Hi John, we had another one with this issue: LPPR RWY 17 TDZ LIGHTS U/S. and RWY 17/35 CENTRE LINE LIGHTS OUT OF SERVICE. Is this allowed or not regarding the table? Hope we can have some clarity on this issue.
Join your community
Join a community to be part of the discussion.
John FRANKLIN created a topic in Air Operations
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
Vincent Hilligers commented on Erik Lips's topic in Air Operations
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
Axel Wegener commented on John FRANKLIN's topic in Air Operations
For my technical understanding....what would happen if a vibration is caused by fan blade icing? Is there a given threshold for LRD activation? As to my knowledge we have already procedures for high vibration...
John FRANKLIN created a topic in Air Operations
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU commented on a post in Cybersecurity
Imren GENC
4 months ago
Public
Hello EASA folks!
How can we find 25-26June2025 workshop presentations?
Please see the relevant post: https://www.easa.europa.eu/community/topics/part-implementation-worksho…
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU commented on a post in Cybersecurity
Sheena Miller
4 months ago
Public
Hi everyone, very useful workshop on part IS last week. With regard to the Derogation discussion, I have been through the Assessment tool (very useful, thank you!) and believe we can apply for a derogation. The Implementation Guidelines say there should be a "derogation application form template" which will include a high level risk assessment. I know there was a lot of discussion about derogation so I may have missed it but I cannot find a time scale for the form's development or where it will be posted when available. Can anyone assist me? -
A new release (Beta v2) has been uploaded on Github:
https://github.com/Mario1645PartIS/Part-IS-compliance-tool/blob/main/As…
As Mario mentioned in another comment, this is the release of the second BETA Test Release for the Compliance Assessment tool. It is fully functional in "Compliance" and "Maturity" mode.
The assessment questions from the EASA guidance material "Part-IS oversight approach" are fully inserted for all requirements.
In addition, an additional statistics column was entered to completion rate table. The "non-compliant" column shows the percentage of requirements, non-compliant in the assessment. The structure and the questions can be adapted to individual needs by selecting the "developer mode".
Vladimir FOLTIN commented on a post in General Aviation
Martin Jurovic
4 months ago
Public
Hello everyone, a question to EASA staff on CPL modular course => may the aircraft (SR20 for example) equipped with landing gear simulator be used for the Flying training?
Many thanks for answer !!!
Thank you, Keno, for answering the question. Our experts agree with you. If someone needs advice like this, I suggest they contact NAA or ATO, who can also help.
Arnaud Helle created a topic in General Aviation
Radek Raida commented on a post in Cybersecurity
Resieri Marcato
4 months ago
Public
I would like to suggest a link anywhere in this page to the guidelines shown in today's Part-IS workshop.
After a very long search, I found it here:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/community/topics/part-oversight-approach-gui…
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
Sheena Miller posted in Cybersecurity
4 months ago
Public
Hi everyone, very useful workshop on part IS last week. With regard to the Derogation discussion, I have been through the Assessment tool (very useful, thank you!) and believe we can apply for a derogation. The Implementation Guidelines say there should be a "derogation application form template" which will include a high level risk assessment. I know there was a lot of discussion about derogation so I may have missed it but I cannot find a time scale for the form's development or where it will be posted when available. Can anyone assist me? -
Imren GENC posted in Cybersecurity
4 months ago
Public
Hello EASA folks!
How can we find 25-26June2025 workshop presentations?
Stanimir Pampulov commented on Hubert Massalski's topic in General Aviation
Please share if there is any development regarding the derogation.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/product-certification-co…
Resieri Marcato posted in Cybersecurity
4 months ago
Public
I would like to suggest a link anywhere in this page to the guidelines shown in today's Part-IS workshop.
Michel MASSON commented on Michel MASSON's topic in Air Operations
Thanks, Nicolas!
And thanks to the DGAC for the English translation.
John FRANKLIN created a topic in Air Operations
Philip Ribeiro commented on a post in Cybersecurity
Thomas Dall Pedersen
6 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?
Interesting, I recently had a chat with a colleague about that.
According to the Cambridge Dictionary APPOINTED means "to choose someone officially for a job or responsibility", that implies a decision that has been made, not pending any approval.
Whereas NOMINATED means "to officially suggest someone for an election, job, position, or honour", implying that that person may or may not get the job, position, pending approval.
Therefore, it shouldn't be seen as "the same", and in the context of Part-IS it seems consistent to "APPOINT a person or group of persons".