时间：2011-08-31 13:49来源：蓝天飞行翻译 作者：航空 点击：次
|
The definition is then essentially unchanged (other than the two modifications above), and although it may not be an ideal definition, the DEFWG concluded that the adopted text is the best possible solution, and does at least provide readers of JAR–1 with a means to follow the various JAA and other texts. Proposal 2: Commander, Pilot-in-Command and Co-pilot A WG paper was discussed, that led to the proposal in NPA 1–8, containing a summary of all the existing draft texts in JAR–OPS and JAR–FCL. The discussion focused on the need to have both a Commander and a Pilot-in-command defined. It was agreed that the point of defining Commander was to have one pilot in overall authority on each flight. This would often be the same person as the Pilot-in-command, but where augmented crews were carried, the Commander might not always be physically ‘in command’, but he/she would still have responsibility for the overall safety of the flight. The definition for Pilot-in-Command is derived from JAR–OPS 1.940(a)(5) and concentrates on the delegation and limited duration of functions during the flight (for the time being). 2 The FCL Committee’s proposal for Co-pilot is similar to that in ICAO Annex I, and was modified slightly from the working paper to make it even closer to the ICAO term. Two small additions were added; the first to add that the Co-pilot could not be the Commander, and to add, ‘license or rating’ to clarify the final statement. It was this proposal that drew the most difficult comments, and has caused problems for the DEFWG to resolve. A summary of the comments received is given below: – The term commander is new, not in ICAO Annex VI, and causes confusion. The use of the term pilot-in-command (an ICAO term) was supported. – |
