Thank you John, I am - in addition to Avation - also an Organizational Psychologist and I believe that these thoughts not only can, but should be applied in all fields where Human Factors are part of the systems! (meaning everywhere...;-))
Join your community
Join a community to be part of the discussion.
John FRANKLIN created a topic in Air Operations
John FRANKLIN commented on André de Chauvigny de Blot's topic in Air Operations
Hi all - I got a further update from the Air Ops Team here about the opinion that Adina referred to.
The transposition of the EDTO standards of ICAO annex 6 part I is being processed within the scope of the rulemaking task RMT.0392. An NPA was published in May 2023 and went under a 3 months public consultation. The Agency is currently preparing the Opinion containing the related proposed amendments to Regulation (EU) 965/2012 to the Commission for their adoption.
Among the foreseen amendments, the aeroplanes with more than 2 engines are indeed expected to be included in the scope of EDTO in accordance with the ICAO related SARPs. A transition period is foreseen once the regulation is adopted in order to allow operators and competent authorities to adapt their procedures/training programmes to the planned changes.
The Opinion is expected to be published in Q4 2025.
Thomas Dall Pedersen posted in Cybersecurity
7 months 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?
Nebiyu Tamrat posted in General Aviation
7 months ago
Public
Hello Team,
I hope this message finds you well.
My Name is Nebiyu, I have graduated in Aircraft maintenance technician and I have B737 NG ( CFM56-7B Engine) ATA 104 LEVEL III AIrframe, POWERPLANT and AVIONICS SYSTEM License.
Currently I am living in Poland and wanted to change my License from FAA to EASA in order to work in here but I am unable to do so. Can somebody guide me what I can do in this case?
I am ready to take any exam or trainings as well.
Looking forward to your assistance.
Thank you very much.
Best regards
Nebiyu Tamrat.
diomiro certaldi commented on diomiro certaldi's topic in Air Operations
Thanks for your clarification. I operate in EASA Countries and I know the new technologies could be useful. That's why I think a clarification from EASA could be necessary
Michel MASSON created a topic in Rotorcraft
Michel MASSON commented on a post in General Aviation
Michel MASSON
9 months ago
Public
Invitation - Hang, paraglider and speedrider safety promotion webinar
Thomas Hytten, CAA Norway, March 17, 2025
Post invitation note: here is the recording:
Safety promotion with Mike - Airsports campaigns on Vimeo
https://vimeo.com/1068026968/91bb6a8b74
We are pleased to invite you to an upcoming webinar/workshop featuring Mike Richards, Manager of Engagement, Education, and Communications at the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of New Zealand. Mike has been instrumental in leading safety initiatives in coordination with the New Zealand's hang gliding and paragliding communities.
For aviation authorities and airsport organisations doing safety promotion.
Monday. 17. March
21:00 - 22:30 CET
Register here (free):
https://events.teams.microsoft.com/event/3e90da59-fee2-40c3-a32c-4a0c56…
During the recent safety promotion meeting, we were introduced to New Zealand's proactive approach to enhancing flight safety for hang glider and paraglider pilots. Recognizing the value of these initiatives, Mike has graciously agreed to share his insights and experiences with us.
In this webinar, Mike will discuss:
Overview of Safety Initiatives: An introduction to the programs implemented by the CAA in collaboration with the New Zealand Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (NZHGPA) to promote safety and best practices within the flying community.
Collaborative Efforts: Insights into how the CAA and NZHGPA have worked together to develop, protect, and promote the sports of hang gliding and paragliding in New Zealand.
Fly like a bird, think as a pilot: Safety promotion campaign to reduce incidents and accidents.
The past few years have unfortunately seen several fatal accidents involving hang gliders, paragliders, and speed riders. Perhaps we can find inspiration for a similar safety initiative based on what has been done in New Zealand.
This session will provide valuable insights into the strategies and practices that have contributed to the safety and growth of hang gliding and paragliding in New Zealand.
Dear Helmut,
Thanks for your comment and question.
DHV is indeed a prominent actor in Europe and we would be glad to promote your activity.
The article above has been published in the EASA Commmunity General Aviation on belalf of Thomas Hytten, CAA Norway, member of the Safety Promotion Network of the Member States.
Feel free to send me DHV or EHPU articles and I will also gladly publish them here.
Best regards,
Michel Masson
EASA Senior Business Partner Safety Promotion
John FRANKLIN created an event in Air Operations
Michel MASSON created a topic in Rotorcraft
John FRANKLIN created a topic in General Aviation
Vasileios Papageorgiou created a topic in Cybersecurity
Michel MASSON commented on a post in Rotorcraft
John FRANKLIN
8 months ago
Public
Another excellent article from the team at Pilot's Who Ask Why - this time on Birdstrikes.
https://pilotswhoaskwhy.com/2024/05/05/the-threats-of-bird-strikes-and-…
Great article, indeed.
Informative, well documented and well illustrated.
Published in 2024 but that doesn't matter, as it addresses a seasonal risk.
John FRANKLIN created a topic in Air Operations
Williams Jennifer created a topic in General Aviation
André de Chauvigny de Blot created a topic in Air Operations
John FRANKLIN posted in Rotorcraft
8 months ago
Public
Another excellent article from the team at Pilot's Who Ask Why - this time on Birdstrikes.
https://pilotswhoaskwhy.com/2024/05/05/the-threats-of-bird-strikes-and-…
Alexander Marinosyan commented on John FRANKLIN's topic in General Aviation
Kudos to Wendell for his quest. Indeed, the poor safety record of GA compared to CAT should not be considered as given.
IMHO this evil has two roots. One is based in training and the other in the equipment we operate. Both are subject to regulation by EASA and both seem to be regulated commerce-centric rather than safety-centric.
In regard to training, GA means essentially single pilot no-safety nets non-routine operations. For-profit training organizations, "anecdotally" use the cheapest equipment and offset the risks as much as allowed. The tragedy is that what is allowed is aligned with CAT, where multi crew, safety nets, routine operations is the norm thinking that this rises the bar, while in fact it lowers the bar.
In regard to equipment, I can't think of any incentive for OEMs to add risk reducing features beyond the minimum requirements, if this could bring the cost up, or the performance down. Also no incentive to add features which could facilitate single pilot-oriented training like for example in the military.
In conclusion, shifting more responsibility to pilots as suggested in intro, does not seem right to me. I am sure none of the GA victims wanted to die and they all had EASA licenses. This begs the question, whether an EASA license is adequate proof of ability to weigh own capacity versus risks?
John FRANKLIN created a topic in General Aviation
John FRANKLIN created a topic in General Aviation