UK Over Water Singles- Update: Sensible Decision
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Northampton UK
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done!
Document that headsethair quotes ref floatation equipment is here
Document referencing ELT is here
Full Comments and Responses document is here
RC
Document that headsethair quotes ref floatation equipment is here
Document referencing ELT is here
Changes to the proposal
Having considered all the comments received (1-8-1 to 1-8-21), this proposal has been amended to require either an automatic ELT or a survival ELT (ELT(S)) for extended flights over water. Since the implications for survival after ditching are similar, irrespective of the class of aircraft flown, the disparities between the ICAO standards for aeroplanes and helicopters seem unjustified. Therefore it is proposed that the circumstances in which aeroplanes and helicopters will be required to carry an ELT will be the same.
In assessing the likelihood of ditching it seems that the most important factor to be considered is the amount of time that will be spent exposed to the risk of flying over water (see 1-G-7) and this is more significant than any perceived differences between different classes of aircraft (see comments made in relation to other emergency equipment, 1-10-15 and 1-10-17). The revised proposal gives responsibility for the commander to decide if an ELT is to be carried, e.g. on shorter flights when the prescribed distances will not be exceeded and the time exposed to the risks of flight over water may be limited.
Views are sought regarding two alternative proposals for Article 43A. Option A makes explicit that the survival equipment to be considered includes ELTs. This option reflects the approach being developed in JAR-OPS 0; and would more clearly demonstrate an alternative means of compliance with the relevant ICAO standards. Option B provides a more general formulation. Each of these options needs to be read in conjunction with the other equipment (including radio apparatus) requirements specified elsewhere in the Air Navigation Order. Each option is intended to have the same substantive effect. If expressing a preference for either one or the other, please explain the reasoning behind your preference. It is suggested that the relative merits of these options should be considered in conjunction with the Appendix 10a proposals.
Having considered all the comments received (1-8-1 to 1-8-21), this proposal has been amended to require either an automatic ELT or a survival ELT (ELT(S)) for extended flights over water. Since the implications for survival after ditching are similar, irrespective of the class of aircraft flown, the disparities between the ICAO standards for aeroplanes and helicopters seem unjustified. Therefore it is proposed that the circumstances in which aeroplanes and helicopters will be required to carry an ELT will be the same.
In assessing the likelihood of ditching it seems that the most important factor to be considered is the amount of time that will be spent exposed to the risk of flying over water (see 1-G-7) and this is more significant than any perceived differences between different classes of aircraft (see comments made in relation to other emergency equipment, 1-10-15 and 1-10-17). The revised proposal gives responsibility for the commander to decide if an ELT is to be carried, e.g. on shorter flights when the prescribed distances will not be exceeded and the time exposed to the risks of flight over water may be limited.
Views are sought regarding two alternative proposals for Article 43A. Option A makes explicit that the survival equipment to be considered includes ELTs. This option reflects the approach being developed in JAR-OPS 0; and would more clearly demonstrate an alternative means of compliance with the relevant ICAO standards. Option B provides a more general formulation. Each of these options needs to be read in conjunction with the other equipment (including radio apparatus) requirements specified elsewhere in the Air Navigation Order. Each option is intended to have the same substantive effect. If expressing a preference for either one or the other, please explain the reasoning behind your preference. It is suggested that the relative merits of these options should be considered in conjunction with the Appendix 10a proposals.
RC
Last edited by rotorcraig; 1st May 2004 at 18:33.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done everyone who contributed and indeed to the CAA for listening to the comments received - it gives hope for the future where there is a sensible balanced result frm such a process
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: west sussex
Age: 72
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clive,
Accessing any UK aviation regulation easily these days is a challenge in itself!
That aside (and assuming UK law applies to your operation), you'll find it here: UK CAA website. (The AMC & Guidance Material is accessible too.).
The authoritative source is from The National Archives - 'legislation.gov.uk'.
Depending on whether the aircraft is 'Complex' or Other Than Complex', search in the IDE bit (Instruments, Data & Equipment) of NCC or NCO respectively.
Enjoy...
Accessing any UK aviation regulation easily these days is a challenge in itself!
That aside (and assuming UK law applies to your operation), you'll find it here: UK CAA website. (The AMC & Guidance Material is accessible too.).
The authoritative source is from The National Archives - 'legislation.gov.uk'.
Depending on whether the aircraft is 'Complex' or Other Than Complex', search in the IDE bit (Instruments, Data & Equipment) of NCC or NCO respectively.
Enjoy...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mine only differs in the 4th and 6th digits and I joined Mar 82.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, about the numbers. One never forgets that number from years ago. Burned into the psyche on numerous drill parades!
Though, with all respect, I have never understood why contributors to forums always have ... erm ... pseudonyms.
It's certainly popular on the motorbike and car forums I visit. But here on PPRuNe, I cannot see why one would wish to remain anonymous. Security? Surely not.
I for one would find it more interesting to know whom I was exchanging missives with. Might even recognise each other from the dim and distant.
And these 'icons'. Perhaps they have replaced our names as our identity. A cursory look at other posts indicates to me that people on this forum don't make use of 'em. Goodo.
Though, with all respect, I have never understood why contributors to forums always have ... erm ... pseudonyms.
It's certainly popular on the motorbike and car forums I visit. But here on PPRuNe, I cannot see why one would wish to remain anonymous. Security? Surely not.
I for one would find it more interesting to know whom I was exchanging missives with. Might even recognise each other from the dim and distant.
And these 'icons'. Perhaps they have replaced our names as our identity. A cursory look at other posts indicates to me that people on this forum don't make use of 'em. Goodo.
