"The publication of the first-ever LPV procedure to a Non-Instrument Runway End (NIRE)
in Class G airspace" - Exellent! A wonderful example of how to achieve safe solutions with given regulations! It's a shame that this pragmatic approach is hardly or not at all practiced by some EASA countries. Wasn't there someone who said: EASA is "one sky"?
Join your community
Join a community to be part of the discussion.
Achmed Sharma commented on a post in Air Operations
EGNOS Bulletin Autumn 2023
https://egnos-user-support.essp-sas.eu/news-events/egnos-bulletin
In 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!
Bernd Freese commented on a post in General Aviation
hi @ all, does anybody know? with reference fcl.915 (b) (3) (i):
a fi(a) already privileged to instruct class rating SET - here variant Cessna SET;
does this fi(a) have to fulfill that requirement (15 hours) again and again for every newly added SET variant to be eligible to instruct?
Thnx Stephen, but i still read it a bit different. I asked EASA to clear this one up, but unfortunately i got no responses on either of my 2 ways to ask for clarification.
Axel Wegener posted in Air Operations
Maybe 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)?
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
Michel MASSON posted in Air Operations
EGNOS Bulletin Autumn 2023
https://egnos-user-support.essp-sas.eu/news-events/egnos-bulletin
In 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!
John Franklin created a topic in Air Operations
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
Antonio Valdés commented on a post in Rotorcraft
Recently, I've been working with aircraft first aid kits, and there's something I'm stuck on. I've consulted several medical professionals who work with us, but none can provide a clear answer. It's regarding the Bag Valve Mask mentioned in AMC2 SPO.IDE.H.165 (b)(3)(vi) . While I believe I'm close to understanding what it might be, I'm curious if anyone has more specific or detailed information on how the European agency defines or uses this term. Does it have a particular context within the European Union?
Any help or reference would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance for your time and assistance!
Regards
Thank you all, i was heading the right direction
Stan Chell commented on a post in Air Operations
Problems 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."
Michel, the crew team aspects are within the existing CRM training; no need for some 'new' competence.
Resilience is a property of a system; by limiting the 'system' to a crew, which misses the point of improving safety from a wider viewpoint.
The article 'Defining Resilience' identifies a general issue.
'Training by Definition' assumes understanding, - incorrect. Definitions also constrain, limiting practical aspects. e.g. from the research paper "… it outlines the "what," it falls short in explaining the "how."
and from the FSF article;
"Explaining the term is easy; putting the concept into practice is more challenging."
"From a resilience development perspective, humans are seen as a trained resource that provides system flexibility and resilience."
“Individual resilience can be developed through training and operational experience"
… gross assumptions about human behaviour, - and CRM training. The need is for a resilient system which is compatible with human behaviour. (Compare US / FAA / FSF views of CRM vs EASA)
Also see the discussion and references at: https://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-emergency-response-planning/643738…
Resilience is better seen as a new way of thinking about safety - safety management; something which EASA needs to consider.
Is EASA resilient, has resilient qualities, or is willing to embrace resilience as a way of safety thinking; along with Safety-I & Safety-II ?
Michel MASSON created a topic in Rotorcraft
Antonio Valdés posted in Rotorcraft
Recently, I've been working with aircraft first aid kits, and there's something I'm stuck on. I've consulted several medical professionals who work with us, but none can provide a clear answer. It's regarding the Bag Valve Mask mentioned in AMC2 SPO.IDE.H.165 (b)(3)(vi) . While I believe I'm close to understanding what it might be, I'm curious if anyone has more specific or detailed information on how the European agency defines or uses this term. Does it have a particular context within the European Union?
Any help or reference would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance for your time and assistance!
Regards
André Weber-Juds commented on Iry Razafintsalama's topic in Air Operations
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.
Stan Chell posted in Air Operations
Problems 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."
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…
Stephen Oddy posted in General Aviation
I'm a UK instructor with an FCL.1000(c) EASA approval. The UK has its own way of deciding what is a pass/fail/partial pass when someone takes a combined MEP/IR revalidation check (FCL Appendix 9). I'd like to hear from one or more EASA single-pilot class rating or instrument rating examiners how their national authority does this. specifically:
1. If someone only fails the hold (3B.3) but passes all of the other items in 3B, do they resit all of 3B or do they just resit the hold?
2. If someone fails the hold (3B.3) and the stall recovery (2.3) must they resit the whole test (Sections 1, 2, 3B, 4, 5, 6), or do you treat it as 2 separate tests - one for the IR, one for the class rating and so call the class rating a 'partial pass'?
3. Section 6 requires an asymmetric go around and an asymmetric landing by sole reference to instruments. Section 3B requires a 2D and a 3D approach. How many instrument approaches do you fly, and how many of them are asymmetric?
John Franklin created a topic in Air Operations
Carsten Mildt commented on a post in Air Operations
Hi 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)
"Type A" , in the context of the said AMC, refers to the MDH of the straight-in approach procedure. The MDH of the circling approach procedure (usually the opposite runway end) is usually significantly higher than that of the straight-in approach procedure (cf. Table 15 of AMC7 CAT.OP.MPA.110). The higher MDH of the circling approach procedure requires a higher ceiling when considering that approach procedure in fuel/flight planning. Furthermore, I do not see that definition 20a equates a circling approach with a Type A instrument approach operation but rather with a subset of it: it exempts those Type A instrument approach operations that bring an aircraft into position for landing on a runway/final approach and take-off area (FATO) that ARE SUITABLY LOCATED for a straight-in approach.
Carsten Mildt commented on a post in Air Operations
Hi 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.
Hello Hamad, LVO risk assessments (RA) usually contain confidental safety performance information and are, at least to my knowledge, not (publicly) shared amongst competing operators. So therefore maybe some general words on what I have so far agreed on with operators applying for an LVO approval. The RA is usually based on suitable (safety) performance indicators that reflect the intended operations / technology (ie approach coupler, autoland, HUD, EFVS) being used. The SPI should be measurable, most favourably based on flight data (FDM). A load full of best practice guidance on how to use flight data for performance monitoring is, for example, provided by EASAs European Operators Flight Data Monitoring forum (EOFDM), especially on runway excursion, LOC and CFIT. Some guidance is also given in GM1 SPA.LVO.105(g). However, pilot reporting and manual analysis on approach and landing performance usually contributes to the RA to some extend. A RA usually needs to be based on a number of operations (approaches/landings) using the LVO airborne equipment and the LVO-SOP in non-LVO weather conditions through which the suitability of the safety monitoring system and adequacy of the safety performance is demonstrated prior to receiving the approval. So the RA is basically a "test run" of the safety performance monitoring system to be used after having received the approval. A RA is required when introducing aircaft models/series or LVO airborne equipment or LVO-SOP/AOM which are new to the operator. It is usually not required when "only" adding a new aircraft to an existing fleet of identical or sufficiently similar aircraft for which the operator already holds an LVO approval.
John Franklin created a topic in Air Operations