时间：2011-08-31 13:49来源：蓝天飞行翻译 作者：航空 点击：次
|
The removal of the definition is seen as a short term measure as the JAA will need such a definition once the Operations Committee starts to work on Corporate Aviation requirements. Proposal 8; Maintenance The DEFWG can respond to the three commentors that the design of repairs and modifications is indeed excluded from the definition of maintenance. A comment was received that proposed defining Maintenance from the point of view of ‘maintaining airworthiness’ and ‘preservation’. These concepts had been already been discussed by the DEFWG, prior to the NPA, and rejected as it may happen that tasks be carried out quite satisfactorily on an aircraft, and the aircraft itself will still remain, as the result of other defects, unairworthy. In addition, maintenance is also carried out on parts (including engines) that have been removed from the aircraft. The engine may be airworthy, but the aircraft its being installed on may not be. One commentor proposed the inclusion of the word ‘servicing’, but the DEFWG felt the word to be too vague, and added little to the understanding of what Maintenance is. The DEFWG concluded that the JAR–145 definition of Maintenance, plus pre-flight, is moved into JAR–1. JAR–145 & JAR–OPS already exclude those carrying out pre-flight checks from requiring a JAR–145 approval. This was seen as giving the JAA a descriptive term for what Maintenance is, whilst allowing individual JARs to regulate Maintenance. The Maintenance Committee subsequently objected to this, and the JAR–145 text is now used in JAR–1 without modification. It is noted that the JAA will have to work on JAR–OPS Subpart M in order to make it consistent with JAR–145/JAR–1. Proposal 9; Aircraft Three comments were received; two of which were purely editorial points, the acceptance of which would lead to minor differences with the proposed term that is identical to ICAO. The comments are thus not adopted. |
