vital we stay aligned on implementation and oversight. Looking forward to hearing practical insights from operators and regulators alike.

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!

Merci Michel, we have just brought this topic on https://staysafe.aero/en/es-ist-brutzeit-achtung-vogelschlag/
but this year more focused on airplanes than heli. Greets, Chris

I thought this EASA event might be of interest to people in this thread:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/events/conference-adv…