Marcus Merz posted in Rotorcraft
I need your advice on a HR-SPO issue.
A NAA announced today informally to deny an application for HR-SPO (HESLO) with a single engine due to "safety reasons".
The area of operation is non-congested. The questions whether TS are considered third-persons was denied. Another reason stated by the NAA was the fact "that there is no safe forced landing area", a subject which is dealt with in CAT.POL.H.305 and as such not applicable to Part-SPO.
When mentioning to them, that there are no performance requirements in Part-SPO and the only concern in terms of high-risk is the risk to third-parties or third-property, the answer from the NAA was along the lines of "You can get an official denial and take it to court" and "We have always decided to only allow a twin-engine for the task".
Knowing the EASA GUIDELINES for coordination of cross-border high-risk commercial specialised operations (here E.1.5.) and the requirements for HR-SPO for both authorities and operators, i was really surprised about this kind of answer.
Individuals in NAA's are exactly the reason for the European Regulator having published these guidelines to avoid these kind of "interpretation" of the regulation.
How would you approach this situation?
Bonjour Marcus. Les raisons de sécurité pour l'utilisation sur un moteur n'est pas recevable. C'est à l'autorité de prouver que 1 moteur est moins secure que 2. Sur le papier cela sonne bien mais hélas des études chez Airbus Hélicoptère ne vont pas forcément dans cette direction d'autorité. Je ne parle même pas des bi-moteurs incapable de voler sur un moteur pour rejoindre une air de sécurité surtout en SPO. Je vous conseil d'engager des poursuites afin que l'autorité démontre; ou pas, un risque moindre des bi turbines en SPO. Cordialement
Dear Marcus,
Yours is an interesting case.
I took some time to consult with expert colleagues.
The EASA Basic Regulation defines the roles of EASA:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/regulation-groups/basic-regulation.
Member States are sovereign in interpreting Air OPS and other implementing rules. This is why EASA could only publish non-binding Guidelines for coordination of cross-border high risk commercial operations:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/general-publications/guidel….
I would suggest to continue discussing with your National Aviation Authority in a constructive manner in the best interest of safety before to possibly consider seeking legal advice.
Dear Martial,
Dear Michel,
many thanks for your feedback (Martial: Unfortunately i cannot reply to you in french). I really appreciate the time you have taken to leave me a message. I will give you feedback on this matter as soon as i have some news.
Best regards,
Marcus
Dear Michel,
to add on my previous answer: It is about a special HESLO task, i.e. not HESLO in general which would "forbid" the use of a single engine helicopter. As such - in my humble opinion - this does not make sense. Either the NAA has a "safety concern" (which is clearly defined by the guidelines i mentioned) and then it is independant from the HESLO task. Or it is a case of "we have always ruled like this" and then the decision is lacking a legal substance. You can not authorize a HESLO 1,2 or 4 task with a single engine helicopter and then deny a HESLO 3 task at the same area - at least to me, this distinction does not make sense - again, third persons / property are not put at risk or in danger. And this is the only concern EASA has (please correct me if i am wrong).
A foreign operator could seek advice via https://ec.europa.eu/solvit/ but this path is not available for an operator from the same country.
Sign up or Log in to join the discussion