时间：2011-08-31 13:49来源：蓝天飞行翻译 作者：航空 点击：次
|
The DEFWG’s terms of reference indicate that JAR–1 should be used for terms that apply to more than one JAR. Two commentors thus questioned the inclusion of Proposals 1 & 6 in the NPA. The WG has included a definition of Class in JAR–1 in anticipation of its use by other JARs. The rationale for the inclusion of Proposal 1 in JAR–1 reflected the close relationship between the various terms, that appear in various JARs, and other regulatory documents (e.g. EC Regulation 3922/91). This idea of a ‘central reference’ for these related topics seemed to fit with the concept of JAR–1. Harmonisation Commentors from US industry noted that although the DEFWG has indicated that definitions should, to the extent possible, be harmonised with ICAO and/or FAR Part 1, the proposals in this NPA did not reflect that intent. The JAA does consider harmonisation with FAA texts, as a routine step in developing proposals. The fact that JAR–OPS and JAR–FCL are not based on US requirements, and that the JAA is still trying to accomplish a harmonised position within Europe, these priority terms, mainly, for licensing and operations may not be the best example of that intent. Proposal 1: Aircraft Component, Appliances, Component, Parts and Appliances, and Product These terms appear throughout the JARs, and in accordance with its terms of reference, the DEFWG attempted to rationalise the use of these words. After a lengthy exchange of views within the group and with other committees, two options were possible: 1 Firstly to try to achieve consistency throughout the JAA system, using the definitions in the EU Regulation 3922/91 (they are the same as those included in the JAA Arrangements) as this is the ‘highest level’ text we have. They could be included in JAR–1, but this would imply standardising definitions for Products, Appliances and Components, implying numerous changes to JAR–21, JAR–145 and the draft BASAs. This would also reduce the level of harmonisation with FARs (notably Form 1). |
