private ownership do not allow renting the plane to friends or other pilots. There is only one exemption, to be on board during the flight with the other pilot.
Rads. Jürgen Jurisch
Join your community
Join a community to be part of the discussion.
Pedro Escorel Boudreau posted in Rotorcraft
1 day ago
Public
Hello EASA Community,
I’m looking to connect with anyone who has experience navigating the process of getting a product certified in compliance with EASA regulations.
Are there specific steps, resources, or companies that offer certifications to ensure both products and services meet EASA standards? Any advice, shared experiences, or recommendations for trusted organizations would be greatly appreciated.
Let’s collaborate and share insights to make the certification journey smoother for everyone in the community. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Thank you in advance!
Juergen Jurisch commented on a post in General Aviation
Andrew Farrugia
1 month ago
Public
Morning all - interested to hear your views about aircraft private ownership with possible rental to local fliers and/or trusted hour builders. What is the stance of EASA in the GA world.
George McNeil commented on Michel Masson's topic in Rotorcraft
There is one important element that I think needs more emphasis in this excellent off airport landing Reconnaissance Procedures video. It is the verification of helicopter performance to maneuver and land at the landing site. This is especially important at high gross weights and high density altitudes in the aircraft being used. A power available and power required check should be performed during reconnaissance before commencing final approach and attempting a landing. Also more emphasis should be placed on the size, surface and slope conditions at lo-recce when ground conditions at the site are unknown or uncertain, checking all the way down final approach where you can see the site more clearly and being alert to the possible need to abandon the approach. Operating at density altitudes where you have no Out of Ground Effect hovering performance needs very careful consideration. On takeoff, again a power check particularly if adding additional gross weight and/or at higher temperatures, for example later in the day.
John Straiton commented on a post in Cybersecurity
Mike Gahan
1 month ago
Public
Have the really bad guys caused us to forget “internal innocent” cyber threats?
While we focus - importantly - on the malicious and intentionally targeted cyber threats, we should not forget those from internal and innocent sources.
Look back at the recent aviation cyber incidents in the public domain: FAA NOTAM system in early 2023, UK NATS reduced system availability in Mid 2023,
Norway, the October 2023 Optus shutdown in Australia and consider if more comprehensive testing of software changes before being promoted to operational platforms and regression testing might have averted, or at least minimised, the impacts of these events.
MJG
As the old saying goes, it is only the people you truly trust that can hurt you most.
Carlos Sorel commented on a post in Cybersecurity
Carlos Sorel
3 weeks ago
Public
Regarding IS.I.OR.235, I wonder how we should approach cases in which an airline belongs to a corporation or group of companies, and that this parent company is the one that provides them with information security services. Should we understand that these services are being subcontracted to a third party or, on the contrary, understand that they are being provided as their own by the airline, being part of the same group of companies?
Thank you, Vasileios
Henry Pottkämper commented on a post in General Aviation
Henry Pottkämper
1 week ago
Public
Topic: Upgrade from LAPL(A) to PPL(A) - Requirements and Crediting
I would like to discuss the changes to the solo hours requirements between:
1. *Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/844* of 30 May 2022, and
2. *Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2076* of 24 July 2024.
Let’s consider a student who completed their:
- **LAPL(A) training** with the minimum requirements of 30 hours (6 solo, including 3 cross-country solo). The solo flights were supervised by a Flight Instructor (FI) qualified for LAPL only.
- After training, the student logged an additional 30 hours as pilot-in-command (PIC).
Comparison of Requirements
Under Regulation (1), the requirements for upgrading include, among others:
"…at least 15 hours of flight time on aeroplanes after the issue of the LAPL(A), of which at least 10 shall be flight instruction completed in a training course at a DTO or an ATO. That training course shall include at least four hours of supervised solo flight time…"
Under Regulation (2), the new requirements for upgrading are:
"…applicants shall have completed at least all of the following with an instructor qualified to instruct for a PPL(A):
(i) 5 hours of dual flight instruction;
(ii) solo flight time as specified in point (a)(2) [which is…10 hours of supervised solo flight time, including at least 5 hours of solo cross-country]."
Key Differences
The main difference is the impact of the instructor's qualification. Under Regulation (1), the student needed to complete an additional 4 hours of supervised solo flight time. However, under Regulation (2), the student must now complete an additional 10 hours of supervised solo flight time. This is because the solo flight time logged during LAPL(A) training under the supervision of an LAPL-only FI no longer counts under the new rules, as supervision by a PPL-qualified FI is now mandatory.
Concerns
This change appears to be a step back and seems contrary to the goal of "improvements for general aviation," as stated in the title of Regulation (EU) 2024/2076. Requiring the student to log an additional 10 hours of solo flight time during PPL(A) training, after having already accumulated 15 or more hours of PIC time post-LAPL(A) training, seems redundant and inefficient.
What’s your opinion on this matter? Am I missing something?
Found it - thanks. So ICAO-compliant instructor is necessary.
"Point FCL.210.A(b)(2) is proposed to ensure compliance with ICAO, Annex 1, which requires applicants for a PPL to complete, under the supervision of an ‘authorised instructor’ (= ICAO-compliant instructor ≠ ‘LAPL-only’ instructor without CPL theory), at least 10 hours of supervised solo flight time (ICAO Annex 1, Chapter 2, point 2.3.3.1.2) and dual instruction in the relevant class (ICAO Annex 1, Chapter 2, point 2.3.3.2, first sentence). In cases where applicants completed previous LAPL training with a ‘PPL instructor’, this point FCL.210.A(b)(2) will be irrelevant, and LAPL training and PPL training can simply be added up. However, in cases where applicants complete (parts of) LAPL training with ‘LAPL-only instructors’, this point FCL.210.A(b)(2) will need to be monitored, in order to ensure that eventually a PPL can be issued in alignment with ICAO standards."
Franck Steunou commented on Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU's topic in Cybersecurity
Thank you EASA for sharing the videos and the slides, very useful for those who couldn't attend.
Henry Pottkämper posted in General Aviation
1 week ago
Public
Topic: Upgrade from LAPL(A) to PPL(A) - Requirements and Crediting
I would like to discuss the changes to the solo hours requirements between:
1. *Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/844* of 30 May 2022, and
2. *Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2076* of 24 July 2024.
Let’s consider a student who completed their:
- **LAPL(A) training** with the minimum requirements of 30 hours (6 solo, including 3 cross-country solo). The solo flights were supervised by a Flight Instructor (FI) qualified for LAPL only.
- After training, the student logged an additional 30 hours as pilot-in-command (PIC).
Comparison of Requirements
Under Regulation (1), the requirements for upgrading include, among others:
"…at least 15 hours of flight time on aeroplanes after the issue of the LAPL(A), of which at least 10 shall be flight instruction completed in a training course at a DTO or an ATO. That training course shall include at least four hours of supervised solo flight time…"
Under Regulation (2), the new requirements for upgrading are:
"…applicants shall have completed at least all of the following with an instructor qualified to instruct for a PPL(A):
(i) 5 hours of dual flight instruction;
(ii) solo flight time as specified in point (a)(2) [which is…10 hours of supervised solo flight time, including at least 5 hours of solo cross-country]."
Key Differences
The main difference is the impact of the instructor's qualification. Under Regulation (1), the student needed to complete an additional 4 hours of supervised solo flight time. However, under Regulation (2), the student must now complete an additional 10 hours of supervised solo flight time. This is because the solo flight time logged during LAPL(A) training under the supervision of an LAPL-only FI no longer counts under the new rules, as supervision by a PPL-qualified FI is now mandatory.
Concerns
This change appears to be a step back and seems contrary to the goal of "improvements for general aviation," as stated in the title of Regulation (EU) 2024/2076. Requiring the student to log an additional 10 hours of solo flight time during PPL(A) training, after having already accumulated 15 or more hours of PIC time post-LAPL(A) training, seems redundant and inefficient.
What’s your opinion on this matter? Am I missing something?
Vladimir Foltin posted in General Aviation
1 week ago
Public
Here's the summary of the latest EASA GA stakeholders meeting.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/community/topics/easa-ga-stakeholders-updates
🛩️🪂🚁
Axel Wegener posted in Air Operations
1 week ago
Public
Dear Air Ops collegues and experts,
maybe you can help with a question according interpretation of the SPA.LVO. for 'single pilot operation' and NCC-LVO (here LVTO 400-150)...is this operation possible and therefore approvable?
All the rule text is talking about 'flight crew members', assuming that 2pilots is the standard...
See btw. AMC2 SPA.LVO.105(c) (a) (4).
I would appreciate your hints and insights!
Goncalo Oliveira posted in Air Operations
3 weeks ago
Public
Dear Air Operations experts,
In your view, can the AMC1 ORO.FC.115 (a) (2) CRM Classroom training be delivered through Microsoft Teams?
Thanks and regards
Carlos Sorel posted in Cybersecurity
3 weeks ago
Public
Regarding IS.I.OR.235, I wonder how we should approach cases in which an airline belongs to a corporation or group of companies, and that this parent company is the one that provides them with information security services. Should we understand that these services are being subcontracted to a third party or, on the contrary, understand that they are being provided as their own by the airline, being part of the same group of companies?
Davide MARTINI commented on Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU's topic in Cybersecurity
Another great event that helped organizations and authorities to exchange and discuss. I was impressed by the active participation and the level of advancement of some organizations in the Part-IS implementation journey. Well done to all!
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
diomiro certaldi created a topic in Air Operations
Bastian Marx commented on Michel Masson's topic in Rotorcraft
Hello everyone,
Unfortunately the file cannot be downloaded.
There is a “You don't have permission to access this resource.” error.
John Straiton posted in Cybersecurity
4 weeks ago
Public
From a newsletter I receive, perhaps a good example of the IS Insider Risk.
Pentagon Leaker Sentenced
Jack Teixeira, a former Massachusetts Air National Guard member who was arrested last year for leaking classified US military documents, was sentenced yesterday to 15 years in prison. The incident is considered the most extensive intelligence breach in at least a decade.
The sentencing comes after Teixeira, who turns 23 next month, pleaded guilty in March to six federal counts of willfully retaining and transmitting national defense information. In exchange for his plea, officials spared Teixeira from being charged with additional counts under the Espionage Act (see history\.
Teixeira was an information technology specialist who gained top-secret security clearance in 2021, two years after enlisting in the Air National Guard. Outside of worl<, he had been uploading a wide range of classified information, including about the war in Ukraine, to users on a Discord server (a gamer communication app) every week. The defense claimed Teixeira didn't mean to harm the US and was instead keeping his friends apprised of world events.
Santiago Madrona commented on a post in Air Operations
Dominique Piepers
1 month ago
Public
Dear aviation colleagues,
I would like to hear your thoughts on following topic regarding Low Visibility Operations.
According AMC3 SPA.LVO.100(b) Table 6 when performing CAT2 approach on a runway with 2 or more RVR assessment units one may be operative.
Imagine following scenario where the MID and ROLL OUT RVR assessment unit are U/S. You perform a landing distance computation and the calculated landing distance is within 2/3 of the landing distance available meaning you will not enter the third part of the runway.
Although the table states that only 1 RVR assessment unit can be U/S, you know that you don’t need the ROLL OUT RVR.
Is it allowed to perform the approach and so disregarding requirements in the Table 6, or will the airport not allow LVP’s when two RVR assessments units are U/S?
Thank you for your inputs/considerations.
Buenos días. En el escenario que planteas, hay dos medidores de RVR U/S. Al hacer los cálculos de performance y se estima que se aterrice en el los 2/3 de la pista, el RVR de 3/3 podría estar inoperativo, pero NO el del 2/3 ya que vas a aterrizar en ese tercio de la pista y lo necesitarías para el aterrizaje.
roberto ciocca commented on a post in Air Operations
Dominique Piepers
1 month ago
Public
Dear aviation colleagues,
I would like to hear your thoughts on following topic regarding Low Visibility Operations.
According AMC3 SPA.LVO.100(b) Table 6 when performing CAT2 approach on a runway with 2 or more RVR assessment units one may be operative.
Imagine following scenario where the MID and ROLL OUT RVR assessment unit are U/S. You perform a landing distance computation and the calculated landing distance is within 2/3 of the landing distance available meaning you will not enter the third part of the runway.
Although the table states that only 1 RVR assessment unit can be U/S, you know that you don’t need the ROLL OUT RVR.
Is it allowed to perform the approach and so disregarding requirements in the Table 6, or will the airport not allow LVP’s when two RVR assessments units are U/S?
Thank you for your inputs/considerations.
In my opinion having 2 reports pts below mins represent an high probability of having the touch down soon as well blow minimum.
Thus 2 reports abv minimum should be available
Davide MARTINI commented on a post in Cybersecurity
Peter Jacobs
1 month ago
Public
Excited to join the EASA Cybersecurity Community!
Welcome!