View Full Version : Single Engine IFR Commercial Operations Europe
Are Single Engine Turbine IFR Operations allowed under European Regulations?
flyboyike
25th Jul 2006, 23:03
Given the number of PC-12s in commercial operations, I would think that they are. Or do you mean the equivalent of Part 121 ops? Are you asking if there is anything like a 121.159 prohibition in Europe?
selfin
26th Jul 2006, 00:07
JAR-OPS 1.940 (b)(1) and (b)(2) applies, as does Appendix 2 to 1.940.
(b) Minimum flight crew for operations under IFR or at night. For operations under IFR or at night, an operator shall ensure that:
(1) For all turbo-propeller aeroplanes
with a maximum approved passenger seating
configuration of more than 9 and for all turbojet
aeroplanes, the minimum flight crew is 2 pilots;
or
(2) Aeroplanes other than those covered
by sub-paragraph (b)(1) above are operated by a
single pilot provided that the requirements of
Appendix 2 to JAR-OPS 1.940 are satisfied. If the
requirements of Appendix 2 are not satisfied, the
minimum flight crew is 2 pilots.
See also this thread: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=234458
flyboyike
26th Jul 2006, 00:17
JAR-OPS 1.940 (b)(1) and (b)(2) applies, as does Appendix 2 to 1.940.
No, it doesn't. The question was about single-engine operations, not single-pilot.
selfin
26th Jul 2006, 00:30
flyboyike, so it was.
For Performance Class B (propeller driven aeroplanes with a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of 9 or less, and a maximum take-off mass of 5 700 kg or less) - otherwise see JAR-OPS 1.470(c).
JAR–OPS 1.525 General
(a) An operator shall not operate a single engine aeroplane:
(1) At night; or
(2) In Instrument Meteorological Conditions except under Special Visual Flight Rules.
Note:Limitations on the operation of single-engine
aeroplanes are covered by JAR–OPS 1.240(a)(6).
JAR-OPS 1.542 also applies.
flyboyike
26th Jul 2006, 00:37
flyboyike, so it was.
JAR-OPS 1.542 would obviously apply.
Much better. Now, does JAA differentiate between charter (what in the US we call Part 135) and common carrier-type (what we call Part 121) ops, for the purposes of this discussion?
selfin
26th Jul 2006, 00:49
To that, I have no idea. I have a feeling it all comes under JAR-OPS 1 presently, with the possibility of GA stuff being separated into a JAR-OPS 2.
flyboyike
26th Jul 2006, 01:24
flyboyike, so it was.
For Performance Class B (propeller driven aeroplanes with a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of 9 or less, and a maximum take-off mass of 5 700 kg or less) - otherwise see JAR-OPS 1.470(c).
JAR–OPS 1.525 General
(a) An operator shall not operate a single engine aeroplane:
(1) At night; or
(2) In Instrument Meteorological Conditions except under Special Visual Flight Rules.
Note:Limitations on the operation of single-engine
aeroplanes are covered by JAR–OPS 1.240(a)(6).
JAR-OPS 1.542 also applies.
Dear Jesus! I thought there was nothing out there more confusing and obfuscated than the FARs. I was wrong.
Looooong haul
26th Jul 2006, 08:03
The manufacturers have been battling about this for years and I do not see any changes in the near future. So it is a big no... sorry
Mercenary Pilot
26th Jul 2006, 09:29
Although JAA dont allow "Single Engine Turbine IFR Operations", certain member states do. I think they are Spain, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries. I'm not sure quite how this works or if you would be allowed to enter other member states while operating IFR (e.g. UK)?
AlphaWhiskyRomeo
26th Jul 2006, 15:25
Although JAA dont allow "Single Engine Turbine IFR Operations", certain member states do. I think they are Spain, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries. I'm not sure quite how this works or if you would be allowed to enter other member states while operating IFR (e.g. UK)?
Indeed there are many Cessna Caravan night cargo flights around Spain and Scandinavia.
I have a feeling that a single engined a/c might be able to operate in night VFR conditions if on an empty "ferry" leg??? At least charter operators.
selfin
26th Jul 2006, 15:36
Are the JARs actually enforced by any particular EC Regulation (etc)? My understanding is the Member State "agrees" to impliment the JARs in National legislation; some States going to the trouble of approving them in their Parliaments first. Obviously certain elements of the JARs are given legal weight through EASA ( http://www.easa.eu.int/home/regul_en.html ), but what about JAR-OPS?
Thanks for the responses.
I am specifically interested in Commercial Single Engine IFR with passengers.
In Canada it falls under CAR 703, Air Taxi-less than 9 passengers.
I'm not sure what the Air Taxi FAR would be. Though I am interested in the FARs that govern it in the US.
flyboyike
27th Jul 2006, 01:09
I'm not sure what the Air Taxi FAR would be. Though I am interested in the FARs that govern it in the US.
That would be Part 135.
Looooong haul
27th Jul 2006, 07:00
You want to fly SE IFR under FAR's in Europe?
Loooong Haul:
No , I am interested in how various Civ Ave Authorities allow it while others don't.
qeduve
27th Jul 2006, 21:50
As I understand it, JAA is a 'gentleman's agreement' between the CAAs of those countries signed up to it. Each country then enforces JAR-OPS by way of national legislation. Each country can file differences to JAR-OPS, in much the same way countries file differences to ICAO.
EASA may be a big headache for everyone in Europe, but it's a step in the right direction to a level playing field - so long as everyone appreciates their 'pet regulation' may not be adopted.
Maintenance aspects of AOC operations came under EU legislation, from the operator's point of view at least, on 28 SEP 2005. (The legislation was passed by Brussels 2 or 3 years earlier.)
EASA are supposed to take control of/legislate on Operational aspects 'around 2008'. i.e. adoption/rework of JAR-OPS. Don't quote me on it.
flyboyike
28th Jul 2006, 02:01
No , I am interested in how various Civ Ave Authorities allow it while others don't.
Well, I think the realities of general aviation in a given country play a big part in this issue. The fact is, GA is allowed to do more things where there is more of it. An example would be the state of Alaska. If the FAA were to prohibit single-engine IFR for commercial operators, that state would be effectively shut down. There are other areas like that as well. I suppose, this is not as big of an issue in Europe. GA as a whole is a much smaller factor and commercial single-engine outfits (besides flight schools) are all but negligible.