Thank you all for the reaponses. Regarding the pairing of 2 pilots over 60 is not forbidden by any Part ( either FCL or ORO) . The main misunderstanding here is , if there are 3 conditions to be met ( qualified to the type, no OML, not over 60) , or only 2 ( qualified to the type and no OML while the same.person is not over 60). As the conditions are not seperated with bullets to clearly define them, the "and" from the phrase " ...when the other pilot is fully qualified on the relevant class and type of aircraft, is not subject to an OML and has not attained the age of 60 " creates confusion to some readers. Thank you again. Krikor you're a treasure, good hearing from you mate.
Join your community
Join a community to be part of the discussion.
Nikolaos Samaras commented on a post in Air Operations
Dear community,
According to the provisions of GM1 ORO.FC.100(c) , may a pilot with OML restrictions , fly an MPA with another pilot who has no OML restrictions , he is fully qualified to the type, but he is over 60 years old?
Ricardo Pardo commented on a post in Air Operations
I have the following question about an ambiguity between the Cover Regulation Article 2 §7/SPO.GEN.005 and SPO.SPEC.MCF:
- Article 2 §7 considers Maintenance Check Flights as a specialised activity
"‘specialised operation’ means any operation, other than commercial air transport operation, where the aircraft is used for specialised activities such as agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, aerial advertisement, maintenance check flights"
=> My French SPO operator declares MCF as an activity and starts writing an SOP about it.
- Although SPO.GEN.005 (a) says that maintenance check flights are a specialised activity, the list under GM1 SPO.GEN.005 does not mention maintenance check flights as an specialised activity.
Under SPO.SPEC.MCF an SOP is not required.
=> The question is if MCF are a specialised activity an SOP is required by SPO.OP.230.
But under SPO.SPEC.MCF, an SOP is not required.
Can somebody resolve this ambiguity?
Would it be a correct conclusion if you give priority to SPO.SPEC which requires no SOP for MCF?
Thank you, Guy Wouters
Ian is right. For the Maintenance Check Flight Manual, follow this link:
https://www.easa.europa.eu/community/topics/maintenance-check-flights
Nikolaos Samaras posted in Air Operations
Dear community,
According to the provisions of GM1 ORO.FC.100(c) , may a pilot with OML restrictions , fly an MPA with another pilot who has no OML restrictions , he is fully qualified to the type, but he is over 60 years old?
Michel MASSON created a topic in General Aviation
Michel MASSON posted in Rotorcraft
Spotlight On Safety: Invest In Tech And Train To Proficiency
ROTORMEDIA, May 6, 2024
By Chris Hill, VAI, VAST Steering Committee
https://rotormedia.com/spotlight-on-safety-invest-in-tech-and-train-to-…
Good pilots use technology to enhance safety.
Exceptional pilots train to proficiency to use technology correctly and resume technology if technology fails.
Michel MASSON posted in Rotorcraft
Push to Talk with Bruce Webb: A Helicopter Podcast
32 episodes now available!
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/push-to-talk-with-bruce-webb-a-he…
Watch e.g. Episode 25 Flying In The Crowded Airspace of Today with Mike O'Donoghue, GASCo
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-25-flying-in-the-crowded-…
Guy Wouters posted in Air Operations
I have the following question about an ambiguity between the Cover Regulation Article 2 §7/SPO.GEN.005 and SPO.SPEC.MCF:
- Article 2 §7 considers Maintenance Check Flights as a specialised activity
"‘specialised operation’ means any operation, other than commercial air transport operation, where the aircraft is used for specialised activities such as agriculture, construction, photography, surveying, observation and patrol, aerial advertisement, maintenance check flights"
=> My French SPO operator declares MCF as an activity and starts writing an SOP about it.
- Although SPO.GEN.005 (a) says that maintenance check flights are a specialised activity, the list under GM1 SPO.GEN.005 does not mention maintenance check flights as an specialised activity.
Under SPO.SPEC.MCF an SOP is not required.
=> The question is if MCF are a specialised activity an SOP is required by SPO.OP.230.
But under SPO.SPEC.MCF, an SOP is not required.
Can somebody resolve this ambiguity?
Would it be a correct conclusion if you give priority to SPO.SPEC which requires no SOP for MCF?
Thank you, Guy Wouters
Davide MARTINI commented on Davide MARTINI's topic in Cybersecurity
Spoiler Alert - we will talk about the ECSF in the Part-IS workshop in November
Jean-Claude Ribaux posted in General Aviation
Hello
A PPLor >CPL or ATPL Pilot want to fly SEP aircraft acc LAPL privileges (recency) Does he have to give up the higher licence ?
Problem for an ATPL pilot with a type rating (A350 f e) which want to fly also on SEP A/C...
Dominique SAVEL commented on a post in Cybersecurity
Hello Vasileios, today we received the information that EASA and EUROCONTROL are signing a cooperation protocol to strengthen cooperation for a safe and sustainable future of European aviation. Is it possible to know more about the cybersecurity part in particular given the fact that Eurocontrol has 41 member countries while Europe is still at 27 ?
... postpone the subject to a later date? Take the time to define what sensitive data is?don't get me wrong, it's just that the world is changing and there remains an impression that we treat things as if the dangers and threats had not multiplied
Davide MARTINI created an event in Cybersecurity
Davide MARTINI commented on Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU's topic in Cybersecurity
Hi Michal, thanks for the feedback.
As mentioned in the article, the use of EFBs in operations requires a risk assessment (by the operator) and specific approval (by the competent authority) as there may be an impact on safety that should be managed.
Like you wrote, one way to control this is to compare the results with other systems or another EFB, or to compare with manuals etc. From a security point of view, it is better if the comparison is made against a different /dissimilar system.
Michel MASSON created a topic in Air Operations
Titipong Buddeesuwan commented on a post in Air Operations
Please clarify how to apply AMC2 CAT.OP.MPA.182 Fuel/energy scheme — aerodrome selection policy- aeroplane, at point (b).
How to apply destination aerodrome to planning minima of AMC6 CAT.OP.MPA.182 (Table 2)?
If the type of approach operation at destination aerodrome is Type A. Do we need to add celling more 400 ft for DA/H and VIS more 1 500 m?
Is that mean we have to apply the margin from the planning minima table (table 2. AMC6 CAT.OP.MPA.182) into the destination airport to define the neccesary of two destination require?
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
Dominique SAVEL posted in Cybersecurity
Hello Vasileios, today we received the information that EASA and EUROCONTROL are signing a cooperation protocol to strengthen cooperation for a safe and sustainable future of European aviation. Is it possible to know more about the cybersecurity part in particular given the fact that Eurocontrol has 41 member countries while Europe is still at 27 ?
Michel MASSON commented on Michel MASSON's topic in Rotorcraft
Warm thanks, Georges, for these relevant additions.
Comments and complements of information are very welcomed.
Michel MASSON created a topic in Rotorcraft
Michel MASSON created a topic in General Aviation
Michel MASSON created a topic in General Aviation