let's forget about JARs....
fdr wrote:
JAR-OPS1 and EU OPS 1 appear to be silent on the matter of acceptance of environmental conditions before flight. The closest item is 1.346's heading but the text fails to cover the same condition.
In many other countries there are local regulatory catch all provisions of the PIC not accepting flight where there are known risk factors posing a safety risk, (operational or environmental). Even FAR 91.13 Careless or reckless operation, would stop you...
Not only in many other countries..
If a country is in compliance with ICAO rules, the country has to have relevant paras in their national law..
and that is the case in every country in Europe..
If you as a PIC plan a flight through or into a SIGMET'ed ( also highlighted as NOTAMS) and something happens, it is considered "reckless" and they will accuse you of endangering the general public..
Look up your national law...you will find it..
sabenaboy wrote:
Did he refuse to fly in an area with ash concentration below what the manufacturers now say is safe (Is it 2000 micrograms/m^3?) and where everybody else was flying?
I have yet to find a tech rep from an engine manufacturer who will confirm to me that they agree on anything more than "zero ash"...
There is none, because all that bull... from the UK CAA, that engine manufacturers had agreed to a 2000 mg/ M3 tolerance is bull....it never happened..
anybody here in this forum from the UK who knows any clown from your CAA...what do these guys smoke...?? or do they have a drinking problem??