New Blues Song - "What’s EASA Got to Do with It?"

[flingwing1]

Too late to change professions?

Maybe IHS will sell you a list of direct links

If that's the way it's going to work, we're in the wrong business <grin>.
----------------

I just looked at the page with the Certification Specifications. That's good, but mostly for manufacturers, I think. Thanks.

Remember, for me this "JARs-as-an-alternative-to-FARs" thing, started because some people in remote places have made their required company manuals based on the JARs. It wasn't necessarily because the JARs were better than the FARs, but maybe just because these remote places had more of an affinity to European air law culture than the USA's.

With the situation as it is now: (1) the JARs are no more, (2) the EASA regs aren't ready for complete promulgation, and (3) at least a partial return to the many invidualized national air laws of each EU member, I wonder what companies with JAR-based regs are going to do when updating/revising their written manuals?

[Ancient Observer]

FW

clarity helps.
If you'd said first time around that you want to use JAAs stuff to write a manual for a not-quite-first-world AOC aspirant, you'd have got the URL quite quickly! Lots of EuOps stuff is a simple lift from the earlier docs, but as a previous poster said, the devil is in the detail.

EASA are a French political entity, with a Politically chosen base in Germany.

That's why I don't want them issuing AOCs. They don't have, and won't be able to acquire the capability. The Airlines' beancounters want it, tho. Never mind safety, feel the cost!!!

[CargoOne]

With the situation as it is now: (1) the JARs are no more, (2) the EASA regs aren't ready for complete promulgation, and (3) at least a partial return to the many invidualized national air laws of each EU member

Above is not correct.

[Bus429]

Jar Ops 3

EU-OPS - EU regulation, not EASA (Part OPS to come). EU-OPS applies for fixed wing ops but JAR OPS 3 still applies for rotary wings.

[Kolossi]

Searching Websites

I know this doesn't address the central issue of appallingly obscure legislation, but as a computer geek rather than a professional aviator, i recommend learning the trick of using google to search websites rather than the site's own search engine.

If using the "Google Bar" in Internet Explorer, go to any part of the website you want to search, then type "eu ops" or whatever in the search box, but rather than pressing enter, click the little down arrow next to the google icon after the search box and choose "search site".

Alternatively, in the main google search box type "site:the-site-name your-search-term", for instance "site:www.pprune.org microsoft flight simulator" (JOKE ! ).

Google usually does a far better job than the site's own search engine, microsoft.com being a surprising example, but I've found posts on Pprune using this trick that the search engine wasn't finding!

Hope that helps.

[Duck Rogers]

This has been said before on several occasions but Kolossi is correct. Google tends to have far more success with searches here than our own search function.

Duck

[Kolossi]

Thanks Duck Rogers,

I wasn't meaning to take a pop at pprune - as I said it's equally true of microsoft's site, and they make web search engines! - but particularly when searching for technical/legal info, google does far and away better than any site search engine.