Dear Daniel, thanks for your remarks and questions.
I am actually not a helmet expert but a safety generalist.
Information is available on the internet, for instance and without publicity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiplash_(medicine);
https://oursafetysecurity.com/best-helicopter-helmet/.
I hope that you will find the references that you need.
Best regards,
Michel, ESPN-R Coordinator
Join your community
Join a community to be part of the discussion.
Titipong Buddeesuwan posted in Air Operations
Please clarify how to apply AMC2 CAT.OP.MPA.182 Fuel/energy scheme — aerodrome selection policy- aeroplane, at point (b).
How to apply destination aerodrome to planning minima of AMC6 CAT.OP.MPA.182 (Table 2)?
If the type of approach operation at destination aerodrome is Type A. Do we need to add celling more 400 ft for DA/H and VIS more 1 500 m?
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
Michel MASSON commented on Michel MASSON's topic in Rotorcraft
Dominique SAVEL commented on a post in General Aviation
Regarding Integrated course training, I would like to confirm if for SPIC training IR phase, an IRI is required. EASA says " "Student pilot-in-command" (SPIC) means a student pilot acting as pilot-in-command on a flight with an instructor where the latter will only observe the student pilot and shall not influence or control the flight of the aircraft".
If the FI is not allowed to provide training in these flights, is he required to comply with FCL.905.FI FI (h)?
As HT I have many doubts about which kind of instructor FI is required for each phase of the integrated ATPL program. FCL requires:
"4. The course shall comprise:
(a) theoretical knowledge instruction to the ATPL(A) knowledge level;
(b) visual and instrument flying training;
(c) training in MCC for the operation of multi-pilot aeroplanes; and
(d) UPRT in accordance with FCL.745.A unless applicants have already
completed this training course before starting the ATP integrated course."
When it is DUAL training is clear: ""Dual instruction time" means flight time or instrument ground time during which a person is receiving flight instruction from a properly authorised instructor. "
Thank you for any support anyone likes to provide. How a formal question could be addressed to EASA?
Hello Mario, I am like you on the outside. From what I understand, you are in the right place since it is the people from EASA who keep these pages alive. However, you have two options for your question: in the EASA Pro file in the ATO section you will find the consultations and you have to check if your question falls into one of the "open" consultations, you can also find the email address of responsible for the subject. But in your place I would go through ENAC;
Bård Ove Skandsen commented on a post in Air Operations
Can an aircraft operated on a Restricted Airworthiness Certificate be used in Part-CAT, or only for activities under Part-SPO?
Hi Marcus, I did not mention a restricted AOC, only a restricted airworthiness certificate.
Best regards,
Bård Ove
Bård Ove Skandsen posted in Air Operations
Can an aircraft operated on a Restricted Airworthiness Certificate be used in Part-CAT, or only for activities under Part-SPO?
Axel Wegener commented on a post in Air Operations
According AMC1 NCC.OP.153 - what do we expect when we asking for demonstration:
(a)(1)....demonstrate that the GNSS is robust against loss of capability;
In times when we talk about spoofing and jamming signals, what is the meaning of robustness...? Is this only related to aircraft systems, or to the GNSS system in total? And how do we qualify this.
Hey Benjamin, thanks for clarification - that helps a lot. The question is now, how can an operator get to know these complex technical requirements and is there an awareness present about the systems capabilities. What can be expected from a common user, how does training cover these topics...it is far from being trivial?
Mario Daniel Pons posted in General Aviation
Regarding Integrated course training, I would like to confirm if for SPIC training IR phase, an IRI is required. EASA says " "Student pilot-in-command" (SPIC) means a student pilot acting as pilot-in-command on a flight with an instructor where the latter will only observe the student pilot and shall not influence or control the flight of the aircraft".
If the FI is not allowed to provide training in these flights, is he required to comply with FCL.905.FI FI (h)?
As HT I have many doubts about which kind of instructor FI is required for each phase of the integrated ATPL program. FCL requires:
"4. The course shall comprise:
(a) theoretical knowledge instruction to the ATPL(A) knowledge level;
(b) visual and instrument flying training;
(c) training in MCC for the operation of multi-pilot aeroplanes; and
(d) UPRT in accordance with FCL.745.A unless applicants have already
completed this training course before starting the ATP integrated course."
When it is DUAL training is clear: ""Dual instruction time" means flight time or instrument ground time during which a person is receiving flight instruction from a properly authorised instructor. "
Thank you for any support anyone likes to provide. How a formal question could be addressed to EASA?
Axel Wegener posted in Air Operations
According AMC1 NCC.OP.153 - what do we expect when we asking for demonstration:
(a)(1)....demonstrate that the GNSS is robust against loss of capability;
In times when we talk about spoofing and jamming signals, what is the meaning of robustness...? Is this only related to aircraft systems, or to the GNSS system in total? And how do we qualify this.
Miguel F. del Pino commented on Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU's topic in Cybersecurity
Good morning Vasileios
Like Grégoire and Dominique, the reminder is appreciated.
In Spain, apart from the use of 27k, since 2010 we have had the National Security Scheme as a working framework to which the ANSP are obliged to comply https://ens.ccn.cni.es/es/
To a large extent, the requirements of the ENS and the Part-IS are traceable as well as those of the 27k, although I do not know how EASA has assessed the internal legislations of the EU member countries. Is there any validation plan for these frameworks by AESA to validate compliance with Part-IS?
Francis Markert commented on John Franklin's topic in Rotorcraft
In this context, I would like to contribute my perspective as a remote pilot with a slightly different focus. I agree with everything written here - without reservation. But I would like to add something:
I am concerned with rescue missions that I, as a pilot, know nothing about. Especially in densely populated areas with tall buildings, it is sometimes difficult as a remote pilot to hear an approaching helicopter that is on its way to a rescue mission. On the one hand, the buildings shield the noise, and on the other, there are many other sounds.
If I am flying my drone in cities in compliance with all the rules and a rescue helicopter is approaching at high speed, I can only react very late. As rescue teams can't always maintain the minimum flight altitude, I see this as a risk.
In such situations, I try to talk to the responsible people in advance and keep my altitude as low as possible in known approach routes.
However, I would find a standardized technical system in all drone models (such as ADS-B) that indicates approaching helicopters even better.
Best regards,
Francis Markert
https://drohnen-camp.de
A.adeeb@ln.aero posted in General Aviation
Michel MASSON posted in Air Operations
1st Workshop on Safety Management & Emergency Procedures in case of Thermal Runaway of Personal Electronic Devices in Cabin and Cockpit
April 9, 2024. Online event.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/events/1st-workshop-s…
Fraunhofer (FH) has been contracted by EASA to investigate the risks of fire and smoke resulting from portable electronic devices (PEDs) in cabin and cockpits: LOKI-PED — Lithium Batteries Fire/Smoke Risks in Cabin | EASA (europa.eu).
Within the project, FH is investigating the effects of emergency procedures as well as the handling of additional mitigation measures, like containment bags and extinguishers, under realistic conditions.
Michel MASSON posted in General Aviation
Images of fatal accidents aren't the preferred way to promote safety but le'ts remember from time to time what we are striving to achieve Together: an enjoyable, useful and accident-free aviation.
https://twitter.com/AviationSafety/status/1770822356669194390?cxt=HBwWr…
Enjoy the Easter break.
Have fun and fly safe!
Dominique SAVEL commented on Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU's topic in Cybersecurity
Hello, Part-IS adds ISMS requirements, I understand. My question is how the European EASA regulations interpret the storage of data outside the European Union and therefore not subject to the GDPR ? Concretely, will we have a map of the servers in order to guarantee that the data stored there is indeed governed by the security rules that apply to us ? Mapping the risk will otherwise be complicated, and this without going into the detail of the processing of data subject to 15 CFR 730-774.
Michel MASSON posted in Rotorcraft
Did you like the two FAA Rotorcraft Collective videos shared below?
Here is their playlist: https://bit.ly/RotorYT.
Thanks for sharing this great safety promotion material through your professional channels and on social media.
Michel MASSON created a topic in Rotorcraft
Michel MASSON posted in Air Operations
What would you do if a passenger admitted to have a lithium battery in a bag checked due to lack of overhead space?
Several challenging situations like that are presented in the March 2024 edition of NASA CALLBACK, offering again the reader a chance to “interact” with the information given in a selection of ASRS reports.
In “The First Half of the Story,” you will find report excerpts describing an event or situation up to a point where a specific decision must be made, an immediate action must be taken, or a non-normal condition must be actively managed. You may then exercise your own judgment to make a decision, determine a possible course of action, or devise a plan that might best resolve the situation...
Stan Chell commented on John Franklin's topic in Air Operations
Antoine ROGUES commented on Vladimir FOLTIN's topic in General Aviation
Hello, even if the idea is very good, you should remove the acronym "METAR", because a METAR in pilot mind it's reality => observation.
I configured everything for my airport (no METAR) and sometimes it's completly wrong (annonced as VFR, but completly foggy).
When it's based on a forecast model, it can be wrong and need to be advisertise like this.