Join a community to be part of the discussion.
John Franklin created a topic in Air Operations
Arkadiusz Lisek commented on Mohamed Ali's topic in Air Operations
The AMO responsibility for AD compliance on released A/C is rather limited to cases where discovered A/C configuration in the mainained systems/zones is not in compliance with AD requirements. So it is rather concerning modification than inspection ADs. Some inspection ADs with interval shorter than maintenance time could be also the case.
Anyway AMO is obliged to assure its personnel awarness on ADs touching its scope of work.
Marko Vidan posted in Air Operations
Hi,
I have question regarding FCL.915.SFI SFI-Prerequisites.
As stated, there are listed items that candidate shall meet. My question is, are these prerequisites applicable before START of TRAINING or they must be met before START of APPLICATION.
For example, SFI candidate must have 2 LOFT sessions. Can we start training for SFI before he performed 2 LOFT sessions? And then he performs it after training before CAA application?
Thank you.
Roger van der Velden posted in Air Operations
Recently (EU) 2024/1111 was published. In Annex VII it introduces a new Annex IV to regulation (EU) No 965/2012: Part-IAM. In subpart A of this part, all article titles start with the the prefix "IAM", which is logical .
However, in Subparts B, C and S, the prefix suddenly has changed to "UAM". So far, in no other regulation there is a change in the prefix. Is this UAM prefix an error and should it be IAM? or else what does UAM stand for?
Thank you for explaining this.
Best Regards
Roger van der Velden
Davide MARTINI commented on Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU's topic in Cybersecurity
Related to the LoI determination, it is worth having a look at the change proposed with the NPA 2024-04 (Regular update of Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 and the associated AMC & GM) in
"AMC 21.B.100(a) and 21.A.15(b)(6) Level of involvement (LoI) in a
certification project for a type certificate (TC),...."
Link to the NPA: https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/notices-of-proposed-amen…
Closing date for comments 30 July.
Mohamed Ali created a topic in Air Operations
Barry Martin commented on a post in General Aviation
Hello
A PPLor >CPL or ATPL Pilot want to fly SEP aircraft acc LAPL privileges (recency) Does he have to give up the higher licence ?
Problem for an ATPL pilot with a type rating (A350 f e) which want to fly also on SEP A/C...
There is no requirement for an aeroplane class rating if the licence holder exercises LAPL privileges and the rolling validity may be used. This was the intention of EASA as clearly expressed in its rejection of a comment proposed by UK CAA. EASA CRD 2014-29(A), published 29 June 2017, comment no. 655, pp 106-107. https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/comment-response-documen…
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
Chester Armstrong commented on a post in Rotorcraft
Hello to all,
I'm interested in Part-NCC helicopter operators that support luxury yachts/cruise ships, and whether SPA.HOFO is applied (in whole or part).
The definition of 'helicopter offshore operations' is quite complex under EU/UK rules: it depends on other Air-OPS definitions, as well as the national definition of 'coastline' (assuming it is published in the AIP, as required).
Depending on what you do, it's possible to operate onto/off ships with or without a Specific Approval.
However, it seems that the NPA never intended to capture luxury yachts or cruise ships, but the phrase 'support to ships' (introduced with the CRD [2013-10]) is in the Air-OPS Regulation (GM9 to Annex 1). During rule-making, EASA altered the definition of 'offshore operation', explaining that: 'Parts of the definition are moved to GM due to their detailed and explanatory character. The NPA included operations associated with support of offshore oil, gas and mineral exploration, production, storage and transport, and offshore wind turbines and other renewable energy sources. Operations to marine lights and sea-pilot transfer were also included. Other ships, not associated with the former, were not included. The Agency cannot justify maintaining such a regulatory difference as the associated risks are seen to be valid for the entire operational concept. The GM is, therefore, updated according to the definition of offshore operations.'
I think only the Dutch CAA raised a question about this, but the GM has remained.
Although the regulatory 'hook' is GM and not law, would anyone care to comment on whether the rules are proportionate to the luxury yacht/cruise ship industry?
Thanks for your time.
Thanks Declan. I have contact with them too. Cheers.
Chester Armstrong posted in Rotorcraft
Hello to all,
I'm interested in Part-NCC helicopter operators that support luxury yachts/cruise ships, and whether SPA.HOFO is applied (in whole or part).
The definition of 'helicopter offshore operations' is quite complex under EU/UK rules: it depends on other Air-OPS definitions, as well as the national definition of 'coastline' (assuming it is published in the AIP, as required).
Depending on what you do, it's possible to operate onto/off ships with or without a Specific Approval.
However, it seems that the NPA never intended to capture luxury yachts or cruise ships, but the phrase 'support to ships' (introduced with the CRD [2013-10]) is in the Air-OPS Regulation (GM9 to Annex 1). During rule-making, EASA altered the definition of 'offshore operation', explaining that: 'Parts of the definition are moved to GM due to their detailed and explanatory character. The NPA included operations associated with support of offshore oil, gas and mineral exploration, production, storage and transport, and offshore wind turbines and other renewable energy sources. Operations to marine lights and sea-pilot transfer were also included. Other ships, not associated with the former, were not included. The Agency cannot justify maintaining such a regulatory difference as the associated risks are seen to be valid for the entire operational concept. The GM is, therefore, updated according to the definition of offshore operations.'
I think only the Dutch CAA raised a question about this, but the GM has remained.
Although the regulatory 'hook' is GM and not law, would anyone care to comment on whether the rules are proportionate to the luxury yacht/cruise ship industry?
Thanks for your time.
Jose Navarro commented on a post in Air Operations
Good morning to everyone, I'm Jose Javier Navarro, I am a field trainer in IADA which is an institute created to train all the staff in the maintenance field of AENA net of Spanish airports.
I’m focused on teaching electrical and optical maintenance of visual aids to air navigation.
Now I’m updating contents according to all the updates that the overall reference documents have been incorporating in the latest times.
I need to know where to find the so called “required visual references” I’ll explain myself: when the pilot reach the decision height (DH) and knowing the RVR, he needs to see a segment of lights regarding the type of operation taking place (CATI, II or III) those guides were well explained in the documents JAR-OPS from Joint Aviation Requirements. The thing is that I believe that the JARs are no longer active so I need to know where I can find an official document where all this are explained.
Thanks everyone beforehand and have a nice day.
Hello Axel, I'm familiar with a lot of rules and regulations, but i don't have it all in my head hahaha, but I'll check it right away, thank you very much for your answer! have a very nice Day.
Michel Masson created a topic in Rotorcraft
Olivier Luneau posted in Air Operations
EASA AMC 20-6 - Established aeroplane status before the ETOPS Entry Point
EASA AMC 20-6 defines the surveillance to be implemented in flight and in particular before the ETOPS Entry Point, which includes the established aeroplane status, without further details.
In addition, Aircraft manufacturers establishe diversion decision making procedures for ETOPS flights.
Can this diversion decision making also be applied to entering the ETOPS zone, or should the technical status criteria of the aircraft be more restrictive before entering the ETOPS zone than once in this zone?
Thank you for your clarification.
Jose Navarro posted in Air Operations
Good morning to everyone, I'm Jose Javier Navarro, I am a field trainer in IADA which is an institute created to train all the staff in the maintenance field of AENA net of Spanish airports.
I’m focused on teaching electrical and optical maintenance of visual aids to air navigation.
Now I’m updating contents according to all the updates that the overall reference documents have been incorporating in the latest times.
I need to know where to find the so called “required visual references” I’ll explain myself: when the pilot reach the decision height (DH) and knowing the RVR, he needs to see a segment of lights regarding the type of operation taking place (CATI, II or III) those guides were well explained in the documents JAR-OPS from Joint Aviation Requirements. The thing is that I believe that the JARs are no longer active so I need to know where I can find an official document where all this are explained.
Thanks everyone beforehand and have a nice day.
Axel Wegener commented on a post in Air Operations
Contingency fuel - what is it meant for, related to phases of conducting a flight? Or more specific: It is calculated as percentage of trip fuel and was formerly named 'inflight reserve', but is it allowed to be used prior TakeOff - eg. during Taxi? And where the regulation is layed down in details (965 searched already)?
In between I've found in ICAO Annex 6, Part I, 4.3.6.3A and ICAO DOC 9976 a clear statement that the contingency can also be used prior T/O, e.g. for unexpected taxi time.
Thanks for your answer.
Victor Halmagian commented on a post in Rotorcraft
Hello community,
I'd like to ask your help about reg. 1178/2011 Rev Aug 2023, precisely on appencix1 to annex 1 "Crediting of theoretical knowledge"
I contacted the national office but two people in same office gave 2 slightly different answers. Basically In annex 1 appendix 1 paragraph 3 are explained the various combinations of crediting toward the higher level license, egual to give less theoretical exams. In our case we are pilots holding cpl(H) IR, sp-mp, me. We would like to understand which exams are credited in order to asses the needed ones and focus the target. if any of you has any knowledge or experience, please share. Thanks in advance. Val
Hello Valerio,
Are you referring that you want to credit your CPL(H)/IR Theory into ATPL(H) Theory and want to know what would be the difference?
Axel Wegener posted in Air Operations
Contingency fuel - what is it meant for, related to phases of conducting a flight? Or more specific: It is calculated as percentage of trip fuel and was formerly named 'inflight reserve', but is it allowed to be used prior TakeOff - eg. during Taxi? And where the regulation is layed down in details (965 searched already)?
Valerio DiVece posted in Rotorcraft
Hello community,
I'd like to ask your help about reg. 1178/2011 Rev Aug 2023, precisely on appencix1 to annex 1 "Crediting of theoretical knowledge"
I contacted the national office but two people in same office gave 2 slightly different answers. Basically In annex 1 appendix 1 paragraph 3 are explained the various combinations of crediting toward the higher level license, egual to give less theoretical exams. In our case we are pilots holding cpl(H) IR, sp-mp, me. We would like to understand which exams are credited in order to asses the needed ones and focus the target. if any of you has any knowledge or experience, please share. Thanks in advance. Val
Davide MARTINI commented on a post in Cybersecurity
Hi everyone. I am glad to join
Welcome!
bob coupu posted in Air Operations
AMC3 CAT.OP.MPA.182 Fuel/energy scheme — aerodrome selection policy — aeroplanes
In the EASA fuel Webinar sept 22 the changes was supposed to concerned the wind only and the gust. why the deterioration in transient/shower conditions is now applicable ? Is it a mistake ?
