时间：2011-08-31 13:49来源：蓝天飞行翻译 作者：航空 点击：次
|
Three commentors disagreed with the proposal on the basis that they felt it to be too vague, not useful, and redundant respectively. As not all the comments were explained it is difficult to understand why it is redundant. However, the DEFWG noted that a simple definition had been developed so that it could be used in association with more than one JAR. As the term is only required for type certification (JAR–65 & JAR–145 needs are based on the certification of the product), it was decided that the best solution was to retain a simple definition, but to add a cross-reference to JAR–21. Proposal 13; Aircraft Variant As with proposals 10 & 11, comments were received questioning whether the term would be better defined in the respective JARs. The DEFWG preferred to try and define a term that would work for JAR–OPS and JAR–FCL, at least. A number of editorial corrections are noted and are incorporated. A comment proposing that certifying staff be included was rejected as the NPA to JAR–65 (NPA 65–0) did not indicate that Aircraft Variant would be required. Additionally, the term is probably not needed for JAR–21 (the DEFWG understands that the JAR–21 WG has plans to propose the withdrawal of the word from JAR–21). The addition of familiarisation training is not agreed as it would constitute a repetition of the requirement, not a definition. The difference between a 1-pilot VFR and a 2-pilot IFR aircraft is a certification matter that the airworthiness JARs address. The proposal to add Class is, in principle, agreed, and the next DEFWG NPA (NPA 1–8) will propose a term. As some uncertainty remains as to the acceptability of the definition in relation to cabin crew in JAR–OPS 1.1010 and JAR–OPS 1.1030. The JAA’s Ops Committee has been tasked to review the matter and propose a text for future consideration, as necessary. Proposal 14; Commuter Category Aeroplane A number of comments were received stating that the definition did not have a lower weight limit for the category, and that one was needed. Other modifications were proposed to avoid it covering aircraft such as the Cessna 337. One commentor preferred to see the term only in JAR–23. |
