You are right, Grégoire, implementation can be a challenge. Each mitigating measure will require an impact analysis, but activities are underway.
Join your community
Join a community to be part of the discussion.
John Franklin created a topic in Air Operations
Michel MASSON posted in Rotorcraft
HAI replaced by Vertical Aviation International (VAI)
February 24, 2024
https://contentsharing.net/actions/email_web_version.cfm?recipient_id=3…
Excerpts from the VAI Newsletter:
"Our vision at VAI is clear and audacious: to be the world’s most vital membership association leading the evolution and expansion of vertical flight.
While our name and appearance have evolved, the most important change is our expanded focus: we support all aircraft capable of vertical or short takeoff and landing—and yes, that absolutely includes helicopters. Those aircraft complete missions that no other aircraft can accomplish, and we are proud to represent them.
We rebranded to expand our reach, and so VAI focuses on what unites us: the unique capabilities of vertical flight. If you design, build, fix, fly, supply, or support vertical aviation, then you belong in VAI!
Beyond the name change, our commitment to offering the industry's most effective advocacy, communication channels, safety programs, education, and networking opportunities remains steadfast.
Welcome to Vertical Aviation International!"
Signed Nicole Battjes, Chair, VAI Board of Directors, and
James A. Viola, VAI President and CEO
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created an event in Cybersecurity
Davide MARTINI commented on Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU's topic in Cybersecurity
Javier Torre posted in Air Operations
EFB Own-ship position for situational awareness with a COTS (GNSS with 12 channels)
Good afternoon all,
I hope you are doing well.
I am reaching out seeking support / feedback related to the requirement from AMC7 SPA.EFB.100(b)(3) and the "adequate number of channels (12 or more)" needed for the use of a COTS (iPad) to display own-ship position for situational awareness.
- Since many of you are probably using iPads as EFB: does anyone managed to obtain the information to prove that the iPad has a GNSS receiver with 12 channels or more?
- Are you using an iPad to display own-ship (only for situational awareness) as an operator subject to EASA requirements?
- Did your Authority ask you specifically to show compliance with this 12 channels requirement? (knowing that neither FAA nor TC Canada nor ICAO have this requirement)
- Do you think EASA should update this requirement?
John Franklin commented on John Franklin's topic in Air Operations
Hi All, we did a mini version of this covering all the different helicopter operation types in the summary of the Annual Safety Review 2023. You can find this on the link here: https://www.easa.europa.eu/community/topics/easa-annual-safety-review-h…
We have the full analysis in the Annual Safety Review covering each of the domains with graphs of all the Key Risk Areas.
John Franklin created a topic in General Aviation
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
Michel MASSON commented on Michel MASSON's topic in Rotorcraft
Thanks for sharing this most tragic accident case, John.
Condolences to the family.
Reminds us that this danger can be lethal and that proper mitigations must be taken to control the risk.
Certain errors - we call them critical errors, won't be forgiven...
Nika Khvedelidze commented on a post in General Aviation
Dear members,
I would like to bring your attention to the sailplane commercial operations within member states of the EU. As Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1976 (SAO) defines in Article 3 - Air operations (2), operators of
sailplanes shall engage in commercial operations only after having declared to the competent authority their capacity and means to discharge the responsibilities associated with the operation of the sailplane.
Furthermore, SAO.DEC.100 Declaration defines conditions for how to declare and what information shall be included in the declaration template (Appendix 1.)
Despite those requirements, I just want to precise, taking into account the member state's experience and practice, if there is any additional information, document, or manual requested by the member state to be prepared by the sailplane commercial operator.
Thank you!
Have a good day!
Dear Francesco, thank you for your time and such a detailed explanation!
I will take a look all the articles you have mentioned here.
Very kind regards,
Nika
Michel MASSON created a topic in Rotorcraft
diomiro certaldi commented on diomiro certaldi's topic in Air Operations
Thanks Marianna, you answer is very useful and detailed.
John Franklin created a topic in Air Operations
Nika Khvedelidze posted in General Aviation
Dear members,
I would like to bring your attention to the sailplane commercial operations within member states of the EU. As Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1976 (SAO) defines in Article 3 - Air operations (2), operators of
sailplanes shall engage in commercial operations only after having declared to the competent authority their capacity and means to discharge the responsibilities associated with the operation of the sailplane.
Furthermore, SAO.DEC.100 Declaration defines conditions for how to declare and what information shall be included in the declaration template (Appendix 1.)
Despite those requirements, I just want to precise, taking into account the member state's experience and practice, if there is any additional information, document, or manual requested by the member state to be prepared by the sailplane commercial operator.
Thank you!
Have a good day!
Axel Wegener commented on Axel Wegener's topic in Air Operations
Understood so far. By reading the documents again it becomes more clear that CAT.POL.A.210 defines a margin of 35ft (min), whereas for NCC.POL.125 it is only given the 'adequate margin', so not to interpret as an 'add' to the 35ft (from CAT), but being the 'absolute' obstacle clearing distance. With that in mind, it should never and could never be Zero (0) ft!
Maybe the GM2 NCC.POL.125 should make that point more obvious.
diomiro certaldi created a topic in Air Operations
Benjamin Hari commented on a post in Air Operations
guidance SIGNS lateral spaces/borders
Hi,
could someone give his comments about guidance signs inside airport, airside?
I think that:
e.g. inside "Figure N-2G. No-entry sign", I have to understand that the 2 lateral spaces "H" are as "at least" and not as precise measures;
the same is for e.g. "Figure N-3. Sign dimensions" part A "H/2" as "at least" and part B "H" as "at least".
This interpretation is as per ICAO A.D.M part 4 (search for "at least"), para 12.2.6, "...The width is determined by the overall length of the inscription, to which must be added a border of at least 0.5 times the inscription height at either end of the sign.". The same info is always included in all the editions of UK CAP168.
A different interpretation could be that the manufacturer has to procude any single lenght of structures of the signs. In my opinion this interpretation is not technically feasable for the producer, mainly for lighted signs producer.
Specific regulatory reference: https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/easy-access-rules/online…
Thanks. Paolo Spunta, Italy
(Edit, 19/02/2024: added to my original post 4 figures, to better clarify)
Hi Paolo,
Your interpretation regarding the guidance signs inside airports, specifically concerning the lateral spaces or borders as mentioned in “Figure N-2G. No-entry sign” and “Figure N-3. Sign dimensions,” aligns well with regulatory standards for airport signage, particularly those set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and outlined in their Aerodrome Design Manual (A.D.M) Part 4.
According to the ICAO A.D.M Part 4, paragraph 12.2.6, the width of the lateral spaces or borders around the inscription on the sign is indeed to be considered as “at least” the specified measure, rather than a fixed dimension.
This means that the additional space at either end of the sign (referred to as “H” in the figures you mentioned) should be no less than 0.5 times the height of the inscription. It ensures clarity and visibility of the signage, making it easier for airport operators and users to interpret the signs correctly.
This approach to specifying minimum dimensions rather than fixed sizes allows for flexibility in sign design and manufacturing. It acknowledges the practicalities of producing signs, especially lighted ones, where exact lengths can vary based on the length of the inscription and the need for visibility and legibility.
Such a flexibility is crucial for manufacturers, allowing them to produce signs that meet regulatory requirements without the constraint of adhering to a specific length for every sign, which would indeed be technically unfeasible and unnecessarily restrictive.
Moreover, this interpretation is consistent across various editions of the UK CAP168, which further validates its applicability and acceptance in aviation standards.
In summary, your understanding that the lateral space specifications serve as minimum requirements rather than exact measurements is correct and in line with international regulatory standards for airport signage. This approach provides necessary flexibility for manufacturers while ensuring the signs are effective and compliant with safety and visibility criteria.
Regards,
Benjamin
Josef Pavlicek commented on PIAU Denis's topic in General Aviation
Hi guys, how about use ATPL theoretical course as CPL theory requirement to teach PPL not only LAPL. There is no difference between PPL and LAPL except instrument time if I'm right.
Paolo Spunta posted in Air Operations
guidance SIGNS lateral spaces/borders
Hi,
could someone give his comments about guidance signs inside airport, airside?
I think that:
e.g. inside "Figure N-2G. No-entry sign", I have to understand that the 2 lateral spaces "H" are as "at least" and not as precise measures;
the same is for e.g. "Figure N-3. Sign dimensions" part A "H/2" as "at least" and part B "H" as "at least".
This interpretation is as per ICAO A.D.M part 4 (search for "at least"), para 12.2.6, "...The width is determined by the overall length of the inscription, to which must be added a border of at least 0.5 times the inscription height at either end of the sign.". The same info is always included in all the editions of UK CAP168.
A different interpretation could be that the manufacturer has to procude any single lenght of structures of the signs. In my opinion this interpretation is not technically feasable for the producer, mainly for lighted signs producer.
Specific regulatory reference: https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/easy-access-rules/online…
Thanks. Paolo Spunta, Italy
(Edit, 19/02/2024: added to my original post 4 figures, to better clarify)
Axel Wegener created a topic in Air Operations