Considering that the main purpose of FTL requirements is to manage crew fatigue and insure flight safety, when an extra sector is added to the daily flights, it essentially creates more fatigue in the crew.
Therefor , it is necessary to reduce the maximum allowable FDP.
So in my opinion, in case of an unplanned extra sector, the maximum daily FDP should be calculated based on the number of new sectors( according to the table).
Essentially, this issue may be one of the example of extension of FDP due to unforeseen circumstances.
with regards.
Air Operations
Public communityPublic - visible to all visitors to the platform.
Open to join - users can join this community without approval.
Invite only - users can only join this community if they are added/invited by community managers.
-
John Franklin posted in Air Operations
2 years ago PublicAs the holiday season approaches, many passengers are travelling with children. Flying with children can be challenging for parents and also brings a new set of considerations for airlines ✈
If you are looking to provide useful information to your passengers, we created this EASA Light article with tips and things people should have in mind when flying with infants or older children, covering things like child restraining systems and seating options 💺
The material is available in all EU languages, feel free to link to the page or use the material for your own websites.
Check it out 👉 https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/light/topics/flying-children-0
-
John Franklin posted in Air Operations
2 years ago PublicFollowing the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland, EASA has published an update to the Safety Information Bulletin on managing the risk of volcanic ash events.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/news/easa-issues-safe…
-
Giorgio Pulcini posted in Air Operations
2 years ago PublicHello everybody.
in the "Table 1 — Aerodrome forecasts (TAFs) and landing forecasts (TRENDs) to be used for pre-flight planning" (AMC3 CAT.OP.MPA.182), it's not very clear to which airport are the mean wind and gust applicable.
I'm talking about the "TEMPO (alone), TEMPO FM, TEMPO FM… TL, PROB 30/40 (alone)" column as per picture attached.
Any clarification will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Giorgio. -
Mohamed Bilel AMIRA posted in Air Operations
2 years ago PublicHi all,
Perhaps that someone can assist me on this.
Is there an EASA publication which explains Mandates and recommendations on Avionics Systems.
-
John FRANKLIN posted in Air Operations
2 years ago PublicAre you a pilot from Europe? Then we want to hear from you!
Take part in our survey on pilot incapacitation, sleep inertia, fatigue and breaks due to physiological needs https://survey.nlr.nl/eMCO-SiPO/index.php/451259?lang=en
Your contribution is anonymous.
The survey is part of a #research study on eMCO-SiPO - Extended Minimum Crew Operations – Single Pilot Operations – Safety Risk Assessment Framework (https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/research-projects/emco-sipo-extended-mini… ), contracted out to a consortium led by the Royal Netherlands Aerospace Centre (NLR) (tag NLR(11) NLR - Netherlands Aerospace Centre: Overview | LinkedIn). The study considers several aspects regarding the safety (risks) and regulatory impacts of eMCO-SiPO.
Your input is important to #EASA and will directly impact the outcomes of the study.
-
Comment
Majid Akhlaghi commented on Toine Delnoij's topic in Air Operations
-
Toine Delnoij created a topic in Air Operations
-
Kieran Byrne posted in Air Operations
2 years ago PublicHi all
Perhaps someone can assist on this.
Does AMC3 ORO.MLR.100 mandate the operations manuals to explicitly follow this table of contents?
My understanding of the AMC requirement is for the items to be included in the OM but the actual manual structure (aside from OM-A, -B, etc) can be as per the operator requirements.
Appreciate additional clarity.
Kieran
-
Comment
Robert Gottwald commented on Larry Bateson's topic in Air Operations
Robert Gottwald • 2 years agoHi Larry,
in practice I would argue that meeting the regulatory intent of Articles 139 and 140 of 2018/1139 should be prioritized over legally reflecting the (inadvertent?) delayed adoption of Article 140 (2) by the regulator beyond the deadline it set itself.
Maybe a way to address this and prevent confusion is to clearly state "in accordance with Reg (EC) 216/2008 until adaption of Reg (EC) 2018/1139" or something to that effect? Article 139 (4) also states "References to the repealed Regulations referred to in paragraphs 1 (Regulation (EC) No 216/2008), 2 (Regulation (EC) No 552/2004) and 3 (Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91) shall be construed as references to this Regulation and, where appropriate, read in accordance with the correlation table in Annex X.", so references to the old regulation I guess technically would remain valid indefinitely, until this article gets repealed by a future regulation. -
Michel MASSON posted in Air Operations
2 years ago PublicEASA monitoring situation regarding possible eruption of Icelandic volcano Fagradalsfjall, Nov.14 2023
https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/newsroom-and-events/news/easa-monitoring-…
EASA is monitoring the situation in Iceland regarding potential eruption of the Fagradalsfjall volcano. In the event of an eruption and development of an ash cloud, the Agency will work with other aviation actors to assess the impact for aviation and make recommendations accordingly.
The EASA webpage Volcanic Ash (https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/domains/safety-management/volcanic-ash) gives information on the 2010 eruption and actions subsequently taken. EASA will be updating this page as appropriate in the context of the current situation. Please see also SIB 2010-17R7 (https://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2010-17R7), last updated in 2015, containing relevant general information on this topic.
Photo: Steam rises from a fissure in a road near the town of Grindavík, Iceland. Photograph: Brynjar Gunnarsson/AP: