Yes, crews would get an OFP update e.g. via ACARS, from any suitable point en-route. Lido/Flight and many other modern flight planning systems have that ability.
-
Axel Wegener posted in Air Operations
2 years ago PublicMaybe this is already answered in a former question...related to ORO.GEN.205 (contracted activities), what will be the requirement for an Operator (NCC/SPO) to ensure compliance of Jepp. or LIDO contents (e.g. operating minima)?
-
Michel MASSON posted in Air Operations
2 years ago PublicEGNOS Bulletin Autumn 2023
https://egnos-user-support.essp-sas.eu/news-events/egnos-bulletinIn this issue you can find:
- EGNOS use success stories as:
The incorporation of new LPV-capable aircraft in KLM fleet
The publication of the first-ever LPV procedure to a Non-Instrument Runway End (NIRE)
in Class G airspace
EGNOS for marine engineering and marine environment protection
New PBN procedures for HEMS in the Apulia Region
- An article on the new Guidelines on EFVS in SBAS-based operations
- Interview with Helicus
- Update of the latest news in different market segments.
- And much more!
-
Comment
André Weber-Juds commented on Iry Razafintsalama's topic in Air Operations
-
Stan Chell posted in Air Operations
2 years ago PublicProblems with interpreting and training Resilience - CRM.
Re: ORO.FC.115 Crew resource management (CRM) training.
This research paper identifies difficulties with training resilience and recommends EASA regulatory revision.
https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=9140012…What are the experiences of other operators ?
"In terms of resilience, the current EASA regulation on Crew Resource Management (CRM) appears somewhat vague and has a flavour of a compromise and reductionism. While it outlines the "what," it falls short in explaining the "how."
It presents resilience as an individual's property, without receiving support from human factors and system safety research."Recommends "… importantly, a revision of the current EASA regulation on CRM and EBT, sharpening the concept of resilience to represent systemic safety and recognising the importance of anticipation, would be necessary in aligning them with modern scientific perspectives and fostering resilient behaviour in airline organizations and their flight crews."
-
Comment
Goncalo Oliveira commented on Mohammad Ghashghaei's topic in Air Operations
Hi Mohammad, I'm not sure I understood your comment; The Easy Access Rules basically put together the material published by 2 different entities; The European Commission and EASA. Without the Easy Access Rules, we would need to check the requirements in one document published by the European Commission and then check the Alternates Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) in a document published by EASA. With ICAO Doc. 9 you don’t have that, There is only one entity/organisation and it is all in one place… I might be missing something…
-
John Franklin created a topic in Air Operations
-
John Franklin created a topic in Air Operations
-
Nicolas CHARLEMAGNE posted in Air Operations
2 years ago PublicHi All
I would like and appreciate your comments about one small bit of AMC1 ORO.FC.105(b)(2);(c) Designation as pilot-incommand/commander.
Sorry if the topic has already been addressed in the past. I just could not find the thread.The little bit I am talking about is down the AMC at
(b) Aerodrome knowledge......
(3) All aerodromes to which an operator operates should be categorised in one
of these three categories:
(i) category A —
(A) a straight-in3D i nstrument approach procedure with a glide path angle
of not more than 3.5 degrees to each runway expected to be used for
landing;How do you read and understand the terms " each runway expected to be used for landing" ?
Lets say my airport has a 13/31 Runway . Runway 31 is "equipped" with a straight-in3D instrument approach procedure with a glide path angle of not more than 3.5 degrees. That is the runway which is used 350 days per year. That is the one I expect to use for landing. The other runway,RWY 13, has no instrument approach whatsoever. It is "open" only a few days per year and thus I do not expect to use it .
I know I am tickling the semantic there. But I d like to be sure in assigning this airport to Category A or B.
Sorry for the length of this topic . Looking formward to reading your point of view. -
Hamad Ahmed posted in Air Operations
2 years ago PublicHi All, I am looking for a sample risk assessment as mentioned in SPA.LVO.105 Specific approval criteria (g):
for the intended operations, a safety assessment has been carried out, and performance indicators have been established to monitor the level of safety. -
Dominique Piepers posted in Air Operations
2 years ago PublicHi all,
I am looking for clarification concerning AMC5 CAT.OP.MPA.182 Point (a) (2) (ii) states that "for a type A or a circling approach, ceiling at or above MDH". I don't see why the circling approach has to be separately mentioned since by definition a circling approach is a Type A operation (item (20a) in Annex I - Definitions)
