Welcome

Hi Paolo,

Your interpretation regarding the guidance signs inside airports, specifically concerning the lateral spaces or borders as mentioned in “Figure N-2G. No-entry sign” and “Figure N-3. Sign dimensions,” aligns well with regulatory standards for airport signage, particularly those set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and outlined in their Aerodrome Design Manual (A.D.M) Part 4.

According to the ICAO A.D.M Part 4, paragraph 12.2.6, the width of the lateral spaces or borders around the inscription on the sign is indeed to be considered as “at least” the specified measure, rather than a fixed dimension.

This means that the additional space at either end of the sign (referred to as “H” in the figures you mentioned) should be no less than 0.5 times the height of the inscription. It ensures clarity and visibility of the signage, making it easier for airport operators and users to interpret the signs correctly.

This approach to specifying minimum dimensions rather than fixed sizes allows for flexibility in sign design and manufacturing. It acknowledges the practicalities of producing signs, especially lighted ones, where exact lengths can vary based on the length of the inscription and the need for visibility and legibility.

Such a flexibility is crucial for manufacturers, allowing them to produce signs that meet regulatory requirements without the constraint of adhering to a specific length for every sign, which would indeed be technically unfeasible and unnecessarily restrictive.

Moreover, this interpretation is consistent across various editions of the UK CAP168, which further validates its applicability and acceptance in aviation standards.

In summary, your understanding that the lateral space specifications serve as minimum requirements rather than exact measurements is correct and in line with international regulatory standards for airport signage. This approach provides necessary flexibility for manufacturers while ensuring the signs are effective and compliant with safety and visibility criteria.

Regards,
Benjamin

Hi guys, how about use ATPL theoretical course as CPL theory requirement to teach PPL not only LAPL. There is no difference between PPL and LAPL except instrument time if I'm right.

I've been refused my group 3 endorsment, where a large part of the practical experience was gained with my existing B1.2 licence (lots of tasks are common to the B1.2 and B2) because I was not "supervised", so I don't think FAA experience gained the same way would make it work. The point is, regulation and AMCs as they are written are almost impossible to meet, or, I'd rather think, made to protect the bosses of the avionic shops , so they, and only them, can have a licence, or the person they choose to grant one, for instance if they sell their business when they retire. And also, this helps to keep the wages of the employees low, as they can not go away and work on their own., and also helps them to control competition ...(no other shop can open, without a licenced person...). Keeping margins high, seems to be the priority, rather than safety, reason why lots of small flying clubs use aged avionics, and can not upgrade their planes with modern stuff.

Hi Stephen
Thanks for your comment. Now English version available just below the Spanish version

Hi Paolo, this is a very good idea and it is also something that we currently discuss internally. Apart from participating and raising awareness about initiatives like ECCSA, we are currently in the prepatory phase of a number of other activities that will take place in 2024 and info-sharing activities is a part of this agenda. More updates on the events planned for this year are expected within the next weeks so stay tuned in the community and the EASA website ;)

This is a great piece of work from the UK on how human factors affect see and avoid, the main tool we rely on today to prevent collisions in the air in an uncontrolled environment. I look forward to input like this to help shape future solutions for pilots.

I think Just Culture is a challenge across the world. It is something hopefully that the industry can get a lot better at.

My sincere condolences to his family and friends.

To be honest i'm still don't feel safe as a passeggeri if i continue to read about bad practices (Just want to avoid worst expression) and people that admited that the manual and instructions should be updated!!?🤔🤔🤔 So i'm wondering if we're kidding as we're talking about and airplane with 100 and more passengers on the board and their lives that should be safe since the departure untill arrival,then after the famous words SAFETY FIRST,we can put on the tablet standards,policies, directives,technical comitees,Federal institutions etc.As a Quality Expert with a long experience in automotive behind some declarations i really don't know in what to still believe...market Is a master over and beyond any other thing and even AI Will not be able to change this kind of approach that Is on one hand very sad on other Is very frightening