1 / 8

RFFS requirements for operators

RFFS requirements for operators. Capt. Claude Godel. Present OPS rule. ICAO Annex 6 …??? JAR-OPS 1.220 Authorisation of Aerodromes by the Operator (See IEM OPS 1.220)

toril
Télécharger la présentation

RFFS requirements for operators

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RFFS requirements for operators Capt. Claude Godel

  2. Present OPS rule ICAO Annex 6 …??? JAR-OPS 1.220 Authorisation of Aerodromes by the Operator (See IEM OPS 1.220) An operator shall only authorise use of aerodromes that are adequate for the type(s) of aeroplane and operation(s) concerned. IEM OPS 1.220 Authorisation of aerodromes (See JAR-OPS 1.220) 1 … an operator should take account of the following: 1.1 An adequate aerodrome is an aerodrome … equipped with necessary ancillary services, such as … emergency services.

  3. The risk • ICAO is improving Annex 14: • AERODROMES PANEL (AP) THIRD MEETING Montreal, 17 to 21 JULY 2006 • “4.2.1.3 Level of Protection. The meeting discussed the withdrawal of the remission factor in determining the level of protection in paragraph 9.2.3, Annex 14, Volume I and the upgrading of recommended practice 9.2.4 into a Standard. …” • Annex 14 Chapter 9 • 9.2.4 Recommendation – From 1st of January 2005, the level of protection provided at an aerodrome for rescue and fire fighting should be equal to the aerodrome category determined using the principles in 9.2.5 and 9.2.6.

  4. The risk • But • ICAO Annex 14 is applicable to the management of aerodromes not to the operators. • Requiring category N aerodrome RFFS for a category N aeroplane on the destination aerodrome and category 0 (zero) at the first alternate would be equally illogical. • Therefore we think that it would be wise to clarify the RFFS policy by publishing a safe, but operational, rule in annex 6. • This rule would then become the operator’s reference.

  5. The proposal

  6. The proposal • (1) 2 Categories for all-cargo aeroplanes • (2) 3 Categories for all-cargo aeroplanes • (3) Or 2 Categories below the Aeroplane RFFS Category, if this is less than RFFS Category 4 but not lower than category 1 • (4) For an ETOPS en-route alternate aerodrome, a published RFFS Category equivalent to category 4, available at 30 minutes notice, is acceptable. • (5) 3% ERA, and others to be specified in the operational flight plan. • (6) The Temporary Downgrade Column can only be included in the Operations Manual with the approval of the operator’s authority. (See ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.220)

  7. The proposal • (4) Planned operations to aerodromes with an RFFS category below that stated in the Table 1 require a specific acceptance by the Authority on a case-by-case basis. • (5) In flight, the commander may decide to land at an aerodrome where the Aerodrome RFFS Category is lower than specified above, if in his judgement and after due consideration of all the prevailing circumstances, to do so would be safer than to divert.

  8. Question • Should IATA propose a WP • to next ICAO OPSP?

More Related