Interim Report - Introduction - EASA
Interim Report - Introduction - EASA
Interim Report - Introduction - EASA
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
INTERIM REPORT – OPTIONS FOR CHANGE – ATTACHMENT B<br />
<strong>EASA</strong>.2009.OP.21<br />
necessarily the technical complexities of sub-contracted services.<br />
Requiring operators to nominate one single person as their de-icing / anti-icing<br />
“coordinator/expert/post-holder” may improve communication between all departments, and<br />
also with the NAA. The results of our Study show that de-icing / anti-icing experience and<br />
knowledge within operators’ organisations are fragmented, and therefore one assumes the<br />
decision-making process on matters concerning de-icing / anti-icing is not efficient. Providing<br />
more detailed supporting information detailing the roles and responsibilities of nominated<br />
post-holders may also have the same effect.<br />
The act of nominating a focal-point, any necessary in-house training, and any subsequent<br />
establishment of new procedures can all be achieved within the existing management<br />
organisation; however, the benefits derived from improved coordination, communication and<br />
awareness could be substantial.<br />
OPS 1.175 (m)<br />
General rules for air operator certification<br />
The operator must arrange appropriate ground handling facilities to ensure the safe handling<br />
of its flights.<br />
This is more like an Essential Requirement, high level regulation, than an Implementing Rule.<br />
There is no expansion or explanation, however, accepting de-icing / anti-icing as a groundhandling<br />
operation, this Regulation would apply. In practice the de-icing / anti-icing facilities<br />
are often owned and managed by the aerodrome management, which is often separate from<br />
the de-icing / anti-icing service provision. Therefore, this requirement will need to be met by<br />
the operator through the quality system oversight of both aerodromes and service providers.<br />
The Regulation could be amended to state that the operator must ensure through the quality<br />
system etc, this is merely cosmetic, but it would be appropriate. Otherwise, far more detailed<br />
information could be given to explain to operators exactly what is required, both in the Rule<br />
and as supporting information.<br />
No great positive or negative impact to be made from these options.<br />
OPS 1.205<br />
Competence of operations personnel<br />
airsight GmbH - 11 -