Single pilot helicopter- 19 Pax VFR ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: on
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single pilot helicopter- 19 Pax VFR ?
Gentlemen
I need some help here.
Can anybody tell me under what circumstances, if ever, a helicopter may be operated under JAR, by a single, rated pilot, when carrying up to 19 pax?
There is of course a reason for this question.
Tks
I need some help here.
Can anybody tell me under what circumstances, if ever, a helicopter may be operated under JAR, by a single, rated pilot, when carrying up to 19 pax?
There is of course a reason for this question.
Tks
JAR Allows Single Pilot VFR operations for MAPSC of 19 or fewer (3.940,) however, the ANO requires two pilots for MCTOM of 5700kg or more, so it depends which country you are operating in, I guess, as there can't be many 19 seat aircraft less than 5700kg!
Plus the important condition that the aircraft must have been certificated for single pilot operations. The AS332 and (I believe) the AW139 are.
What was the reason for the question?
Jim
What was the reason for the question?
Jim
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: on
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason
Thank you for your help, gentlemen.
The reason for the question was the fact that JAR-Ops 3.940 (b)(3), has been quoted as the qualifying paragraph, - and that may be a bit strong.
(For anybody else so inclined: JAR-Ops 3 may be downloaded from
jaa.nl/publications/jars/606970.pdf, the full 195 pages of it.)
Could one of you gentlemen possibly also point this lazy ignoramus to the correct paragraph in this case.
Thanks again.
The reason for the question was the fact that JAR-Ops 3.940 (b)(3), has been quoted as the qualifying paragraph, - and that may be a bit strong.
(For anybody else so inclined: JAR-Ops 3 may be downloaded from
jaa.nl/publications/jars/606970.pdf, the full 195 pages of it.)
Could one of you gentlemen possibly also point this lazy ignoramus to the correct paragraph in this case.
Thanks again.
It is not quite clear what more you want - you have already quoted the paragraph which permits SP VFR with up to 19 passengers.
Perhaps you are reading the text incorrectly; it says for operations with more than 19, two pilots are necessary.
The certification issue is one that is addressed in the Flight Manual.
Jim
Perhaps you are reading the text incorrectly; it says for operations with more than 19, two pilots are necessary.
The certification issue is one that is addressed in the Flight Manual.
Jim
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: on
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JimL
I have been given and am quoting JAR-OPS 3.940(b)(3) as our reason.
In my copy of JAR-OPS, this spesific part of the paragraph starts with:
"For operations using helicopters with a maximum approved passenger seating configuration (MAPSC) of more than 19:
(i)...............
(ii).............. "
How can you claim that this pgr includes helos with MAPSC of less than 20?
You are probably right that there is a paragraph that covers this somewhere, but IMHO this is not the one.
Regards
I have been given and am quoting JAR-OPS 3.940(b)(3) as our reason.
In my copy of JAR-OPS, this spesific part of the paragraph starts with:
"For operations using helicopters with a maximum approved passenger seating configuration (MAPSC) of more than 19:
(i)...............
(ii).............. "
How can you claim that this pgr includes helos with MAPSC of less than 20?
You are probably right that there is a paragraph that covers this somewhere, but IMHO this is not the one.
Regards
Using the quote, what do you do when the MAPSC is equal to or less than 19?
The qualification of the requirement for two pilots implies single pilot in the alternative case. This is true for single pilot IFR as well as single pilot VFR (in the text quoted).
All of these clauses are preceded by one which states:
JAR-OPS 3.940 (a)(1) The composition of the flight crew and the number of flight crew members at designated crew stations are both in compliance with, and no less than the minimum specified in, the Helicopter Flight Manual.
Jim
The qualification of the requirement for two pilots implies single pilot in the alternative case. This is true for single pilot IFR as well as single pilot VFR (in the text quoted).
All of these clauses are preceded by one which states:
JAR-OPS 3.940 (a)(1) The composition of the flight crew and the number of flight crew members at designated crew stations are both in compliance with, and no less than the minimum specified in, the Helicopter Flight Manual.
Jim
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: on
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR-OPS 3.940(3)(b), (i) AND (ii)
So, if,:
"The qualification of the requirement for two pilots (MAPSC 19+) implies
single pilot in the alternative case(MAPSC 19or less).".......
......would you then suggest that the second and equal part of this paragraph, namely the one that states a requirement for a commander to hold an ATPL, implies that no ATPL is required in "the alternative case", ( which would be ANY aircraft with MAPSC of 19 or less)?
The logic would be the same.
I believe that the paragraph we're debating defines a set of two spesific requirements for aircraft with MAPSC of more , not less, than 19.
I'm not so sure that you can single out just one of its two requiements, and define that the opposite, by exclusion, is valid for another size or class.
I do however, thank you for the reminder of 3.940(a)(1), which is clear enough.
s61n
"The qualification of the requirement for two pilots (MAPSC 19+) implies
single pilot in the alternative case(MAPSC 19or less).".......
......would you then suggest that the second and equal part of this paragraph, namely the one that states a requirement for a commander to hold an ATPL, implies that no ATPL is required in "the alternative case", ( which would be ANY aircraft with MAPSC of 19 or less)?
The logic would be the same.
I believe that the paragraph we're debating defines a set of two spesific requirements for aircraft with MAPSC of more , not less, than 19.
I'm not so sure that you can single out just one of its two requiements, and define that the opposite, by exclusion, is valid for another size or class.
I do however, thank you for the reminder of 3.940(a)(1), which is clear enough.
s61n
S61n,
Not sure that there is an implication in the text - did you read the last sub-para?
(c) Helicopters not covered by sub-paragraph
(b)(2) and (b)(3) above may be operated by a
single pilot provided that the requirements of
Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.940(c) are satisfied.
Not sure that there is an implication in the text - did you read the last sub-para?
(c) Helicopters not covered by sub-paragraph
(b)(2) and (b)(3) above may be operated by a
single pilot provided that the requirements of
Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.940(c) are satisfied.
s61n, I'm totally bemused by your interpretation of a very straightforward paragraph. The 19 seat figure is also used when considering the carriage of cabin attendents, so perhaps that might help with your interpretation - more than 19 seats requires the carriage of a c/a, 19 or fewer does not (or as JAR says "19 or less" but that's a different story....
) Same logic. That's why large helicopters generally have a MAPSC of 19 in the civil role 
PS. Regardless of my take on it, if JimL says anything about OPS-3 you can be pretty safe in believing he's correct
) Same logic. That's why large helicopters generally have a MAPSC of 19 in the civil role PS. Regardless of my take on it, if JimL says anything about OPS-3 you can be pretty safe in believing he's correct
Thanks Paul - of course you're correct.
I have to say on considering the text of (c) for the first time in a long while, it would appear that the reference to (b)(3) must have been an afterthought because originally (until it was amended in 1999 to insert "For IFR operations" into (a)(5)) Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.940(c) was addressed at the SP IFR case.
Changes to the Appendix were made because of the anomalous situation in some States where the airspace is declared as IFR at night but where pseudo night VFR is permitted (UK and others). Under these circumstances, the requirements (for IFR qualification) were regarded as too heavy for NVFR.
As you would have expected, the original requirement was a read-across from JAR-OPS 1.
Jim
I have to say on considering the text of (c) for the first time in a long while, it would appear that the reference to (b)(3) must have been an afterthought because originally (until it was amended in 1999 to insert "For IFR operations" into (a)(5)) Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.940(c) was addressed at the SP IFR case.
Changes to the Appendix were made because of the anomalous situation in some States where the airspace is declared as IFR at night but where pseudo night VFR is permitted (UK and others). Under these circumstances, the requirements (for IFR qualification) were regarded as too heavy for NVFR.
As you would have expected, the original requirement was a read-across from JAR-OPS 1.
Jim
