I think I am right in saying that there are formal links between the JAA folk and their FAA counterparts already and we may malign them in this respect. What I am suggesting is a forum for feeding front-line experiences and opinions into the regulators who, almost by definition, cannot be expert in the vast array of fields in which helicopters earn their keep.
This need not be a step in the regulatory process but instead a regular exchange in an informal forum that seeks to educate the NAAs about life's realities whilst allowing a frank exchange of views about the way the business is developing.
I have worked in operations with widely differing philosophies but if they deliver safety we cannot say they are invalid just because we disagree. Realising that somebody else can have a good idea is the first step away from bigotry and tunnel vision.
ETOPS and JAROPS 3 NPA38 are both based on the concept of risk analysis, risk assessment and probability computations that are informed by technical experts with feet firmly planted in the real world of flight operations. This is a clue as to the way forward but we need our regulators to be informed by those who do that job every day and have a track record that indicates their judgment can be trusted.
Maybe somebody with an HAI connection can get something on the agenda for their next management meeting. I cannot believe that the proposed membership of these working groups would think that making the effort once or twice a year would be wasted effort. But ....... please ...... remember that the 'I' in HAI means
international so lets see such groups have a decent degree of non-US representation.
G
