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
Last edited by JimL; 21st February 2009 at 15:13.
Reason: Grammar/Spelling