Axel Wegener commented on Michel MASSON's topic in Air Operations
Sometimes I'am missing a mutal understanding of the 'other side'! It should be more supported to get a real view into the respective 'world'...! Maybe we should extend the C of CRM to "Controller"....
It should be an essential part of the respective training being in the cockpits and being in the ATC-Centers/Towers (vise versa).
Michel MASSON created a topic in Air Operations
John Franklin created a topic in Air Operations
David González Zamorano created a topic in Air Operations
Goncalo Oliveira created a topic in Air Operations
Axel Wegener posted in Air Operations
CAT III FO with DH<50ft and RVR75 - does the rule EU 965/2012 make any sense regarding this point? Isn't it wrong and dangerous to imply such operation? I would appreciate some thoughts...Especially when having an A/C related min DH of lets say 25ft, to fixing a min RVR of 75m?
Mostly the 'line of sight' will not give the possibility to judge the runway lights within the remaining few meters over the A/C nose...the RVR will allways include a part covered by the nose. Even more with 130 kts and coming out of vmc/clouds/fog at 25ft.
Bünyan Öztürk commented on Bünyan Öztürk's topic in Air Operations
Cool Thx.
I found only this and nothing about ETOPS ALTN
ALTERNATE AERODROMES
The alternate aerodromes for which the landing mass is required to be determined in accordance with CAT.POL.A.230 are:
(a) destination alternate aerodromes;
(b) fuel ERA aerodromes; and
(c) re-dispatch or re-clearance aerodromes
John Franklin created a topic in Air Operations
Bünyan Öztürk created a topic in Air Operations
Pierre Dardenne posted in Air Operations
This is my opinion the correct way of understanding. read carefully.:
a CAMO (Continuing Airworthiness Management Organization) does not have the privilege to decide on the applicability or status of an Airworthiness Directive (AD). The applicability of an AD is determined solely by the airworthiness authority that issued it (such as EASA, the FAA, or other regulatory agencies).
The Role of a CAMO
Ensuring Compliance:
A CAMO is responsible for managing the continuing airworthiness of aircraft, which includes ensuring compliance with all applicable ADs. They are tasked with:
Identifying applicable ADs for the aircraft under their management.
Ensuring that the corrective actions specified in the AD are carried out within the prescribed timelines.
Applicability of ADs:
The decision about whether an AD applies to a particular aircraft, component, or system is not made by the CAMO. It is based on:
The aircraft type and serial number.
Specific criteria outlined in the AD itself (e.g., affected components, configurations, operational conditions).
Assessment and Recommendations:
While CAMOs do not decide on the applicability of ADs, they may:
Review the ADs to determine their relevance to the managed aircraft.
Consult with the Competent Authority (e.g., EASA or the State of Registry) for clarification if there is ambiguity.
Propose solutions to achieve compliance.
Regulation and Legal Framework
In Europe, under EASA Part-CAMO (Annex Vc to Regulation (EU) 1321/2014), CAMOs are explicitly required to ensure compliance with ADs, but they do not have the authority to determine their applicability independently.
The responsibility to issue and enforce ADs remains with the airworthiness authorities like EASA or the FAA.
In Summary:
A CAMO cannot decide whether an AD applies or not.
Their role is to ensure proper identification and compliance with applicable ADs as required by the regulations.
If there are questions regarding the applicability of an AD, the matter should be clarified with the Competent Authority (e.g., EASA).
