In Croatia regular JAR Ops3 day landing out on field, not included

[9Aplus]

In 9A we have nice air law on helicopters:, now our CAA (CCAA) just translated CAP 437, not included regular JAR Ops3 day landing out on field.


Article 19
(1) For landing and takeoff of aircraft the airports are used.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 this article, the aircraft must land and take off outside the airport only with the approval of the Agency, taking into account the safety of operations.
(3) Approval under paragraph 2 This article is not necessary for the aircraft:
1st whose landing site because their properties can not be determined in advance,
2nd who landed in an emergency,
3rd providing emergency medical care, HEMS
4th participating in search and rescue operations, SAR
5th involved in aerial Fire-Fighting operations ,
6th Special flights for special effects,
7th In other cases identified in the regulations adopted pursuant to this Act.
(4) To re-takeoff aircraft under paragraph 3 Item 2 this article, and gliders, require the approval of the Agency.
(5) Takeoff and landing of helicopters out of Airports and registered Helipads(Heliports) shall be governed by Regulations adopted pursuant to this Act.

So any proposal how to include landing and takeoffs on field out of airports and helipads in best JAR/EU Ops 3 spirit?

For all kind of commercial helicopter operations, positive development of this regulation is matter of "life and death" of feasible business....
:E

*LINK is on 9A CAP 437 translation proposal.... (http://www.ccaa.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/703/PAH_prosinac_08_2010_kona%C4%8Dno_radno1.pdf)

[JimL]

9Aplus,

This has nothing to do with CAP 437 - which is a UK publication dealing with offshore operations.

It also has no relationship with JAR-OPS 3 or EASA OPS because such activities are regulated by the State until the time that EASA assume competence for Aerodromes and Airspace (i.e. not at this time).

Neither JAR-OPS 3, Annex 6 or Annex 14 make such provisions - they look more like German or Dutch regulations.

I suggest you research where this text came from and then come back and let us know; at which time we can have a view as to their relevance.

Jim

[9Aplus]

To be more accurate it is compilation out of CAP 437, ICAO Annex 14 Vol II and
ICAO Heliport manual DOC 9261....

Wthin whole document there is no solution for helicopter landing out of airport mentioned within valid local LAWon Atrticle 19 - (5)
(5) Takeoff and landing of helicopters out of Airports and registered Helipads(Heliports) shall be governed by Regulations adopted pursuant to this Act.
So I am looking for helicopter landing best practice all arround, and within EASA countries particullary :ok:

[JimL]

What you are probably looking for is contained in ICAO Annex 6 not Annex 14 (or the associated documents). Off-airfield landings are usually regulated from within Operational Rules - i.e. JAR-OPS 3 or EASA OPS (which has adopted the term 'landing site').

Providing you can arrive, land, take-off and depart within the constraints of ICAO Annex 2 (ICAO Rules of the Air - still a State responsibility in Europe) and can meet the requirements of the JAR-OPS 3 performance classes (including exposure), there is no ICAO based constraint.

What you have therefore (as you have indicated) are additional constraints that are "pursuant to this act". If they have not been published in your State, you either have no constraint or, have no framework for operation - depending upon the underlying philosophy of your legal system.

As a matter of interest, the latest EASA draft appears to signal a shift away from 'nothing is barred unless stated' to 'nothing is permitted unless stated'. It is not clear that this has been a conscious move by the EASA legal experts but stems from misunderstanding. It is signalled in a change of language from 'a person shall not...' to 'a person shall...'. This appears to stem from a wish to 'appear positive' which, unfortunately, changes the effect of rule sets.

Jim

[9Aplus]

Exactly that :ugh::
have no framework for operation
and near ex YU country S5 have very liberal approach on the other hand....
landing & takeoff on PIC responsibility and with owner consignment, during day operations...

[JimL]

...and that is how it is for most countries.

Unless your State declares a prohibition (or provides rules), I would suggest that it can be done within the rules of JAR-OPS 3 - do you comply with those?

Jim

[9Aplus]

Yes, we do, by the book JAR Ops 3 compliant....
but on the other hand they "invented" responsiblity of "Flight Authorization Office"
- guess what, no any rotorheads present there :}

[JimL]

You might suggest that compliance with 19(5) can be shown by operating in accordance with JAR-OPS 3 (EASA OPS eventually - which contains a very similar requirement).

Specifically, the operator should be empowered to meet the requirements of JAR-OPS 3.220:

JAR-OPS 3.220 Authorisation of Heliports by the Operator
(See AMC OPS 3.220)

An operator shall only authorise use of heliports that are adequate for the type(s) of helicopter and operation(s) concerned. by applying AMC OPS 3.220:

AMC No 1 to OPS 3.220
Authorisation of Heliports by the operator
See JAR-OPS 3.220

1 When defining sites for use as heliports (including infrequent or temporary heliports) for the type(s) of helicopter(s) and operation(s) concerned, an operator should take account of the following:

2 An adequate site is a site which the operator considers to be satisfactory, taking account of the applicable performance requirements and site characteristics (guidance on standards and criteria are contained in ICAO Annex 14 Volume 2 and in the ICAO ‘Heliport Manual’ (Doc 9261-AN/903)).

3 The operator should have in place a procedure for the survey of sites by a competent person. Such a procedure should take account for possible changes to the site characteristics which may have taken place since last surveyed.

4 Sites which are pre-surveyed should be specifically authorised in the operator’s Operations Manual. The Operations Manual should contain diagrams or/and ground and aerial photographs, and depiction (pictorial) and description of:

a. The overall dimensions of the site;

b. Location and height of relevant obstacles to approach and take-off profiles, and in the manoevring area;

c. Approach and take-off flight paths;

d. Surface condition (blowing dust/snow/sand);

e. Helicopter types authorised with reference to performance requirements;

f. Provision of control of third parties on the ground (if applicable);

g. Procedure for activating site with land owner or controlling authority;

h. Other useful information, for example appropriate ATS agency and frequency;

j. Lighting (if applicable);

5 For sites which are not pre-surveyed, the Operator should have in place a procedure which enables the pilot to make, from the air, a judgment on the suitability of a site. Items (a) to (f) inclusive in (4) above should be considered.

6 Operations to non pre-surveyed sites by night (except in accordance with Appendix 1 to 3.005(d) - (c)(2)(i)(C)) should not be permitted.


The definition of a heliport is non-specific (deliberately) so that it allows for 'landing sites' as provided for in the AMC ('landing sites' are now de facto included in EASA OPS):

Heliport. An aerodrome or a defined area of land, water or a structure used or intended to be used wholly or in part for the arrival, departure and surface movement of helicopters.


Jim

[9Aplus]

That is in perfect order, but in direct collision with our local Air law, from 2009.
(sorry Croatian language)
69 17.06.2009 Zakon o zra?nom prometu (http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2009_06_69_1663.html)

Consist of above translated Article 19.
....
(5) Takeoff and landing of helicopters out of Airports and registered Helipads(Heliports) shall be governed by Regulations adopted pursuant to this Act.

PS local CCAA "fan" just went crazy because of this thread :ok:

[JimL]

Now we have completed the full circle.

I would suggest (finally) that, for commercial air transport, "regulations adopted pursuant to this Act" can be regarded as being satisfied by JAR-OPS 3.220 - providing that JAR-OPS 3 has been adopted by Croatia.

The problem is defined by two attitudes: that which is intended to facilitate operations; and, that which is intended to place a barrier to operations. No doubt Croatian law is the same as most other common law; once written, anyone may interpret it but only a judge may rule on its meaning. Your/my view is as good as any other's until that ruling has been made.

Jim

[9Aplus]

Cheers JimL

that can be serious option too....:ok:

[JimL]

I think that you need to challenge the CCAA in a formal letter; once they can see that you are serious, they will be obliged to justify their stance.

If you decide to do this, you should provide your interpretation and suggest a method of compliance for them to challenge; do not just ask a question.

Jim

[9Aplus]

Our last atempt with letter to CCAA, including request to seriously talk on that subject, was in June 2010.
Rejected.... :confused:
Than we wrote to Ministry of Transportation, and answer was "We are working on regulation, it will be issued before end of 2010."
Just few days ago, draft spoted on WEB site, in shape of shameless compliation
and poor translation of Annex 14 Vol 2, Heliport manual DOC 9261 and UK CAP 437...

For example:

"Area for helicopter landing"
QUOTE]Oznaka površine na brodu za spuštanje helikoptera
(nenamjenski helidrom)
Članak 49.
.
.
(6) Unutar oznake koncetrične manevarske površine istaknut je natpis „WINCH ONLY“,
izveden bijelom bojom.[/quote] :ugh: