SAFA Check and 61.58 req.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: California
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAFA Check and 61.58 req.
I’m flying an N reg to Europe and preparing for the SAFA ramp Check. The pilots have recently elected to attend recurrent every 12 months but this begs a question: 12 months is OK in US for Part 91 ops but how about EASA? Do they allow 12 month recurrent PIC checks for GLEX or other biz jet? If so I’m wondering how to prove IFR currency. Easy to prove for the first 6 months with ProCard but what about the last 6 months? We track the approaches and stay current but is a company form showing IFR currency acceptable to a SAFA inspector?
Are we in for a nasty surprise when we fly to Europe 9 months after our last 61.58 Check?
Thanks for your input.
Are we in for a nasty surprise when we fly to Europe 9 months after our last 61.58 Check?
Thanks for your input.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Part 91 means private/non commercial operation if I am not mistaken. For that one checkride per year is sufficient in Europe. Only commercial operators require a 6 month operator proficiency check but the associated paperwork does not need to be carried along and therefore will not be shown during a SAFA inspection anyway.
Defo no need to prove IFR currency other than the 12th month check on part 91 (private ops) - BUT that is TYPE specific in EU land though, as in on the actual type - not accepting 24 months if you do it on a "similar" type. That being said, I don't know if complying with the aforementioned FAA 24 month rule for IFR currency would hold the "waters" in a SAFA check.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: All around the world
Age: 53
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good morning everybody.
In my opinion to make it easy, you fly on an FAA license a N-registered aircraft, therefore you have to comply with US rules and regs when it comes to licensing. Easy.
At an SAFA Check they check the aircraft docs, the pilots docs and usually they do a walk around the aircraft for any visual damages. They also looks inside at the emergency equipment, passenger briefing cards, o2, your Jeppesen and Flight docs. All In all it shouldn’t take longer then 30 min if you have your stuff together.
just my 50 cents to this
In my opinion to make it easy, you fly on an FAA license a N-registered aircraft, therefore you have to comply with US rules and regs when it comes to licensing. Easy.
At an SAFA Check they check the aircraft docs, the pilots docs and usually they do a walk around the aircraft for any visual damages. They also looks inside at the emergency equipment, passenger briefing cards, o2, your Jeppesen and Flight docs. All In all it shouldn’t take longer then 30 min if you have your stuff together.
just my 50 cents to this
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFR is a 12 month license currency in EASA as well. The 6 month check is an operators proficiancy check only which applies to commercial operations and does not apply to the IF rating as such i.e. if you fail your OPC then it does not imply that your IF rating is suspended, it just means that you did not meet the requirements of your operator and need additional training to prove operator proficiancy. SAFA can not check OPC currency - this is usually checked by the authority conducting audits and checking crew documents at an operators offices.
So as was mentioned - it does not apply to your operation.- so nothing to worry about as long as your documents you need to carry on board are current.
So as was mentioned - it does not apply to your operation.- so nothing to worry about as long as your documents you need to carry on board are current.
At an SAFA Check they check the aircraft docs, the pilots docs and usually they do a walk around the aircraft for any visual damages. They also looks inside at the emergency equipment, passenger briefing cards, o2, your Jeppesen and Flight docs. All In all it shouldn’t take longer then 30 min if you have your stuff together.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also check the EASA air ops ramp check section, where you can find out more about their rights and duties.
Especially with my past experience in France (could almost call it chicanery) those are good things to know.
Especially with my past experience in France (could almost call it chicanery) those are good things to know.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Zurich
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe it is time to ramp-up against EASA-land Ramp Checks and how they are applied;
We operate very few aeroplanes and helicopters only, but in France we have plenty of RAMP checks every year. Every ramp check is distracting the crew during their normal operation and takes time for the crew during the ramp check itself. Also thereafter a lot of time is spent for responses required from the back. Unfortunately for us it is just a waste of time and not justified by the finding results.
We noticed that up until now all findings with respect to all our aircrafts and helicopters are not safety related, but rather refer to minor discrepancies like non-ICAO-format of the NAA-issued AOC, like an MEL wording which is acceptable to our NAA but seem not to be acceptable for the DGAC inspector, or like small and purely cosmetic paint damage on a wing, etc., or the inspection reports mentioned mainly deferred MEL items such as a bulb which is u/s, or a technical log entry which is lacking an ATA-number, or other small deficiencies not related to our actual operation (for example lacking of some track miles to the declared alternate for fuel calculation on the OFP, while the aircraft is actually carrying fuel on board for several subsequent flights).
Being happy that we do not have to deal with safety-related deficiencies, we are annoyed at the same time that the ramp inspection program appears to be misused by some States. ARO.RAMP.100 (c)(1) states that the authorities should take „the number and nature of operators and their number of landings at its aerodromes, as well as safety risks“ into account. Having only a few aircrafts, and do only occasionally operate into different airports in a certain nation, it appears that the mentioned State does not respect the intent of ARO.RAMP.100 (c)(1) - unless the ramp checks performed up until now would have identified an inherent safety risk of our operation, which had not been communicated to us up until now. In such case we would appreciate to be informed immediately; we even assume that in such case immediate notice would be an obligation of the officials. Up to date however, never ever any safety risk was mentioned in any of the inspection reports.
We still believe that the EU Ramp Inspection Program within an international industry like the aviation industry can be an important factor to flight safety and standards, as long as it is applied reasonably and not misused. Therefore we strongly recommend EASA to ensure that this system is not turned into a job-generating system of self-gratification, unrelated to flight safety and with no avail to the industry, by certain member states. This is even in contradiction to the initial purpose of the regulation.
We operate very few aeroplanes and helicopters only, but in France we have plenty of RAMP checks every year. Every ramp check is distracting the crew during their normal operation and takes time for the crew during the ramp check itself. Also thereafter a lot of time is spent for responses required from the back. Unfortunately for us it is just a waste of time and not justified by the finding results.
We noticed that up until now all findings with respect to all our aircrafts and helicopters are not safety related, but rather refer to minor discrepancies like non-ICAO-format of the NAA-issued AOC, like an MEL wording which is acceptable to our NAA but seem not to be acceptable for the DGAC inspector, or like small and purely cosmetic paint damage on a wing, etc., or the inspection reports mentioned mainly deferred MEL items such as a bulb which is u/s, or a technical log entry which is lacking an ATA-number, or other small deficiencies not related to our actual operation (for example lacking of some track miles to the declared alternate for fuel calculation on the OFP, while the aircraft is actually carrying fuel on board for several subsequent flights).
Being happy that we do not have to deal with safety-related deficiencies, we are annoyed at the same time that the ramp inspection program appears to be misused by some States. ARO.RAMP.100 (c)(1) states that the authorities should take „the number and nature of operators and their number of landings at its aerodromes, as well as safety risks“ into account. Having only a few aircrafts, and do only occasionally operate into different airports in a certain nation, it appears that the mentioned State does not respect the intent of ARO.RAMP.100 (c)(1) - unless the ramp checks performed up until now would have identified an inherent safety risk of our operation, which had not been communicated to us up until now. In such case we would appreciate to be informed immediately; we even assume that in such case immediate notice would be an obligation of the officials. Up to date however, never ever any safety risk was mentioned in any of the inspection reports.
We still believe that the EU Ramp Inspection Program within an international industry like the aviation industry can be an important factor to flight safety and standards, as long as it is applied reasonably and not misused. Therefore we strongly recommend EASA to ensure that this system is not turned into a job-generating system of self-gratification, unrelated to flight safety and with no avail to the industry, by certain member states. This is even in contradiction to the initial purpose of the regulation.
We still believe that the EU Ramp Inspection Program within an international industry like the aviation industry can be an important factor to flight safety and standards, as long as it is applied reasonably and not misused. Therefore we strongly recommend EASA to ensure that this system is not turned into a job-generating system of self-gratification, unrelated to flight safety and with no avail to the industry, by certain member states. This is even in contradiction to the initial purpose of the regulation.
