Jar ops
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 19

JAR-OPS PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 143 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

??? GAP ???. JAR-FCL JAR-FCL JAR-FCL JAR-FCL JAR-FCL JAR-FCL. Work Group to show "a way over ...". JAR-OPS. JAR-OPS. JAR-OPS. JAR-OPS. OBJECTIVES: - To work out a recommendation for a training concept for JAR-OPS operators to the attention of the JAA OPS director.

Download Presentation

JAR-OPS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Jar ops

???

GAP

???

JAR-FCL JAR-FCL JAR-FCL JAR-FCL JAR-FCL JAR-FCL

Work Group

to show

"a way

over ..."

JAR-OPS

JAR-OPS

JAR-OPS

JAR-OPS


Jar ops

OBJECTIVES:

- To work out a recommendation for a training concept for JAR-OPS operators to the attention of the JAA OPS director.

- To recommend adjustments to the descriptions of training within subpart N in order to be fully acceptable by JAR-FCL.

- To recommend 3 different training organisation models as follows:

- AOC-holder with "integrated" TRTO (AOC organisation also certified as TRTO)

- AOC-holder relying fully on a separate TRTO

- AOC-holder performing training for "own requirements" without a TRTO.

SCOPE of ACTIVITIES:

- Works should cover mainly JAR-OPS, but should recommend JAR-FCL changes, where it seems necessary.

- Showing outlines of possible solutions, not details.

- Giving propositions for "further actions" where the WG does not feel adequately qualified or in charge of.

The final report reflects the discussions held in the work group and represents the work group's recommendations concerning crew training from a "JAR-OPS" point of view, but also considering the JAR-FCL requirements.


Jar ops

CONTENTS of the work group's final report

1. General & Background

1.1. Objectives1.2. Scope of activities

2. Training Philosophy

2.1. Overall philosophy

3. Process Models3.1. AOC-holder with integrated TRTO

3.2. AOC-holder relying on separate TRTO

3.3. AOC-holder doing training outside a TRTO

4. AOC-Holder vs. TRTO (Who is reponsible for the training)

5. Relations OPS-FCL

6. Workgroup “exclamation and question marks”

7. Several “conflict” items or open questions


Jar ops

Some Explanations

General:

All items discussed during the work group’s meeting were split into the following categories:

- Issue

- Recommendation

- To Be Considered

“Issue”:

A description of the item’s “background”. This normally defines the problem and explains the reason for the work group to discuss the item.

“Recommendation”:The work group’s recommendation to the OST and the OPS Director, how the issue could be further treated or solved.

“To Be Considered”:

Once further harmonisation works are done, special focus should be set on the comments contained in the column “to be considered”, which shows some problem areas to be carefully assessed.


Jar ops

Training Philosophy

Issue: NO OVERALL TRAINING

PHILOSOPHY DEFINED !

Recommendation: To bring JAR-OPS

and JAR-FCL into "one single concept" !

To be considered:

"STANDARDS of PERFORMANCE"

(individual AND TEAM performance) !!!


Jar ops

Training Philosophy

This is a Gulfstream IV.

It flies in EUR airspace.

This is a Gulfstream IV.

It is commercially operated.

It flies in EUR airspace.

It‘s pilots are trained

acc. JAR-OPS 1 standards.

This is a Gulfstream IV.

It is privately operated.

It flies in EUR airspace.

It‘s pilots are trained

acc. JAR-FCL 1 standards.

It is operated for militarypurpose.

It‘s pilots are trained

acc. military standards.

Is there REALLY a difference

flying the GIV (MPA) ?


Jar ops

Accountable

Manager

Post-Holder

Maintenance

Post-Holder

Ground OPS

Post-Holder

Crew Training

Post-Holder

Flight OPS

Quality

Manager

Process Models

AOC-HOLDER with INTEGRATED TRTO

AOC-Holder‘s TRTO

AOC-Holder‘s Organisation


Jar ops

Head of

Training

Accountable

Manager

Chief

Ground

Instruction

Chief

Synthetic

Instruction

Chief

Practical

Instruction

Post-Holder

Maintenance

Post-Holder

Ground OPS

Post-Holder

Crew Training

Post-Holder

Flight OPS

Quality

Manager

Quality

Manager

AOC-Holder‘ Organisation

(acc. JAR-OPS)

TRTO‘s Organisation

(acc. JAR-FCL)

Process Models

AOC-HOLDER relying on SEPARATE TRTO


Jar ops

Accountable

Manager

Post-Holder

Maintenance

Post-Holder

Ground OPS

Post-Holder

Crew Training

Post-Holder

Flight OPS

Quality

Manager

Process Models

AOC-HOLDER doing training for "OWN" requirements ONLY

AOC-Holder‘s Organisation


Jar ops

AOC-Holder vs. TRTO

Issue:Recommendation:To be considered:

Course ContentsAOC-holder is responsible,Syllabus structureeven if parts are „out-sourced“

Type Rating vs. ConversionQuality System to assessCommunicationTrainingTRTO-parts !AOC-holder  TRTO

FCL for „BASIC“, OPS forFCL to define needs for acquisition ofSubpart N to contain„ADVANCED“ Traininga licence, OPS to cover operator‘s needsreferences to FCL, LSTto accept OPS-approach

Simulator dry lease problemsDry lease shall be possible for AOC-Training to be regarded(„packages“ incl. Theoryholder including „own“ TRIs/SFIs !As operator‘s duty, not& SIM = „wet lease“ !!!)as „stand-alone“ solution.

Influence of AOC-holderTRTOs must follow operator‘sJAA to put pressure onto the TRTO (see above item)instructions (i.e. syllabus)organisations not complying.

Out-sourcing training toOut-sourcing possible, but AOC-holderDocumentation ?!another organisationto have „overall“ responsibility.Quality System to assessthird-party organisation

TRTO-concept in MPA-world ?Philosophy, Policies, Procedures to beTraining MUST berespected by training organisation„customized“ !


Jar ops

Relations OPS-FCL

Issue:Recommendation:To be considered:

TRI/TRE (SFI/SFE) WhatDefinition of „stds of performance“Instructor training to beis required ?for instructors („teacher“-oriented, notreviewed / re-defined.type-oriented !!!)

FCL to accept licence-All training items to be mentioned inSubpart N to containrelevance of JAR-OPS trainingsubpart N (JAR-OPS), including FCL-all required training anditems (e.g. by references)training steps (includingall TGLs, ACJs, AMCs,IEMs and FCL-items.Solution for licence-relevanceAdjustment of validity period to 12 monthsTraining to „pro-of OPCs and validity of OPCsand coverage of all LPC-items for OPCs.fessionalism“, not stupidEmphasis on training, not on checkingrepetition of same issues.

Low Visibility Operation notInitial training for PPL and IR should- Taxiing in low visibilityknown by PPL / IR Cat I holdersinclude low visibility knowledge.- Low visibility procedures - visibility „picture“


Jar ops

Exclamation and Question marks

Issue:

Defining "experience" in terms of flight time does not seem to be adequate in several cases, as "experience" alone does not guarantee a "standard of performance".

Recommendation:Defining "minimum" experience should be reconsidered generally. In some cases the "elapsed" time may be adequate, in other cases "flight time" could be the criteria, in other cases "training to professionalism" would help much more than "previous experience". Other ways of gaining "experience" should be considered (i.e. as simulator instructor, as observer, etc.)


Jar ops

"Conflict" items and open questions

Can an AOC be issued with the operator not able to cover his own training requirements ?

Recommendation:

Yes, according model 2 above (relying on a TRTO). This means, that any AOC-holder shall have established his own training programme and respective syllabi. He shall be responsible for the training, even if that training is not performed by his own organisation. The concepts and training programme shall be according JAR-OPS.


Jar ops

"Conflict" items and open questions

Modular approach to training steps, either covering FCL- or OPS-parts

Recommendation:

AOC-holders should perform training in an "integrated" way, wherever possible, as this is the only certain way to integrate operations philosophy, policies and an operator's procedures (SOPs).

Wherever "modular" training is used, the "integration" part shall be done by the AOC-holder. This might require the operator to add some "ground" training or even some practical training to the modules used (i.e. when "out-sourcing" parts of the training).

In any situation, the AOC-holder shall have the overall responsibility for the training concepts, contents, procedures, etc.


Jar ops

"Conflict" items and open questions

Number of sessions ? Should there be a definition for the skill level of a pilot ?

The JAA should, in some way (maybe JOEBs “approving conversion courses”) state the minimum required training for each aircraft type (including simulator and supervision flights or IOE [initial operating experience]).

“Experience level” shall be defined regarding:

- years in commercial aviation

- type of operation (short, medium, long haul)

- other activities performed (e.g. training, management functions, etc.)

- original profession

- other relevant knowledge and/or experience


Jar ops

Questions ?

(or did I

forget

something ?)

Final

Report


Jar ops

Thank you

for listening !


  • Login