Operations Henrik Svensson TO Operations & Flight Safety European Gliding Union From NCO OPS to Part-SAO
Background
AIR OPS Annex I to VIII - from 1679 pages…. Very complex – difficult to find rules for gliding!
Way forward To less then 20 pages…. Part -Gliding OPS Annex I: Definitions Annex II: Part-ARO Annex III: Part-ORO Annex IV: Part-CAT Delete CAT for gliding Annex V: Part-SPA Annex VI: Part-NCC Annex VII: Part-NCO Part-Gliding OPS Annex VIII: Part-SPO Delete SPO for gliding
Part-Gliding OPS • Definitions – sailplane, SLG, TMG etc. • Introductory flights • Responsibilities PIC • Documents • Passenger briefing • Weighing and CG • Instrument and equipment (required) • Min. equipment for flying • Instruments for VFR operations • Instruments for cloudflying • Seats and restraint systems • Supplemental oxygen • Survival equipment • Radio communication equipment • Navigation equipment • Transponder
Work with Part-Gliding OPS – time table December 20 Feb EASA (Workshop OPS) 10 -11 May EGU EASA (Workshop OPS) Congress First meeting about part-gliding OPS Graz 15 Mars Consultation with EGU 15 April OPS working Consultation with group EGU members OPS work in part-gliding will be a task where EASA invites experts based on nominations from EGU, Manufactures and Authorities.
Revision of the operational rules for sailplanes (RMT.0698) The first working meeting concerning Revision of the operational rules for sailplanes (RMT.0698) was held in Cologne 10-11 May 2016 EGU was represented by Patrick Pauwels and Henrik Svensson Jan Boettcher, EASA is Project Manager
We provided the position and concerns of EGU there we explained that one major proposal of EGU is to delete Part- CAT and Part-SPO for sailplanes and to establish AIR OPS rules of less than 20 pages, that is a simple rulebook for gliding. After this first meeting we had a draft Regulation for AIR OPS sailplanes, a single document including annexes to this regulation. aim for a simple solution where we think that everything concerning gliding should be normal operation!
The second working meeting was held in September. We made some good progress in some areas, but we still need to find a better solution regarding special operations and we are also discussing the need for commercial operation during this meeting. We consider that aerotowing and aerobatics outside of air displays are not specialised operations and we will continue to push our statement at the next meeting in November. We also discussed the issue about non-members taking introductory flights and its relation to marginal effects on the total activity; this is an area we still need to make some more progress. If all persons become a day-member and fly an introductory flight – then it is no problem…
The third meeting was in November and here discussions focused on which kind of operation that should be treated as specialised operations? Competitions flights was earlier agreed to be normal operation We continued the discussions about removing sailplane towing and aerobatics from special operations, and Jan proposed the following solution by adding information in AMC, which in practice mean that we can carry out sailplane towing and aerobatics as normal operation.
Workshop in December. The most important questions for the workshop was these major topics: Cost-shared operations – about direct cost or alternative option as direct and annual cost etc. Specialised operations – that sailplane towing, aerobatics etc. are normal operations Commercial operations – do we need a separate subpart ADD for com. Operations?
The participants agreed that we should aim for cost-shared operations as direct and annual cost etc. For specialised operations we all agreed that this is normal operation! For the big question: Do we need extra regulations for commercial operations or not? We had a long discussion and we ended up that there is no difference in operation, if we fly normal operation or commercial operation, and that additional regulations do not add more safety.
Meeting no 4 was held Jan 31 – Feb 1 2017 in Cologne. Discussions of written comments received after the workshop and several of the comments were reviewed during the revision of the rules and focus was now on IR. Many of the comments had also been identified within our group. We all accepted to delete – Flight Crew Member as we have only PIC. But the term ‘crew member’ should stay (if a pilot conducts e.g. a proficiency check with an instructor on board, then the instructor is the PIC and the pilot is not a passenger, but still a crew member). We agreed on a definition: Crew-member means a person assigned by an operator to perform duties onboard the sailplane under the authority of the PIC.
Regarding documents, manuals and information to be carried; All documents can be at the aerodrome or operating site when: -carry out aerobatics; or -remain within the sight of the aerodrome or operating It is also ok with digital copies of all documents! Use of operating sites? It is ok according to def. for PIC to decide
Regarding TMG – IFR and night? Can TMGs be used for IFR operation? - It is very clear the almost no TMGs is certified for this of today and it is not probably that it will be in the future… Night flying with TMGs? - We agreed that we have no approved TMGs for night operation. Still we have problems to place cloud flying in the right box as ICAO only refer to VFR or IFR. It can also be of interest to have some information/ definition of a powered sailplane and TMG, it could be presented in GM
Proposed GM Powered sailplanes are divided in two groups, self-sustaining and self-launching sailplanes, whereby self-launching sailplanes are divided again in two subcategories. The design of self-sustaining sailplane is usually based on the design of a non-powered sailplane. It is not capable of taking off under its own power but of performing a climb and to bridge the distance to the next updraft. The engine and/or propeller is retractable in the most cases. Landings are performed without using an engine. A self-launchable sailplane is capable of taking off under its own power. Self- launchable sailplanes divide in a category of sailplanes where the design in usually based on the design of a non-powered sailplane, the engine and/or propeller is usually retractable, the endurance is limited, and landings are performed without using an engine. The other subcategory of self-launchable sailplanes is usually designed for having the engine running during all phases of flight, capable of taxiing with the wing level and having an endurance of several hours. A common term for this subcategory is touring motor glider (TMG).
The outcome so far can be summarised as follows Commercial operations: Agreement that no dedicated set of rules is necessary Declaration: Several attendees made it clear that for commercial operations a declaration is needed to ensure an oversight, other attendees proposed to delete the rules as regards the declaration. Decision: A declaration is required for commercial operations. Specialised operations: The meeting agreed that towing, aerobatic and competition flights are not seen as specialised operations, and worked on justification for the explanatory note of the Opinion. PEDs: The majority of the attendees made it clear that in their opinion the ‘precautionary rules’ as regards the use of PEDs should be deleted. No final decision made.
Text from draft opinion/explanatory Note No extensive additional requirements for commercial operations: EASA decided not to introduce additional requirements for commercial operations, except for requiring a declaration (see below). The main reasons are: using a risk-based approach, no indication could be identified that a commercial flight with a pilot and one passenger is more riskier than the same flight, but non-commercial; and such additional requirements would mean an unnecessary administrative burden and an overregulation.
Text from draft opinion/explanatory Note Declaration (SAO.400): At present there are only very few commercial operations with sailplanes conducted within the Union. However, to enable the competent authority obtaining an overview on these commercial operations, EASA decided to require a declaration to be provided by the operator of such operations. This decision was made in agreement with the opinion of the majority of competent authorities, and was accepted also by the stakeholders
Text from draft opinion/explanatory Note Cost-sharing (paragraph (d) of SAO.400): In Regulation (EU) No 965/2012, cost-shared operations by private individuals are permitted under the condition that only the direct costs are shared. The majority of external experts expressed that: annual costs should also be shared; and an equal share between the pilot and the passenger should be prescribed. Since a similar proposal was made by EASA for balloons, which during the Commission comitology process was not accepted, EASA decided not to follow the proposal of the majority of the external experts. Instead, as for other aircraft it is only required to share the direct costs.
Recommend
More recommend
