Air Operations

Dear community members,
Our current CAMO policy is that all ADs are received and assessed by CAMO Engineering personnel. Then if AD is considered as not applicable for whatever reason, CAMO Engineering personnel declared it as not applicable in maintenance information system (computerized software). But some of our consultants say that all ADs even it is clear that it is not applicable have to be reviewed and certified by a licensed engineer of contracted AMO (Part-145 organisation). They say that CAMO staff does not have the privileges to evaluate the AD and make a final decision on the status of the AD.
Could you please let us know your position on this? Is this statement is correct?

Dear community members,

We would like to seek your assistance with a research project on aviation maintenance safety we are conducting in the University of Limerick (with our partners from Greece and Australia).

We are exploring the associations between personality traits and human error predisposition, by gauging the experience of aviation maintenance professionals around the world.

If you are working in aviation maintenance it would be greatly appreciated if you could fill in the survey questionnaire and/or share this with anyone who might wish to assist:

Survey Link: https://unioflimerick.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_egSlG7YnUNQkhcW

Thank you in advance for the help.

Kyriakos Kourousis
Associate Professor, University of Limerick

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!

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

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.

Can anyone reply to me? I would like to apply for the EU Declaration of Conformity for the RID module. Please let me know where to submit the application documents. Thank you!

Dear Sir/Madam

I need your support undermentioned questions regarding maintenance agreement issues for commercial operator.

Does ORO.GEN.205 section cover maintenance agreement requirement for commercial operators? When i checked GM1 ORO.GEN.205 section. I didn't see maintenance activities mentioned areas in the regulation.

What kind of regulations are required maintenance agreements for commercial operator's scheduled flights?

Best Regards,