Part-CAT

Are there any requirements for loadmasters?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex IV (Part-CAT)

There are no specific provisions for loadmasters, either in terms of their duties or in terms of their qualification. The only provision applicable to loading is in Part-CAT:

CAT.POL.MAB.100 Mass and balance, loading

CAT.POL.MAB.105 Mass and balance data and documentation, stating:

  • The loading of an aircraft shall be performed under the supervision of qualified personnel in a way that is consistent with the results of mass and balance calculations.
  • The person supervising the loading of the aircraft shall confirm by hand signature or equivalent that the load and its distribution are in accordance with the mass and balance documentation given to the commander.
  • The person who prepared the mass and balance documentation must be named on it.
  • The operator has to specify principles and methods for the loading and the mass and balance system in use in its Operations Manual.

Regarding the categorization of such personnel, a loadmaster can be either ground personnel or a crew member if the operator assigns him/her duties on board (as it is the case for some cargo operators), but certainly not flight crew.

Of course this does not prevent a flight crew member to be also qualified as a loadmaster, but he or she would be flight crew independently from being a loadmaster at the same time.

Please note that in accordance with ORO.GEN.110(e), it is the operator's responsibility to “ensure that all personnel assigned to, or directly involved in, ground and flight operations are properly instructed, have demonstrated their abilities in their particular duties and are aware of their responsibilities and the relationship of such duties to the operation as a whole”.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  36
Vote down  11

Referring to Annex II - AMC 20-6 rev.2, on ETOPS Applicability, is ETOPS approval required or not for aircraft with a seating configuration of 19 or less and a maximum take-off mass of less than 45 360 kg and not exceeding 180 minutes at the approved one-engine-inoperative speed (in still air) from an adequate aerodrome?

“(2) or Two-engine aeroplanes with a maximum passenger seating configuration of 19 or less and a maximum take-off mass of less than 45 360 kg, in excess of 180 minutes at the approved one-engine-inoperative speed (in still air) from an adequate aerodrome.”

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex IV (Part CAT), Annex V (Part SPA)

In the EASA regulatory framework an ETOPS operational approval is not required for commercial operations with twin-engine aeroplanes with a maximum passenger seating configuration of 19 or less and a maximum take-off mass of less than 45 360 kg to operate in excess of 180 minutes at the approved one-engine-inoperative speed (in still air) from an adequate aerodrome.

Nevertheless, Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 must be considered, especially CAT.OP.MPA.140 which states:

“CAT.OP.MPA.140 Maximum distance from an adequate aerodrome for two-engined aeroplanes without an ETOPS approval

(a) Unless approved by the competent authority in accordance with Annex V (Part SPA), Subpart F, the operator shall not operate a two-engined aeroplane over a route that contains a point further from an adequate aerodrome, under standard conditions in still air, than:
[...]

(2) for performance class A aeroplanes with:

(i) an MOPSC of 19 or less; and 
(ii) a maximum take-off mass less than 45 360 kg,

the distance flown in 120 minutes or, subject to approval by the competent authority, up to 180 minutes for turbo-jet aeroplanes, at the OEI cruise speed determined in accordance with (b);”

Therefore, a specific ETOPS approval under Part-SPA (Annex V to Regulation (EU) No 965/2012) is not required to operate between 120 and 180 minutes from an adequate aerodrome; nevertheless, an operator is required to hold an approval based on the provisions contained in AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.140(c). Without this approval, an operator cannot operate in excess of 120 minutes from an adequate aerodrome.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  20
Vote down  16

NPAs CDFA-SA with IAP instrument approach procedure expressing minima as a "DA/H" should have an "ADD-ON" or not? Am I allowed to go a little bellow the "DA/H" while performing a missed approach/going around?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex IV (Part CAT)

Please note that the rules on CDFA are now specified in the following rule of Regulation (EU) 965/2012: CAT.OP.MPA.115 Approach flight technique - aeroplanes. To this implementing rule, three AMCs and one Guidance Material are assigned.

AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.115 (a)(5) specifies the following: “This DA/H should take into account any add-on to the published minima as identified by the operator's management system and should be specified in the OM (aerodrome operating minima).” This means that the use of any add-on is left to the responsibility of the operator.

Usually, the operator should avoid going below DA/H if the missed approach is initiated. Therefore, (a)(7) specifies: “The operator should establish a procedure to ensure that an appropriate callout is made when the aeroplane is approaching DA/H. If the required visual references are not established at DA/H, the missed approach procedure is to be executed promptly.”

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  25
Vote down  10

Is there any regulatory statement by which it is required for all European aeroplanes to carry a defibrillator on board?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex IV (Part-CAT)

In the AMCs to the Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, it is recommended, for commercial air transport operations, to carry an automatic external defibrillator on aeroplanes required to carry an emergency medical kit (those having a passenger seating configuration of more than 30 seats when any point on the planned route is more than 60 minutes flying time at normal cruising speed from an aerodrome at which qualified medical assistance could be expected to be available) under certain conditions.

Namely the acceptable means of compliance to the rule concerned (CAT.IDE.A.225), listing the content of the Emergency Medical Kit, recommend operators to determine through risk assessment the need to carry the defibrillator. So there is no strict requirement for operators, but only a recommendation based on the result of a risk assessment.

The above is in line with the current ICAO Annex 6 recommendation, which reads as follows:

ATTACHMENT B. MEDICAL SUPPLIES

Supplementary to Chapter 6, 6.2.2 a)

1.2 Based on the limited available evidence, only a very small number of passengers are likely to benefit from the carriage of automated external defibrillators (AED) on aeroplanes. However, many operators carry them because they offer the only effective treatment for cardiac fibrillation. The likelihood of use, and therefore of potential benefit to a passenger, is greatest in aircraft carrying a large number of passengers, over long duration sector lengths. The carriage of AEDs should be determined by operators on the basis of a risk assessment taking into account the particular needs of the operation.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  10
Vote down  4

What is the meaning of ‘where applicable’ in relation to the data link recording requirements in CAT.IDE.A.195, CAT.IDE.H.195, NCC.IDE.A.170, NCC.IDE.H.170, SPO.IDE.A.150 and SPO.IDE.H.150?

  • The requirement to record data link communication messages stated in paragraphs CAT.IDE.A.195, CAT.IDE.H.195, NCC.IDE.A.170, NCC.IDE.H.170, SPO.IDE.A.150 and SPO.IDE.H.150 should be understood as follows: if an aircraft is equipped with data link communication equipment and it is going to use this equipment during part or the entire flight (when also required to be equipped with a CVR and first issued with an individual CofA on or after the applicability date stated in the relevant paragraph), then it must also have a working data link recording function.  The expression ‘where applicable’ in CAT.IDE.A.195(a) is to indicate that the requirement applies when information enumerated in CAT.IDE.A.195(a)(1) is exchanged or could be exchanged via data link replacing voice during the flight. This is also valid for the expression ‘where applicable’ in CAT.IDE.H.195(a), NCC.IDE.A.170(a), NCC.IDE.H.170(a),  SPO.IDE.A.150(a) and SPO.IDE.H.150(a).
  • Examples where this requirement would not apply include but are not limited to:
    • the case where the aircraft is only operated in airspace where no data link communication service is offered and therefore only voice communications are used between the aircraft and ATS;
    • the case where the airborne data link communication equipment is not compatible with the data link services of the airspace where it is operating and therefore, voice remains the means of communication between the aircraft and ATS;
    • the case where the data link communication equipment is disabled permanently and in a way that it cannot be enabled again during the flight and therefore voice remains the means of communication between the aircraft and ATS.

Note:

Commission Regulation (EU) No 29/2009 requires aircraft performing IFR flights above Flight Level 285 in the airspace of most EASA Member States to ‘have the capability to operate some data link services by February 2020 , except for older aircraft and State aircraft.

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  9
Vote down  14

AMC1 (a) to CAT.IDE.A.280 says, “Batteries used in the ELTs should be replaced (or recharged, if the battery is rechargeable) when the equipment has been in use for more than 1 cumulative hour”. What should be understood by “in use for more than 1 cumulative hour”?

Reference: Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on Air Operations, Annex IV (Part CAT)

“In use for more than 1 cumulative hour” should be understood as an hour of cumulative ELT operation, whatever the purpose may be (testing, intended or unintended transmitting).

View

Was this helpful?

Vote up  14
Vote down  6