1 / 6

Capt. Claude Godel OST 05-4

JAR OPS 1.220 - Authorisation of Aerodromes by the Operator Required Rescue and Fire Fighting Category. Capt. Claude Godel OST 05-4. Present JAR-OPS 1.220. JAR-OPS 1.220 Authorisation of Aerodromes by the Operator (See IEM OPS 1.220)

garran
Download Presentation

Capt. Claude Godel OST 05-4

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. JAR OPS 1.220 - Authorisation of Aerodromes by the OperatorRequired Rescue and Fire Fighting Category Capt. Claude Godel OST 05-4

  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. Level of protection to be provided 9.2.3 The level of protection at an aerodrome for rescue and fire fighting shall be appropriate to the aerodrome category determined using the principles in 9.2.5 and 9.2.6, except that, where the number of movements of the aeroplanes in the highest category normally using the aerodrome is less than 700 in the busiest consecutive three months, the level of protection provided shall be not less than one category below the determined category… 9.2.5 The aerodrome category shall be determined from table 9-1 and shall be based on the longest aeroplane 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. To increase the aerodrome category by one level, a bigger aeroplane has to perform more than 700 movements in three months. Nothing precludes a two category higher aeroplane to take off and land.

  4. OPSG discussion • Since years ICAO admits that a significant number of Category N aeroplane have to use an aerodrome before this one is required to implement Category N RFFS. • This means that since many years Airport Management accept that Category N aeroplane can use their aerodrome when this one is only Category N-1, N-2 or less. • The proposal to limit to N-2 on the operator side is therefore: • Not in contradiction with ICAO Annex 14 • Not unsafe since admitted as the reality every day on a great number of aerodromes • Safe as it does no longer permit flight planning towards an aerodrome insufficiently “equipped with necessary emergency services” • It provides an operational answer to many questions raised by the operatorsespecially when they have to fly to “non normally used aerodrome” or when the RFFS services are exceptionally not at their normal category.

  5. OPSG discussion The proposed text 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 sheltering problems were not considered mature. Therefore we decided to propose it alone. OPSG has added a paragraph (3) in order to cover explicitly in flight situations when the Commander may have to use is best judgement. Considering Cargo Flights, one must remember the Annex 14 § 9.2 Introductory Note: The principal objective of a rescue and fire fighting service is to save lives. Not aeroplanes!

  6. New Appendix to JAR OPS 1.220 • Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.220 Authorisation of Aerodromes - Emergency Services • The required aerodrome category for Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (RFFS) for each aeroplane type must be contained in the operations manual. • At the planning stage, the following RFFS aerodrome categories are required: (3) In flight, the commander may decide to land at an aerodrome where the RFFS category is lower than specified in (2) above, if in his judgement and after due consideration of all the prevailing circumstances, to do so would be safer than to divert.

More Related