NPA OPS 58 Terminology (1.192) and Fuel (1.255 & 1.375) OPSG 06-2 version after CRD

1. NPA OPS 58 Terminology (1.192) andFuel (1.255 & 1.375) OPSG 06-2 version after CRD Capt. Claude Godel OST 06-4

2. FOREWORD • NPA 58 intends to clarify and simplify the JAR OPS 1 Fuel policy in order to permit better operational efficiency and avoid any misinterpretation. With the exception of the new RCF procedure, there have been no rule modification in any of the affected chapters. • OPSG : • Transferred what seemed necessary from section 2 to section 1. • Introduced some definitions for clarity • Reengineered some paragraphs for an easier understanding • Replaced the Decision point procedure by the RCF procedure • Replaced “not… unless” by “only… when”

3. JAR OPS 1.192 TERMINOLOGY The creation of a Terminology Chapter in Subpart D was an old OPSG project. Most of the definitions were already in subpart D section 1 or section 2. Major changes in terminology after CRD: Clarification which now covers every type of « instrument approach » even RNAV GNSS.

4. JAR OPS 1.192 TERMINOLOGY There is always an adequate destination alternate aerodrome but sometimes it is too far away! The new definition gives the limit beyond which it is permitted to use the alternative possibility of the isolated aerodrome procedure described in Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.255 (4)

5. FUEL – JAR OPS 1.295 (c) Major changes in the Fuel part of the NPA after CRD: In-flight re-planning is already in JAR-OPS 1.255 Fuel policy. OST approved the possibility to re-plan in flight without an alternate at less than 2 hours from Dest. A majority of operators thinks that there is no reason to make a difference between ground (6 hours) and flight (2 hours). Therefore 6 hours is now proposed also for in-flight re-planning without alternate as the accuracy of the Met previsions is the same.

6. FUEL - JAR-OPS 1.297 Planning minima for IFR flights • JAR-OPS 1.297 was not in the scope of NPA 58, but … • The CRD showed a request from numerous operators (AEA) asking for re-engineering of the whole paragraph in order to segregate the different type of alternates and, by the way, bring the ETOPS table 3, currently in AMC 20-6, into JAR OPS. • That is now proposed as an editorial change without any modification of the existing rule. • The new organization of the chapter is: • Planning minima for a take-off alternate aerodrome. • Planning minima for a destination aerodrome • Planning minima for a: • - destination alternate aerodrome, • - isolated aerodrome • - 3% ERA aerodrome, • en-route alternate aerodrome required at the planning stage (table 1) • Planning minima for an ETOPS en-route alternate aerodrome (table 2 or 3)

7. FUEL - JAR-OPS 1.340 Meteorological Conditions JAR-OPS 1.340 is affected by the introduction of the RCF procedure. OPSG took the opportunity to re-engineer the paragraphs in a logical order (take- off, flight to planed destination, special situations, …)

8. FUEL - JAR-OPS 1.375 In-Flight Fuel Management EU OPS OPS 1.375 (c) The commander shall declare an emergency when calculated usable fuel on landing is less than final reserve fuel. JAR OPS was considered to restrictive, one should declare an emergency as soon as one knows that he has no other option than to land with less than final reserve. But the wording in EU OPS seems not clear enough because one can calculate that he will have less than final at dest or dest alternate but still not be in an emergency as there are other adequate aerodromes available before Dest.

9. FUEL - Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.255 Fuel Policy • Statistical Contingency fuel method: • can be used for city pairs (and not routes which are different every day). • Appendix 3 transformed in an ACJ because the figures used in the original text (99%, 90%) where only examples. To use them in an Appendix would make them become a very stringent rule.

10. FUEL - Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.255 Fuel Policy In order to avoid under estimation, definition of alternate fuel is more clearly defined.