Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

EASA operations, equipment and document carriage requirements

Of course, you are right. On many IFR flights, you have to be ready to go up above level 120. OTOH, when the weather makes it highely unlikely that I will need to climb (for example high pressure in the winter) I just carry a couple of these.

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

The airport inspection ("ramp inspection") rules should be very clear.

There's a whole section on it already in the Ops Regulation. See ARO.RAMP. While it only covers some aspects of the operation (not e.g. VAT and customs stuff), the training programmes for ramp inspectors should offer some quality control.

We should try to give it some attention before the non-commercial Ops rules enter force.

Oddly enough the oxygen rules state carriage not usage...

You're missing:

NCO.OP.190 Use of supplemental oxygen The pilot-in-command shall ensure that he/she and flight crew members engaged in performing duties essential to the safe operation of an aircraft in flight use supplemental oxygen continuously whenever the cabin altitude exceeds 10 000 ft for a period of more than 30 minutes and whenever the cabin altitude exceeds 13 000 ft.

Under EASA it is now illegal to carry a spare litre of oil, and for micro-lights cans of fuel.

Certainly re the oil I'm illegal on every trip.

With legal hat on: original docs and certified docs depends on who wants to see them and for what purpose, and if certified, certified by who (whom).

[edited for typo]

EGBJ, EGBP, EGTW, EGVN, EGBS

I just carry a couple of these.

I take it you are joking

Under EASA it is now illegal to carry a spare litre of oil, and for micro-lights cans of fuel.

Do you have a reference? I don't doubt that you have found something which does say that...

With legal hat on: original docs and certified docs depends on who wants to see them and for what purpose, and if certified, certified by who (whom).

Sure, which is why this option should be available.

Obviously, forgery is trivial these days, given the aviation docs are generated using such trivial means, and anybody can knock up a solicitor's stamp, but that isn't the point. I've been all around this block about 50 times in the past 2 years with my Mum's affairs (she is in a care home) and the 99%-idiot-staffed institutions are 100% happy with a certified copy of the PoA, so I can't see why it should not be an option for aviation docs. After all, they take seconds to check on the internet (faa.gov for both aircraft and pilots, for example).

NCO.OP.190 Use of supplemental oxygen

Thanks

I can't get my head around this EASA stuff.

They should spend 0.001% of their budget (i.e. about 100 man-years) producing a readable summary showing where is what.

But seriously, they should spend such a % of their budget compiling a database of pre-EASA mods, so the only useful thing EASA has actually delivered to date (grandfathering of mods done elsewhere in JAA-land) is actually usable.

On that topic, today I spoke to an old LAME / A&P/IA / EASA 66 bloke and he told me that in 2003 EASA demanded that the UK CAA take down their AAN database, but the CAA refused (but stopped updating it after 2003). If true, scandalous or not?

"ARO.RAMP.115 Qualification of ramp inspectors" suggests that the previous French inspections (done by non aviation personnel) will have to stop - unless presumably they are looking for (ostensibly) VAT documents only in which case, presumably, none of ARO.RAMP applies to them?

If the VAT checks are done by a separate force, that sidesteps all of the ARO.RAMP inspector qualification requirements, on my reading of it. There is no such thing as a "limited enquiry" - ask any HMRC inspector

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

They should spend 0.001% of their budget (i.e. about 100 man-years) producing a readable summary showing where is what.

I think you're overestimating the budget by a smidgeon. The Part-NCO that you cited is not yet final, so it's a bit unfair to say they haven't provided a more readable version, but I doubt it'll get much better. What sort of a summary would you like?

But seriously, they should spend such a % of their budget compiling a database of pre-EASA mods, so the only useful thing EASA has actually delivered to date (grandfathering of mods done elsewhere in JAA-land) is actually usable.

When you say "mods", do you mean STCs?

For what it's worth, I had a good chat with the General Aviation Certification Section Manager last week. They have the right intentions, I think, and there are some useful (though perhaps not earth-shattering) developments on the way.

Under EASA it is now illegal to carry a spare litre of oil, and for micro-lights cans of fuel.

What type of aircraft do you fly, Jude098?

Sure I was saying the 0.001% tongue in cheek, but I think they ought to produce a general overview of EASA regs for light GA and where to find them. Stuff like

  • Required equipment
  • Required documents
  • Fuel reserves
  • Required planning data to have on board

and other practical stuff like that. If you look at my VFR Europe presentation here you will get the idea for what kind of stuff should be referenced.

Most of their docs are hundreds of pages and even if you know where they are (which most people don't) only somebody fairly obscessive is going to wade through them. I tend to be able to speed read them because I look for certain "well known to be notorious" things, but most normal people don't have the attention span even for that.

Another thing is that a lot of that stuff is "on its way" and thus different versions are found in different places, and if you google you often get obsolete versions. This also means that once something actually becomes law, most pilots will not know for several years.

The regs are also stored under the most obscure URLs. With the ANO you just google for cap393.pdf and that's it. This is why a decent FAQ / cross-reference is needed, with links which somebody is paid (€100k p.a. is probably the going rate ) to keep updated.

Re mods, not so much STCs, because the EASA STC list is online somewhere. I used to have a link to it on my website but recently found it had gone dead so I removed it. The FAA list is here.

What I had in mind was all national CAA approved mods - e.g. all this stuff and then the same for every EASA country. These are not STCs; they are probably all (or at least are intended to be) "major mods" though. All of these are supposedly grandfathered now.

EASA STCs are a different thing, because the STC holder holds the intellectual property and you cannot install the equipment without the holder's permission.

Incidentally I am unhappy about this system however because whereas an FAA STC tends to have some meaning, and somebody filing an STC for something which is routinely installed by reference to the install manuals plus AC43-13, an EASA STC can be a detailed package which came wholly out of the back pages of the FAA approved installation manuals and which one is economically driven to purchase (for say €2k) due to EASA's much more prescriptive approach to major mods. The "IP" in such STCs is therefore usually perverted by being obvious or being prior art or both. This is one of the respects in which EASA appears to be supporting, IMHO not unwittingly, the EASA 21 industry.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
38 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top