JAR.OPS-3 vs EU-OPS

[mortennb]

Hoping for different opinions and clarification.
RW is currently flying under both national and JAR-OPS 3 regulations.
If I understand correctly there will be no replacement for JAR-OPS 3 but subparts that includes all operators, and will take effect on April 8th 2012?

The next stage: Part-OPS
Part-OPS will cover all ‘Air Operations’ and will have four sub parts as follows:
Sub Part A OPS.GEN applicable to all Operators
Sub Part B OPS.CAT specific to Commercial Air Transport (CAT)
Sub Part C OPS.COM specific to Commercial Operations other than CAT, i.e. Aerial Work
Sub Part D OPS.SPA covering all operations requiring a special approval and applicable to all Operators as required

Each Sub Part will be based upon the IR’s which are progressively being developed and it has been announced by EASA that it will take effect on 8 April 2012, on which date EU-OPS will be repealed.

Changes?

I am currently working onshore utility. I got my JAA IFR rating in 2009 and are curious about moving into and IR job eventually. So I am looking into the EU-OPS to see if it will affect the job market due to change in regulations and duty time. I have spoken to multiple experienced pilots, as well as employees of CAA.

In some countries in Europe they still fly single pilot, multi engine, IFR HEMS. I’ve been told they are flying on an” approved exemption” approved by the national CAA authority. They call it HEMS Crew. ATPL pilot with rescue personnel, who has minimum PPL-H theory.

Most of the people I have spoken to says they believe that when EU-OPS-3 or equlent comes into effect, they will be more strict on making exemptions like this. And maybe they will require all HEMS operations to be multi pilot crews. This would mean a major change at least in my country.
Also would like to hear of any other major change if anyone knows.

Thx.

[Deutz]

I think the stoory goes something like this:

In the 1990s the JAA was a 'club' of European Aviation Authorities [signatories to the Cyprus Arrangements] who agreed that they would make their national regulations compatible. To this end they agreed common codes for (amongst others) Commercial Air Transportation (CAT) in Aeroplanes - JAR-OPS 1 and CAT in Helicopters - JAR-OPS 3.

When the European Union arrived on the scene, for political and legal reasons, it took over responsibility for all aviation regulation in the EU (and, through EASA, by bilateral agreement in other associate European states too).

The JAA ceased to exist on 30 June 2009 [i.e. Cyprus Arrangements dissolved]. Consequently, JAR-OPS 3 is an orphan code.

EU-OPS (which is actually an annex to the EC regulation [No 216/2008] setting out the Essential Requirements for aviation regulation) is a temporary measure dealing only with CAT for aeroplanes. The rest of aviation operational regulation is currently in accordance with national regulations – although these may originally have been based on JAR-OPS.

The EC regulations for the detailed conduct of aviation operations (the Implementing Rules – ‘IRs’) will deal with all operational aspects of aviation. These are in process of being developed under NPA 2009-2 and have now reached the stage involving review of the Comment Response Document (CRD). When the IRs are published as a regulation in 2012, EU-OPS will be redundant.

When studying the forthcoming EU regulations applicable to helicopters in NPA 2009-2 (see EASA website), good references would be ICAO Annex 6 Part III Section 2 and JAR-OPS 3 where CAT (helicopters) is concerned and ICAO Annex 6 Part III Section 3 for General Aviation (helicopters).

You will see that NPA 2009-2 contains many of the provisions originally contained in JAR-OPS 3 (including those contained in the HEMS Appendix). It should also be compatible with ICAO Annex 6.

Hope this helps

[mortennb]

Thx a lot. Really helped.

[biz-buz]

Has anybody heard any talk about the continuation of the Cat A equivalent status into Eu Ops, or alternatively whether it will end with the introduction of EU Ops?

Any inside information or inspired thought welcome!! :cool:

[JimL]

It will continue.

However, it is likely that the original intent (grandfathering older types that were certificated before the introduction of Appendix C to Part 27) will be enforced.

Jim

[biz-buz]

Thanks Jim, for the quick reply! I had heard (from an EASA source) there was a possibility that it would be axed despite what the NPA said! But he is checking up on this at the moment.

I cannot quite understand your last comment "...that the original intent will be enforced?" Does this mean that other aircraft are trying to slip in the backdoor using this let-out clause and that will not be tolerated?:confused: If so, what types are concerned?

[JimL]

The helicopter types that could take advantage of this alleviation were always limited as it depended upon the issue of a type certificate before the advent of Appendix C.

When the text was first provided, the intent was made clear; however, implementation of the policy rested with the JAA member States. This has changed and the assessment is now made at EASA.

It is not clear how it could be axed (does that mean that helicopters which have been assessed will not now be permitted to operate in PC1 or 2?). That would constrain a large number of AS355s, A109s and Bo105s to operating only in PC3.

When contemplating the removal of the alleviation, consideration has to be given to all rules - not just those which are concerned with take-off and landing. For example, helicopters operating in PC3 (only) have to be suitably equipped with over-water equipment as soon as leaving the shore. They are also prevented from operating over a hostile environment (including a congested hostile environment) or at night.

The alleviation is concerned with two primary elements: that (enumerated in the guidance) which is part of the design and which provides engine isolation and fire protection; and that which is required to meet the performance criteria.

When providing the alleviation, the concern was primarily with the former as that is constrained by the design of the type and cannot be easily added at a later stage. (Appreciation of the whole issue can be obtained by comparing the list of Part 29 requirements which is contained in Appendix C of Part 27 with that which is contained in the JAR-OPS guidance.)

As was said in opening, the list of types that could take advantage of the alleviation is finite and we may be reaching that point where all have now been considered. This could mean that the alleviation would remain in the Operational Code but no further assessments would be necessary.

Jim

[Shell Management]

Why not a certification effort to evaluate the earlier aircraft against the Appendix C standard? :confused:

[JimL]

Welcome back - SM.

We already know that they cannot meet the certification standard because of their design; what can be shown is an equivalence meeting the more important engine isolation and fire protection criteria and provision of appropriate performance data.

As was stated previously, most (if not all) of the applicable types have already been assessed so the problem is reducing. What was not expected was that some newer type (certificated since the introduction of Appendix C to Part 27) would be submitted for assessment.

Jim