Old 31st Aug 2019, 23:41
  #104 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by gearlever View Post
So according EASA, it's legal to continue OEI after T/O on a twin from, let's say EGLL-KJFK for example, as long as ETOPS criteria are met?

Hear hear...
No, I didn't say it was legal - it's grey (assuming my quick scan through EASA Air Ops didn't miss the appropriate section).

The Airline will have an AOC approved by EASA which means their operation will be approved according to their Part A/B/C etc. Their Part A WILL say that they'll follow the advice of the AFM/FCOM. In the Smartwings instance, their Seattle devised FCOM WILL say that the crew 'should' plan to land at the nearest suitable airport. If it doesn't, then there is a larger issue here.

I assume the wording in the FAA rules is to enshrine the rules in law without getting too concerned about specifics (the aircraft type etc), although that doesn't mean that the same rules/principles/guidance aren't applicable in EASA land.

Excuse the rather culturally loaded example; whilst i'm not saying it's a bad thing, the US law would seem more helpful for a solicitor who is trying to prove (for example) a case of psychological hurt of a passenger on a flight that continued past the first suitable airport. For example, if a passenger decides they are owed ten million dollars by the airline because they flew in contravention of the FAA regs about OEI, then it's quite easy to argue for that passenger to a judge. In Europe it's essentially the same rule, operations approved with regards to following the advice of the QRH as part of an operators AOC. Though that's a little more wooly in court, it doesn't meant it can't be argued by a crafty Barrister. A good analogy would be the constitutions of the US vs that of the UK. The US is written down in a very neat four and half thousand words, the UK's is a million times more complex being written in thousands of separate documents/law, but that doesn't mean there are no rules.

End of the day, an operator won't (shouldn't?) be granted a license if they say they won't be applying the advice/guidance of the AFM/FCOM. It achieves the same goal as the FAA legislation, eg. dont carry on after a loss of 50% of your engines. The only reason a PIC may override the FCOM would be if there was greater safety issue. In this instance, company economics and practicality seems to have overriden safety concerns which is very disappointing to say the least.

ETOPS is entirely different and not covered in these regulations as it would muddy the water even further.
giggitygiggity is online now