1 / 12

Capt. Claude Godel OST 06-1

NPA 53a Appendix 1 to JAR OPS 1.220 Authorisation of Aerodromes by the Operator Required Rescue and Fire Fighting Category. Capt. Claude Godel OST 06-1. Present JAR-OPS 1.220. JAR-OPS 1.220 Authorisation of Aerodromes by the Operator (See IEM OPS 1.220)

hada
Télécharger la présentation

Capt. Claude Godel OST 06-1

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. NPA 53aAppendix 1 to JAR OPS 1.220 Authorisation of Aerodromes by the OperatorRequired Rescue and Fire Fighting Category Capt. Claude Godel OST 06-1

  2. Present JAR-OPS 1.220 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 When defining aerodromes for the type of aeroplane(s) and operation(s) concerned, an operator should take account of the following: • 1.1 An adequate aerodrome is an aerodrome which the operator considers to be satisfactory, taking account of the applicable performance requirements and runway characteristics. In addition, it should be anticipated that, at the expected time of use, the aerodrome will be available and equipped with necessary ancillary services, such as ATS, sufficient lighting, communications, weather reporting, navaids and emergency services. • a. For an ETOPS en-route alternate aerodrome, the following additional points should be considered: • i. The availability of an ATC facility; and • ii. The availability of at least one letdown aid (ground radar would so qualify) for an instrument approach. Which RFFS category does that mean???

  3. New project (October 2005), not yet published: 9.2.3 Recommendation.— From 1 January 2005, The level of protection provided at an aerodrome for rescue and fire fighting shall be equal to the aerodrome category determined using the principles in 9.2.4 and 9.2.5. 9.2.4 The aerodrome category shall be determined from Table 9-1 and shall be based on the longest aeroplanes normally using the aerodrome and their fuselage width. ICAO Annex 14 ICAO Annex 14 is applicable to the management of aerodromes not to the operators. Up to now there is no rule for the operator. The required level of protection is a statistical calculation based on the biggest aeroplane “normally using” the aerodrome. Allowing a higher category aeroplane to land for the first time has the virtuous effect of starting statistics for an increase in the aerodrome category. Nothing precludes a two category higher aeroplane to take off and land.

  4. OPSG discussion The text proposed at last OST was drafted in common with the LROPS/ETOPS WG and already endorsed in NPA 24. It was not published, mostly because the joined specific ETOPS/LROPS sheltering problems were not considered mature. In the meantime, it was felt that there is a need to fill a gap, on the operational side, by implementing RFFS rule material specifically intended for the operators and applicable to all fights. But… UK legislation doesn’t permit any alleviation in the RFFS category. Aeroplane N needs category N available on the aerodrome. Therefore OPSG worked on a new version of the Appendix to JAR OPS 1.220 in order to take the British CAA remarks in account.

  5. OPSG discussion after OST 05-4 • The major changes are: • The operator’s responsibility for checking that the RFFS level of the intended aerodrome is sufficient, is clearly defined • Compliance with ICAO aerodrome category shall be the standard rule (category N aeroplane on category N aerodrome) • Alleviation to category N-2 (“the real life”) can be authorized but needs an approval by the authority of the operator.

  6. New Appendix to JAR OPS 1.220 (slide 1) Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.220 Authorisation of Aerodromes - Emergency Services (1) It is the operator’s responsibility to ensure that the RFFS (Rescue and Fire Fighting Services) Category at any aerodrome intended for use is adequate for the operation. (2) The aerodrome RFFS category for each aeroplane type must be contained in the operations manual. (3) The operator has to ensure that the aerodrome RFFS category, as defined in ICAO Annex 14 Table 9.1, is available for the intended operation.

  7. New Appendix to JAR OPS 1.220 (slide 2) • (4) If acceptable to the Authority of the Operator, exception to the standard, in (3) above, may be allowed, at the planning stage, as follows: • a) for departure, destination and destination alternate aerodromes, the RFFS category shall not be more than 2 categories below Annex 14 table 9.1 (3 categories for all-cargo aeroplanes) and in any case not lower than category 1. • b) for all other alternate aerodromes required to be adequate in JAR-OPS 1, the RFFS category may be Annex 14 table 9.1 Category 4 equivalent, available at 30 minutes notice, or 2 categories below Annex 14 table 9.1 if this is less than category 4, but not lower than category 1.

  8. New Appendix to JAR OPS 1.220 (slide 3) (5) In flight, the commander may decide to land at an aerodrome where the RFFS category is lower than specified in (4) above, if in his judgement and after due consideration of all the prevailing circumstances, to do so would be safer than to divert.

  9. OPSG discussion • The proposal to limit to N-2 on the operator’s side : • Is not in contradiction with ICAO Annex 14, but is an operational counter part. • Is not unsafe since admitted, for years, as the reality every day on a great number of aerodromes • Improves safety as it does no longer permit flight planning towards an aerodrome insufficiently “equipped with necessary emergency services” • Provides an operational answer to many questions raised by the operatorsespecially when they have to fly to a “non normally used aerodrome” or when the RFFS services are exceptionally not at their normal category. • In a way, follows the MEL philosophy: normally you verify the availability of category N, unless you have no choice. You are then allowed to use N-1 or N-2. But by doing so, you put the pressure on the airport management.

  10. RFFS examples “official category” as published on the AIP: Iqualuit 5 Goose Bay 8 Yellowknife 6 Kangerlussuaq 5 Dar es Salam 8 Ouagadougou 8 Cotonou 8 Douala 8 Bangui 8 Kinshasa 7 Asmara 7 Accra 8 Kano 8 Port Harcourt 8 Freetown 8 Monrovia 8 Reminder: B747,A340, B777 are classified Category 9

  11. OPSG discussion The proposal of category 4 for the en-route alternates is the bottom line permitting normal (ETOPS) flight planning. It results of an extensive study done by the FAA and published under HBAT 99-15 “Level of Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (RFFS) for ETOPS En Route Alternates” It states: “In recent years there have been numerous decommissioning of rescue and fire fighting (RFF) facilities…” “The Boeing study concludes that the probability of an engine in-flight Shutdown (IFSD) during the cruise, portion of an ETOPS flight resulting in a diversion to an ETOPS en route alternate, and a subsequent brake fire on landing that would require fire fighting services would be less than one in one billion (<10-9). “ “…minimum acceptable RFFS rescue and fire fighting standard is …ICAO RFFS Category 4” “A 30 minute response time is deemed adequate to meet ETOPS requirements…”

  12. OPSG conclusion The proposed NPA should be allowed to go to public consultation. Its publication should not be delayed again.

More Related