PCvsOPC

Slide 1:Licensing/OPS Pilot Proficiency Checking- a better way forward Fred Selim, JAA Licensing Division

Licensing/Operations Coordination Meeting Hoofddorp, 30th January 2003

Slide 2:

Pilots are required to maintain their proficiency at all times ICAO Annex 1 & 6, JAR-OPS, JAR-FCL This is subject to periodic Proficiency Checks

Slide 3:

What is the objective of this? The objective is not the checking in itself. The objective is the proficiency.

Slide 4:

Why do we consider pilot proficiency ? Today’s pilots have a vast array of new systems to aid them… EFIS, FMS, HUD, NVG,… The cockpit environment also includes MCC and CRM

Slide 5:

New world, but still old mishaps…

Slide 6:

The positive effect of advanced cockpits on descisionmaking is not necessarily obvious…

Slide 7:

Just to illustrate the importance of approaching a situation with an open mind to flexible solutions…

Slide 8:

It is assumed that all pilots involved in mishaps have performed their Proficiency Checks. In particular, this goes for pilots working for AOC holders.

Slide 9:

Proficiency Checks gives no guarantee. Proficiency does.

Slide 10:

The intention is not to play down the importance of the quality control mechanism in Proficiency Checking Only to put it in perspective as a measuring tool, not an objective in it self

Slide 11:

JAR-OPS places a number of requirements on an AOC holder: Quality system Nominated postholders Procedural requirements Technical requirements Inspections from the NAA

Slide 12:

AOC holders: All pilots must perform OPCs every 6 months on type(s). Detailed contents Flight Sim. approved by the NAA Instructors authorised by the NAA Examiners authorised by the NAA Organisation approved by the NAA

Slide 13:

JAR-OPS : Limited to AOC holders and pilots employed by them JAR-FCL : Covers all pilots regardless of operations

Slide 14:

The interaction between JAR-OPS and JAR-FCL has room for development. Areas with interaction: Authorisation of instructors Authorisation of examiners JAR-FCL authorises these. JAR-OPS makes use of these.

Slide 15:

Other interaction: Recent experience requirements. JAR-OPS 1.970/3.970 (“3 landings/90 days”) This leaves out those not working for an AOC holder. To cater for these, JAR-FCL 1.026/2.026 was introduced.

Slide 16:

“Active” interaction; if not covered by OPS then satisfactory covered by FCL. Corollary: If area is already covered by JAR-OPS, strive to avoid duplication.

Slide 17:

To benefit from the synergy of JARs, we must appreciate when we find that they are mutually supportive.

Slide 18:

Some examples of mutual support: JAR-OPS subpart M recognises and makes use of JAR-145 approvals JAR-FCL recognises and makes use of JAR-STD device qualifications JAR-OPS subpart N recognises and makes use of JAR-FCL authorisations JAR-145 recognises and makes use of JAR-66 licences

Slide 19:

Another area of mutual support: Quality systems JAR-OPS, STD, FCL, 145,…. Clear through a number of JARS that harmonisation between them is anticipated

Slide 20:

As of today, the formal requirements to be met by pilots within AOC holders, consists of two OPCs and one LPC every 12 months. Combining OPC and LPC usually requires an increase in simulator time. This time might be better spent on training than on checking.

Slide 21:ICAO Annex 1 already caters for such a coordination between operations and licensing. Annex 1, 1.2.5.1, states : “A contracting State, having issued a license, shall ensure that the privileges granted by that license, or by related ratings, are not exercised unless the holder maintains competency and meets the requirements for recent experience established by that State.”

Slide 22:Note 1 to 1.2.5.1 states : “The maintenance of competency of flight crew members engaged in commercial air transport operations, may be satisfactorily established by demonstration of skill during proficiency flight checks completed in accordance with Annex 6.”

Slide 23:

When JAR-FCL was introduced, JAR-OPS was also rather new. We had little experience with how these systems would work in “real-time”. Today, we have had several years to see how the systems based on JAR-FCL and JAR-OPS perform.

Slide 24:

We should strive to exploit the benefits of harmonised JARs. We should seriously consider whether the passing of an Operators Proficiency Check within an AOC organisation could be said to fulfil the requirement for a License Proficiency Check for revalidation purposes.

Slide 25:

We are in both cases evaluating “a pilots competence in carrying out normal, abnormal and emergency procedures “ (Quote from JAR-OPS) The pilot “shall have demonstrated the skill required for the safe operation of the applicable type/class of aircraft” (Quote from JAR-FCL)

Slide 26:

Within an AOC, the pilot performs his functions in one of the most monitored positions in the modern world. The AOC holders organisation and key personnel are closely monitored themselves, by the NAA

Slide 27:

The whole AOC operation is based upon approvals and authorisations by the NAA of both personnel and procedures The object of the OPC and the LPC are more or less identical – a degree of competency assuring the safe conduct of flights

Slide 28:

Our ability to recognise the mutual supportiveness between JAR-FCL and JAR-OPS in this area will also signal that we are able to benefit from the dynamic developments in the operational and licensing areas without compromising flight safety.

Slide 29:

I hope you agree that it is worth putting some effort into developing the necessary text for a proposal to amend JAR-FCL 1.245/2.245 to cater for the equal treatment of LPCs and OPCs within AOCs

Slide 30:

With a coordinated effort from all involved parts, we can achieve great performance!