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?
Join your community
Join a community to be part of the discussion.
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?
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
Michal Walczak commented on Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU's topic in Cybersecurity
Hi Vasileios, as there were many good questions asked via Slido that were not answered during today's session, is there a chance to have them answered in an offline form? Like FAQ 2.0, or just post session material?
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
John Franklin created a topic in Air Operations
Titipong Buddeesuwan posted 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?
Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU created a topic in Cybersecurity
Michel MASSON commented on Michel MASSON's topic in Rotorcraft
Dear Daniel, thanks for your remarks and questions.
I am actually not a helmet expert but a safety generalist.
Information is available on the internet, for instance and without publicity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiplash_(medicine);
https://oursafetysecurity.com/best-helicopter-helmet/.
I hope that you will find the references that you need.
Best regards,
Michel, ESPN-R Coordinator
Dominique SAVEL commented on a post in General Aviation
Regarding Integrated course training, I would like to confirm if for SPIC training IR phase, an IRI is required. EASA says " "Student pilot-in-command" (SPIC) means a student pilot acting as pilot-in-command on a flight with an instructor where the latter will only observe the student pilot and shall not influence or control the flight of the aircraft".
If the FI is not allowed to provide training in these flights, is he required to comply with FCL.905.FI FI (h)?
As HT I have many doubts about which kind of instructor FI is required for each phase of the integrated ATPL program. FCL requires:
"4. The course shall comprise:
(a) theoretical knowledge instruction to the ATPL(A) knowledge level;
(b) visual and instrument flying training;
(c) training in MCC for the operation of multi-pilot aeroplanes; and
(d) UPRT in accordance with FCL.745.A unless applicants have already
completed this training course before starting the ATP integrated course."
When it is DUAL training is clear: ""Dual instruction time" means flight time or instrument ground time during which a person is receiving flight instruction from a properly authorised instructor. "
Thank you for any support anyone likes to provide. How a formal question could be addressed to EASA?
Hello Mario, I am like you on the outside. From what I understand, you are in the right place since it is the people from EASA who keep these pages alive. However, you have two options for your question: in the EASA Pro file in the ATO section you will find the consultations and you have to check if your question falls into one of the "open" consultations, you can also find the email address of responsible for the subject. But in your place I would go through ENAC;
Bård Ove Skandsen commented on a post in Air Operations
Can an aircraft operated on a Restricted Airworthiness Certificate be used in Part-CAT, or only for activities under Part-SPO?
Hi Marcus, I did not mention a restricted AOC, only a restricted airworthiness certificate.
Best regards,
Bård Ove
Bård Ove Skandsen posted in Air Operations
Can an aircraft operated on a Restricted Airworthiness Certificate be used in Part-CAT, or only for activities under Part-SPO?
Axel Wegener commented on a post in Air Operations
According AMC1 NCC.OP.153 - what do we expect when we asking for demonstration:
(a)(1)....demonstrate that the GNSS is robust against loss of capability;
In times when we talk about spoofing and jamming signals, what is the meaning of robustness...? Is this only related to aircraft systems, or to the GNSS system in total? And how do we qualify this.
Hey Benjamin, thanks for clarification - that helps a lot. The question is now, how can an operator get to know these complex technical requirements and is there an awareness present about the systems capabilities. What can be expected from a common user, how does training cover these topics...it is far from being trivial?
Mario Daniel Pons posted in General Aviation
Regarding Integrated course training, I would like to confirm if for SPIC training IR phase, an IRI is required. EASA says " "Student pilot-in-command" (SPIC) means a student pilot acting as pilot-in-command on a flight with an instructor where the latter will only observe the student pilot and shall not influence or control the flight of the aircraft".
If the FI is not allowed to provide training in these flights, is he required to comply with FCL.905.FI FI (h)?
As HT I have many doubts about which kind of instructor FI is required for each phase of the integrated ATPL program. FCL requires:
"4. The course shall comprise:
(a) theoretical knowledge instruction to the ATPL(A) knowledge level;
(b) visual and instrument flying training;
(c) training in MCC for the operation of multi-pilot aeroplanes; and
(d) UPRT in accordance with FCL.745.A unless applicants have already
completed this training course before starting the ATP integrated course."
When it is DUAL training is clear: ""Dual instruction time" means flight time or instrument ground time during which a person is receiving flight instruction from a properly authorised instructor. "
Thank you for any support anyone likes to provide. How a formal question could be addressed to EASA?
Axel Wegener posted in Air Operations
According AMC1 NCC.OP.153 - what do we expect when we asking for demonstration:
(a)(1)....demonstrate that the GNSS is robust against loss of capability;
In times when we talk about spoofing and jamming signals, what is the meaning of robustness...? Is this only related to aircraft systems, or to the GNSS system in total? And how do we qualify this.
Miguel F. del Pino commented on Vasileios PAPAGEORGIOU's topic in Cybersecurity
Good morning Vasileios
Like Grégoire and Dominique, the reminder is appreciated.
In Spain, apart from the use of 27k, since 2010 we have had the National Security Scheme as a working framework to which the ANSP are obliged to comply https://ens.ccn.cni.es/es/
To a large extent, the requirements of the ENS and the Part-IS are traceable as well as those of the 27k, although I do not know how EASA has assessed the internal legislations of the EU member countries. Is there any validation plan for these frameworks by AESA to validate compliance with Part-IS?