EASA Proposals to make radical changes to Flight Operations

[Helinut]

A recent UK FODCOM has drawn attention to a new NPA from EASA that would involve massive change to all aviation operations in Europe. The FODCOM is here:

FODCOM 04/09 | Publications | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3427)

The EASA NPA is 2/2009 and the documents that set out these changes are on the EASA website. For english speakers the link is:

Rulemaking | Notices of Proposed Amendment (NPAs) (http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/r/r_npa.php)

The total package is HUGE. Thousands of pages of deeply complicated and difficult to understand bureaucratic naff. But PLEASE everyone look at it. I am not sure but, after a partial review of this mass of stuff, it seems to me that the aviation activity that I now work in (UK HEMS) would effectively be banned or at least transformed into an emasculated shadow of its former self by these requirements in their current form.

The consultation period ends at the end of May 2009, so there is not much time given the amount of text to be gone through.

It applies to almost all aviation operations, CAT, other commercial ops, and non-commercial Ops too including private flying: i.e. this means YOU if you are unfortunate enough to fly in EASA land. The only ones to get away with it are military and "state" operations. Even the definition of what is "state" aircraft looks a bit dubious to me, including police and fire and SAR, but NOT HEMS....

[JimL]

I am reluctant to come into this debate so soon and should really leave it to others to comment on this first; however, having analysed the whole package and produced a JAR-OPS 3 conformance matrix, and distributed it to a number of interested parties, I can state that there are no substantial changes to the HEMS requirements.

The main change for HEMS is the removal of the PC1 requirement for the HEMS Operating Site in a hostile environment - requiring instead the more practical PC2 (with exposure). Even this is not new because it was developed by the JAA following a discussion with HEMS organisations/operators in the UK and Europe.

Although the JAA proposal is included in the EASA text of Part OPS, there is the subsidiary issue of a choice over the additional requirement for a Risk Assessment and the fitting of UMS. The choices are enumerated in Attachment D of Appendix 1 to 'The Explanatory Notes and Appendices' - they need to be read, understood and appropriate comments made.

Crying wolf is not going to help in this process - there needs to be careful assessment of the proposal; necessary changes will be achieved only by reasoned argument and alternative proposal.

Jim

[500e]

2766 Pages to go + the acronyms to decipher + the EASA\ JAA reference docs to read, and a lifetime to try and understand.
The whole thing appears to be written by a committee that makes Mcbeth,s family look like beginners at obfuscation.
PS.
Dont forget to read the new RT manual only another 220 pages:E

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Mr Jim L, Long time no speak... Last time I spoke to an EASA desk jockey he told me that there was no imminent motivation on EASAs part to regulate (rule make) for Rotorcraft operations on the principle that very few of us cross each others international borders. Has this stance changed?

As an aside my experience with EASA (EU-OPS 1) for the plank world is that the rules are very very similar to old JAR-OPS 1 with some extremely sensible additions such as Constant Descent Final Approaches (CDFA) (I was amazed to learn that a lot of plank drivers get to TOD at the FAF of a Non Precision approach and effectively "dump the lever" (If they had one) decending straight to MDA/H with scant disregard for lumpy bits that might be in the way, and if surviving those lumpy bits arriving in a bit of a buggers muddle at the MAPt.....EASA had to change such seemingly outrageous practices with some very sensible rule making.

Bring it on I say. The greatest threat to our industry is the "Cowboy" element leading to loss of confidence in the consumer of our services.

[JimL]

I'm not sure what was stated by the 'EASA desk jockey' (or who it was) but there was an obligation to produce a regulation that was in compliance with ICAO Annex 6 (for helicopters - Part III). The Terms of Reference (for Commercial Air Transport) included (as well as ICAO compliance) "transposition of EU-OPS and JAR-OPS 1 and 3" into the regulation. So the conclusion, I suppose, would be - yes, if that was the stance then it changed.

It was because of this statement in the ToR that the matrix was constructed (not by EASA but by a small group of experts - mostly in their spare time). The aim, to provide a check that conformance had been achieved in line with the statement. Examination of the matrix will provide (has provided) the means to assess whether the aim has been achieved!

It was because of the ability to provide comparisons that it was possible to make the statement in response to Helinut on the proposed HEMS regulations.

The matrix is a tool which shows whether (the intent of) JAR-OPS 3 has been maintained and, more importantly, provides a direct comparison of the two texts to show the errors of omission and commission in the transposition exercise. Without such a tool, it would have been possible only to assess the text as provided because a comparison is virtually impossible with something that is so extensive and complex.

Oh, and contrary to 500e's assumption, no, it was not written by a committee but directly by EASA staff members.

Jim

[plus expenses]

JimL - you seem well versed in the detail. Is there any truth that the NPR's contain a rule that (AVAD) voice radio altimeter will be required for all PT flights over 3 minutes over water? This would significantly change our operational ability and put us at a disadvantage against our lease/ private cousins and I would like like the chance to read/ study any such proposal. Thanks

[JimL]

Plus expenses,

Yes, the rule is as it was in JAR-OPS 3.

The text of the rule (OPS.CAT.418.H) can be found at the top of page 75 of this document:

http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_68

You also have to apply the method of compliance which is on page 335 of the same document (the method of compliance is part of the rule unless an alternative method is present - which it is not in this case).

It is not clear to me what 'disadvantage' means in the context of your post; the rules for CAT have always been more stringent than for General Aviation. This can be seen, for fixed wing, in the differences between Annex 6 Parts I and II and, for helicopters, the differences between Annex 6 Part III Sections II and III. This is reflected in EASA OPS in the differences in the rules between Subpart GEN and Subpart CAT (all found in the referenced document).

For those who are interested in GA, the rules in Subpart GEN are also split between complex and non-complex aircraft (for helicopters, the division between Parts 29 and 27) which reflect the changes made to the structure and SARPs of Annex 6 Part II at Revision 27.

Jim

[plus expenses]

Thanks JimL. I will go and look it up

[tecpilot]

I see some differencies but not too much. Unfortunately!
Especially i wonder why EASA takes also 1:1 some of the problems and unclear descriptions in some points in OPS 3?

Again we found as example the differencies in "ambulance" and "HEMS" flights, the landing site diameter according to "D" helicopter dimensions and some other old nonsense. The same old discussions about night HEMS single pilot with HCM... Ohh, i forgot they invented now the "Technical crew member"and killed the HCM! It sucks!!!

On some points EASA is behind the last OPS-3 Amendments. We struggle since years with operators and CAAs to come in line with OPS 3 and now the crazy EASA invents a new departmentalism in his draft.

I don't understand it :confused:

May be this posting is too much general, but i don't feel able to discuss the whole details because it's senseless. They do what ever they want. And they have no capable stuff. They try to draw all kind of bloody officials from all countries, from aviation or not but sure not from helicopters to EASA because EASA pays much more than the old national CAAs. It's a "Europe pay" ;) Just as said "desk jockeys". I agree fully. This stuff will do us much headache in future.

[SASless]

I see a growth industry here.....supplying paper to Governments!

Now what happens when the EU splits up over economic collapse of some of its member states?

Do we all revert to our domestic CAA's and again have a huge surge of printing orders to the printing departments?

[JimL]

I think tecpilot's comments are exclusively about HEMS - as I said before, there are no substantial changes. The HEMS Crew Member just has a different title - the requirements for role, training, competency and checks are still the same.

The difference between HEMS and Air Ambulance has always been explained in the guidance material - none of that has changed.

Tecpilot, if you can see where amendment has been made to JAR-OPS 3 and not carried over to EASA OPS, I would be interested and will comment on it; please let me know what it is - post or PM it as you feel the need.

For those who are interested, I can provide the comformance matrix - PM me with your email address (it is large - over 5mb - so ensure that you can accept such an attachment).

Jim