European Aviation Safety Agency 30 Jan 2009

R.F008­02 © European Aviation Safety Agency, 2009. All rights reserved. Proprietary document.  Page 1 of 123

NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT (NPA) NO 2009­02A 

DRAFT OPINIONS OF THE EUROPEAN AVIATION SAFETY AGENCY, 

FOR A COMMISSION REGULATION establishing the implementing rules for air 

operations of Community operators

and

DRAFT DECISIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE EUROPEAN AVIATION

SAFETY AGENCY on 

acceptable means of compliance, certification specifications and guidance material

related to the implementing rules for air operations of Community operators

“Implementing Rules for Air Operations of Community Operators”

A. Explanatory Note and Appendices
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 2 of 123

NOTE: This NPA  contains the draft Opinion on the  Implementing Rules for Air Operations of 

Community  Operators, the  Subparts  related  to Air  Operations  of  the  draft Opinion on the 

Implementing Rules for Organisation Requirements, the Subparts related to Air Operations of 

the draft Opinion on the Implementing Rules for Authority Requirements and the related draft

Decisions (AMC, CS and GM). The NPA is split into seven separate NPAs (2009­02A, 2009­02B,  2009­02C,  2009­02D,  2009­02E,  2009­02F AND 2009­02G) as indicated  in the Table  of 

Reference below. The documents are published in the Comment­Response Tool (CRT) available 

at http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/.

TABLE OF REFERENCE FOR NPA 2009­02: 

A.  EXPLANATORY NOTE:  SEE NPA 2009­02A

I.  GENERAL  SEE NPA 2009­02A

II.  CONSULTATION SEE NPA 2009­02A

III.  COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT  SEE NPA 2009­02A

IV.  CONTENT OF THE DRAFT OPINIONS AND DECISIONS  SEE NPA 2009­02A

V.  APPENDICES  SEE NPA 2009­02A

B. DRAFT OPINIONS AND DECISIONS: 

I.  DRAFT OPINION PART­OPS  SEE NPA 2009­02B 

II.  DRAFT DECISION AMC AND GM TO PART­OPS  SEE NPA 2009­02B 

III.  DRAFT OPINION PART­OR (SUBPART OPS) SEE NPA 2009­02C 

IV.  DRAFT DECISION CS TO PART­OR (SUBPART OPS) SEE NPA 2009­02C 

V.  DRAFT DECISION AMC AND GM TO PART­OR (SUBPART OPS) SEE NPA 2009­02C 

VI.  DRAFT OPINION PART­AR (SUBPART GEN, CC AND OPS) SEE NPA 2009­02D 

VII.  DRAFT DECISION AMC AND GM TO PART­AR (SUBPART GEN, CC AND OPS)SEE NPA 2009­02D 

VIII.  DRAFT OPINION PART­CC SEE NPA 2009­02E 

IX.  DRAFT DECISION AMC AND GM TO PART­CC SEE NPA 2009­02E 

X.  SUPPLEMENT TO DRAFT OPINION PART­MED SEE NPA 2009­02E 

C.  CROSS­REFERENCE TABLES:  SEE NPA 2009­02F 

D.  REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT:  SEE NPA 2009­02G
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 3 of 123

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NPA 2009­02A: 

A.  EXPLANATORY NOTE 4 

I.  GENERAL 4 

II.  CONSULTATION 4 

III.  COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT 5 

IV.  CONTENT OF THE DRAFT OPINIONS AND DECISIONS 5 

V.  REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 26

VI.  APPENDENCES 26

APPENDIX I ­ EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO PART­OPS  26

ATTACHMENT A TO APPENDIX I ­ EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM ON PART­OPS 

ATTACHMENT B TO APPENDIX I ­ EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM ON PART­OPS 

ATTACHMENT C TO APPENDIX I ­ EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM ON PART­OPS 

ATTACHMENT D TO APPENDIX I ­ EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM ON PART­OPS 

APPENDIX II ­ EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM ON PART­OR SUBPART OPS  44

APPENDIX III ­ EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO PART­AR SUBPART OPS  56

APPENDIX IV  ­ EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM  RELATING TO  CABIN CREW: PART­CC, PART­MED

(SUBPART E), PART­OR (SUBPART OPS – SECTION VI) AND PART­AR (SUBPART 

AR.CC)  59
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 4 of 123

A.  EXPLANATORY NOTE

I.  General

1.  The purpose of this Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) is to develop an Opinion on the 

Implementing Rules for Air  Operations  of  Community Operators  and  a  Decision on the 

related Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM). The scope of 

this  rulemaking  activity  is  outlined  in the  Terms  of  Reference  (ToR)  OPS.001 and  is 

described in more detail below. 

2.  The European Aviation Safety Agency (the Agency) is directly involved in the rule­shaping 

process. It assists the Commission in its executive tasks by preparing draft regulations, 

and  amendments  thereof,  for  the  implementation of  the  Basic  Regulation

1  which are 

adopted as “Opinions” (Article 19(1)). It also adopts Certification Specifications, including 

Airworthiness Codes and Acceptable  Means  of Compliance and Guidance  Material to be 

used in the certification process (Article 19(2)).

3.  When developing rules, the Agency is bound to following a structured process as required 

by Article 52(1) of the Basic Regulation. Such process has been adopted by the Agency’s 

Management Board and is referred to as “The Rulemaking Procedure” 2 . 

4.  This rulemaking activity is included in the Agency’s Rulemaking Programme for 2009. It

implements the rulemaking task OPS.001. 

5.  The text of  this  NPA  has  been developed by the  Agency,  based  on the  inputs  of  the 

OPS.001  and  MDM.032 rulemaking  groups. It is  submitted  for consultation of  all

interested parties in accordance with Article 52 of the Basic Regulation and Articles 5(3) 

and 6 of the Rulemaking Procedure.

II.  Consultation 

6.  To achieve optimal consultation,  the  Agency is  publishing  the  draft opinion and  draft

decision of  the  Executive  Director  on its  internet site. Comments  should  be  provided

within 4 months in accordance with Article 6(5) of the Rulemaking Procedure. Comments 

on this proposal should be submitted by one of the following methods:

CRT:  Send  your  comments  using  the  Comment­Response  Tool (CRT) 

available at http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/ 

E­mail:  Only in case  the use  of CRT  is  prevented  by technical problems 

these should be reported to the CRT webmaster and comments sent

by email to NPA@easa.europa.eu. 

1  Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on 

common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and

repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (OJ

L 79, 19.3.2008, p.1).  2  Management Board Decision concerning the procedure to be applied by the Agency for the issuing of

opinions, certification specifications and guidance material  (“Rulemaking Procedure”), EASA MB 08­  2007, 13.6.2007
NPA 2009-02a 30 Jan 2009

Page 5 of 123

Correspondence: If you do not have access to internet or e-mail you can send your 

comments by mail to: 

Process Support 

 Rulemaking Directorate 

 EASA 

 Postfach 10 12 53 

 D-50452 Cologne 

 Germany 

 

Comments should be received by the Agency before 30 May 2009. If received after this 

deadline they might not be taken into account. 

III. Comment response document 

7. All comments received in time will be responded to and incorporated in a comment 

response document (CRD). The CRD will be available on the Agency’s website and in the 

Comment-Response Tool (CRT). 

IV. Content of the draft Opinions and Decisions 

Background 

8. On 15 December 2004 the Agency issued an Opinion3

 to extend the scope of Regulation 

(EC) No. 1592/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2002 on 

common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety 

Agency, to the regulation of pilot licensing, air operations and third country aircraft. 

9. In November 2005, the Commission presented its proposal for the amendment of 

Regulation (EC) No. 1592/20024

 which was accompanied by a Communication5, where 

the Commission explained the main objectives of its proposal:

• To establish in the form of Essential Requirements, high level safety objectives to be 

achieved by the regulation of air operations; 

• To require all commercial operators to be subject to certification on the basis of 

common rules; 

• To subject non-commercial operations to common rules tailored to the complexity of 

the aircraft used. Where such operations are conducted with complex motorpowered aircraft, the operators concerned should declare that they comply with the 

applicable requirements; 

• To give executive powers to the Commission to adopt the necessary Implementing 

Rules and to the Agency to issue certification specifications, comprising in particular 

standard flight time limitation schemes, as acceptable means of compliance with the 

Essential Requirements and to certify itself individual operators’ flight time limitation 

 

3 Opinion No 3/2004 of the European Aviation Safety Agency of 15 December 2004 for amending 

Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the 

field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, to extend its scope to the 

regulation of pilot licensing, air operations and third country aircraft. 

(http://www.easa.europe.eu/ws_prod/g/rg_opinions_main.php#2004) 4 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 

1592/2002 of 15 July 2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European 

Aviation Safety Agency (presented by the Commission), COM(2005)579 final, 16 November 2005. 

(http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=193564) 5 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European 

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, “Extending the tasks of the 

European Aviation Safety Agency – An Agenda for 2010”, COM(2005)578 final, 15 November 2005. 

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2005:0578:FIN:EN:PDF) 
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 6 of 123

schemes  when so required  to provide  for  uniformity  and  fair  competition in the 

market. 

10.  When adopting its proposal, the Commission recommended, as suggested by the Agency 

itself,  that common requirements  to be  specified  in Implementing  Rules  be  based  as 

much as possible on existing material such as Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91

(“EU­OPS”) 6 /JAR­OPS  1  and  3  and  draft JAR­OPS  0,  2  and  4  as  well as  on the  Joint

Aviation Authorities  (JAA)  Joint Implementation Procedures (JIPs)  and that they be 

tailored to the risks to be mitigated. In order to develop these Implementing Rules, the 

Agency included in its rulemaking programme the task OPS.001. The ToR of this task, as 

well as the  composition of the  rulemaking group, were adopted in July 2006 7 , and the 

group started the drafting in August 2006. 

11.  The ToR defined the objective of the task as the development of common requirements 

for  the  implementation of  the extended Basic  Regulation as  regards  air operations, 

including Implementing Rules and AMC/GM for:

· commercial air transport, based on existing EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1 and 3 requirements;

· aerial work using as appropriate the draft of JAR­OPS 0 and 4;

· non­commercial operations  with complex  motor­powered  aircraft using  as 

appropriate the draft of JAR­OPS 0 and 2;

· non­commercial operations  with other than complex  motor­powered  aircraft using 

as appropriate the input from task MDM.032;

· flight time limitations, initially based on EU­OPS;

· training and medical fitness of cabin crew, initially based on JAR­OPS 1/EU­OPS;

· the conduct of oversight by competent authorities, making use of the relevant JAA

JIPs and of similar provisions included in other Implementing Rules. 

12.  The ToR established that due consideration should be given to the conclusions  reached 

during the legislative  process  relative to the  extension of  scope  of  Regulation (EC)  No

1592/2002,  so as to adjust the  deliverables  to the  likely  result of  these  negotiations. 

They also called for coordination with the rulemaking tasks FCL.001 and MDM.032. The 

latter  would  provide  input for  the  regulation of  other  than complex  motor­powered 

aircraft engaged in non­commercial operations. 

13.  The OPS.001 rulemaking group decided early on to divide itself into subgroups, in order 

to better  deal with the  different issues  contained in its  ToR. Accordingly, the  ToR  and 

composition of four subgroups were adopted in October 2006 8 . These subgroups were:

· The subgroup commercial air transport;

· The subgroup non­commercial operations with complex motor­powered aircraft;

· The subgroup commercial operations other than commercial air transport; and

· The subgroup authority requirements and safety management system. 

14.  The  first subgroup (commercial air transport) was  tasked  with the  incorporation of 

requirements of EU­OPS in conjunction with subsequent amendments of  JAR­OPS 1 for 

commercial air  transport by  aeroplane and  development of  related  AMC/GM based  on

6  Annex III to Council Regulation  (EEC)  No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of

technical  requirements  and  administrative procedures in  the field of civil aviation (OJ L  373, 

31.12.1991, p.  4).  Regulation  as  last  amended by Commission Regulation  (EC)  No 859/2008 of

20 August 2008 (OJ L 254, 20.9.2008, p. 1).  7  See ToR OPS.001 published on EASA website at: http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/r_tor.php.  8  See footnote 7 above.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 7 of 123

JAR­OPS 1  (Section 2)  and  appropriate Temporary Guidance  Leaflets  (TGL)  of the JAA 

Administrative  Guidance  Material  Section 4,  Part  3.  It was also tasked  with the 

development of requirements  and  related  AMC/GM for  commercial  air  transport by 

helicopter  based  on JAR­OPS  3  (Section 1 and  2)  and  related  TGL of  the  JAA

Administrative Guidance Material Section 4, Part 3. Consideration had also to be given to

JAA NPAs sufficiently advanced in the JAA process meaning that they had to be at least

adopted at JAA OST level with sufficient technical consensus. For operations of balloons 

and airships, which were not included in the JAR provisions, new requirements were to be 

developed on the basis of existing national legislation and by taking into account ICAO 

Annex 6, as feasible. The subgroup was required to liaise with rulemaking group FCL.001

so as  to clarify operators  and personnel responsibilities  as  regards  qualification and 

training  requirements,  as  well as  with the  subgroup of  authority  requirements and 

management system.  The  main challenge  of  this  group  was to adapt the  JARs to the 

EASA legal framework. 

15.  The  task  of  the  second  subgroup (non­commercial  operations  with complex  motor­ 

powered  aircraft) was to develop  requirements  and  related  AMC/GM for those  kind  of 

operations, based as much as possible on existing material such as draft JAR­OPS 0 and 

2, as well as considering the standards and recommended practices of ICAO Annex 6 Part 

II. 9  The subgroup was  required to liaise with rulemaking group FCL.001 so as to clarify 

operators  and  personnel responsibilities  as  regards  qualification and  training 

requirements as well as MDM.032 on non­commercial operations of other than complex 

motor­powered aircraft and the other subgroups of OPS.001. 

16.  The  third  subgroup (commercial  operations  other  than  commercial air transport) was 

tasked to develop  requirements  and  related AMC/GM for  aerial work.  These  provisions 

were  to encompass  requirements  and  related  AMC and  GM for  aeroplane, helicopter,  balloons  and  airships  using as  appropriate  the  draft of JAR­OPS  0  and  4  and  also

considering existing national standards in the field. The subgroup  was asked to ensure 

coordination with rulemaking  group  MDM.032 and  the  subgroup  on non­commercial

operations  with complex  motor­powered  aircraft to properly  address  non­commercial 

aerial work. It was also asked to develop CS in the field of flight time limitation where 

consideration should  be  given to the special flexibility  that is  needed in aerial work. 

Similar to the two other groups,  coordination had to take place  with rulemaking group 

FCL.001 so as to clarify operators and personnel responsibilities as regards qualification

and  training  requirements  and  the  subgroup  of  authority  requirements  and  safety 

management system. 

17.  The task of the last subgroup (authority requirements and safety management system)

was firstly, to develop requirements and related AMC/GM for competent authorities using 

appropriate  ICAO  documents  and JAA  JIPs  and  taking into account the need  for 

consistency with similar provisions included in other Implementing Rules. It also had to

draft a proposal for safety management system  requirements based on ICAO Annex 6, 

ICAO Doc 9859 and work carried out by the JAA. This subgroup was asked to develop its 

work  in close  coordination with the  equivalent subgroup  of  FCL.001,  in order  to

harmonise  requirements for  authorities  and  organisations as  much as  possible. As 

recommended by  the  JAA  reflection on the  “Consistency  of  Organisation Approvals” 

(COrA) 10, the applicable requirements have been made generic as they were considered 

similar for aircraft operators, maintenance organisations, air traffic services providers and 

aerodrome  operators,  although it was  not precluded to have  specific  provisions  on

operations, if deemed necessary. Adequate coordination had to take place with the other 

subgroups of OPS.001. 

9  The subgroup worked with the revised ICAO Annex 6 Part II text, now published as Amendment No. 

27.  10  See A­NPA  15/2006  published on  EASA  website  at: 

http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/r_archives.php
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 8 of 123

18.  In order to provide for the necessary proportionality of requirements applicable to non­  commercial operation of  other  than complex  motor­powered aircraft,  the  MDM.032 

group 11 was asked to provide input to the OPS.001 group. The group started its work in

March 2006 and by summer 2007 provided OPS.001 with such an input. 

19.  The  OPS.001 subgroups  finished their tasks, in accordance  with their  ToR, in summer 

2007, by delivering their input to the OPS.001 core group. Since then the Agency and the 

core group have been working on the finalisation of the draft Implementing Rules, using 

the  material received  from  the  subgroups  as well as  from  the  MDM.032  rulemaking 

group.

20.  In February  2008  the  legislative  process to extend  the  scope  of  Regulation (EC)  No

1592/2002 reached a conclusion with the adoption of the Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of 

the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 200812 (hereinafter referred 

to as the ‘Basic Regulation’). The Basic Regulation entered into force on 8 April 2008 and, 

in accordance  with its  article  70,  the  provisions  related  to flight crew licensing, air 

operations and third country operators shall become applicable on the dates specified in

their respective Implementing Rules, but in any case not later than on 8 April 2012. 

21.  During the legislative process, the Commission proposal was subject to amendments by 

the European Parliament and  the Council and  therefore  the  final text of  the  Basic 

Regulation differs, in some  aspects, from that proposal. The main aspects of the Basic 

Regulation in what refers to air operations are the following:

· Operations of aircraft: 

o registered  in a  Member  State, unless  their  regulatory  safety  oversight has 

been  delegated to a third  country  and  they  are  not used by a  Community 

operator (Article 4(1)(b) of the Basic Regulation); and 

o registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member 

State  ensures  oversight of  operations  or  used  into,  within or  out of  the 

Community by an operator  established or residing in the Community  (Article 

4(1)(c) of the Basic Regulation); 

shall comply with the Essential Requirements for air operations laid down in Annex 

IV to the Basic Regulation (Article 8(1) of the Basic Regulation).

· The European Commission is empowered to adopt  Implementing  Rules  specifying 

the conditions to operate an aircraft for the implementation of the Basic Regulation

and the Essential Requirements. These Implementing Rules (Article 8(5) and 8(6) of 

the Basic Regulation) shall: 

o reflect the state of the art and best practices in the field of air operations; 

o take into account worldwide aircraft in service  experience  and  scientific and 

technical progress; 

o define various types of operations according to their complexity and associated 

risk  and  provide  for  proportionate  requirements  and  compliance 

demonstrations; 

o be based on a risk assessment and be proportional to the scale and scope of 

the operations, and 

o allow for  immediate  reaction to established causes of  accidents and serious 

incidents. 

11  See ToR MDM.032 published on EASA website at: http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/r_tor.php

12  See footnote 1 above.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 9 of 123

· Operators 13 engaged in commercial operations 14 shall be  subject to a  certification

process in which they  demonstrate their  capability  and  means of  discharging the 

responsibilities associated  with their  privileges.  The  privileges  granted  to an

operator and the scope of operations shall be specified in the certificate. Certificates 

are issued by the Member States’  competent authorities. The  Implementing Rules 

may  determine  the  conditions  under  which a  certificate  shall be  replaced by  a 

declaration of the capability and means of discharging the responsibilities associated 

with the operation of the aircraft (Article 8(2) and 8(5)(b) of the Basic Regulation).

With regard to commercial air transport by aeroplane, the Implementing Rules shall

be based initially on EU­OPS.

· Operators engaged in non­commercial operations  of  complex  motor­powered 

aircraft15 shall declare their capability and means of discharging the responsibilities 

associated  with the  operation of  the  aircraft.  The  Implementing  Rules  may 

determine  the  conditions  under  which a  declaration shall be  replaced by  a 

demonstration and the issuance of a certificate (Article 8(3) and 8(5)(d) of the Basic 

Regulation).

· Operators of aircraft having a clear historical relevance (Annex II (a)(ii) of the Basic 

Regulation), of military design (Annex II (d) of the Basic Regulation) and replicas of 

historic  or  military  aircraft (Annex  II (h)  of  the  Basic  Regulation)  when used  for 

commercial air transportation shall comply with the relevant Essential Requirements 

as specified in the appropriate Implementing Rules.

· Cabin crew involved  in the  operation of  aircraft shall comply  with the  relevant

Essential Requirements laid down in Article 8(4) of Annex IV of the Basic Regulation

as  established  in the  related  Implementing  Rules.  The  Implementing  Rules  shall

specify the  composition of  the  cabin crew,  as well as  the  training  and checking 

requirements in order to ensure that cabin crew attain and maintain an adequate 

level of competency (Articles 7(a) and 7(b)(i) of Annex IV of the Basic Regulation).

To safely exercise their duties, cabin crew shall be medically fit; the Implementing 

Rules  shall prescribe the  conditions under  which such fitness  assessment shall be 

conducted based on aero­medical best practice (Article 7(b)(ii) of Annex IV of the 

Basic Regulation).

· Cabin crew  members  involved  in commercial  operations  shall hold  a  cabin crew 

attestation (Article 8(4)  of the Basic Regulation). The  Implementing Rules  shall

specify the conditions under which such an attestation shall be issued, maintained,

amended, limited, suspended  or  revoked, thus  ensuring  appropriate  compliance 

with the applicable requirements (Article 8(5)(e) of the Basic Regulation). Member 

State may task an operator or training organisation to issue cabin crew attestations 

if they have specifically been approved therefore. 

13  An operator is any legal or natural person, operating or proposing to operate one or more aircraft. 

(Article 3(h) of the Basic Regulation)  14  Article 3(i) of the Basic Regulation defines commercial operations as any operation of an aircraft, in 

return for remuneration or other valuable consideration, which is available to the public or, when not 

made available to  the  public, which  is  performed under  a  contract  between  an  operator  and a 

customer, where the latter has no control over the operator. 

15  According to Article 3(j) of the Basic Regulation,  a complex motor­powered aircraft  shall mean an 

aeroplane

­ with a maximum certificated take­off mass exceeding 5 700 kg, or ­ certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or  ­ certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or 

equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine, or a helicopter certificated

­ for a maximum take­off mass exceeding 3 175 kg, or  ­ for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nine, or ­ for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or  ­ a tilt rotor aircraft. (Article 3(j) of the Basic Regulation)
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 10 of 123

· With regard to flight time limitation, the  Agency  shall issue  applicable flight time 

limitation Certification Specification (CS)  to ensure  compliance  with the  related 

Implementing Rules taking into account the latest scientific and technical evidence. 

Member States may approve individual flight time limitation schemes, which deviate 

from those issued by the Agency, but in this case they shall inform the Agency, the 

Commission and other Member States. The Agency shall within one month assess 

the individual scheme. If a Member State disagrees with the Agency’s conclusions, it

shall refer the issue to the Commission. The content of individual schemes, which

are  acceptable  to the  Agency  or  on which the  Commission has  taken a  positive 

decision, shall be published (Article 22(2) of the Basic Regulation).

22.  The  present NPA  contains the  draft rules  (requirements,  flight time  limitation CS, 

AMC/GM)  the  Agency  is  envisaging  at this  stage  for  the implementation of the  Basic 

Regulation and the Essential Requirements for air operations, based on the work of the 

OPS.001 and MDM.032 rulemaking groups.

Structure

23.  After issuing its Opinion for the extension of the Basic Regulation to air operations, flight

crew  licensing  and  third  country  operators 16,  the  Agency  started  defining  the  tasks 

necessary  to develop  the  related  Implementing  Rules,  making  use  of  the  regulatory 

material already  developed by the  JAA.  When doing  so,  it realised that the  structure 

underlying the set of JARs might not be the most appropriate for establishing a consistent

set of  rules  governing  all aspects  of  civil aviation safety  regulation.  The  set of  rules 

applicable to these fields in Europe originates from different regulators, such as the JAA

and  national administrations.  They  were  developed over  several decades, the 

responsibilities for drafting  were  sometimes  changed and trade­offs,  which may not be 

appropriate  anymore,  were  made. Furthermore, the  JARs  do not cover  all necessary 

elements, not only because they primarily aim at harmonising some elements of national

rules  and  presume therefore the  existence  of  an  appropriate  set of  national  rules,  but

also because the scope of the Basic Regulation is wider than that of the existing JARs – 

for  example, JAR­OPS  only  covers  commercial air transport with aeroplanes and 

helicopters,  whereas  the  Basic  Regulation covers,  commercial  and  non­commercial 

operations  with aeroplanes,  helicopters,  tilt­rotor  aircraft,  airships, sailplanes  and 

balloons. In parallel, the objective of the Agency is to develop operational and licensing 

rules that would be integrated in a global regulatory system for aviation safety, covering 

not only  airworthiness,  but also the  safety  regulation of  air traffic  management and 

aerodromes. All these considerations lead the Agency to conclude that changing the way 

rules are structured and presented would provide for better consistency and ease of use 

by the regulated persons. 

24.  In addition to these  aspects,  other  considerations  of  a  more  legal nature  made  it

necessary to change the JAR structure. These issues stem from the different legal value 

of  JARs and of  Implementing Rules as these are Community law and need therefore to

comply with a specific set of requirements on how they are drafted. In this context, one 

of  the  major  legal reasons  why  the  JAR  structure  cannot be  kept is  related  to the 

multiplication of similar or even identical requirements included in various JARs by virtue 

of the way they are structured. For example, JAR­OPS is divided into JAR­OPS 1, which

contains  the  requirements  for  aeroplanes, and  JAR­OPS  3,  which contains  the 

requirements  for  helicopters.  JAR­OPS  1  and  3  contains  therefore  many  repeated 

requirements, those that  were  common to both categories  of  aircraft,  alongside those 

that were really specific to each of the categories. Some of the common requirements are 

repeated verbatim, but in some cases slight differences in wording exist, stemming from 

the separate  rulemaking  processes  for  the  two JARs,  rather  than  from  an actual 

specificity in the requirements for each category of aircraft. This lead to difficulties in the 

16  See footnote 3 above.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 11 of 123

interpretation of the requirements and cannot be replicated in the Implementing Rules. It

is  a  general principle  of law that  separate  sets  of  provisions  shall only  exist when the 

requirements  are  different;  if  the  legislator  makes  a  distinction in the  provisions,  the 

European Court of  Justice  has  concluded that  this  could  only  imply  that different

requirements  were  meant17.  This  general  principle, when applied to rulemaking  in the 

Community system, prevents the existence of two different provisions when the objective 

of the requirement is the same, contrary to what was done many times in the JARs. As

paragraph 12 of the  Joint Practical Guide 18 for drafting of Community legislation states, 

“enacting terms of a binding act shall not (...) repeat or paraphrase passages or articles 

from the Treaties or those which restate legal provisions already in force. Acts shall not

include provisions which enunciate the content of other articles or repeat the title of the 

act. (...) Such repetition is dangerous, since any departure from the original wording may 

give the impression that a different result was intended, and even give rise to a sort of 

presumption to that effect”. Therefore, it is not possible for the Implementing Rules to be 

organised in the same way as the JARs are.

25.  Thus, the Agency started to work, with the help of a few experts from national aviation

authorities, to develop an overall regulatory structure. This structure took into account

ICAO Annexes  and existing national or Community  rules.  It should address  all fields of 

civil aviation safety  regulation.  Its  objective  was  to establish a  consistent regulatory 

structure that complies with the Community requirements for drafting legislation and that

ensures the necessary links  between the  different regulations.  The  result of this  work, 

called  the General EASA  Rules  Template  (GERT), together with envisaged working 

methods to develop the  related  rules, was presented to the Advisory Group of National

Authorities  (AGNA)  and  the  Safety Standards  Consultative  Committee  (SSCC)  for 

discussion and comments. 

26.  The GERT was discussed by the AGNA and SSCC. However, these discussions never led to

any formal decision on the adoption of the template, since it was clear that it would be 

difficult to discuss the structure in abstract, without going into detail about the content of 

the  Implementing Rules.  It was therefore  decided that the  rulemaking  groups FCL.001 

and OPS.001 would take the structure presented in GERT as a possible model for their 

work, but the final outcome would take into account the content of the requirements. 

27.  Based on the input from the FCL.001 and OPS.001 groups, and taking into account the 

objectives  described above,  the  Agency  developed a  structure  for  the  future 

Implementing Rules for air operations, flight crew licensing and third country operators. 

This  structure,  while inspired  by  GERT, is  based  on a ‘tool­box’  approach,  designed to

allow stakeholders to identify the Parts that apply to their specific activity and apply the 

relevant requirements. The structure is represented in Fig. 1 below. Since the work on air 

operations  as well as  organisation requirements  and authority  requirements  was  not

concluded by the time NPA 2008­17 Implementing Rules for Pilot Licensing was published 

17  This is the principle at the basis of European Court Decisions such as in Case C­308/06, where the

Court  stated that  “The  general  principle of legal  certainty,  which  is  a  fundamental  principle of

Community law, requires, in particular, that rules should be clear and precise, so that individuals may

ascertain unequivocally what their  rights and obligations are and may take steps  accordingly (see

Case C­110/03  Belgium  v Commission [2005] ECR I­2801,  paragraph  30,  and  IATA  and ELFAA,  paragraph 68).” The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice applies this principle in the most general 

way, using it also as a basis to verify the legality of national measures, as in the Judgement of the 

Court of 2 February 1977 (Amsterdam Bulb BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen. ­ Reference for a 

preliminary ruling: College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven ­ Netherlands ­ Case 50­76), where the

Court  stated that national  measures that  alter,  obstruct,  or obscure the nature of the Community

regulation are considered to be a breach of Community law: “ The Member States may neither adopt 

nor allow national organizations having legislative power to adopt any measure which would conceal 

the Community nature and effects of any legal provision from the persons to whom it applies.”

18  Joint  practical  guide of the European  Parliament,  the Council and the  Commission  for  persons 

involved in  the drafting  of legislation  within  the Community Institutions  (http://europa.eu/eurlex/lex/en/techleg/index.htm ),
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 12 of 123

and  as indicated  in the  explanatory  note to this  NPA, the  structure  underwent further 

modifications  mainly  related  to the  Part  on organisation requirements  and  authority 

requirements. Parts and Subparts contained in this NPA are highlighted in grey. 

28.  The proposed structure deviates from the JARs in one fundamental point: the separation

between technical requirements (contained in the Personnel and the Air Operations Cover 

Regulations)  from  the  requirements  applicable  to the  organisation requirements  and 

management system of organisations (contained in the Organisation Requirements Cover 

Regulation). This difference  reduces the  administrative burden on organisations,  which

perform more than one activity. The separate development of the JARs, specifically JAR­ 

OPS  and  JAR­FCL,  creates  different requirements  for  organisations  in each field  of 

activity, which forces organisations that carry out more than one activity  (for example,

air operators that were also training organisations, or commercial air transport operators 

that were also maintenance organisations) to have different management structures for 

each  of  those  activities,  with the  inevitable  consequence  of  a  multiplication of  the 

resources needed. This situation not only creates difficulties for European organisations 

from an economic point of view, but also places a heavy burden on the  resources  and 

time organisations and national aviation authorities have to invest on oversight activities: 

multiple  activities  meant multiple  management systems, and  multiple  audit/oversight

processes. 

Basic Regulation

Personnel

Cover Regulation 

Organisation

Requirements 

Cover Regulation 

Authority

Requirements 

Cover Regulation 

Air Operations 

Cover Regulation 

Annex I 

Part­FCL 

Annex II 

Part­Medical

Cabin crew 

medical fitness 

Annex III 

Acceptance of

licences and

medical

certificates 

Annex IV 

Conversion of

national A/H 

licences 

Annex I 

Part 

Organisation

Requirements 

Subpart OR.GEN

General

Requirements 

Subpart OR.MS 

Management 

System 

Subpart OR.OPS 

Air Operations 

Subpart OR.ATO 

Approved

Training 

Organisations 

Subpart OR.AC

Aeromedical 

Centres 

Annex I 

Part Authority

Requirements 

Subpart AR.GEN

General

Requirements 

Subpart AR.ATO 

Approved

Training 

Organisations 

Subpart AR.FCL 

Flight Crew 

Licensing 

Subpart AR.CC

Cabin Crew 

Subpart AR.AC

Aeromedical 

Centres 

Subpart AR.MED

Medical

Annex I 

Part OPS 

Subpart A 

General

Operating and 

Flight Rules 

Subpart B 

Commercial Air 

Transport 

Subpart C

Commercial 

Operations other 

than CAT

Subpart D 

Operations 

requiring specific 

approvals 

AMC and GM 

Fig. 1 – Structure of EASA Requirements 

Annex V 

Part Cabin Crew 

Third country

operators 

Cover Regulation 

Annex I 

Part­TCO
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 13 of 123

29.  The  proposed  structure  also deviates  from the  structure  of  the  current EASA 

Implementing  Rules 19,  in that requirements  applicable to competent authorities are 

contained  in a  separate  Regulation,  and  not in each ‘operational’  Regulation.  This 

difference  has  a  similar  objective  as the  separation of  organisation requirements from 

operational  requirements: to streamline the activity of  competent authorities, avoiding,

as much as possible, the duplication of processes. 

30.  The  proposed  structural changes  have  the additional  advantage  to facilitate  the 

introduction of requirements applicable to other fields of aviation, in accordance with the 

total system approach for aviation safety. The “Total System Approach” is based on the 

fact that the aviation system components – products, operators, crews, aerodromes, Air 

Traffic Management, Air Navigation Systems, on the ground or in the air ­ are part of a 

single network. Uniformity is achieved through common implementing rules adopted by 

the  Commission.  The  Total  System  Approach eliminates  the  risk  of  safety  gaps or 

overlaps,  conflicting  requirements  and  confused  responsibilities.  Regulations  are 

interpreted and applied in one  single way throughout the 31 EASA Member States and 

best practices are recommended. 

31.  The intention of the Agency is, after allowing some time for the consolidation of the new

requirements, to amend the existing airworthiness  Implementing Rules 20 to adapt them 

to the new structure 21. Similarly, once the scope of the Basic Regulation is extended to

the safety regulation of aerodromes and air traffic management22 the proposed structure 

will allow an easy introduction of new Implementing Rules in these fields.

32.  Consequently,  the  structure  of  the  Implementing Rules  regarding air operations  is 

changed to take into account the legal issues referred to above as well as the extended

scope. EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1 and 3 only apply to aeroplanes and helicopters, while the new

requirements shall also apply to other categories of aircraft, such as sailplanes, balloons, 

airships and tilt­rotor aircraft, as well as other types of operation such as non­commercial

operations  and  ‘aerial work’. Furthermore,  as already  explained  in paragraph 24,  the 

division between requirements applicable to aeroplanes and helicopters, as made in EU­ 

OPS/JAR­OPS 1  and 3  cannot be kept.  The new structure  of  air  operations follows the 

logic of the Essential Requirements of Annex IV of the Basic Regulation in so far as there 

are  general technical requirements  applicable to all operations  (Chapters  1  to 7)  and 

additional organisational requirements  for  the operation for  commercial  purposes  and 

operation of  complex  motor­powered  aircraft (Chapter  8). Accordingly, the  operational

requirements  are  split into a  Part  Air  Operations  (Part­OPS  containing  the  technical

requirements  to operate  an aircraft)  and  the organisational requirements  (containing 

those for non­commercial operators of complex motor­powered aircraft and commercial

operators) located in the Part Organisation Requirements (Part­OR). 

19  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 of 24 September 2003, laying down implementing rules 

for  the airworthiness and  environmental  certification  of aircraft  and related products,  parts  and

appliances, as  well as for  the certification  of design  and production organisations  (OJ L  243,  27.9.2003,  p.6).  Regulation  as last  amended by Commission Regulation (EC)  No  287/2008 of 28

March 2008 (OJ L 87, 29.3.2008, p.3). 

and

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2042/2003 of 20 November 2003 on the continuing airworthiness of

aircraft and aeronautical products, parts  and appliances, and on the approval of organisations  and

personnel  involved in  these tasks  (OJ L  315,  28.11.2003,  p.1).  Regulation as last  amended by

Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/2007 of 30 March 2007 (OJ L 94, 4.4.2007, p. 18).  20  See footnote 19 above.  21  By inserting what is now contained in Section B of the  Implementing Rules in specific Subparts for 

these issues in both Part Organisation Requirements and Part Authority Requirements.

22  http://eur­lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0390:FIN:EN:PDF
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 14 of 123

33.  Part OPS consists of 5 Subparts as follows:

Part Air Operations (Part­OPS)

Subpart A General operating and flight rules (OPS.GEN) 

Subpart B Commercial Air Transport (OPS.CAT) 

Subpart C Commercial operations other than commercial air transport (OPS.COM) 

Subpart D Operations requiring specific approval (OPS.SPA) 

Subpart E Third country operators 

34.  Subparts A to D apply to Community operators and are part of this NPA. Subpart E on

third  country  operators  will be addressed  in a  subsequent NPA  related  to Agency’s 

rulemaking task OPS.004. 

35.  As regards  the  designation of  Part  Air  Operations  and  its  Subparts,  a  consistent

numbering system has been applied that starts with the assignment of the three letter 

code “OPS” to indicate the Part. It is followed by a three letter code designation for the 

appropriate Subpart such as GEN, CAT, COM and SPA. 

36.  Subpart A of Part­OPS, OPS.GEN, contains general operating and flight rules applicable to

all types  of operations  and  aircraft.  It contains  the  requirements for  non­commercial 

operations with other than complex motor­powered aircraft as well as common technical

requirements for  non­commercial operations  with complex  motor­powered aircraft and 

commercial operations. Subpart OPS.GEN is composed of 6 Sections as follows:

Subpart A General operating and flight rules (OPS.GEN) 

Section I ­ General Requirements (OPS.GEN.001) 

Section II ­ Operational procedures (OPS.GEN.100) 

Section III ­ Aircraft performance and operating limitations (OPS.GEN.300) 

Section IV ­ Instruments, data and equipment (OPS.GEN.400) 

Section V ­ Manuals, Logs and Records (OPS.GEN.600) 

Section VI – Security (OPS.GEN.700) 

37.  A consistent paragraph numbering system has been applied, whereas every section starts 

with a  new block  of  numbers by  hundreds.  The  amount of  paragraphs  in Section II ­  Operational Procedures  and  Section IV  ­  Instruments,  Data  and  Equipment makes  it

necessary to go by blocks of two hundreds. Paragraphs within each section are numbered 

consecutively by 5, e.g. OPS.GEN.100, OPS.GEN.105, OPS.GEN.110, etc. The three digit

number is  sometimes followed by additional letters  “A”, “H” or  “B” to indicate that the 

paragraph applies to one category of aircraft only, such as aeroplanes (A), helicopters (H) 

or  balloons  (B).  This  is  for  example  the  case  with paragraph OPS.GEN.140.H Rotor 

engagement that  is  applicable  to helicopters only.  Where  considered necessary,  the 

aircraft category is also repeated in the paragraph title.

38.  The order of paragraphs within each section of OPS.GEN goes from general to specific, so

that each section starts  with universal provisions  for  all categories  of  aircraft and 

operations  and  thereafter,  as  appropriate, becomes  more  specific  for  certain types  of 

aircraft or operations. 

39.  Subpart B  of  Part­OPS,  OPS.CAT,  contains  additional or  specific  requirements  for 

commercial air transport operations and follows the same section structure as OPS.GEN.

Subpart B Commercial Air Transport (OPS.CAT) 

Section I ­ General Requirements (OPS.CAT.001) 

Section II ­ Operational procedures (OPS.CAT.100) 

Section III ­ Aircraft performance and operating limitations (OPS.CAT.300) 

Section IV ­ Instruments, data and equipment (OPS.CAT.400)
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 15 of 123

40.  Subpart C of  Part­OPS,  OPS.COM contains  additional or specific requirements  for 

commercial operations other than commercial air transport and, again, follows the same 

section structure as OPS.GEN.

Subpart C Commercial operations other than commercial air transport 

(OPS.COM)

Section I ­ General Requirements (OPS.COM.001) 

Section II ­ Operational procedures (OPS.COM.100) 

Section III ­ Aircraft performance and operating limitations (OPS.COM.300) 

Section IV ­ Instruments, data and equipment (OPS.COM.400) 

41.  As explained  in paragraph 28 above,  organisational  requirements  for  operators  are 

contained in the appropriate sections of Part­OR. Manuals, logs and records and security 

provisions are based on Chapter 8 of the Essential Requirements of the Basic Regulation

and required from organisations only. The applicable requirements are therefore included 

in Part­OR.

42.  Unlike JAR­OPS, an issue that is already sufficiently regulated in OPS.GEN is not repeated 

in OPS.CAT/OPS.COM. The means of compliance on how to achieve the safety objective 

and expected level may be different but the implementing rule shall still be the one of 

OPS.GEN.  To facilitate  usability  of  the  Implementing  Rules,  a  consistent numbering 

system across Subparts OPS.GEN, OPS.CAT and OPS.COM has been applied so that the 

same  three  digits  are  always  used  when addressing  the  same  issue. For  example,

OPS.GEN.180 contains requirements on the routes and areas of operations; OPS.CAT.180

contains additional requirements on routes and areas of operations for CAT operators; as 

there are no additional requirements in OPS.COM, there is no OPS.COM.180. 

43.  There are cases where the requirements of OPS.CAT or OPS.COM may deviate from the 

requirements in OPS.GEN.  For OPS.CAT,  this is the case when OPS.GEN does  not

sufficiently address complex commercial air transport operations and the expected level

of  safety for such operations.  This is for  example the case  as  regards the  selection of 

aerodromes when flying in instrument meteorological conditions; OPS.CAT specifies then

a mandatory deviation to OPS.GEN which is indicated by the word “notwithstanding”. For 

OPS.COM, this may be the case for specialised aerial tasks requiring specific provisions. 

This  is for  example the  case with paragraph OPS.COM.175 Minimum  flight altitudes,

which allows flying below minimum altitudes if necessary for the specialised task. 

44.  Subpart D of  Part­OPS,  OPS.SPA,  contains  requirements for  specific  operations that

require a specific approval.

Subpart D Operations requiring specific approvals (OPS.SPA) 

Section I General requirements (OPS.SPA.001.GEN) 

Section II Operations  in areas  with specified navigation performance 

(OPS.SPA.001.PBN/MNPS) 

Section III Operations with reduced vertical separation minima (OPS.SPA.001.RVSM) 

Section IV  Low visibility operations (OPS.SPA.001.LVO) 

Section V Transport of dangerous goods (OPS.SPA.001.DG) 

Section VI Helicopter  operations  without an assured  safe  forced  landing  capability 

(OPS.SPA.001.SFL)

Section VII Helicopter  operations  with night vision imaging  systems 

(OPS.SPA.001.NVIS) 

Section VIII Helicopter hoist operations (OPS.SPA.001.HHO) 

Section IX  Helicopter emergency medical service operations (OPS.SPA.001.HEMS)
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 16 of 123

45.  For holders of an air operator certificate, such approvals will be an additional privilege on

their certificate. For non­commercial operators, an approval will be issued by the State of 

Registry  or  State  of the Operator,  as appropriate,  and  in compliance  with ICAO. The 

numbering system  of  this  Subpart and  its  sections is similar  to the one  in Subparts 

OPS.GEN, OPS.CAT and OPS.COM with the exception that the three digits are followed by 

the appropriate designation of the section. Also here, consistent paragraph numbers have 

been used throughout all sections as follows: 

001  General 

005  Applicability 

010  Equipment

015  Communication

020  Operating minima 

025  Performance 

030  Crew requirements 

035  Manual

040  Information and documentation

045  Facilities 

As not all sections contain provisions in all these fields, for example requirements on

communication, there may be a larger step in numbering in one or the other section. 

46.  As already explained in paragraph 24  above, one  of the  principles  of  Community 

legislation is not to repeat requirements. The Implementing Rules therefore complement

the Essential Requirements where additional implementing measures were necessary to

detail them  further.  Due  to this  constraint and  taking  into account the  Commission

Communication on General and  Business  Aviation

23

,  the  Implementing Rules  where 

developed from a bottom­up approach starting with the Essential Requirements and then

developing  provisions  for  non­commercial operations  with other  than  complex motor­ 

powered aircraft, to which were added successively those for non­commercial operations 

with complex  motor­powered  aircraft and  thereafter  those  applicable  to commercial 

operations. 

47.  By following this approach, it was possible to elaborate a simpler structure as it was not

necessary  anymore  to develop  separate  Appendices  to the  Implementing  Rules  to

alleviate certain types of operations from the main requirements (operations with other 

than complex  aircraft or  operations  within a  local area or  VFR  day only  operations), 

contrary to what had to be done in EU­OPS (Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 1.005(a)) and JAR­ 

OPS 3 (Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005 (f) and (g)).

48.  Further details on each of the Part­OPS Subparts and respective sections can be found in

the explanatory memorandum to Part­OPS, which is Appendix I to this NPA. 

49.  The Subpart Air Operations of the Part­OR is applicable to non­commercial operators with

complex  motor­powered  aircraft and all commercial operators  and  is  divided  into 9 

sections: 

Section I Operator requirements (OR.OPS.001.GEN) 

Section II Manuals, logs and records (OR.OPS.001.MLR) 

Section III Air operator declaration (OR.OPS.001.DEC) 

Section IV  Air operator certification (OR.OPS.001.AOC) 

Section V Flight crew (OR.OPS.001.FC) 

Section VI Cabin crew (OR.OPS.001.CC) 

Section VII Technical crew (OR.OPS.001.TC) 

23  Communication from the Commission, “An Agenda  for Sustainable Future in  General and Business 

Aviation”,  COM(2007)869  final, 11 January 2008  ( 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/internal_market/general_aviation/doc/en.pdf)
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 17 of 123

Section VIII Flight and Duty Time Limitations and Rest Requirements (OR.OPS.001.FTL)

Section IX  Security (OR.OPS.001.SEC) 

50.  The  numbering  system  resembles  the  one  used  in Part­OPS  and  fits  into the  general

numbering system of Part­OR. As regards Sections I­IV, a consistent numbering has been

ensured  with Subparts  OR.GEN and  OR.MS,  which are  included in NPA  2008­22.  This 

means  that for  example the  paragraph on record­keeping  is  assigned the  same three 

digits  as its equivalent in Subpart OR.GEN. Each section starts  with a paragraph scope 

(005) followed by a paragraph on definitions (010), if applicable. 

51.  The  Subpart Air  Operations  of  Part Authority  Requirements  (Part­AR)  contains  the 

requirements for national competent authorities, specific to air operations (in addition to

Subpart AR.GEN). The  Subpart AR.OPS  contains four  sections dealing  with general

requirements, certification of commercial air operators, specific operations approvals and 

the approval of flight time specification schemes. 

52.  The structure of AMC and GM follows the structure of the Implementing Rules. For each

AMC or  GM subheadings  have been assigned to clarify the  content of  the  applicable 

material. 

53.  To help  stakeholders  in their  day­to­day  activity  and  to facilitate  the  use  of  the  new

structure  and  requirements,  the  Agency  is  developing  an e­tool providing  for  easy 

identification of  the  requirements  applicable to any kind  of  activity.  It has  asked 

stakeholders for their input through a short survey on its website in October 2008 before 

finalising the document specifying the details for software development. However, due to

the time needed to finalise this work, the tool will only be available when the final rules 

are adopted.

Content

54.  The  content of  the  present NPA  transposes,  for  the  larger  part,  the  content of  EU­ 

OPS/JAR­OPS 1  and 3  as  well as the material of  JAR­OPS 0, 2  and 4. However,  some 

differences in relation to EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  1  and  3  were necessary.  A  more  detailed 

description of these differences can be found in the explanatory memorandums to Parts

OPS and OR, which constitute Appendices I and II, respectively, to this NPA. However, a 

general explanation of  the  reasons  for  such differences  is  given in the  following 

paragraphs. 

55.  The differences that can be found between the proposed  requirements in this NPA  and 

the  requirements  of  EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  can be generally  explained through the  different

legal value of the requirements in the JAA and EASA systems. As already referred above, 

the JARs aimed at harmonising some elements of national executive rules (adopted at the 

level of regulators): they presumed therefore the existence of an appropriate legal basis 

(aviation basic act) and of a set of rules, which they would modify partially. They had no

legal value themselves, and needed to be ‘transposed’ into the legal system of each JAA 

member  by its  competent regulator. At the  contrary, the  Implementing Rules that will

originate from the present NPA will be adopted through a Commission Regulation, which

is a legislative act (not an executive one). They will, therefore, be directly applicable in

the  Member  States  and  binding  in all their  elements;  this  means  that  neither 

stakeholders nor Member States’ competent authorities will be able to deviate from them, 

other than in the  cases covered  by  Article 14 of  the  Basic  Regulation (flexibility 

provisions 24). This  represents  a significant difference  with the  JAA  system,  where  JARs 

24  Article 14 of the Basic Regulation provides for the cases where Member States may derogate or grant 

exemptions from the provisions of the Basic Regulation and implementing rules, in order to safeguard

safety and to face cases of operational needs. These derogations and exemptions are subject to the 

control of the European Commission.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 18 of 123

were written by regulators to produce executive acts they would adopt nationally (subject

eventually to national variants) and to which they would be able to grant exemptions in

accordance with their own national procedures. 

56.  The specific nature of European Regulations would therefore justify in itself a difference in

the way the requirements are presented, as opposed to the JARs. Since Member States 

may  no more  deviate  or derogate  from  the requirements  in the  Implementing  Rules 

(outside  the  cases  of  article  14 of  the  Basic  Regulation), if  the  present regulatory 

structure would be maintained, the result would be a static system where any deviation

or flexibility versus the Implementing Rules would have to be dealt with by the legislator, 

i.e. the Commission.  To maintain the  necessary level of  flexibility it is imperative that 

only  essential  safety  elements  are  contained  in the  rule, leaving  non­essential 

implementation aspects  to CS  or  AMC,  so as to provide  for  a  sufficient flexibility  as 

required  by  the  principle  of  subsidiarity.  Such is  the  fundamental reason for  the 

‘performance based approach’ to rulemaking that the Agency has followed, which is not

only the most adequate in the EASA institutional environment, but also probably the best

suited for the implementation of the safety management system concept as required by 

ICAO 25. 

57.  With regard to commercial air transport by aeroplane, it can be argued that EU­OPS itself 

is already Community legislation and should have been transferred without any change.

However, there are several reasons in addition to those mentioned in paragraph 24, why 

this  was not done. First of  all, the implementation of EU­OPS in Member States  shows 

that its  prescriptive  requirements  do not fit all operations.  Up  to today,  numerous 

exemptions  and  derogations notified by  Member  States demonstrate  the difficulties 

encountered to make it applicable, especially for  smaller operators  such as on demand 

charter.  Also,  as  explained  above,  the  philosophy of  the  ICAO  Safety  Management

System is not inherent in EU­OPS  which calls for  a  change  to performance­based 

rulemaking, is  not inherent in EU­OPS.  Furthermore,  EU­OPS  does  not include  the 

AMC/GM material on the demonstration of compliance, which is necessary to provide for 

the appropriate flexibility. 

58.  Therefore, one of the main differences between the proposed Implementing Rules for air 

operations  and the text of EU­OPS/JAR­OPS is precisely  a  change in the level of  some 

texts, i.e. some provisions that were in EU­OPS/Section 1 of JAR­OPS have become AMC.  This  change  was  made whenever  it was  considered that such provisions  were  not

essential safety objectives, but merely one of several acceptable means to comply with a 

certain safety objective. One example is the detailed content of the operations manual; 

while the  main elements that shall be  covered by  such a manual  are  contained in the 

rules, the  detailed description of  its  content was transferred to AMC, in order to allow

operators to adapt it to their type and scope of operations. By doing so, it will also be 

faster to adopt an amendment to the AMC instead of going through an amendment of the 

Implementing Rules every time there is the need to make changes.

59.  In order to ensure that this difference in the level of the text has no negative effect on

safety and uniform implementation, the Agency proposes a change in the way AMC are 

used today. The  related provisions  are included in the draft Part­OR and Part­AR; they 

detail the  nature  of  AMC and the  way that  both stakeholders  and  national  competent

authorities  should use them. AMC will retain their  non­binding  nature but,  similarly to

what  is  already  applicable  to CS  developed by  the  Agency,  they  will be  part of  the 

approval basis for organisations. Once an approval is granted to an organisation based on

25  See,  for example, Appendix C to ICAO Assembly Resolution  A36­13  – Consolidated statement  of

continuing ICAO  policies  and associated practices  related specifically to  air navigation,  where  it is 

stated that panel activity shall support a performance based approach to SARPs development to the 

extent possible.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 19 of 123

compliance  with AMCs  adopted by the Agency, they become binding for that particular 

organisation by virtue of their integration in the legal basis for the approval. 

60.  If and when an organisation wants to use alternative means of compliance, this will imply 

a change to the approval of that organisation and is therefore subject to prior control by 

the competent authority 26.  Provisions  in Part­AR  specify criteria to be  used  by  the 

competent authorities when evaluating these alternative means of compliance; they will

also create the  obligation for  authorities to both publish and notify to the  Agency  any 

alternative  means  of  compliance  they  approve 27.  Upon receiving  notification of  such

alternative means of compliance, the Agency will analyse them and, if it considers that

they fully meet the safety criteria, will initiate a (streamlined) rulemaking task in order to

adopt  them  as  AMC.  In case  the  Agency  considers  that such alternative  means  of 

compliance do not meet the safety criteria, action will be taken in accordance with the 

standardisation requirements  and  procedures.  This  system  will guarantee  an  equal 

playing field, transparency  and  harmonisation,  while  still providing  for  the  necessary 

flexibility.  Initially this  new system  will only  apply  to air  operations and  flight crew 

licensing, but the intention of the Agency is to propose its extension to other fields of the 

EASA system later on. 

61.  Other differences that can be found between the content of the present NPA and the text

of EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1 and 3 stem from the extended scope of the Implementing Rules as 

compared to the JARs. As already explained above, the draft Implementing Rules contain

requirements  for  all types  of  aircraft and  operations.  This  extended scope  made it

necessary to complement the JARs. 

62.  Additionally,  even though the  latest amendments  of  EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  1  and  3 28 were 

taken as a basis for the development of the draft Implementing Rules, NPAs that were in

an advanced phase of adoption in the JAA system were introduced in the present NPA 29.  The criteria for their inclusion were the maturity of the NPAs within the JAA rulemaking 

process and the necessity to align with ICAO Standards. Similarly, several JAA working 

papers were forwarded by the Operations Sectorial Team of the JAA to the Agency with a 

view including them in this NPA 30, depending on their level of maturity. The same can be 

said  for  JAA  TGL,  the  content of  which was  in some  cases  introduced  in the  present

26  A  similar system is also  applicable to organisations that do  not  need an  approval, but  will merely

have to declare their activity (as is the case for non­commercial operators of complex motor­powered

aircraft. In this case, the compliance with the Agency adopted acceptable means of compliance will be

part of the organisation’s declaration; this means that  every time that the organisation intends to 

have an alternative means of compliance, it will have to notify to the competent authority a change

to its declaration, which will be subject to oversight by the authority.  27  Similar  provisions  will apply to  alternative means of compliance developed by the competent 

authorities themselves.

28  Annex III to Council Regulation  (EEC)  No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of

technical  requirements  and  administrative procedures in  the field of civil aviation (OJ L  373, 

31.12.1991,  p.  4).  Regulation  as last  amended Commission Regulation (EC)  No 859/2008  of

20 August  2008  (OJ L  254,  20.9.2008,  p.  1).  And associated JAA  TGL  44  with  the appropriate

AMC/GM, Amendment 5 of JAR­OPS 3.  29  NPA­OPS 39B2 TAWS B, NPA­OPS 39B3 Pitot, NPA­OPS 39C Type IA FDRs & Fuel Codes, NPA­OPS 

48A Data Link Recording Forward Fit, NPA­OPS 51 FAK/EMK, NPA­OPS 53 Noise Abatement, D­NPA­ 

OPS 43 Circuit Protection Devices, D­NPA­OPS 57B RVSM, D­NPA­OPS 61 Selection of Aerodromes 

and In­Flight Fuel Management, D­NPA­OPS 65 Subpart N ICAO Amd. 29 Alignment, D­NPA­OPS 66

SMS, D­NPA­OPS 67 JAR­OPS 3 Type IVA FDRs, D­NPA­OPS 68 JAR­OPS 3 Use of Headsets, D­NPA­ 

OPS 69 JAR­OPS 3 Hoist Operations, D­NPA­OPS 70 JAR­OPS 3 Dangerous Goods.

NPA­OPS 29, D­NPA­OPS 32, 47, 48B, 59, 62, JAA OPSG proposal on runway incursions, JAA HSST

proposal  on JAR­OPS  3 VHM,  A­NPA­OPS 40B and JAA  working paper  on  power  controlled aircraft 

concept were transferred to the EASA inventory as future RM tasks. D­NPA­OPS 63 and the work of

the JAA SWWG are subject of EASA tender 2007.OP.28. 

30  OPSG WP Approach Ban Point, OPSG WP Critical Phase of Flight, HSST WP HEMS performance.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 20 of 123

NPA 31.  Moreover,  the  JAA had published  Safety  Information Communications  (SICs), 

some of which have been included in the OPS NPA as well32. 

63.  Finally, changes were made to the content of EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  requirements to ensure 

consistency  with the Basic  Regulation, existing  Implementing  Rules  and the  envisaged 

scope and content of the future ones related to air operations, organisation and authority 

requirements.  These  differences  will be  further  explained  in the  explanatory 

memorandums. 

64.  In addition to changes in the content of the requirements, the draft Implementing Rules 

also present differences in drafting style in relation to the text of EU­OPS/JAR­OPS. As

already mentioned, the drafting of Community legislative acts needs to obey to a specific 

set of principles 33: they need to be drafted clearly, simply and precisely. The drafting of a 

European legislative  act must be  clear;  easy to understand; unambiguous;  simple  and 

concise, containing no unnecessary elements; and precise, leaving no uncertainty in the 

mind of the reader. The need to follow these principles made it inevitable to change the 

way  the  requirements  were drafted in EU­OPS/JAR­OPS,  which was  much more  a 

technical manual than a  legal text.  One  of  the  examples  of  the  changes  that were 

necessary to obey to this set of drafting principles was the need to develop provisions to

complement the  paragraphs  in the  JARs  that  left the  determination of  detailed 

requirements to the discretion of the national authorities. In order to ensure an adequate 

level of legal certainty, the definition of requirements on operators cannot be left to the 

discretionary powers of authorities: the essential elements need to be defined in the law.  Therefore, in some cases changes were made to the text of the JARs in order to achieve 

this required level of legal certainty. 

65.  When developing  the  air operations  Implementing  Rules,  the  OPS.001 group  realised 

relatively  early that it did not have  sufficient expertise for developing  appropriate 

requirements for airships. Taking into account the feedback received from some national 

authorities, it was  ascertained that there is  presently  only  one  commercial operator  of 

airships in the Community. It was therefore suggested to postpone the task to address it

as  a  separate  rulemaking  task  at a  later  stage. The  Agency  decided to follow the 

recommendation of the OPS.001 group.

66.  Similarly, there are presently no tilt­rotor­aircraft being used in civil aviation. The type 

certification process for one aircraft type (BA 609) is being carried out by the Agency at 

the moment but progresses slowly. Having this is mind and taking into account the lack 

of expertise within the OPS.001 rulemaking group, the group proposed to the Agency to

exclude this  category  of  aircraft from the initial  Implementing  Rules  and to make it a 

dedicated rulemaking task to be handled in due time. The Agency decided to follow the 

recommendation from the group.

31  Section 4 Operations, Part 3 TGL 3, 11, 21, 23, 27, 29, 32, 34. TGL 12 was not included as it was 

considered outdated and instead the latest amendment of EU­OPS and associated TGL 44 to be used.  TGL 25 and 40 are considered to need further review before including it into AMC/GM material. TGL 

26 and 42 will be part  of rulemaking task 21.039. TGL  28 was  not  considered necessary as  the

Agency provided AMC material addressing the issue sufficiently. TGL 36 is included in EASA RM task 

20.002(b).  TGL 43 and JAA OST action items  to develop TGLs  on  DG and AWO  training  were

transferred to the EASA inventory.  Section 1 General, Part 3 TGL 6, 7, 10, 17 are transferred through EASA RM task 20.006. TGL 2 has

been published as AMC 20­4, TGL 3 as AMC 20­5, TGL 16 as 20­10. TGL 5 is considered a future task 

as it interrelates with rules of the air and aerodrome requirements.

32  SIC No. 1, 3 and 4 are being reviewed, SIC No. 2 published in an updated version as EASA Safety

Information Notice (SIN) 2008­29, SIC No. 5 and 6 included in this NPA, Sic No 7 is part of EASA RM 

task 20.002. 

33  These principles are defined in the Joint practical guide of the European Parliament, the Council and

the Commission for persons involved in the drafting of legislation within the Community Institutions ( 

http://europa.eu/eur­lex/lex/en/techleg/index.htm  ),  as well as in  the Commission’s  Manual  on 

legislative drafting.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 21 of 123

67.  In addition, due to time constraints, other issues have to be deferred to future Agency’s 

rulemaking  tasks  as  they  need  more  thorough discussions  to elaborate  substantiated 

proposal. This covers firstly, the issue of certain Annex II aircraft used in commercial air

transport34.  The  legislator, by  amending  the  Commission proposal,  requires  the 

development of appropriate Implementing Rules for historic aircraft, military aircraft and 

replicas of those aircraft to show compliance with the relevant Essential Requirements of 

Annex  IV.  Secondly,  the  emergence of  Very  Light Jets  (VLJ) is also challenging  the 

present set of air operations legislation. Although the Agency took great care to tailor the 

Implementing Rules to the type of aircraft being used, it would like to conduct a further 

review of  these  rules  to check  their  proportionality  to VLJs’ operations.  Thirdly,  while 

transferring the equipment provision from EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 3, the Agency came across 

several exemptions for aircraft that were type certificated, or whose initial Certificate of 

Airworthiness  was  issued, before  specified  dates.  The  Agency  would  like  to review

whether  such aircraft are  still being  used  in commercial air transport.  Fourthly,  since 

commercial operations other than commercial air transport (aerial  work)  encompass  so

many  specialised  aerial  operations,  not all of  these  could  be  yet captured  in the 

appropriate Implementing Rules and AMC with specific provisions. For the time being, the 

proposed  rules  mitigate  the  general risks.  Specific risks inherent to specific aerial 

operations  will need  to be  addressed. For  this  purpose,  the  subgroup  on commercial 

operations other than commercial air transport developed a template that should assist

operators  in carrying  out a  risk  assessment and  establishing  appropriate  standard 

operating  procedures  for  a  specific  type of operation.  The Agency  welcomes the 

establishment of industry best practices in that field and encourages trade associations, 

as  well as individual  operators, to develop  alternative  AMC and to notify them  so that

they  can be published  as AMC/GM material to Part­OPS following  an appropriate 

consultation process.  It intends  moreover to make  use of  the  new approach to AMCs 

described in the  general part of this  NPA,  to produce as  many  alternative  AMCs  as 

possible. Lastly, due to the late finalisation of discussions in Council and Parliament as 

regards flight time limitations, specific FTL Certification Specifications beyond the transfer 

of EU­OPS Subpart Q could not be developed; while work is progressing to present more 

options, it seems more appropriate to consider the related proposals in due time through

a fully­fledged rulemaking process. 

68.  Some  of the OPS.001  subgroups discussed whether Search and Rescue (SAR)  and fire 

fighting operations should be considered to be within the scope of the Basic Regulation. 

69.  Some subgroup members argued that SAR should be included in the scope of EASA as 

some  of  these  operations  are  conducted  through a  contract between the  State 

responsible  for  SAR  and  an  operator  conducting those  operations, therefore  qualifying 

under  the  definition of commercial  operation and  thus  within the  scope  of the  Basic 

Regulation. This interpretation is questionable as a provision of the  regulation (such as 

the  definition of  commercial operation)  cannot modify  the  scope  of  Community 

competence  as  set by  Article  1(2), which does  not include  State  Aircraft,  defined  as 

aircraft involved in the execution of military, customs, police and “similar services”. The 

Agency has reached the conclusion that public services conducted under the responsibility 

of States are such “similar services” for the following reasons:

· Military,  customs  and  police  services  have  in common  that  they  serve  a  public 

interest and  or  exercise  a  public  service/duty (of  care), which assumes  that the 

service  is  provided by  or  under the  control or  responsibility  of  a  government or 

public authority pursuing to fulfil a public interest. SAR and fire fighting operations 

share  this  common  element of  public  interest and  or  service/duty,  as  well as 

governmental control.

· The fact that the governmental responsibility is exercised in one way or another by 

a private entity does not change per se the public character of these operations. 

34  Article 8(5)(g) of the Basic Regulation.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 22 of 123

· Other  (non­technical)  arguments can be  found, e.g. in ICAO  Annex 12,  which

specifically states that governments  are obliged to put in place a legal framework 

and  establish authorities  and  create  the necessary  environment for  SAR 

operations. 35

· Advisory Circular Joint (ACJ) to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(d) states, inter alia,

that SAR operations, because they are conducted with substantial alleviations from 

operational  and  performance  standards;  are strictly  controlled;  the  crews  are 

trained to the appropriate standard; and they are held at a high state of readiness. 

Control and tasking is usually exercised by the Police (or the Military or Coastguard

in a maritime State) and mandated under State Regulations. 

70.  As a  consequence  the  present draft does  not cover  explicitly  SAR  and  fire  fighting,

nothing precludes Member States to give their own interpretation of “similar service” and 

to make the air operations Implementing Rules applicable to these kinds of operations if 

they so wish. 

71.  Another noteworthy discussion took place in the  MDM.032 group on the applicability of 

the Implementing Rules for non­commercial operations with other than complex motor­ 

powered aircraft. The MDM.032 group concluded in its 8th meeting in April 2007 that:

· for aircraft below 2 000 kg MTOM, the Essential Requirements of Annex  IV of the 

Basic  Regulation should  be  applied  directly,  complemented  only  by  three 

Implementing  Rules  specifying  additional requirements for 

communication/navigation equipment, safety equipment and fuel reserves;

· for aircraft above 2 000 kg MTOM, Part­OPS should apply. 

72.  However, the consultation (CRD

36 to A­NPA 14­200637) on ‘A concept for better regulation

in General Aviation (Aircraft other than  Complex  Motor  Powered Aircraft, used in Non­  commercial activities)’ led to a different conclusion:

· ‘The vast majority of respondents believed there was a need to develop some kind 

of  “light”  Implementing  Rules  for  air  operation in order  to further  explain how

compliance  with the  Essential Requirements  was  to be reached. Most of  them 

mentioned  the  importance  of  considering  the  ICAO  standards  within these 

requirements.’

73.  Together with the OPS.001 group, it was then:

· decided to introduce proportionate  rules for these operations based on compliance 

with the objectives of Article 2 and Article 8 of the Basic Regulation, especially: 

o The obligations resulting from the Chicago Convention, by providing a basis for 

a common interpretation and uniform implementation of its provisions, and by 

ensuring that its provisions are duly taken into account in the Basic Regulation

and its Implementing Rules. 

o Requirements  and  compliance  demonstration to be  proportionate  to the 

complexity of the operations and the risk involved.

· felt inappropriate to introduce another category of aircraft (i.e. those below 2 000 

kg) for which a lower than ICAO standards would be applied. The fact that only few 

Member States had filed differences to ICAO for these aircraft supports indeed the 

35  The USA has reached the same conclusion and Title 14 US Code Paragraph 1.1 (ii) states that SAR is 

to be considered a governmental function. 

36  See CRD  14­2006:  http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/CRD­14­  2006%20Explanatory%20Note.pdf

37  See A­NPA  2006­14:  http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/final%20A­NPA%2014­

2006%20General%20Aviation%20(15.08.06).pdf
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 23 of 123

fact that there  are  no wide  spread European ‘best practices  in the  field  of  air

operations’ in the sense of Article 8 of the Basic Regulation. Differences with ICAO

74.  The Agency also proposes in some aspects, to have requirements that differ from those in

ICAO  Annex  6  Part I,  II and  III.  The  reasons  for  such differences  are  highlighted 

hereunder.

75.  Concerning  definitions,  “Area  Navigation (RNAV)”,  “Extended flight over  water”,

“Navigation Specification”, “Performance  Based Navigation”, “RNP type” and  “Required 

Communication Performance  (RCP)” have not been included  in OPS.GEN.010.  These 

terms  are either explained in the  rule itself  or  referred to in the  relevant AMC/GM. An

exception is the definition of RCP as, for the time being, no application of RCP exists. The 

Agency will nevertheless initiate a rulemaking task to implement any application as soon

as it becomes known that it will be established in the future. 

76.  On the issue of  performance aeroplanes, it is important to highlight that the proposed 

provisions  do not allow operations  in IMC conditions  with single  propeller­driven

aeroplanes.  As  already  explained  in the  explanatory memorandum for  Section III of 

OPS.CAT (Aircraft Performance  and Operating Limitations  (OPS.CAT.300)), the  Agency 

will address this issue through a separate rulemaking task to be started early 2011. 

77.  Regarding helicopter performance, differences are  related to the transfer of  JAR­OPS 3 

performance  requirements.  ICAO  provision contain in paragraph 3.1.2  “appropriate 

consideration for achieving a safe forced landing” and 3.1.4 “appropriate consideration for 

the  risk  associated  with a  power­unit failure” whereas  JAR­OPS  3  allowed  operation

subject to a specific approval being granted by the National Authority to operate without

an  assured  safe forced landing  capability in the event of  a power­unit failure, provided

the conditions as specified in JAR­OPS 3.517 and related Appendix and ACJ material were 

met. The Agency has opted for the transfer of JAR­OPS 3 since incident and accident data 

did not indicate a need to change.

78.  Regarding performance class 3 operations in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC),

the Agency also transferred the JAR­OPS 3 provisions that do not allow this operation for 

commercial air transport.  The Agency included a task in its  rulemaking  programme to

address this issue in the future. It is intended that this activity be progressed under the 

rulemaking procedure, which includes stakeholder consultation and impact assessment. 

79.  Instruments, data and equipment aeroplanes:

· The  pressure  altitude  reporting  transponder  is  required  only  if  stipulated  by  the 

applicable  airspace  requirements.  The  OPS.001 group  considered this piece  of 

equipment to support an airspace  requirement and  therefore limited  it to these 

circumstances.

· The ICAO standard to have equipment to operate in accordance with the prescribed 

RCP type(s) has not been included as no RCP application exists at the moment. RCP

was not included in EU­OPS either.

· The date of applicability for Data Link recording has been postponed from 1 January 

2005 to the  date  of  entry into force  of the implementing  rule in accordance  with

Article 70 of the Basic Regulation. The proposed provisions do not require retrofit of 

data link recorders as this is subject of a separate rulemaking task. The reason for 

this is that the relevant JAA NPA introducing this ICAO SARPs in the JARs was not

considered mature by the JAA Committee for the transfer in the initial implementing 

rules.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 24 of 123

· The date of applicability of the ICAO type IA Flight Data Recorder is also postponed.

The proposed provisions require recording the parameters listed in the EUROCAE ED

112  only  when the  aeroplane  is  first issued  with an  individual certificate  of 

airworthiness on or after 2010. The reason is that up to date Member States are not

compliant with the ICAO SARP which require aeroplanes to be equipped with type IA 

FDRs after 1st of January 2005. The proposed provision is a compromised solution

resulting from the assessment of the comments made to JAA NPA­OPS 39C. Retrofit 

of the latest FDR standards will be subject of a separate rulemaking task.

· The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) recording duration is directly transferred from EU­ 

OPS  and  includes  a  shorter  duration than that required  by  ICAO.  This  issue  will

reviewed in a separate rulemaking task at a later stage.

· Weather­detecting  equipment and  emergency  power  supply  for  the  stand­by 

artificial horizon are not required for complex motor­powered aircraft used in non­  commercial operations.  They  are, however,  required  for  commercial air transport

operations  (OPS.CAT.415  and  OPS.CAT.416). The  reason for  not including the 

weather  detecting  equipment for  the  time  being  is  that  after  discussions  within

OPS.001 group, it was considered not to be to be suitable to be widely applied. The 

reason for not requiring an emergency power supply for the time being is that it is 

already required by the applicable airworthiness code for large turbojet aeroplanes. 

However, the Agency is interested in knowing stakeholders’ views with regard to the 

possibility  of  introducing such equipment for  the  operation of  large  turbojet

aeroplanes operated non­commercially.

· In general,  ICAO equipment recommendations  as  far as they  differ  from  EU­OPS 

have not been addressed as the assessment whether or not they were implemented 

in Member  States  has  not been performed. This  assessment will be  part of  a 

separate rulemaking task. 

80.  Instruments, data and equipment helicopters:

· The Implementing Rules do not contain provisions for oxygen supply for pressurized 

helicopters. The reason is that JAR­OPS 3 did not include such provision. Moreover, 

there is no pressurised helicopter operated in the Community for the purpose of civil

aviation.

· The  date  of  applicability  of  the  ICAO type  IVA  FDR  is  postponed. The  proposed 

provisions  require  recording  the parameters  listed  in the  EUROCAE ED 112 only 

when the helicopter is first issued with an individual certificate of airworthiness on

or after 2010. The reason is that up to date Member States were not compliant with

the ICAO SARP which require helicopters to be equipped with type IVA FDRs after 1 

January  2005.  The  proposed  provision is  a  compromised  solution resulting  from 

draft JAA NPA­OPS 67.

· The CVR  recording duration is directly transferred from  JAR­OPS 3  and includes a 

shorter duration than that required by ICAO. This issue will reviewed in a separate 

rulemaking task at a later stage.

· The implementing  rules  do not require  helicopters to be  equipped  with a  counter 

drum pointer altimeter because it was not required in JAR­OPS 3. The justification

given by  the  former  JAA  Helicopter  Sub­Sectorial Team  (HSST)  was  that it is 

questionable  whether  the  ICAO  Standard  is  sustainable  for  helicopters  operating 

predominantly below Flight Level (FL) 100. 

81.  Stakeholders are  requested  to comment specifically on whether they  agree with the 

differences that are proposed, taking into account that these differences, if adopted, will

need to be notified by the Member States to ICAO. The Agency will, of course, provide all

the support necessary to Member States when and if necessary.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 25 of 123 

Transition measures

82.  Transitional measures for the entry into force of the new requirements shall be included 

in the Air Operations Cover Regulation, taking into account the time needed for preparing 

their implementation, as well as the possibility to grandfather existing certificates issued 

under  sufficiently  similar  conditions.  However, such provisions  can only  be  elaborated 

when more is  known about the  exact content of the final rule  and  of its impact;  as  a 

consequence  this  NPA  does  not include  detailed  proposals  on how the transition from 

national requirements  to the  Implementing  Rules  will take  place.  This  will be  further 

elaborated in the CRD and included in the Agency’s final Opinion. To be in a position to

well prepare such measures the Agency would like to know the views of stakeholders in

this respect taking into account the following underlying principles for transition. 

83.  Similarly to what happened with the Implementing Rules for airworthiness 38, the Agency 

intends to propose that any certificates issued by Member States in accordance with EU­ 

OPS/JAR­OPS  requirements  and  associated  procedures  are  considered  as  having  been

issued  in accordance with the  Basic  Regulation and  the  Implementing Rules. This will

guarantee a smooth transition for all the holders of certificates that were fully compliant

with EU­OPS/JAR­OPS.  Moreover, this  will also reduce the amount of  work for national

authorities. The intention is to then establish a maximum period for certificate holders to

correct any finding  that  may  derive  from  the change  from  the  national rules  to the 

Community rules.  This  of course  will not apply  in Member States,  which did not fully 

apply JAR­OPS 3 and for which a reasonable period for adaptation will be necessary. 

84.  In the case of cabin crew, it should be noted that the cabin crew attestation required by 

Article  8(5)(e)  of  the  Basic  Regulation is  much wider  in scope  and  nature  than the 

attestation of safety training required by EU OPS. 

85.  While this latter attestation is an evidence of training issued to the cabin crew member 

after successful completion of the initial safety training, the Basic Regulation requires that 

the  cabin crew attestation covers  the  compliance  with all applicable  requirements, 

including aircraft type­specific training and recurrent training, and not only those related 

to initial training.

86.  This difference  could be  considered as justifying  conversion measures to verify that  all

applicable requirements  are  complied with before  a  cabin crew  attestation is issued.

However, in the case of Commercial Air Transport, the proposed Implementing rules have 

been  developed on the  basis of  the  cabin crew training  requirements of  Annex  III of 

Regulation (EEC)  No 3922/91,  thus  in accordance  with Article  8  (6)  of  the  Basic 

Regulation.  For  this  reason,  it is  considered that  all cabin crew training  completed  in

accordance with EU­OPS requirements should be credited in full. 

87.  As regards  medical fitness,  the  Agency  envisages  proposing  that medical certificates 

issued in accordance  with national rules remain valid until the first medical check  after 

the entry into force of the Implementing Rules, thus allowing the issuance of the cabin

crew attestation. The following medical checks would then be carried out in accordance 

with the  requirements  applicable  for  cabin crew medical fitness.  Credit may  also be 

envisaged  for  occupational medical checks  of cabin crew  required  by  national  health

regulations  if  they  comply  with all applicable  medical requirements  set in the 

Implementing  Rules.  In the  other  cases,  a  sufficiently  long  period  of  time  should  be 

provided for, possibly the full transition time foreseen by the Basic Regulation in order to

ensure that medical fitness  of each cabin crew is assessed in accordance  with the new

rules before the cabin crew attestation is issued.

38  See footnote 18 above.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 26 of 123

V.  Regulatory Impact Assessment 

According to the formal Rulemaking Procedure of the Agency 39, a full regulatory impact

assessment (RIA) has to be introduced as a part of any proposed new rule. However, the 

development of a  RIA  in this  task  has presented particular  difficulties.  Firstly,  when

developing the  NPA,  it was  apparent that development of  a  general  RIA  for  the  task 

would present limited value: the choice on whether or not to regulate air operations had

already  been made  by  the  legislator, as  well as  the  choice  to maintain the  system 

established by EU­OPS/JAR­OPS in as much as possible. On the other hand, the proposals 

in this NPA are still subject to change, taking into account the comments received during 

the public consultation. Therefore, it was decided that the evaluation of the impact of the 

proposed  new rules  should  only  be  made where  the  NPA  either  deviated  from  EU­ 

OPS/JARs, or went beyond their scope.

The Agency developed therefore partial RIAs for specific issues. The RIA will be published 

as NPA 2009­02g together with the NPA on third­country operators.

VI.  Appendences 

Appendix I ­ Explanatory memorandum to Part­OPS 

1.  The  purpose  of  this  memorandum  is  to provide  more  detailed  explanations  on the 

proposed Implementing Rules for air operations than the ones offered in the general part

of the Explanatory Note to this NPA. These explanations focus on the new elements and 

on the differences with EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1 and 3. The Agency has also prepared cross­ 

reference tables  to help the  comparison between the  proposed  requirements  and  EU­ 

OPS/JAR­OPS 1 and 3, which can be found in Appendix V to this NPA.

Subpart OPS.GEN ­ General Operating and Flight Rules 

2.  Subpart OPS.GEN has been developed on the basis of ICAO Annex 6 Part II and Part III

Section III International  General Aviation.  It has  been complemented  by  common

requirements for commercial operations derived from EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1 and 3 as well

as  requirements  for non­commercial operations  with complex  motor­powered  aircraft

(draft JAR­OPS  2) and  aerial work  (draft JAR­OPS  4). Account has  also been taken of 

draft JAR­OPS 0.  It therefore  contains  requirements  applicable  to all air  operators, 

whether operating non­commercially or commercially and for all categories of aircraft.

Section I ­ General Requirements (OPS.GEN.001)

3.  Section I of Subpart OPS.GEN defines the scope of the requirements (OPS.GEN.001) and 

specifies who the competent authority for Part­OPS  (OPS.GEN.005) is. The definition of 

competent authority  has  been aligned  with the  one  used  in Part­M40.  This  section

contains furthermore definitions (OPS.GEN.010), based on the ones in EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 

1  and 3. Some definitions  are new; they  were inserted because of the larger scope of 

Part­OPS as compared to EU­OPS/JAR­OPS. Conversely, some terms that were defined in

EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  were  not kept  because  they were  not considered  necessary,  either 

because they did not appear anymore in the remaining text of Part­OPS, or because their 

meaning  was  explained  sufficiently in the  rule; in this  case, further  explanations  were 

included in the related AMC and GM. 

39  See footnote 2 above.  40  Regulation (EC) No 20242/2003 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products,

parts  and appliances,  and on the approval of organisations  and personnel involved in these tasks,  Annex I (Part M). Article M.1.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 27 of 123

4.  The  section contains  the  responsibilities  and  authority  of the  pilot­in­command 

(OPS.GEN.015)  complementing  paragraph 1.c,  2.a.3,  7.c  and  7.d. of  the  Essential 

Requirements  (ERs). Particular provisions have been introduced for balloon operations. 

The  following  paragraph addresses crew  member  responsibilities  (OPS.GEN.020), 

complementing  paragraph 1.a, 3.a.1  and 3.a.2  of  the  ERs. The  crew  member 

responsibilities  include  the  obligation to comply  with the  appropriate  flight time 

limitations  of  the  operator  based  on paragraph 7.f  and  7.g  of  the  ERs. The  pilot­in­  command is required not to start the flight, or to land the aircraft at the nearest suitable 

aerodrome, in the case of crew member’s fatigue. At the same time, crew members who

are subject to the FTL limitations of more than one operator are required to inform each

operator about their activities. The GM explains what actions the pilot­in­command can 

take to control rest during flight and how crew members can assess personal fatigue and 

make optimal use of rest possibilities. 

5.  This section then continues with the requirements for crew members to communicate in a 

common language (OPS.GEN.025) and the transport of dangerous goods (OPS.GEN.030). 

6.  OPS.GEN.030 addresses  the  transport of  dangerous  goods, including  the  general 

exceptions contained in the ICAO Technical Instructions 41 (T.I.) as required by paragraph

1.d of the ERs. The implementing rule further requires measures to be taken to prevent

inadvertent carriage  of  dangerous  goods  and the obligation to report any  accident or 

incident involving  dangerous goods  or  the finding  of  undeclared  or  misdeclared

dangerous goods. The related AMC/GM is for the majority based on the JAA NPA­OPS 70

which dealt with the  update  of  JAR­OPS  3  Subpart  R  to harmonise  it with the  latest

version of the T.I.

Section II ­ Operational Procedures (OPS.GEN.100)

7.  As already explained above, this section follows the ICAO Annex 6 SARPs and draft JAR­ 

OPS  0;  it supplements  Chapter  2  and  3  of  the  ERs.  As Subpart OPS.GEN covers 

commercial operations, EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1 and 3 have also been taken into account, in

particular elements of their Subpart B, D and E. AMC/GM have been provided for non­  commercial and commercial operations, taking into account various categories of aircraft

used therefore.

8.  The provisions can be grouped into provisions addressing flight preparation (e.g. external

surfaces being clear of any deposit that may affect the performance or controllability of 

the  aircraft), passenger  safety  related  provisions  (e.g. briefing, seating, use  of  safety 

belts, smoking, use of Portable Electronic Devices) and safety of flight operation (e.g. the 

use of aerodromes adequate for the type of aircraft and operation, IFR operating minima,

selection of alternate aerodromes, departure and approach procedures, noise abatement,  minimum flight altitudes, approach ban and fuel requirements). 

9.  On 31 July 2007, the Agency published the Advance Notice of Proposed Amendment (A­ 

NPA) 2007­1142 to consult stakeholders on appropriate measures to be taken to address 

potential safety hazards associated  with the  residues of fluids used for the ground de­ 

icing and anti­icing of aircraft. In the Comment Response Document (CRD) 43, the Agency 

described the outcome of the consultation and the possible course of action to address 

these  potential safety hazards.  One  of the  proposed  actions  was to consider the input

from  stakeholders  on “OPS.GEN.100  Ice  and  other  contaminants”  and  the  associated 

AMC2 and GM1, 2, and 3. The Agency welcomes any comment on how to improve the 

41  International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)  Technical  Instructions  for  the Safe Transport  of

Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284). 

42  http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/A­NPA­2007­11.pdf

43  http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/CRD%202007­11.pdf
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 28 of 123

existing material.  It should be noted that, for the time being, the  regulation of ground 

de­icing / anti­icing service providers is out of the Agency’s remit. 

10.  In the  provision related  to the use  of  aerodromes/operating  site  (OPS.GEN.145), the 

term operating site has been introduced to cater for those operations that do not depart

from, or  land  on,  an  aerodrome. The  Agency  definition for  ‘aerodrome’  includes  the 

‘heliport’  as  defined  by  ICAO. The term heliport is therefore not used in the  proposed 

rules.  The  Agency  considers  that there is  no difference  with ICAO,  since the  proposal

takes all the elements of the ICAO definition into account. The definition of “helideck” and 

“elevated heliport” have been amended to reflect the used definition of “aerodrome”.

11.  The  provisions  related  to the  commencement and  continuation of  approaches 

(OPS.GEN.200)  include  a  proposal of  the  JAA  OPSG to replace  the  outer  marker, 

previously  used  as  a  reference  point,  by  a height criteria  of  1 000 ft above  the 

aerodrome. As new runways are generally not fitted with an outer marker, the reference 

point specified in the rule will no longer exist at many aerodromes. The height of 1 000 ft

above the aerodrome is universally applicable and considered to facilitate implementation

since it is  applicable to all instrument approaches. The proposal is  considered a  safety 

enhancement because  it simplifies  the  rule  and  thereby  reduces  flight crew workload

during an instrument approach. All operators will have the same approach ban point for 

every  approach to every  runway  instead of  a different approach  ban point for  each

runway,  which is  possible under the  existing  rule. In addition 1 000  feet is commonly 

used  as  a  reference  point for  the  stabilisation of  the  approach in Instrument

Meteorological Conditions.  Therefore  using that reference,  which is  a trigger  for  other 

checks,  reduces the  risk of  error or omission. In the  same  way, Air Traffic Control will

know the approach ban point of all approaching aircraft. The only negative impact that 

could  be  seen was  that operators  may  have  to change  their  Operations  Manuals  and 

modify flight crew training.

12.  The  provisions  on commencement and  continuation of  approach  (OPS.GEN.200) 

transpose  Subpart E Appendix 1  to EU­OPS  1.430 and  JAR­OPS  3.430.  However,  the 

criteria  allowing  to continue the  approach below Decision Altitude/Height (DA/H) or 

Minimum  Descent Altitude/Height (MDA/H)  when “Other  visual references  specified  by 

the  Authority”  are  available  raised  difficulties  as  it could  not be  identified  what these 

other visual references could be. As this may lead to variations in the application of the 

rule, the Agency is willing to put more precise criteria in the Implementing Rules and is 

therefore inviting Member States to indicate what other visual references they may have 

specified so that these may be incorporated, if necessary. 

13.  The  general section addresses  only  VFR operations  and  IFR operation including  CAT I

operations.  Those  parts  of  Subpart E of  EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  1  and  3  addressing  Low

Visibility  Take­off  above  with Runway  Visual Range  (RVR)  of  less  than 150/200 m 

(depending on the category of aircraft) and approaches below CAT I minima have been

transferred to OPS.SPA.LVO  as  a  special approval is  required. For the  same  reasons it

includes provisions for non­precision approaches and CAT I operations, while operations 

below these minima, which are subject to a specific approval, are in OPS.SPA which is 

further explained below. The requirements are based on the CAT requirements as these 

should be the same minima for all type of operations and regardless of which aircraft is 

being used.

14.  In addition to the requirements transferred from the second amendment of EU­OPS, JAA 

NPA­OPS 53 on noise abatement has been taken into account to provide for alignment

with ICAO PANS OPS Volume  1 44,  which requires  operators  to define  two departure 

44  ICAO Doc 8168­OPS/611 PANS­OPS Volume I ­ Flight Procedures ­ Fifth Edition 2006 (Amendment 2, 

dated November 22, 2007 Incorporated)
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 29 of 123

procedures for each aeroplane type. The  related text can be now found as an AMC for 

commercial air transport operations of complex motor­powered aeroplanes.

Section III ­ Aircraft Performance and Operating Limitations (OPS.GEN.300)

15.  Section III of Subpart OPS.GEN contains aircraft performance and operating limitations, 

which are based on draft JAR­OPS 0, 2 and 4 as well as EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1 and 3. They 

supplement essential  requirement number  4  of  Annex  IV  of the Basic  Regulation.  The 

first three paragraphs address mass and balance while the following paragraphs address 

aircraft performance. 

16.  The first paragraph states that the aircraft loading, mass and balance needs to be within

the limitations specified in the appropriate aircraft documentation (OPS.GEN.300). 

17.  The following paragraph addresses the  weighing  of  aircraft (OPS.GEN.305). All aircraft

need to be weighed before initial entry into service. Other than complex aircraft used in

non­commercial operations need to be reweighed after major modifications while specific 

reweighing  intervals  are  specified  for  complex  motor­powered  aircraft used  in non­  commercial operations and all aircraft used in commercial operations. Weighing has to be 

accomplished by a Part­M Subpart F or Part­145 organisation, as applicable. 

18.  The  third  paragraph on mass  and  balance requires  a  mass  and  balance  system 

(OPS.GEN.310)  specifying the  criteria that  need to be  determined  for  each flight of  a 

complex motor­powered aircraft used in non­commercial operations or any aircraft used 

in commercial operations. 

19.  Almost all provisions  from  EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  1  and  3  Section 1  and  2  have  been 

transferred to the  OPS.GEN Implementing Rules  as  well as to the  associated AMC/GM

material in OPS.GEN.  However,  a  considerable  amount of  prescriptive  text has  been

downgraded to AMC/GM material  as it was  repetitive or provided for  several means of 

compliance. However, a few EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1 and 3 Section 1 and 2 provisions were 

not transferred as explained hereunder.

20.  The aeroplane definition of maximum  structural take off mass  and maximum  zero fuel

mass were not transferred as these terms were not used throughout JAR­OPS 1 Section 1

and 2. 

21.  EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1/3.625 (a) included a provision stating that the load sheet must be 

accepted  by  the  pilot in command/commander  by  signature  or  equivalent.  Interpretative/Explanatory  Material (IEM)  OPS 1/3.1055(a)(12)  makes  an  attempt  to

define  equivalent electronic  signatures.  Directive  1999/93/EC on a  Community 

framework  for  electronic  signatures 45 establishes  a  framework  for  the  acceptance  of 

electronic  signatures.  There is therefore  no reason to transfer the  “or  equivalent”  and 

related  IEM as  acceptance  of electronic  signature  is already  addressed  and  solved by 

Community law. 

22.  Appendix 1 to EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1.605 (a)(2) describes the necessary processes to obtain

fleet masses. Fleet masses can be used for a fleet or group of aeroplanes of the same 

model and configuration. The dry operating mass and Centre of Gravity (CG) position of 

an individual  aeroplane has to stay  within certain tolerances in order to be dispatched 

with the fleet values. Subparagraph (a)(2)(ii)(C) of EU­OPS states that “If an individual

aeroplane has, when compared with other aeroplanes of the fleet, a physical, accurately 

accountable difference (e.g. galley or seat configuration), that causes exceedance of the 

fleet tolerances, this aeroplane may be maintained in the fleet provided that appropriate 

corrections are applied to the mass and/or CG position for that aeroplane.” This provision

45  http://eur­lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:013:0012:0020:EN:PDF
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 30 of 123

is in conflict with subparagraph (a)(2)(i) which defines a fleet as aeroplanes of the same 

model  or  configuration.  Subparagraph (a)(2)(ii)(C)  is  therefore  not transferred. The 

aircraft has to be dispatched under its individual dry operating mass and CG position or 

may be part of a separate fleet. 

23.  Subparagraph (a)(2)(iii)(C) of  Appendix  1 to EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1.605  (a)(2)  is  a 

repetition of subparagraph (a)(2)(i) and has therefore been deleted.

24.  Subparagraph (a)(4)(ii)/(a)(2)(ii)  of  Appendix  1  to EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  1.605 (a)(2) 

includes  provisions  for  the  weighing  by  the  manufacturer  or approved  maintenance 

organisation and the related AMC gives means of compliance for the accuracy of weighing 

equipment. As this  is not addressed to the  operator,  but is  already included  in the 

maintenance procedures and instructions, it has not been transferred.

25.  Subparagraph (c)(2) of Appendix 1 to EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1/3.605  (a)(2) details that the 

loading of freight needs to be consistent with the data used for calculating the aircraft

mass  and balance. As OPS.GEN.310 requires the establishment of  a  system  and of its 

associated  procedures,  detailing inter  alia aircraft loading under the  supervision of 

qualified  personnel,  as well as load distribution,  preparation and disposition of  all

documentation, the above point is already addressed and does not need therefore to be 

specifically mentioned again; the  related procedure  shall be  specified in the operations 

manual. 

26.  Subparagraph (c)(4)  of  Appendix 1 to EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  1/3.620(g)/(h)  specifies that

operators  may  deviate  from  revised  standard masses  provided the  procedure  of  the 

appendix  is  used. As this  process  is  not different from  the  establishment of  revised 

standard masses, the subparagraph is deleted.

27.  Subparagraph (c) of Appendix 1 to EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1/3.625  requires prior approval of 

the authority to use onboard mass and balance systems. If these systems provide for the 

appropriate  reliability  and accuracy  compared to computerised  systems  on the ground,

there is no reason why this should be subject to a specific approval of the authority. The 

operator has to demonstrate in any case that it complies with the requirements. 

28.  ACJ OPS 1.605 gives explanations for the terms “mass” and “weight” and their use within

JAR­OPS  and  aircraft/operator  manuals.  The  Implementing Rules  continue  to use  the 

term  “mass”, as  was  done  in the  JARs, consistent with the  convention used  in ICAO 

Annex 5, which recognises that the term “weight” may be continued to be used as long 

as it does not cause any confusion for aircraft operations. As this does not need to be 

said in additional AMC material the ACJ has not been transferred.

29.  In addition, JAA NPA­OPS 39C on fuel codes has been taken into account and the civilian

fuel codes has been added in the text of GM OPS.GEN.310(a)(3). 

30.  It should  be  noted  that  the  Agency  decided to launch a  study  following  a  report

submitted in October 2006 by the Standard Weights Working Group of the Joint Aviation

Authorities. This report stated that a number of factors had changed since the standard 

mass values were determined and recommended a Pan­European survey be conducted.

The aim of the Agency’s study is therefore to identify and assess the various factors that 

have changed for passenger and baggage weights and their impact on the standard mass 

values used to determine the mass and balance of aircraft. The consultant in charge of 

the study  has  undertaken a  first series of  weighing survey  during the  summer  2008

covering several airports selected to realistically represent the different regions of Europe 

after  analysis  of  air  passenger  traffic  data. A  second  series  of  weighing  survey  is 

presently taking  place. Results including conclusions and recommendations  as relevant

are expected to be delivered during the first semester of 2009. The results of the survey 

will allow, as necessary, appropriate regulatory actions to be taken and should contribute
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 31 of 123

to identify statistical principles for further  reviewing standard mass values on a  regular 

basis. 

31.  The provisions of OPS.GEN related to performance develop those contained in Chapter 4 

of the Essential Requirements. The provisions for non­commercial operation with complex 

motor­powered  aircraft are  based  on Amendment 27 to ICAO  Annex  6  Part II

‘International General Aviation­Aeroplanes’ and Amendment 13 to ICAO Annex 6 Part III

Section III ‘International General Aviation­Helicopters’. In addition, some further 

considerations were given to draft JAR­OPS 0 and 2. 

32.  OPS.GEN.315 has  been discussed  at  length.  Finally, the  Agency decided that the text

from the draft JAR­OPS 0 would be the most appropriate for the purpose of the general

part.  It entails the fact that any  operated  aircraft shall be  able to land safely or  glide 

clear of a built up area in the event of an emergency. ‘At an approved operating site’ has 

been  added to prevent a  helicopter pilot from landing  in the  centre  of  a  city  without

approval. 

33.  OPS.GEN.320.A(a) introduces mass limitations for  complex motor­powered aircraft and 

for aircraft involved in commercial operations. The proposal stems from the JARs and has 

been  extrapolated  and  generalised to cover  also aeroplanes  involved in commercial 

operations. OPS.GEN.320.A(b), OPS.GEN.325 and OPS.GEN.330 are general performance 

requirements based on ICAO Annex 6 Part II and Part III Section III.

Section IV ­ Instruments, Data and Equipment (OPS.GEN.400)

34.  The  provisions  of this  section are  mainly  based  on draft JAR­OPS  0  and  2,  as  well as 

Amendment 27 to ICAO Annex 6 Part II ‘International General Aviation­Aeroplanes’ and 

Amendment 13  to ICAO  Annex  6  Part III Section III ‘International General  Aviation­  Helicopters’. They supplement chapter 5 of the essential requirements. However, as draft

JAR­OPS 0 and 2 as well as ICAO Annex 6 Part II and Part III Section III were developed

for the operations of  aeroplanes and helicopters  and not to other categories of  aircraft

(e.g. balloons, gliders), it has been necessary to elaborate the requirement applicable to

these last categories of aircraft by making use of regulations adopted by different EASA

Member States or foreign regulators. 

35.  As explained in the general presentation of this NPA, the general approach adopted by 

the  Agency  when developing  the  equipment requirements  was  to put the  safety 

objectives in the  Implementing Rules and to include the technical specifications  of the 

different instrument, data or  equipment in AMC and GM.  Moreover, it was found more 

appropriate to facilitate their use to put at the same place both the requirement to use 

an  equipment and the procedure to be followed for  such use,  contrary to the  JARs, in

which these provisions were sometimes addressed in different Subparts  (Subparts D of 

draft JAR­OPS  0,  2  and  4,  EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  1  and  JAR­OPS  3  versus  Subpart K  and 

Subpart L of the  same  JARs).  In the  proposed  Implementing Rules,  the  equipment

requirements also incorporate the prescribed use of the equipment. Prescribed use of the 

equipment is also addressing voluntary installation of that equipment. This is particularly 

the  case  for  the  oxygen requirement (OPS.GEN.440).  There  were  however  instances 

where this could not be done because the use or action did not relate to a single item of 

equipment.  For  example, ground  proximity  detection is  not only  related  to a  TAWS 

system (OPS.GEN.465.A) alone, as ground  proximity  can also be  detected by  visual

reference outside or by an altimeter. 

36.  Moreover,  some  changes  were  necessary  because  the  Basic  Regulation,  which only 

addresses  the  mitigation of safety risks,  does  not provide  the legal basis for  their 

transposition or to avoid  overlaps  with other Community  Legislation, in particular that
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 32 of 123

related to health and safety at work or the protection against radiations. It has therefore 

been necessary to delete the JAR requirement related to the cosmic radiation indicator 46. 

37.  The  provision of  OPS.GEN.400(a) is  mainly  based  on ICAO  Annex  6.  The  provision of 

OPS.GEN.400(b) and OPS.GEN.400(c) are based on JAR­OPS 0.630. However, instead of 

providing a list of equipment which do not need an equipment approval (e.g. according to

European Technical Standards Order, ETSO), the requirement has been generalised and 

split between equipment which require an equipment approval from those which do not

need to have an equipment approval. It includes those instruments and equipment which

are required by Part­OPS and any applicable airworthiness code as well as any additional 

equipment which is not required by Part­OPS, but is carried on a flight. The  reason for 

doing so is to ensure the safety of the aircraft and its occupants whatever the instrument

or equipment carried on board and/or used to operate the aircraft. OPS.GEN.400(d) and 

(e) contain requirements about the accessibility and positioning of the instruments and 

equipments for the crew usage.

38.  OPS.GEN.405 contains  equipment requirements  applicable  to each  aircraft type  (e.g 

safety belts and harnesses, fire extinguishers and spare electrical fuses). 

39.  OPS.GEN.410 and OPS.GEN.415 contain the flight instruments  and equipment that  are 

required for conducting VFR and IFR. While in EU­OPS/JARs, the instrument requirements 

included the exact numbers  and type of instrument, the proposed  Implementing Rules 

require the necessary means of measuring and displaying the required information. The 

reason for  doing so was to better  reflect the concept of performance based regulation

and to align with related amendment to ICAO Annex 6 Part II and future plans to align

ICAO Annex 6 Part I and Part III with this  approach. This  change is not considered to

have any impact. 

40.  OPS.GEN.410 introduces additional instruments and equipment requirements for aircraft

operating under VFR, which cannot be maintained in a desired attitude without reference 

to one or more flight instruments as suggested in draft JAR­OPS 0. Although this is not

required in ICAO Annex 6 Part II and Part III, it is considered a useful tool to improve 

safety. 

41.  Additionally, there are a few differences with regards to communication and navigation

equipment as  the  proposal goes  away  from  the  prescription of  the  exact equipment

contrary to what is  done in EU­OPS/JAR­OPS. The  reason is  mainly to align European

rules  with ICAO  Standards,  but also to take into account that fast development of 

technology  in the  fields  of  communication,  navigation and  surveillance;  the  use  of 

prescriptive equipment requirements may indeed affect the swift implementation of new

technology needed to improve safety or airspace capacity. It is also questionable whether 

these equipment requirements that have been historically incorporated in ICAO Annex 6 

and in JAR­OPS 1/3 and lately in EU­OPS are to be included in an airspace requirement.  Moreover, the link with the applicable airspace requirements in European airspace (e.g.

Single European Legislation) has also been included. 

42.  Following the implementation of  NPA­OPS  49  it seemed there  was  no need to change 

JAR­OPS 3 as the noise environment surrounding a helicopter whenever it is operating, is 

very different to that of an aeroplane and the wearing of headsets for noise attenuation

and  communication is  generally  a normal practise  at all times  within a helicopter. 

However, a subsequent review of the equivalent JAR­OPS 3 text revealed that there was 

evidence of some ambiguity and that issuing a clearer directive, mirroring the intent of 

46  Council Directive 96/29/Euratom  of 13 May 1996 laying  down  basic  safety standards  for  the

protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing 

radiation (Official Journal L 159, 29/06/1996 P. 0001 – 0114).
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 33 of 123

NPA­OPS 49, would be an improvement. JAR­OPS 3 requires the fitment and availability 

of  headsets  and  microphones for  certain circumstances,  does  not direct their  use. 

Although this  could be  seen as obvious, it would be  clearer if a  statement was  made

requiring crew members to wear the headsets and boom microphones, or equivalent, in

all circumstances including those covered by  JAR­OPS 3,  resulting in draft NPA­OPS 68

‘Use of Headset’. Although that NPA was never published by the JAA, it has been taken

into account when drafting the Implementing Rules and its AMC. The Agency considers 

that there will be no impact on the majority of operators who already voluntarily comply 

with this requirement.  Some  operators  may  need  to introduce  amendments  to their 

procedures to direct when to use the headsets.  There will be  no cost to operators as 

there is no requirement to fit any additional equipment. There are no environmental or 

social impacts associated with this proposal and the assurance of crew hearing protection

will provide a social benefit. 

43.  The use of the wording “boom microphone or equivalent” permits the use of new headset

technologies where the microphone is integrated into the headset without the use of any

boom. Although there are no requirements for the carriage of throat microphones within

EU­OPS/JAR­OPS, the proposed rule would not prevent their use if required.

44.  Due to the nature of their operations, many helicopter operators provide their crew with

aviation helmets incorporating both the function of headphones and that of microphone 

instead of the more common “open” headsets. In order not to inadvertently preclude the 

use of helmets, it has been decided to include some clarifying text into AMC and GM. 

45.  The  Agency  also included the  following  JAA NPA­OPS  in the  instrument,  data  and 

equipment requirement of  OPS.GEN; the majority  of them  aligning the  JARs with the 

latest amendments to ICAO Annex 6:

· NPA­OPS 39B2 Terrain Awareness & Warning System (TAWS)

· NPA­OPS 39B3 Pitot heater failure,

· NPA­OPS  39C Type  1A FDRs  (Fuel Codes  in the  OPS.GEN Section III Aircraft

performance and operating limitations),

· NPA­OPS  48A  Data  Link  Recording  forward fit  (the  applicability date has  been

delayed to align  with the latest possible  date of  applicability  of the implementing 

rules, Art. 70 of the Basic Regulation),

· NPA­OPS 51 First Aid Kit/Emergency Medical Kit (FAK/EMK); and

· draft NPA­OPS 67 JAR­OPS 3 Type IVA FDRs.

46.  The transposition of JAR­26 47 is subject to NPA 2009­01 48. As it is explained in this NPA, 

different options  were  considered for  the  transposition of  this  JAR,  including  the 

possibility  to include  these additional airworthiness requirements as  part of  the 

equipment requirement.  However,  this  option has  not been selected  for  the  reason

explained in that NPA. The idea is that these type of retroactive equipment applications 

which were triggered by an amendment to an airworthiness code (e.g. CS­25) reacting to

a safety problem are handled by the Agency through a ‘Safety Directive’ as explained in

the  NPA  2009­01.  In order to ensure that operators  comply  with these requirements, 

relevant obligations in the associated Parts (Part­OR, Part­OPS and Part­CC) have been 

included. 

47.  OPS.GEN.550 is based on EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 0/1/3.030 and develops further the essential

requirement 8.a.3.  The  proposed  provisions  for  the  Minimum  Equipment List (MEL) 

(OPS.GEN.550)  do not contain any  GM for  the  time  being. The  Agency  is  currently 

47  JAA JAR­26 Additional Airworthiness Requirement for Operators 

48  http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/NPA%202009­01.pdf
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 34 of 123

working  on the  JAA  TGL 26  ‘MEL Policy’  in order  to propose  relevant guidance  to

operators for the  MEL development; in particular, a policy  on how to treat ‘non safety 

related equipment’ when it becomes inoperative. The Agency proposal for this GM will be 

subject of a separate NPA. The reason for this delay is the link between this GM and the 

outcome of the rulemaking task 21.039 as much as the Master Minimum Equipment List

(MMEL) is concerned since the MEL is based on the MMEL.

Section V­ Manuals, Logs and Records (OPS.GEN.600)

48.  The section on Manual, Logs and Record was included in OPS.GEN to specifically cater for 

non­commercial operations with other than complex motor­powered  aircraft. The 

applicable  complimentary  requirements  for  non­commercial  operations  with complex 

motor­powered aircraft and commercial operations can be found in OR.OPS. 

49.  Following  the opinion of  the  OPS.001  group, one  paragraph on the  documents  and 

information to be carried on board has been included (OPS.GEN.600). Certain alleviations 

have  been introduced  for  flight returning  to the aerodrome  of  departure,  flights 

conducted within local area; and balloon operations. A second paragraph (OPS.GEN.605) 

contains  additional  information to be  carried  by  non­commercial  operators  of  complex 

motor­powered aircraft,  as well as  aircraft used in commercial operations. Here  again,  alleviations  contained  in Appendix  1  to EU­OPS  1.005(a)  and  Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 

3.005 (f) and (g) have been transferred.

50.  The third paragraph of this section (OPS.GEN.610) contains the requirement of a journey 

log book in accordance with ICAO SARPs.

51.  The last paragraph (OPS.GEN.615) requires the pilot­in­command to make available the 

required documents when requested to do so by a competent authority, e.g in case of a 

ramp check.

Section VI ­ Security (OPS.GEN.700)

52.  The last section of OPS.GEN addresses disruptive passenger behaviour (OPS.GEN.700) as 

well as the  reporting of  acts of unlawful interference  (OPS.GEN.705). These provisions 

are derived from ICAO SARPs.

Subpart OPS.CAT ­ Commercial Air Transport (OPS.CAT) 

53.  Commercial air transport is being defined as an aircraft operation involving the transport

of passengers, cargo or mail for remuneration or hire in accordance with ICAO Annex 6 

Part I.

Section I ­ General Requirements (OPS.CAT.001)

54.  This  section specifies the  scope and  contains the provision related to the transport of 

weapons.  Moreover,  a paragraph on the  information on emergency  and  survival

equipment has been included.

Section II ­ Operational Procedures (OPS.CAT.100)

55.  This section is based on EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1 and 3 and includes specific requirements for 

commercial air transport operations.  Some  of  the  requirements,  e.g. selection of 

aerodromes,  deviate  from  the  requirements  in OPS.GEN as  the  level of  safety  for 

commercial air transport operations is expected to be higher. This section also includes 

the ETOPS  requirements  as this is  a  specific  commercial  air transport operation whose 

approval is  part of the AOC  process (not a  separate  on unlike the types  of  operation

covered by Subpart OPS.SPA).
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 35 of 123

56.  In addition to the  provisions transferred from the  second  amendment of  EU­OPS,  JAA 

draft NPA­OPS 61 Selection of aerodromes and In­flight Fuel Management allowing the 

use  of one  en­route alternate  plus  one  destination alternate  versus two destination

alternates in certain conditions (OPS.CAT.155.A) has been taken into account. 

57.  It is  the  responsibility  of the  operator  to establish procedures as  relevant to its 

operations and aircraft in order to meet its obligations as regards the operations and the 

carriage of passengers. Recently,  concerns  were voiced  regarding the  conditions under 

which special categories of passengers, i.e. persons requiring  special assistance and/or 

conditions,  should  be  carried;  also highlighting  that EU­OPS  fail to give  clear 

requirements to operators in this  area.  The  Agency  therefore  reviewed  carefully the 

current EU­OPS  requirements  and  proposes  a revised  text in this  NPA  that  aims  at 

providing improved clarity to the operators as well as to the passengers concerned. The 

proposed text has been developed giving also regard to persons with reduced mobility, 

thus  to ensure that Regulation 216/2008  and the  related  Implementing  Rules  for  air 

operations  as  well as  Regulation 1107/2006 can  be  complied  with.  Comments  on this 

matter would be particularly welcome.

Section III ­ Aircraft Performance and Operating Limitations (OPS.CAT.300)

58.  This  section III contains  the performance provisions for commercial air  transport. Its 

bases are Subparts F, G, H and I of Amendment 2 of EU­OPS, the appropriate section 2 

of  JAR­OPS 1  and Amendment 5 to JAR­OPS 3. These provisions  are in line  with ICAO 

Annex 6  Part I (Chapter 5)  and Part  III (Chapter 3). These provisions develop further 

chapter 4 of the Essential Requirements as well as the provisions included in Section III

of Subpart OPS.GEN. They shall be read in conjunction. 

59.  The  Implementing  Rules  contain the  common safety  objectives  that substantiate  the 

Essential Requirements; the related technical content is now contained in AMC material.  Although  it was  argued  that  some  of  the  technical content should  be  included in an

Appendix to the rule, the Agency decided to transfer all technical requirements into AMC

to provide for more flexibility and allow the introduction of alternative creative solutions 

without the need to change the law or go through a heavy exemption process, consistent

with the  principle  of  subsidiarity  (see  the  explanations  provided for  in the  general

introduction of this NPA). 

60.  It is  also important to mention that the  performance  classes  applied  by the  operators 

shall be part of the Operations Manual and any change to this performance part of the 

Operations  Manual  shall be  approved  by  the  competent authority  as  it constitutes  a 

change to the certificate  (i.e. the AOC). The new approach to AMC material will ensure 

nevertheless a consistent and uniform implementation of the factors applicable to each 

performance class for each type of aircraft and phase of flight. 

61.  There is  a main difference  between the  way the  performance  requirements have  been

drafted for aeroplanes and helicopters. While the proposed  Implementing Rules do not

define  the  performance  classes  applicable  to aeroplanes,  they  do for  helicopter.  The 

reason for  this  different approach is  that  the use  of  the  performance  criteria is only 

applicable for ensuring the capability of the aeroplane to fly safely in all phases of flight,  while for helicopters the performance class criteria are also used to ensure the safety of 

certain types  of  operation by  requiring  the  installation of  additional instruments  and 

equipment to mitigate the risks associated to these performance classes (e.g. off­shore 

operations). 

62.  As regards  aeroplane  performance,  the  technical details  which are  applicable  to each

performance class  (Performances Class A, B or C)  reflect the factors applicable to each

type of aircraft (regarding the maximum certificated take­off mass, maximum passenger 

seating configuration and type of engines) for each phase of flight and are contained in
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 36 of 123

the  AMC and  GM.  Another  reason for  this  approach  is  that the  requirements  and 

provisions in EU­OPS  were based on the assumption that the existing aeroplanes were 

type  certificated  in accordance  with the  applicable  airworthiness  codes  issued  by  the 

Agency  (CS­23 and CS­25) or in accordance with JARs  (JAR­23 and JAR­25). However, 

not all the  aeroplanes  used  in commercial air transport operations  are  certificated  in

accordance with these airworthiness codes. This was already anticipated by the JAA and 

it was  therefore  permitted  in EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  1.470(d)  to apply  for  different

performance classes if an equivalent level of safety is maintained. As a consequence, the 

proposed  performance  requirements  do not contain the  definition of  aeroplanes 

performance  classes  (A­B­C)  but the  definitions  have  been inserted  in the  applicable 

AMC. 

63.  When elaborating the  requirements, the Agency has taken into account all factors that

could affect the performance of the aeroplane for the different phases of a flight, such as 

the  mass  of the  aircraft,  the  operating  procedures,  the  pressure­altitude  at the 

aerodrome, the temperature, the wind component, runway gradient and condition of the 

runway, as it is already required in the Essential Requirements in Annex IV of the Basic 

Regulation. 

64.  OPS.CAT.316.A contains general requirements (extracted from Subparts F, G, H and I of 

EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1) for the determination of the performance classes applicable to the 

aeroplane, as well as for the use and supplement of the necessary data provided in the 

Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM). 

65.  OPS.CAT.326.A contains the general requirement for take­off for aeroplanes which shall

take into account the distance available on the runway. In order for operators to properly 

comply  with this  requirement, they  need  to take  into consideration the  status  of  the 

runway surface (wet, contaminated or dry runway), the take­off mass and the power of 

the aeroplane, according to its performance class which are included in the relevant AMC.  It complements OPS.GEN.320.A. 

66.  The  same  applies  to take­off obstacle  requirements.  OPS.CAT.327.A  requires  an 

aeroplane  to clear  all obstacles  by  lateral distance,  horizontal or  vertical distances 

depending on the size and type of engines. In order to clear all the obstacles, an operator 

needs to consider, depending on the performance of the aeroplane, other factors such as 

the  mass  of  the  aeroplane,  the  pressure  altitude  and  ambient temperature at  the 

aerodrome,  the  wind  component,  the  visibility,  etc.  These  numerous  factors  are 

contained in the AMC as they depend on the performance class of the aeroplane.

67.  Concerning  the  en­route  requirements  for  aeroplanes  (OPS.CAT.340.A),  a  set of  four 

requirements is proposed:  en­route  requirements for  single­engined  aeroplanes, 

requirements for multi­engined aeroplanes  with all engines operative,  requirements for 

two­engined  aeroplanes  with one  engine  inoperative  and  requirements  for  aeroplanes 

with three  or  more  engines  with two engines  inoperative.  The  technical details  and 

factors  applicable to each performance  class  are  included in the  AMC and  GM for the 

reasons  explained  here  above  and  in the general introduction of  this  NPA.  It

complements the general provisions of OPS.GEN.325. 

68.  The main safety objective for landing is that an aeroplane is able to land safely at any 

aerodrome. OPS.CAT.345.A clarifies the general provision for different types of landings.

Specific  safety  requirements according to the  performance class  of the  aeroplane  are,

again,  addressed  in AMC for  the  reasons  recalled  here  above.  It complements  the 

provisions of OPS.GEN.330.A. 

69.  Although the transposition of the existing provisions in EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1 leads to the 

prohibition to operate single propeller­engined aeroplanes in Instrumental Meteorological

Conditions (IMC) (refer to OPS.CAT. 316.A, paragraph (b)), the intention of the Agency is
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 37 of 123

to start a  future  rulemaking  activity  to amend  the  regulation based  on the 

recommendations of the study it conducted on the issue 49 and the former NPA­OPS 29 

SE­IMC. 

70.  The definition of performance classes for aeroplanes contained in EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1 do

not apply to single turbojet powered aeroplanes and therefore, the proposed regulation

do not contain provisions for these type of aeroplanes. As already explained above, single 

turbojet powered aeroplanes (e.g. very light jets (VLJ)) are out of the scope of this NPA 

and will be the subject of a separate  rulemaking task. Meanwhile and until the Agency 

has completed this rulemaking activity, it is likely that aircraft certification will use special 

conditions to determine the aircraft performance classes. 

71.  As regards helicopters, all provisions from JAR­OPS 3 have been transferred. However, it

has  been considered  more  appropriate  not to address  all exemptions  as separate 

appendices to a general applicability rule, but to contain all performance information in

one general applicable section and all the specific alleviations/exemptions in a separate 

section for  which specific approvals  remain to be  required. This  also implied that the 

AMCs had to be reviewed and split, where necessary. 

72.  All  alleviations  related to operations  without an assured  safe  forced  landing  capability 

contained in JAR­OPS 3 have been included in Subpart OPS.SPA.SFL. These alleviations 

pertain to those  helicopters  that would  otherwise be  required  to be  operated  in

performance class 1; performance class 2 and 3 alleviation for the take­off and landing 

phase  and  for performance  class 3  also under certain circumstances  for the en­route 

phase, 

73.  OPS.CAT therefore  only  contains  provision on when to apply  performance  classes 1,  2 

and  3  for  commercial air transport operations,  and  refers  to OPS.SPA.SFL  for  the 

alleviations. The related AMC/GM incorporates all the technical provisions that should be 

met by the operator in order to demonstrate compliance with the applicable performance 

class.

Section IV ­ Instruments, Data and Equipment (OPS.CAT.400)

74.  The  bases  used  for  the  development of  this section are  Amendment 2  of  EU­OPS, 

amendment 13 of  JAR­OPS  1  and  Amendment 5  to JAR­OPS  3.  In addition,  existing 

regulations  in different EASA Member  States or  foreign regulators  have  also been

considered for the drafting of the requirements applicable to type of aircraft not covered 

by EU­OPS or JARs (e.g. balloons if used in commercial air transport). Additionally, draft

JAA NPA­OPS 43 Circuit Protection Devices has been included. 

75.  The  requirement for  a  safety  harness  (Upper Torso Restraint system  as  an acceptable 

means of  compliance) for each passenger  seat for persons over the age of 24 months 

installed in aeroplanes with a maximum certificated take­off mass of less than 5 700kg 

and  with a  maximum  passenger  seating  configuration of  less  than  9,  which was  not

included in EU­OPS/JARs,  has  also be  added.  This  stems  from  the  safety 

recommendations following fatal accidents contained in EASA Safety Information Bulletin

(SIB) 2008­2450. A more detailed Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) developed by JAA

49  See: 

http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/research/Single%20Engine%20Operations%20in%20IMC

%20and%20at%20Night%20Risk%20Assessment%20Issue%202.pdf

50  SIB 2008­24 ‘Passenger Restraint System on Normal, Utility and Aerobatic Category Aeroplanes with 

a  Maximum  Takeoff Weight of less than  5  670  kg and nine Passenger  Seats  or  less’  ( 

http://www.easa.europa.eu/getpdf.php?file=ws_prod/c/doc/Safety_Info_Reports/SIB%202008­

24%20Upper%20Torso%20Restraint%20Installation.pdf)
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 38 of 123

for the  draft of  JAA  NPA­26 20 originator  of this  additional  requirement is provided in

Annex A to this explanatory memorandum. 

76.  The  Agency  transposed  all of  the  exemptions  included  in the  Appendices  to OPS 

1.005/JAR­OPS  3.005,  except for  one  contained  in Appendix  1  to JAR­OPS  3.005(f) 

paragraph (d)(12)  related  to the  carriage of  supplemental oxygen when flying  above 

10 000  ft up to 16 000 ft (excursions  of  short duration up to 16 000  ft,  where short

duration is  not quantified  and  assumed  to be  based  on pilots  acclimatised  to high

altitudes) . The Agency, supported by several international documented research studies, 

considers that 10 000  ft should  be  considered the upper limit for human (flight crew) 

performance  without supplemental  oxygen.  It is  one  of  aviation physiology  pillars  and 

many  related  aviation regulations  are  based on it (e.g. ICAO)  allowing  for  only  a 

maximum  of  30 minutes  up to 13 000  ft under  certain conditions.  If  it is  considered

necessary to allow excursion of a short duration up to 16 000 ft for certain operations, 

Member States may make use of the flexibility provided for by, Article 14 of the Basic 

Regulation. 

77.  The  provision of EU­OPS/ the  JAR allowing the use of  extinguishing  agent Halon 1211

(bromochlorodifluoro­methane, CBrCIF2)  or  an equivalent extinguishing agent of  hand 

fire extinguishers located in the cockpit (which is included in AMC OPS.CAT.405) may be 

modified as per result of an ICAO Directive 51 that may prohibits its use. Other types of 

agents  will be  proposed  once  the  studies  conducted  by  ICAO  and  by  the  European

Commission are completed.

78.  Although the  Agency  was  advised  by  some  experts  to require  a  vibration health

monitoring  system  (draft JAA NPA­OPS  XX on JAR­OPS  3  VHM)  for  helicopters,  the 

Agency  proposes  to wait for  the  outcome  the  rulemaking  task  27&29.019,  which is 

addressing the feasibility of such requirement for new built helicopters and will provide 

the basis to decide on the appropriate mechanism, regulation (e.g. Part­OPS, Part­M or 

Part­21) and timeframe to require the fitment of such a system.

Subpart  OPS.COM  ­  Commercial Operations  other than  Commercial Air Transport 

(OPS.COM)

79.  Commercial operations other than commercial air transport are generally referred to as 

aerial work.  Even though these terms  are  used  interchangeably, the  Agency does  not

provide a definition of aerial work as it came to the conclusion that in accordance with

the Basic Regulation the  scope  of commercial operations  other than commercial air 

transport is  understood to be much wider than what is  generally  considered as  aerial 

work;  e.g. Subpart OPS.COM also applies  to commercial parachute  flights or  training 

flights.

Section I ­ General Requirements (OPS.COM.001)

80.  This  section contains  a paragraph on scope. It furthermore contains specific provisions 

for the use of dangerous goods in specialised aerial tasks, e.g. for  crop  spraying. Also

certain measures are proposed for the use of weapons in specialised aerial tasks.

Section II ­ Operational Procedures (OPS.COM.100)

81.  This section contains specific requirements for aerial work. It requires firstly the briefing 

of  the  operational personnel participating in aerial work tasks. Such personnel can be 

crew  members  on board as  well as  persons  on the  ground  supporting the  aerial work 

activity. Secondly, it requires the mitigating procedures to be applied when flying below

the minimum flight altitudes. 

51  ICAO Assembly Resolution A36­12 regarding the replacement of Halon.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 39 of 123

82.  Following the work of the OPS.001 subgroup on aerial work, the Agency also proposes a 

concept of  standard  operating  procedures  for  specialised  operations  to cater  for  the 

variety  of  activities  that  can be  undertaken as  aerial work.  Operators  are  required to

develop standard operating procedures or code of practices for their activity, based on a 

risk assessment, to ensure that proper mitigating measures are in place when conducting 

a  specialised  operation.  The  risk  assessment should  describe  the  activity  in detail, 

identify the relevant hazards, analyse the causes and consequences of events that might

cause  injury  to,  or  loss  of,  life  or  that might cause  damage to,  or  loss  of,  property; 

consequently the operator shall establish procedures to mitigate the risk to an acceptable 

level. The Agency provided GM (GM OR.OPS.100.GEN(d)) on how such risk assessment

should  be carried out and appropriate standard  operating  procedures  should  be 

developed. 

83.  The AMC/GM to Subpart OPS.COM includes on AMC on helicopter external load operations 

(Appendix 1 to AMC OPS.COM.270 SOPs ­ specialised operations other than the transport

of persons, cargo or mail) that was developed on the basis of such a risk assessment and 

that addresses the aspects of that particular operation.

Section III ­ Aircraft Performance and Operating Limitations (OPS.COM.300)

84.  The  performance  requirements  are those  that were  envisaged  in draft JAR­OPS  4  for 

application to aeroplanes and helicopters. However, as regards helicopters, one provision

was not transferred as it was considered to be incompatible with the risks associated to

operations  over  a congested  hostile  environment.  While  it is  required  indeed  that

helicopters  involved  in such operations  are  certificated  in Category  A  or  equivalent

standard  (the  equivalent standard  being  defined  in appropriate  AMC/GM), the  said 

provision would  allow such operations  with helicopters  certified  in Category  B,  or 

equivalent,  as  far  as  “specific  measures  are taken, to prevent risk  to persons  and to

alleviate  risk  to property,  on the  surface.” JAR­OPS  4  does  not give  the  criteria  for 

“exceptionally”, nor  does  it provide  criteria  for  the  “specific  measures”. Consultations 

with helicopter experts involved in the  drafting  of this  provision showed that this  was 

directed to certain helicopter types  and that it would  depend  on the discretion of the 

State  whether  such helicopters  would be  allowed  to operate over a  congested hostile 

environment after  having  carried  out the  appropriate  risk  assessment.  Since  it only 

affects  a few helicopter  types,  it is  considered  more appropriate  that Member  States 

make use of the flexibility provisions of Art. 14, whenever it is necessary to address such

exceptional  cases.  Nevertheless, the  Agency invites  stakeholder’s  comments  on this 

subject in order to assess the extent of the issue.

Section IV ­ Instruments, Data and Equipment (OPS.COM.400)

85.  The basis used for the development of this section is draft JAR­OPS 4 developed by the 

JAA. 

86.  The Agency, advised by OPS.001 and its subgroup in charge of proposing draft provisions 

applicable to aircraft involved  in commercial operations  other  than commercial air 

transport,  reached the  conclusion that most of the  equipment already  required in Part

OPS.GEN is  sufficient for  the  safe  operation.  However,  some  general equipment

provisions associated with the specific risks of these commercial operations are included

in this section (e.g. OPS.COM.486 Emergency egress from the cockpit). Other equipment

provisions associated to the specific activity are included in the individual procedures for 

the particular activity. 

87.  It is important to highlight that the  provision in OPS.COM.465.A  Terrain Awareness 

Warning System  (TAWS)  – Aeroplanes is more  an  alleviation than  a  requirement.  The 

reason for this is that the proximity to the ground of aircraft performing specific aerial 

work  activities  makes  it impracticable  to have the  TAWS  on during these  operations.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 40 of 123

However, the Agency  considers that precautions  and  procedures  should  be included in

the Operations Manual and part of the AOC approval.

Subpart D Operations Requiring Specific Approvals (OPS.SPA) 

Section I ­ General requirements (OPS.SPA.GEN)

88.  This section contains the scope, definitions and administrative procedures related to the 

issue of a specific approval for a special type of operation and for the  requirements to

ensure the continued validity of such an approval. 

89.  Generally, all these operations allow the operator either access to certain airspace or to

conduct operations to lower limits, for which certain hazards have to be controlled to an 

acceptable level. This may be done through the implementation of mitigating procedures 

or  specialised  equipment by  the  operator  that  requires  specific  attention by  the 

competent authority before granting  the approval and  hence the  privilege for  the 

operator to conduct these specific operations. 

90.  As mentioned in the general section of the explanatory note, the conduct of these special

type  of  operations,  if  not specifically  mentioned  to be  restricted  to commercial air

transport operators,  is  open to all operators  and  therefore  contained  in this  specific 

Subpart. 

91.  As regards  non­commercial operators,  the  approval has  to be  issued  by  the  State  of 

Registry in accordance with ICAO Annex 6 Part II.

Section II ­ Operations in Areas with Specified Navigation Performance (OPS.SPA.SPN)

92.  The  approval of  operations  in areas  with Specified  Navigation Performances  such as 

Required  Navigation Performance  (RNP), Area  Navigation (RNAV)  and Minimum 

Navigation Performance Specifications  (MNPS) is generally included in Amendment 2 of 

EU­OPS.  The  requirements  are  mainly  addressing the  required  equipment (OPS  1.865

and  OPS 1.870).  These  requirements  are  complemented  by additional multidisciplinary 

AMC stemming from former JAA Temporary Guidance Leaflet (TGL) developed mainly by 

the former Communications Navigations Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM)

Steering  Group (SG)  of the  JAA.  Some of these  AMC are currently  addressing 

airworthiness  and a few operational considerations for applicants  seeking airworthiness 

and/or  operational approval from  the  competent authority  to conduct these  specific 

operations. Some of them have been already transposed from the JAA TGL and AMC into

EASA AMC­2052. As an AMC does not create any obligation on an operator, the provisions 

in this section have been included to address the obligation for an operational approval to

conduct these type of operations. 

93.  The  proposed  provisions introduce the  ICAO  concept of  Performance Based  Navigation

and refer to ICAO Doc 9613 Performance Based Navigation Manual. They also provide a 

link to the airworthiness approval of the aircraft equipment by the Agency. References to

the applicable provisions in EASA AMC­20 are summarised in tables as GM for operators. 

Moreover, the link with the applicable airspace requirements in European airspace (e.g.

Single European Sky Legislation) has also been included.

Section III ­ Operations with Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (OPS.SPA.RVSM)

94.  The approval of operations in airspace with Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) 

is addressed today in Amendment 2 of EU­OPS (OPS 1.241). The equipment requirement

52  EASA AMC 20 General Acceptable Means of Compliance for  Airworthiness of Products, Parts  and

Appliances
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 41 of 123

is  included in a  different provision (OPS  1.872)  as well as  the  requirements to have 

procedures included in the operations manual, which are only referred to in Appendix 1 

to OPS 1.1045). The  GM for operators  seeking  an approval for  conducting RVSM 

operations was included in the JAA Temporary Guidance Leaflet (TGL) No. 6 RVSM 53. 

95.  The  proposed  provisions  integrate the three  requirements  explained  in the  paragraph

above  in a  global provision for  an operator seeking  approval for  conducting  RVSM 

operations. It addresses aircraft equipment, procedures and crew training. The provisions 

provided in the  AMC and GM are  mainly  based  on the technical content of the  TGL 6 

RVSM.  With rulemaking  task  20.00654,  the  Agency  plans  to update  and  transfer  the 

technical content of various remaining multidisciplinary JAA TGL, including TGL 6 RVSM 

into EASA AMC­20 so as to complement the operational aspect of the provisions proposed 

in this NPA.

Section IV – Low Visibility Operations (OPS.SPA.LVO)

96.  This  section incorporates  NPA­OPS 41,  which had been introduced in Amendment 2 to

EU­OPS, but in which the AWOSG of the JAA found a few mistakes; they are corrected in

the Implementing Rules and AMC. 

97.  Another change  compared to the  EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  is that an approval is  now also

required  for  all LVTO’s  with an  RVR  below 400 m.  This  is  due  to the  fact that  EU­  OPS/JAR­OPS  1/3.450 required  the  training programme  for  LVO  operations  to be 

approved  by the  authority  and Appendix  1 to 1/3.430  required  a  specific  approval for 

take­off  below specified  minima, referring to table  1  contained  in that  appendix.  The 

Agency therefore decided that all LVTO’s with an RVR below 400 m needed to be included

in the approval for LVO. It is considered a minor impact, since the approval is only an 

administrative action resulting from the already existing requirements mentioned above. 

98.  It is also applicable  and  open to all modalities  of  aviation,  and  anticipates  the wide 

introduction of  VLJs, which are  also expected  to perform  IFR operations  to these 

limitations. 

99.  Following the proposed amendment to EU­OPS, The Agency has received a few proposals 

from the former All Weather  Operations SubGroup  (AWOSG) of the  JAA to amend the 

LVO  section in EU­OPS/EASA’s  Implementing Rules.  Following  discussions  in the  Air 

Safety  Committee  about some  of  these  proposals,  it was  decided to transpose  the 

proposal changing the table containing the failed or downgraded equipment that did not

take into account the changes  related to EVS and HUDLS. All other proposals made by 

the AWOSG will be included in a future rulemaking task.

Section V ­ Transport of Dangerous Goods (OPS.SPA.DG)

100.  This section contains the requirements applicable to the approval to transport dangerous 

goods. In general, dangerous goods have to be transported in accordance with the ICAO 

T.I. as explained in paragraph 6 above. In transposing the requirements contained in EU­ 

OPS/JAR­OPS 1 and 3, due account was taken of draft JAA NPA­OPS 70 which had not

yet been published by the JAA, and can be found as Appendix B. 

101.  This section only deals with the approval for the transport of dangerous goods and not

with the alleviation/exceptions, which may be required for certain operations and which

apply in general to all flights. Those requirements can be found in OPS.GEN. 

53  JAA Administrative & Guidance Material Section One: General Part 3: Temporary Guidance 

Leaflets. 

54  20.006 Miscellaneous improvement to AMC 20
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 42 of 123 

Section VI ­  Helicopter  Operations  without an  Assured  Safe  Forced  Landing  Capability 

(OPS.SPA.SFL)

102.  As already  explained  in the  section addressing  the  performance  for  commercial  air 

transport, this section contains the requirements  and AMC to be eligible for operations 

without an assured  safe forced landing capability. The  objectives have  been separated 

from the technical content; objectives being incorporated into the implementing rule and 

technical content being transferred to AMC material. It incorporates the text contained in

JAR­OPS 3 amendment 5. 

103.  However,  one important issue  remains  to be  resolved and that is  the  JAR­OPS  3 

alleviation contained in Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005 (c), which states that:

· ‘For  helicopters certificated in Category  A, a momentary flight through the height

velocity (HV) envelope is allowed during the take­off and landing phases.’ 

104.  This  alleviation is  now contained in OPS.SPA.SFL as  it was intended by  JAR­OPS  3 to

apply only in those cases. 

105.  For CS­29 helicopters the Height Velocity  (HV) envelope is  contained in the limitations 

section of the approved Aircraft Flight Manual and the alleviation is therefore in conflict

with Annex IV 4.a. of the Basic Regulation, which requires that any aircraft be operated 

in accordance with its approved flight manual. 

106.  Being aware of this conflict the Agency intends to initiate a rulemaking task on CS­29 to

see  whether  or  not a  change  of  CS­29 is  feasible, and  in the  meantime  included the 

alleviation in its Implementing Rules for the following reasons:

· Article 8 of the Basic Regulation states that the  Implementing Rules should reflect

the state of the art and the best practices in the field of air operations.

· The ToR of OPS.001 state that the Implementing Rules should be based on JAR­OPS 

3.

· There is no major harmonisation issue with the FAA on this matter as FAR Part 91.9 

(d) contains a similar alleviation upon which the JAR­OPS 3 alleviation was based.

107.  Although this issue is raised under this section, the Agency is well aware that this applies 

in general to CS­29 certificated  helicopters  involved  in operations  that  require 

(momentary) flight through the HV envelope (typically ‘aerial work’ activities).

Section VII ­ Helicopter Operations with Night Vision Imaging Systems (OPS.SPA.NVIS)

108.  This section and its AMC material is the transposition of the provisions of JAR­OPS 3.005 

(j) introduced in amendment 5, which allows conducting VFR night operations with the 

aid of NVIS and of JAA TGL 34, which contains the  requirements to be met, as well as 

minimum training standards to be followed.

Section VIII – Helicopter Hoist Operations (OPS.SPA.HHO)

109.  The  Helicopter  Hoist Operations  requirements contained  in Appendix  1  to JAR­OPS 

3.005(h)  has  been transferred to this  section of  the  Implementing  Rules.  In addition,  draft JAA NPA­OPS  69  has  been incorporated.  This  draft NPA­OPS  can  be  found  as 

Attachment C. 

110.  Draft NPA­OPS  69 deals  with the  requirements  relating to Helicopter  Hoist Operations 

detailed in Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(h), which were found to be difficult to interpret
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 43 of 123

and implement. The draft NPA introduces therefore in the AMC new material to clarify

and  explain the  requirements,  in particular  the helicopter hoist equipment and  its 

standard of airworthiness approval.

Section IX ­ Helicopter Emergency Medical Service Operations (OPS.SPA.HEMS)

111.  The Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) requirements contained in Appendix 

1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(d) have been transferred to this section of the Implementing Rules. 

The Agency has also partly incorporated HSST­WP­07­03.4, which was agreed by the JAA 

HSST and OST. This related Working Paper can be found as Appendix D. However, that 

proposal envisages several options and recommends an option (Option 2), which leads to

the three  choices  detailed  in that  Working  Paper. The  Agency  is  therefore  requesting 

stakeholders to indicate the most appropriate route to be selected so that the Agency can

establish the best way forward and include it in the final opinion to be transmitted to the 

Commission. 

Attachment A to Appendix I

Attachment B to Appendix I

Attachment C to Appendix I

Attachment D to Appendix I
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 44 of 123

Appendix II ­ Explanatory memorandum on Part­OR Subpart OPS 

1.  The  purpose  of  this  memorandum  is  to provide  more  detailed  explanations  on the 

proposed  Implementing  Rules  applicable  to persons  or  organisations  involved  in the 

operation of complex motor­powered  aircraft and  those  involved  in commercial

operations than the ones offered in the general part of the Explanatory Note to this NPA 

and  the  explanations  given in NPA  2008­22c.  These  explanations focus  on the  new

elements  and  on the  differences with EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  1  and  3.  The  Agency  has  also

prepared  cross­reference  tables  to facilitate  the  comparison between the  proposed 

Implementing Rules and EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1 and 3, which can be found in NPA 2009­02f.

Section I Operator requirements (OR.OPS.001.GEN)

2.  Section I clarifies that the  provisions  of this  Subpart are  applicable to non­commercial

operators  of  complex  motor­powered aircraft,  as  well as all to commercial  operators.

Furthermore, This section contains a paragraph on definitions. 

3.  The paragraph on operator  responsibilities is derived from  ICAO SARPS and transposes 

EU­OPS, as well as the applicable JARs. 

4.  The last paragraph of this section addresses the  specific  case of  aircraft operated both

commercially  and  non­commercially.  In such a  case, the  operators  are required  to

provide a  separate  section in their  operations manual  describing the  procedures to be 

followed  when operating  an aircraft non­commercially;  moreover,  the  commercial

operations  specifications  of  AOC  holders  need  to contain an  endorsement for  non­  commercial operations.

Section II Manuals, logs and records (OR.OPS.001.MLR)

5.  This  section is  complementary  to section VI of  Part­OPS  and  contains  the  provisions 

applicable to the operations manual, the minimum equipment list, the operational flight

plan for commercial air transport operations and record­keeping. These paragraphs take 

into account ICAO  Annex  6 SARPs. For  commercial air  transport operations,  the 

provisions  of  Subpart B and P of  EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  as  well as the provisions  of 

amendment 1 to JAR­MMEL/MEL (Subpart C) have been transferred.

6.  There  is  one  important change  compared to EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  3  in so far  as  the 

operations manual,  when first presented to the  competent authority,  needs to be fully 

approved. Previously,  this  was  only  the  case  for  certain parts.  This  change  has  been

introduced  following  the new AMC procedure  explained  in paragraph 56  of  the 

explanatory note, as means of compliance are now part of the approval for commercial

operators.  These  means  of  compliance  are  usually  described  as  procedures  in the 

manual. 

7.  Certain amendments of the operations manual of commercial operators may be subject

to an amendment procedure to be agreed with the competent authority. This amendment

procedure is explained in more detail in NPA 2008­22. An AMC to the operations manual 

lists  those  items  that cannot be  part of  such an  amendment procedure.  These  are 

basically those items that need to be approved under EU­OPS/JAR­OPS. 

8.  The detailed content of the operations manual has been transferred to AMC material as it

would otherwise be binding and not provide for the appropriate flexibility for all types of 

operations. It takes into account that the scope of the operations Implementing Rules is 

much wider than the one of EU­OPS/JAR­OPS. Separate AMCs addressing the operations 

manual  structure have been provided for non­commercial operators  of  complex motor­ 

powered aircraft and commercial operations other than commercial air transport.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 45 of 123

9.  The  JAR­OPS  guidance  material  states  that  the  language  of  the  operations  manual  is 

English,  as  appropriate. This  guidance  could  not be  transferred  as  it is  against the 

Community  principle  that gives  all EU  languages  an  equal  status.  Moreover,  it is 

questionable  whether  an English operations manual used  by  a  non­native  English

speaking crew may not pose a safety  risk. This was one of the  reasons why it had the 

status of an IEM in the past. 

10.  As indicated above, Subpart C of JAR­MMEL/MEL has been transferred into the provisions 

of OR.OPS.020.MLR. Each MEL will have to be based on the Master Minimum Equipment

List (MMEL) for the aircraft type, approved in accordance with Part­21. Some definitions 

have  not been transferred as  they  will be included in the  relevant Certification

Specification for  the  MMEL (e.g. definitions of  rectification intervals A,  B,  C and  D).

OR.OPS.020.MLR provisions complement the general requirements in OPS.GEN.550. 

11.  The  one  time  extension of  the  rectification intervals  B,  C and  D (RIE)  is  included in

OR.OPS.020.MLR(f). However, the allowance is only possible if it is within the limits of the 

relevant MMEL (the MMEL has been designed taking into account the one time extension

of RI) and the duration of the extension is, as maximum, of the  same duration as the 

rectification interval specified  in the MEL.  It is  important to highlight that JAR­ 

MMEL/MEL.090 ‘Operations  outside  the  scope of  the  MEL’  has  not been transferred 

because it is being considered a flexibility provision already included in Article 14 of the 

Basic Regulation and therefore not needed in here.

Section III Air operator declaration (OR.OPS.001.DEC)

12.  This  section contains  the  administrative  requirements  to be  fulfilled  in order  for  an 

operator to declare its capability and means to discharge the  responsibilities associated 

with the non­commercial operation of a complex motor­powered aircraft. 

13.  In the case where the operation is managed by a third party on behalf of the owner, it is 

this  third party  that shall submit the  declaration as  they  assume  responsibility  for 

operational control. A declaration form is provided with the Implementing Rules. 

14.  As a result of the discussions within the OPS.001 subgroup and the results of the impact

assessment conducted  on this  issue  (see  attached  RIA),  it was  felt that a  declaration

should  be  sufficient for  all operators  of  complex  motor­powered  aircraft used  in non­  commercial operations  as  no safety  benefit  could  be  seen on imposing  a  fully fledged 

certification process.

Section IV Air operator certification (OR.OPS.001.AOC)

15.  This  section contains  the  administrative  requirements to be  fulfilled  by  an operator to

obtain an air operator’s certificate (AOC), which are contained in EU­OPS/JAR­OPS 1 and 

3  Subpart C.  The  proposal provides  for  only  one  operator  certificate  for  all kinds of 

commercial operations  as there  was  no reason to distinguish between an air  operator 

certificate  for commercial air transport and  an aerial work  certificate  for  commercial

operations  other  than  commercial  air  transport.  The  difference  lays  in the  privileges 

granted to an operator and contained in the Operations Specifications. By proposing this 

one certificate, the Agency follows the principles of consistency of organisation approvals 

introduced  in Part­OR and  Part­AR. This also reflects  the  demands of  aerial work 

operators,  who argue  that  an AOC  issued  by  a  Member  State  is  also recognised 

internationally while this may not be the case for a specific aerial work certificate.

16.  One important change that has  been made compared to EU­OPS 1.180 is that aircraft

need  to have  a  certificate  of  airworthiness  in accordance  with Part­21  but the  notion

“standard” has  been removed. There  may  be aircraft with a restricted  CofA issued  in

accordance  with Part­21 that can nevertheless  be operated  safely in commercial
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 46 of 123

operations as long as the appropriate limitations included in the restricted type­certificate 

or  the  Specific  Airworthiness  Specifications  are  observed. Exemptions  and  derogation

notified to the Commission on EU­OPS already show that the requirement of a standard 

certificate  poses  significant and unjustified  difficulties. This is of  course even more the 

case for Annex II aircraft involved in commercial air transport. 

17.  The  requirements  on personnel, facilities  and flight data monitoring have been aligned 

with the appropriate requirements in OR.GEN as presented in NPA 2008­22c. 

18.  Furthermore, this section includes  additional specific  requirements for  the  leasing  of 

third­country  registered aircraft and code­share operations  with third­country operators 

since the aircraft involved, which are used by Community operators, are covered by the 

Basic  Regulation.  The  related  provisions  have  been aligned  with Regulation (EC) 

1008/200855 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community. 

19.  For wet­lease in of an aircraft from a third country operator, certain conditions need to be 

fulfilled. The  third country  operator  is  required  to hold  a  third  country  operator 

authorisation

56. In addition, the third country operator needs to comply with the technical

requirements in Part­OPS, as well as the OR­OPS requirements related to training; to the 

manuals, logs and records keeping; to FTL schemes; and to security. However, it is not

obliged to use  the  related  AMC of  Part­OPS  and  may  use  its  standard  operating 

procedures as contained in its operations manual provided it can demonstrate that they 

provide for compliance with the requirements. By doing so, the third country operator can

continue  using  its  standard  operating  procedures  instead of  changing  procedures from 

one flight to another as this could pose a certain safety risk. 

20.  As regards code share arrangements, the Agency considered disproportionate to ask the 

foreign partners to comply with the full set of  Implementing Rules. Instead, taking also

into account the approach used  by  the  US, the Community operator has  to ensure 

compliance of the  code  share partner  with the Essential Requirements  and appropriate 

safety  standard, which can be the operating standards of the third country, as long as 

they  are ICAO  compliant.  The  Community operator  is  required to implement an  audit

programme where third party providers may be used, as long as they are independent, or 

an  officially recognised standard  is  used  certified  by  an independent certification

authority, e.g. CEN. The findings of these audits must be closed within certain periods in

order to start or continue such a code share arrangement.

Section V Flight crew (OR.OPS.001.FC)

21.  This  section contains  the  provisions  applicable  to the  composition,  qualifications  and 

training  of  flight crew. It is divided into 3  Chapters;  the  first contains  general 

requirements,  applicable  to all types  of  operation with all categories  of  aircraft;  the 

second contains  additional requirements  applicable to commercial air transport and the 

third  contains  additional requirements  applicable  to commercial operations  other than 

commercial air transport. 

22.  This Section was developed on the basis of Subpart N of EU­OPS and  JAR­OPS 3. The 

FCL.001 group performed therefore a  revision of that Subpart with the view to identify

requirements that restrict the privileges of the licence and which should then be better 

placed in Part­FCL instead of  remaining in operational rules.  On this basis,  paragraphs 

EU­OPS 1.960 / JAR­OPS 3.960 and EU­OPS 1.970 / JAR­OPS 3.970 were transferred to

Part­FCL,  where  they  are  now,  respectively, paragraphs  FCL.305.A  and  FCL.305.H

(addressing the privileges of a CPL holder to fly in commercial air transport) and FCL.060

55  http://eur­lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:293:0003:0020:EN:PDF 

56  The  requirements  on  third  country operators  will be published as  separate NPA  resulting from 

rulemaking task OPS.004.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 47 of 123

(covering recent experience requirements for all pilots 57). The FCL.001 group considered 

also whether  the  training  required  in Subpart N was  type  rating  related  or  operator 

specific  with the  view to transfer  to Part­FCL the  provisions  related  to the  training 

required to acquire  or  maintain valid  a type  rating, since it is logical that all licensing 

related  requirements  be  put in the  same implementing rule. Conversely, the  operator 

specific  training  (related  to the  specific  type  of  operation or  the  structure  and 

organisation of the operator) was kept in the operational rules. As a consequence some 

provisions  of  in EU­OPS  1.945  related  to Zero Flight Time  Training  (ZFTT)  were 

transferred to Part­FCL, since they were requirements for obtaining a type rating 58. 

23.  These texts prepared by the FCL.001 group were then presented to the OPS.001 group,

which introduces some changes to take into account activities other than commercial air

transport and  other  categories  of  aircraft besides  aeroplanes  and helicopters.  The  end 

result, contained in this NPA, is therefore the result of the joint work of the OPS.001 and 

FCL.001 groups.

24.  Paragraphs OR.OPS.015.FC and  OR.OPS.030  FC to OR.OPS.040.FC in Chapter  1  of 

Section V are based on EU­OPS 1.940 to 1.950/ JAR­OPS 3.940 to  3.950, as well as their 

respective  Appendices 59.  They  are  complemented  by  paragraphs  OR.OPS.115.FC and 

OR.OPS.130.FC to OR.OPS.135.FC in Chapter 2 of Section V, which contain the provisions 

applicable to flight crew engaged in commercial air  transport and  by  paragraph

OP.OPS.245.FC,  which contains  those  applicable to flight crew  engaged in commercial 

operations other than commercial air transport. No major differences with EU­OPS/JAR­  OPS need to be signalled. However, as was already explained above in the general part of 

this Explanatory Note, some of the material contained in EU­OPS and Section 1 of JAR­ 

OPS 3 was transferred to AMC and GM in order to provide for an appropriate flexibility. 

Accordingly,  only  the  provisions  that  were paramount to safety  are  left in the 

Implementing Rules, while more detailed provisions related to the content of the training 

programmes can be found now in the AMC material so that operators can build training 

programmes that are fully adapted to their activities. Moreover, requirements applicable 

to aeroplanes and helicopters are harmonised as much as possible, taking into account

the differences between the operational characteristics of both categories of aircraft. 

25.  Paragraphs OR.OPS.020.FC and OR.OPS.120.FC contain the provisions for the nomination

as pilot­in­command; they follow those of EU­OPS 1.955/JAR­OPS 3.955 and include also

those of EU­OPS 1.975/JAR­OPS 3.975. However, some changes were made. Firstly, the 

expression ‘Commander’ has  been replaced  by ‘pilot­in­command’.  The  reason for this 

change  is  that the  Essential Requirements  for  Operations  (Annex  IV  to the  Basic 

Regulation)  follow the  terminology  of  ICAO  Annex  6  and  refer  to ‘pilot­in­command’

instead of  ‘commander’,  which was  a  particular  feature  of  EU/JAR­OPS.  As  a 

consequence,  the  Implementing  Rules,  which have  to follow these  Essential

requirements, cannot give to the Commander safety functions attributed to the pilot­in­  command. Accordingly, there is no longer a safety role for the Commander, which would 

make any  reference to this  role in the  Implementing Rules  either superfluous in safety 

terms or a violation of the Essential Requirements 60. This change also makes it necessary 

to clarify that when a  pilot acting  as  pilot­in­command  is  relieved  in flight of  his/her 

duties, this carries also a transfer of the  related  responsibilities for the safe conduct of 

the flight61 to the pilot taking over as pilot­in­command.

57  See NPA 2008­17b

58  See paragraph FCL.730.A in NPA 2008­17b.  59  For more details on how and where the requirements from EU/JAR­OPS were transferred please see

the comparison tables in Appendix V to this Explanatory Note.  60  This, of course, does not prevent  operators from  keeping the title of Commander in their internal

organisation, or for the purpose of career advancement schemes. However, this may not affect the

attribution  of safety related responsibilities  that  is made by the Essential  Requirements  and the

implementing rules.

61  See OR.OPS.115.FC (b).
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 48 of 123

26.  Secondly,  two changes  have  been made to the  provisions  of  EU­OPS  1.975/JAR­OPS 

3.975.  On the  one  hand, they  have  been included in the  paragraph related  to the 

nomination of  the  pilot­in­command;  the  reason for  this  is  that  it seemed  logical to

include  in the  paragraphs  applicable  to such nomination (OR OR.OPS.020.FC and 

OR.OPS.120.FC)  the  conditions  for  such a  nomination

62

.  On the  other  hand, the 

expression ‘qualification’  disappears;  the  reason for  this is  that EU/JAR­OPS  do not

explain or determine anywhere what such a qualification is; who issues it; or whether it is 

related to the licence or not. Consequently, to avoid confusion in terminology that could 

generate confusion in regime, it was considered that is was better to remove the mention

of ‘qualification’ while maintaining the requirements related to training and experience as 

conditions for the nomination as pilot­in­command. The intention was, therefore, not to

change the content and purpose of the requirement, but merely to change the wording in

a  way  that  would  avoid  misinterpretation.  Finally  some  changes  in the  wording  were 

made to try and harmonise the wording used for different categories of aircraft as much

as possible while maintaining the content of the requirements unchanged.

27.  Paragraph OR.OPS.025.FC was based on EU­OPS 1.940 and paragraphs OR.OPS.045.FC

to OR.OPS.055.FC,  which are  complemented  by  OR.OPS.145.FC and  OR.OPS.155.FC,  containing the provisions applicable to commercial air transport; they are based on EU­ 

OPS/JAR­OPS 1.965/3.965, 1.980/3.980 and 1.195/3.985 63. No major difference with the 

content of EU/JAR­OPS need to be signalled, besides the already referred changes in the 

legal value  of the texts  (Section 1  material that  was transferred to AMC)  and  drafting 

changes to try  to harmonise  as  much as  possible  requirements  applicable to different

categories of aircraft. 

28.  The  Agency  is  especially  interested  in stakeholders’  views  on harmonisation of  the 

requirements for single pilot IFR and night operations  (OR.OPS.115.FC (c) and  (d)), as 

the provisions  of EU­OPS/JAR­OPS  3  for  aeroplane and helicopter  operations  were  not

harmonised in this  respect. While for helicopters the recent experience requirement for 

night operations may be satisfied by using an FSTD, this is not the case for aeroplanes. 

29.  Finally,  EU­OPS 1.978,  which allows  operators  to establish alternative  training  and 

qualification programmes, was not transposed as such a flexibility is already built in the 

new set of rules since the training requirements are now AMC material and the right to

deviate that was necessary in the EU­OPS framework is not needed any more.  In this 

new context, if an operator wants to develop a training programme that does not follow

the related AMC, it will have to use the mechanism foreseen in Part­AR and Part­OR to

deal with alternative means of compliance.

Section VI Cabin crew (OR.OPS.001.CC)

30.  Appendix IV Explanatory Memorandum on Cabin Crew includes the detailed description of 

Part Cabin Crew, requirements for medical fitness of cabin crew as well as an explanation

on the operator training requirements of this section.

Section VII Technical crew (OR.OPS.001.TC)

31.  This section contains the provisions that were formerly in JAR­OPS 3 Subpart O and deals

with crew  members  other  than flight crew. These  provisions  contain the  common

elements for the training of technical crew members involved in HEMS, Hoist and NVIS 

operations. 

62  Or to be delegated the duties in flight. 

63  For more details on how and where the requirements from EU/JAR­OPS were transferred please see

the comparison tables in Appendix V to this Explanatory Note.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 49 of 123

32.  To lift the existing ambiguity in the definitions of HEMS, Hoist and NVIS crew member, as 

they seem to cover both flight crew and non­flight crew, the definitions were changed to

include the word technical. This word was chosen to distinguish between the flight crew

member  and  the  person,  usually  employed  by  the  operator,  assisting  the  flight crew 

member in order to perform the mission and who need to be trained under the control of 

the operator.

33.  The Agency does not propose transposing the definition of (aerial) task specialist as these 

specialists are not defined as crew members. Draft JAR­OPS 4 does not contain either any 

specific provisions for those specialists other than requiring that their training be specified 

in the Operations Manual Part D.  It is, therefore, the Agency’s view that since they are 

not part of the crew, these specialists are to be considered as passengers and require a 

specialised passenger briefing about the  relevant on­board specialist equipment; this is 

also the philosophy of JAR­OPS 3 as regards the medical passenger in HEMS operations, 

who is  not considered part of the  crew but shall be  given a  dedicated  briefing  on the 

specialised task on board the helicopter. 

34.  Furthermore, as it may be  very  difficult for  an operator to control the training  of any 

specialist it may  carry  on board, as implied by draft JAR­OPS 4  (train those  specialists 

may be especially difficult if those persons are not employed by the operator), the word 

“briefing” is  used  instead of  “training” to provide  for  proportionality.  The  specialised 

briefing ensures that the appropriate level of safety can be maintained as a  reasonably 

achievable responsibility of the operator.

Section VIII Flight and Duty Time Limitations and Rest Requirements (OR.OPS.001.FTL)

35.  The need to regulate flight time  and  rest periods to control and mitigate the effects of 

fatigue is recognised internationally. ICAO published these rules in Parts I, II and III of 

Annex 6. According to this document, crew member’s fatigue issues are treated equally 

with other important issues like sickness  or lack  of  oxygen during flight. The proposed 

Implementing  Rules  related  to FTL requirements  are  concordant with the  ICAO 

provisions. 

36.  The  Basic  Regulation requires  all operators  to ensure, that the  performance  of  crew 

members will not deteriorate to the extent that flight safety is endangered because of the 

effects  of fatigue. Operators  are  required to provide  rest periods for  crew members in

order to overcome the  effects  of  previous  duties.  For  commercial  operations  and  non­  commercial operations  with complex  motor­powered  aircraft limitations  to flight time, 

flight duty  periods  and  rest periods  shall be  specified in the  operations  manual.  Crew

member’s fatigue management should be implemented through a rostering system. Such

a system shall take into account the number of sectors flown, time zone crossing, sleep 

deprivation, disruption of circadian cycles, night hours, positioning, cumulative duty time 

for given periods of time, sharing of allocated tasks between crew members and possible 

crew augmentation. Article 22 of the Basic Regulation requires the Agency to issue FTL

Certification Specifications providing for compliance with these essential requirements. 

37.  The  Implementing Rules  supplementing  the  above  described  provisions, taking  into

account EU­OPS  –  as  specifically  required by  the  Basic  Regulation –  and  available 

scientific evidence, are included in OPS.GEN, AR.OPS and this section of the OR.OPS. 

38.  The  general chapter  specifies  the  scope  of  rule  and  defines  the  terms  used  in the 

document. Provisions of this chapter are applicable for all operators. Specific definitions 

of  flight times for  aeroplanes  and touring motor  gliders, helicopters,  sailplanes and for 

balloons  are introduced as  compared to EU­OPS  and  JAR­OPS to take into account the 

extended scope  of  new legislation.  Moreover,  a  change  to EU­OPS  Subpart Q  is 

introduced in OR.OPS.015.FTL Operator responsibilities for commercial operators or non­  commercial operators  of  complex  motor­powered  aircraft to specify  reporting  times
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 50 of 123

proportionate to the  ground  duties to be  executed. OR.OPS.020.FTL requires  from the 

operator  to provide  individual FTL records for  crew  members concerned  and  other 

operators in the case when crew members are employed by them. General requirements 

concerning  the  establishment of  a  Fatigue  Risk  Management System  (FRMS)  are  laid 

down in the paragraph OR.OPS.025.FTL. The FRMS requirements shall correspond to the 

rostering  system  and therefore  are  different for  non­commercial  operators  of  complex 

motor­powered aircraft and  commercial operators.  FRMS  requirements for  commercial 

operators  are  more  prescriptive  compared to the  respective  requirements  for  non­  commercial operators of  complex  motor­powered  aircraft.  Paragraph OR.OPS.035.FTL

requires operators  to establish procedures concerning  pilot­in­command  decisions in

special circumstances and reporting when the flight duty period  (FDP) was increased at

their discretion. Flight times and duty periods, where applicable to the type of operation,  are specified in OR.OPS.040.FTL. Total duty periods in any 28 and 7 days and total flight

time in any  12  consecutive  calendar months  and  any 28 consecutive days  are  without

indication of time in hours. These figures were moved to FTL certification specifications. 

This  was  done  for  the  purpose  of  envisaging  the  development of  FTL certification

specifications  for  different types  of  flight operations  in the  future.  Leaving  figures  in

Implementing Rules  would  make this  process  excessively  difficult.  For the limitation of 

total flight time the wording “in any 12 consecutive calendar months” is proposed. This is 

in line with the  ICAO proposed  text “in 365 consecutive  days”, but does not have  a 

penalty  of  dissociation with normal alternation of  years  (every  4 th  year is  a  leap­year 

which has 366 days) and is less complex for the operators in respect of calculations of 

total flight time. Requirements for operators in regard to positioning duty are explained in

paragraph OR.OPS.045.FTL and  requirements for  the  assignment of  crew members  to

standby duty  are in paragraph OR.OPS.050.FTL. Both paragraphs  reflect  corresponding 

requirements of Subpart Q.

39.  Chapter  2  ­ Requirements  for  non­commercial operators  of  a  complex  motor­powered 

aircraft are  not sophisticated  and  very  basic. Operators  shall establish, implement and 

maintain limitations applicable to flight times, flight duty periods, duty periods and  rest

periods for crew members. In order to meet this requirement, non­commercial operators 

of complex motor­powered aircrafts shall either: · establish, implement and maintain a  rostering system  which corresponds to their 

type of operation; or · use  FTL certification specifications published by the Agency  which are appropriate 

for the type of operation; or · use  approved  FTL  specification schemes which are appropriate  for  the type  of 

operation.  FTL requirements  of  these  operators  shall be  contained  in the  operations  manual and 

shall be  supported  by  an  adequate  FRMS.  This  provides  for  a  direct link  between the 

complexity of the operations and that of the related FRMS such that, for example, simpler 

operations require a simple FRMS. 

40.  FTL requirements for commercial operators are in Chapter 3. Requirements related to the 

records of flight duty time limitations and rest requirements are laid down in paragraph

OR.OPS.320.FTL. It is explained what kind of records and how long they shall be kept by 

the operator. Paragraph OR.OPS.325.FTL requires operators to establish an FRMS which

is applicable to the type, size and complexity of the operations and which corresponds to

their flight time specifications scheme. This paragraph specifies key elements of FRMS for 

commercial operators while more detailed explanation is moved to guidance material. The 

requirement to establish, implement and maintain flight time specification schemes is laid 

down in paragraph OR.OPS.330.FTL. To meet this  requirement,  commercial operators 

shall either use certification specifications published by the Agency or develop their own

individual flight time specification schemes and submit to their National Aviation Authority 

as described in AR.OPS.310. Subparagraphs (c) and (d) explain substantive elements of 

the documentation to be submitted  for the approval of  the  competent authority. 

Paragraph  OR.OPS.335.FTL elaborates further  requirements for flight time  specification
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 51 of 123

schemes in respect of flight duty period for  crew members  requiring operators to take 

into account such elements as number of sectors flown, encroachment of the Window of 

Circadian Low (WOCL), extension of FDP due to pilot­in­command decision and minimum 

in­flight break including augmentation of basic flight crew. Elements of FTL standby duty 

to be included into operator’s flight time specification scheme are explained in paragraph

OR.OPS.350.FTL. In OR.OPS.355.FTL Rest periods the  requirement for  commercial

operators  to provide crew members  with recurrent extended recovery rest periods  to

compensate for cumulative fatigue was introduced.

41.  FTL certification specifications for commercial air transport operations are in the Section

VIII.  FTL certification specifications; they  are based  on Subpart Q requirements  and 

contain all substantive provisions of Subpart Q as it is required by the Article 22(2)(a) of 

the Basic Regulation. It is the understanding of the Agency that “substantive provisions” 

are  figures and therefore all figures of  Subpart Q  were moved  to FTL certification

specifications:

· In CS FTL.1.135 instead of the transposition of Subpart Q text concerning maximum 

basic  daily  flight duty  period  and  its  changes in respect of  encroachment on the 

Window of Circadian Low (WOCL) and extensions of FDP, two tables for maximum 

daily  FDP calculations  are proposed. All figures given in both tables  are based on

maximum  daily  FDP of  13 hours  which corresponds  to the  EU­OPS  Subpart Q 

requirement. Table in paragraph (a) is  a  requirement to calculate maximum daily 

FDP when extensions are not used and table in paragraph (b) is applicable for the 

calculations of maximum daily FDP with extensions. Both tables enable to calculate 

maximum daily FDP with regard to the time of the day or night when FDP starts.  The  Agency  believes  that introduction of  these  tables  will simplify the  rostering 

process.

· In CS  FTL.1.135  (c)  a  difference in FDP of  flight and  cabin crew  due to different

reporting time shall not exceed 60 minutes  which corresponds to EU OPS 1.1105

1.4.

· In CS FTL.1.140 (Flight times and duty periods) there are figures given in): 

(a)  The total duty periods to which a crew member is assigned do not exceed: 

ß (1) 190 duty hours in any 28 consecutive days; 

ß (2) 60 duty hours in any 7 consecutive days. 

(b) The total block time  of the flights  on which an  individual crew member is 

assigned as an operating crew member does not exceed: 

ß (1) 900 flight hours in any 12 consecutive calendar months; 

ß (2) 100 flight hours in any 28 consecutive days. 

(c)  Total  duty  periods  referred to in (a)  and  (b)  should  be  spread as  evenly  as 

practicable throughout their respective periods.

· Minimum rest periods in CS FTL.1.155 are more clearly divided in rest at home base 

and away from home base. In the case of a minimum rest period away from home 

base the requirement to provide at least 14 hours rest for crew members is added.

· It is  required in CS FTL.1.155 (c), that the minimum  recurrent extended  recovery 

rest period allows to compensate for cumulative fatigue is 36­hour period including 

two local nights and shall be provided in such way, that there are never more than 

168 hours between the end of one recurrent extended recovery rest period and the 

start of the next.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 52 of 123

· In CS FTL.1.160  (Unforeseen circumstances in actual flight operations – discretion

by the  pilot­in­command)  (a)(2) it is  required that the maximum  basic  daily  FDP

which results after applying CS FTL.3.135 (b), (c) and (d) (extensions of basic FDP) 

may  not be  increased  by  more  than one  hour  unless  the  flight crew  has  been

augmented, in which case the maximum flight duty period may be increased by not

more than 2 hours.

· AMC OR.OPS.015.FTL (b) demands  operators not to change the home base more 

than 4 times in any given period of 12  calendar months. OR.OPS.015.FTL  (l) and 

AMC OR.OPS.015.FTL (l) limits the change of a schedule or crewing arrangements 

including crew assignment. 

42.  This  NPA also includes GM explaining the  application of FRMS to commercial  operators 

and non­commercial operators of complex motor­powered aircraft. Operators are advised 

to take into consideration only those elements which are proportionate to the type, size 

and  complexity  of their  operation and corresponding  flight time  specification schemes. 

There is  a list of terms used in the context of FRMS  and their definitions. Purpose and 

scope are explained taking into account the fact that FRMS should be used in conjunction

with certification specifications or individual flight time specification schemes to meet FTL

requirements. 

43.  The FRMS is a scientifically based, data­driven ongoing adaptive process that can identify

fatigue  risks  and  develop  and  evaluate  mitigation strategies  to manage  any emerging 

operational risks. A  FRMS is  an integral part of  an operator’s established management

system and should be based on a partnership approach between the operator, competent

authority  and  crew  member  representatives.  The  FRMS  gives  the  possibility  to apply 

more flexibility in comparison with prescriptive FTL requirements. FRMS is based on “just

culture” and therefore the  related GM clarifies the  role and  responsibilities of operators 

and  crew  members.  In addition, it explains  essential minimal FRMS  components to be 

included as integral part of an operator’s established management system and provides 

with the guidance to assure that fatigue risk management is implemented effectively and 

that regulatory oversight is performed in a reliable and verifiable documented manner. 

44.  GM OR.OPS.325.FTL provides  a  more  exact list of  FRMS  elements  for  commercial

operators including basic  requirements, areas of  operator’s FRM policy  and elements of 

operator’s FRMS education and awareness training programme, as well as guidance for 

the establishment of  Fatigue Management Steering  Group. These  provisions  are 

applicable depending on the type, size and complexity of the organisation and activities of 

the operator.

45.  AMC OR.OPS.330.FTL (c) explains  which elements  of individual flight time specification

scheme  should  be  submitted  to the  competent authority  for the  risk  assessment.  GM

OR.OPS.040.FTL recalls that FTL requirements for commercial operations must take into

account the  limits  and  minimum  standards  already  established  by  Council Directive 

2000/79/EC of 27  November  2000 concerning the  European Agreement on the 

Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation. 

46.  The  Basic  Regulation in Article  22  requires: “the Agency  shall issue  the applicable 

certification specifications  to ensure  compliance  with Essential  Requirements  and,  as 

appropriate, the  related  Implementing  Rules. Initially,  the  Implementing  Rules  shall

include  all substantive provisions  of  Subpart Q  of  Annex  III to Regulation (EEC) No

3922/91...” Currently, Subpart Q provisions are applicable as of 16 July 2008. 

47.  Paragraph  OPS  1.1090  is  transposed into OPS.GEN.020,  OR.OPS.015.FTL  and GM

OR.OPS.050.FTL.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 53 of 123

48.  Definitions to be  used  for the  purposes  of  Subpart  Q  are  described in Paragraph OPS 

1.1095.  This  paragraph is  transposed  into OR.OPS.010.FTL. There  are  some  new

definitions introduced and  some differences  with definitions laid down in ICAO Annex 6 

Part  I.  A definition of  “Duty”  is  a novelty and  is described  as “any  task that a  crew

member is required to carry out associated with the business of an AOC holder.” In this 

respect, questions  related to standby shall be regulated by the competent authority.  In

addition,  definitions  of  “Break”, “Home  base”, “Local day”, “Local night”, “A  single  day 

free  of  duty”, “Operating  crew  member”, “Positioning” and  “Window of  circadian low

(WOCL)” were introduced. Definitions “Flight duty period” and “Rest period” are similar to

those used in ICAO Annex 6  Part I.  Definition “Flight time” for  aeroplanes  and touring 

motor  gliders  corresponds to the  same  definition used in ICAO Annex  6  Part  I,  but in

addition there  are  introduced  definitions  of  flight time  for  helicopters,  sailplanes  and 

balloons. The majority of definitions proposed in Paragraph OPS 1.1095 are still subject

to discussions of the ICAO Operations Panel Working Group as, for example, a definition

of “Standby”. This Working group is currently discussing proposals for the amendment of 

Annex 6 in order to introduce Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS) as the next step 

following the update to the prescriptive flight time, flight duty time, duty time and  rest

periods amendment proposals. Therefore, some definitions already proposed in Subpart Q 

may  be  harmonised  with ICAO  definitions  after  their  review by  ICAO  Air  Navigation

Commission. 

49.  OPS 1.1100 is transposed into CS FTL.1.140. 

50.  Limits  and  calculations  of  maximum  daily  flight duty  period  (FDP)  are  described  in

paragraph OPS 1.1105  and are transposed into two tables of paragraph CS  FTL.1.135. 

These  requirements  do not apply  to single­pilot and  emergency  medical service 

operations.  Limits  for  the  FDP extensions  are also described in this  paragraph and  a 

corresponding table for calculations is added. 

51.  The  FTL requirements in general are the  same for flight and  cabin crew with very few 

marginal differences. One of them relates to the maximum daily FDP and is transposed 

from Subpart Q OPS.1.1105 (3.1) into CS.FTL.1.135(c).

52.  Provisions  related  to the  positioning  duty  were  transposed from  OPS.1.1105 (5)  into

OR.OPS.045.FTL.

53.  Paragraph OPS 1.1110 is transposed into OR.OPS.355.FTL and CS FTL.1.155. Operator’s 

responsibility  is  to ensure  that  minimum  recurrent extended recovery rest periods  to

compensate cumulative fatigue will be increased periodically to a weekly 36­hour period 

including two local nights and there shall not be more than 168 hours between the end of 

one weekly rest period and the start of the next. 

54.  Paragraph 1.1115 is transposed into OR.OPS.335.FTL (f).

55.  Paragraph OPS 1.1120 is transposed into paragraphs OR.OPS.335.FTL (e), CS FTL.1.160,  CS.FTL.1.155 (b) and OR.OPS.035.FTL.

56.  Paragraph OPS 1.1125 is transposed into paragraph OR.OPS.050.FTL  (for all operators) 

and OR.OPS 350.FTL (additionally for commercial operators). 

57.  Paragraph OPS 1.1130 is transposed into paragraph OR.OPS.015.FTL (i).

58.  Paragraph OPS 1.1135 was transposed into OPS.GEN.020, OR.OPS.020.FTL and OR.OPS 

320.FTL. 

59.  Despite the fact that fatigue and its influence on human performance  were extensively 

investigated and a number of scientific studies were published, it has not been possible
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 54 of 123

so far to develop FTL requirements for all types of flight operations. Additional studies are 

needed for  many types  of  operations. The Agency has therefore  undertaken additional

studies  to do so and  will issue, following  proper  rulemaking, additional certification

specifications covering as many types of operations as possible so as to facilitate uniform 

implementation and assist operators  and  national  aviation authorities  in their  daily 

activities.  The  Parliament when adopting  EU­OPS  (Regulation 1899/2006  amending 

regulation 3922/91)  requested  a  scientific  and  medical evaluation of Subpart Q 

(Regulation (EC)  3922/91  article  8(a)):  “By  16 January  2009  the  European Aviation

Safety  Agency shall conclude  a scientific  and medical evaluation of  the  provisions  of 

Subpart Q and, where relevant, Subpart O of Annex III.” The tender concerning scientific 

substantiation of  Subpart Q  requirements  has  just been concluded.  The  evaluation

addresses 18 elements of Subpart Q and establishes a scientific basis to further EASA FTL

rulemaking  considerations.  The Agency  intends  to publish the final report of  the 

evaluation, thus providing transparency to the entire FTL rulemaking process, as well as 

to enable stakeholders  to submit informed comments  in any  consultation of FTL

provisions.  However,  this  NPA  will not contain any elements  as  the  result of  the 

evaluation. In a further step, the conclusions of the study will be fully evaluated, bearing 

in mind  that any alterations  to the  prescriptive  elements  of  Subpart  Q  could  have  a 

significant impact on flight safety and economics. Therefore, any rulemaking task which

may arise from the evaluation will include a Regulatory Impact Assessment considering 

the  potential  safety  benefit,  balanced  against social,  economical,  environmental,  etc. 

aspects. It must also be noted that the majority of these 18 elements refer to those items 

of  Subpart Q  which are  currently  left at  the discretion of  the  national  authorities  in

accordance with article 8(4) of EU OPS, i.e., could be regulated stricter or more lenient

than recommended by the study.

Section VIII Security (OR.OPS.001.SEC)

60.  Section IX of Subpart OR.OPS contains those aviation security requirements which relate 

to flight safety.  These  requirements are applicable to commercial operators and  non­  commercial operators  of  complex  motor­powered  aircraft.  The  requirements  in this 

section address  disruptive  passenger  behaviour,  security  and  security training 

programmes, aircraft search procedure checklists and cockpit security. 

61.  This  section is  based  on Subpart  S  of  EU­OPS  and  JAR­OPS  3;  it also provides  for 

compliance with the applicable ICAO SARPs of Annex 6 Parts I, II and III, of Annex 17.  The  OPS.001 group  participated  in the  development of  the  requirements.  In addition,  Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March

2008 on common rules in the field of  aviation security  was taken into consideration to

achieve a harmonised approach between regulating aviation safety and aviation security. 

Furthermore, requirements  applicable  to aeroplanes  and  helicopters  have  been

harmonised  as much as possible.

62.  Paragraph OR.OPS.020.SEC is based on the general principles of safety management as it 

relates to disruptive passenger behaviour (subparagraph a), and on the implementation

of applicable ICAO SARPS with regard to training and procedures (subparagraph b).

63.  Paragraph OR.OPS.025.SEC reflects the security requirements formerly contained in EU­ 

OPS  1.1235/JAR­OPS  3.1235  and  makes  reference to the  general principles  of  safety 

management with regard  to security  risks.  A  consequential reference  to disruptive 

passengers  in the  security  programme  is  added to complement the  requirements  in

OR.OPS.020.SEC. This paragraph addresses as well the security training programme. No

major  differences  exist in comparison to EU­OPS  1.1240/JAR­OPS  3.1240 (training 

programmes). 

64.  The aircraft search procedure  checklist of OR.OPS.030.SEC follows the  requirements of 

EU­OPS 1.1250/JAR­OPS 3.1250.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 55 of 123

65.  OR.OPS.035.SEC on cockpit security  (aeroplanes)  reflects the  requirements  of  EU­OPS 

1.1255 on flight crew compartment security. The wording has been more closely aligned 

with the provisions in ICAO Annex 6 to ensure their proper implementation. 

66.  OR.OPS.040.SEC addresses cockpit security  (helicopters)  in the  unlikely  case  that  a 

cockpit door should be installed in a helicopter and reflects the requirement of JAR­OPS 

3.1255. 

67.  Reporting acts of unlawful interference, formerly EU­OPS 1.1245/JAR­OPS 3.1245, is not

contained in this section but can be found in Part OPS.GEN as it reflects a  requirement

which is applicable not only to an organisation but also to each individual operator/pilot­ 

in­command.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 56 of 123

Appendix III ­ Explanatory memorandum to Part­AR Subpart OPS

1.  The  purpose  of this  memorandum is to provide  detailed explanations  on the  proposed 

Implementing Rules for  Part­AR  Subpart OPS  and  associated AMC in addition to those 

contained in the general part of the Explanatory Note to this NPA. 

2.  Subpart OPS of the Authority Requirements was not included in the NPA on Authority and 

Organisation Requirements since it was felt more appropriate to present it at the same 

time than the related provisions of Part­OPS, in order to present a consistent set of rules 

for that field.

3.  As most applicable  requirements  are  already  in Subpart GEN of  the  Authority 

Requirements, this Subpart contains only the additional provisions, which are specific to

air operations. Thus, the requirement for the Authorities to keep records relevant to its 

activities  is  supplemented  by the  requirement to maintain a  register  of  operator 

certificates and declarations. 

4.  It is proposed that the air operator certificate and the operation specifications are kept in

order to be consistent with ICAO. However, they will be appended to the organisation’s 

certificate, as  provided in Subpart GEN and  demonstrated in Annex  I of the Authority 

Requirements  (NPA  2008­22).  It should  be  noted  that  specific  approvals  will still be 

needed, in addition to the  ones  provided for in the  operation specifications.  They  are 

related  to the extension of the rectification intervals  for  the MEL,  code  sharing and 

leasing. In the  latter  cases,  in addition to the  necessary  compliance  with Part­OR,

compliance with Part­TCO ­ requirements for third­country­operators ­ will also have to

be verified by the competent authority. 

5.  The possibility to make minor changes to the operations manual without the approval of 

the competent authority is also proposed.

6.  Authority  requirements  concerning  approval procedures  of  individual FTL certification

specifications  are laid down in AR.OPS.310  It requires the authority to ensure that the 

safety objectives are met before approving the individual FTL specification schemes and 

to submit it to the Agency. 

7.  Most AMCs  proposed  in this  NPA  are  not AMCs  to Subpart OPS  of  the  Authority 

Requirements,  but to Subpart GEN. This is a  consequence  of  the corresponding 

requirements  being  in that Subpart.  Those  AMCs  set means  of  compliance  to those 

requirements,  but related  to the  OPS  area.  They  deal with certification and  oversight

procedures.  Their  content is  mainly  derived from  what existed  in the  JAA joint

implementation procedures. 

8.  Ramp inspections are important means for the oversight of operators. A specific Section

is added in Subpart General of the Authority Requirements, dealing with ramp inspections 

addressed to all aircraft, whatever type of operation is concerned.

9.  Regulation 216/2008 establishes a comprehensive framework for the collective oversight

of all aircraft using Community aerodromes, including of course third­country aircraft. It

therefore envisages that Directive 2004/36/EC of  the European Parliament and  of the 

Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third­country aircraft using Community airports 

will be repealed as soon as its Implementing Rules come into force. As a consequence, 

the  measures  adopted  in accordance  with Article  8(2)  of  that Directive  (Commission

Regulation (EC) No 351/2008 of 16 April 2008, Commission Regulation (EC) No 768/2006

of 19 May 2006) and Directive 2008/49/EC of 16 April 2008), will lose their legal basis 

and become null and void; it is necessary therefore to transpose them in the context of
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 57 of 123

the  Implementing  Rules  of  Regulation 216/2008.  Conversely  to Directive  2004/36/EC,  which will cease to exist once this part enters into force, its Implementing Rules will be 

repealed  separately  by  the  future  Air  Operations  Cover  Regulation.  Accordingly  the 

requirements for  competent authorities  are transferred to this  section. As explained in

NPA  2008­17  and  NPA  2008­22 the proposed structure of  this section deviates  from 

existing EASA Implementing Rules and Directive 2004/36 and its Implementing Rules in a 

way that  requirements applicable to competent authorities  are  contained in a  separate 

Regulation. 

10.  The scope of the Basic Regulation is wider than the scope of Directive 2004/36, which is 

limited  to third  country  aircraft engaged in commercial operations  and  third  country 

aircraft of a maximum take­off weight of more than 5.700 kg engaged in non­commercial

operations. Consequently this section will be applicable to all aircraft subject to the Basic 

Regulation used  by  community  and  third  country  operators  (commercial and  non­  commercial). It was felt necessary to establish a comprehensive and uniform system for 

conducting ramp inspections. Therefore  ramp inspections carried out by Member States 

inspecting authorities on aircraft of operators, which are under their regulatory oversight

will be covered by this section as well. 

11.  The  Basic  Regulation gives  the  Agency  the  authority  to conduct ramp  inspections  of 

aircraft, in coordination with Member States, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with

the  applicable  requirements.  This Section prescribes  therefore  on which conditions the 

Agency  will conduct such inspections.  Since  a  ramp  inspection is  not limited  to the 

inspection of  aircraft only it was considered  appropriate to include flight crew 

qualifications and flight documentation as well. 

12.  This section contains definitions (AR.GEN.410) based on the ones in Directive 2004/36/EC

and its  Implementing Rules. Some terms that are  defined in the  aforementioned  rules 

were not kept because they were considered not to be necessary, either because they did 

not appear in this section like “Community SAFA system” and ”third country aircraft”, or 

because  their  meaning  was  explained  sufficiently  in the  rule. In this  case  a  further 

explanation was included in the related AMC. In order to make a clear distinction between

aircraft used by operators under the regulatory oversight of an inspecting authority and 

aircraft used  by  an  operator,  which are  not under  their  regulatory  oversight,  it is 

considered necessary to introduce a definition on ‘third country aircraft’ and ‘third country 

operator’.

13.  Most of the elements of Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/36 have been transferred to AMC.  The reason for this is that the simplified draft requirement of this section is considered to

be sufficient to meet the safety objective at stake; further details could be developed in

an AMC, to allow flexibility on how to determine whether an aircraft is suspected or not. 

14.  In view of the  speed of the advancement of modern operating techniques, aircraft and 

equipment on one hand and the diversity of air operations and the level of risk involved 

on the  other  hand, there is  a  continuing  need to review the  scope  of  inspections  and 

related techniques and procedures to better assess specific areas of interest and ensure 

effective  use  of  inspecting authorities resources.  Therefore, this  section requires that 

spot­check procedures  will be applied on the basis of  risk assessments conducted on a 

continuing basis. 

15.  Another new element to this section is the minimum yearly number of ramp inspections 

the inspecting authority has to carry out. To this end the AMC contains a methodology for 

the  calculation of the  minimum  annual  quota for  each  Member  State. The  Agency has 

taken over the responsibilities of the Member States for third country operators operating 

into, within or out of the Community. The oversight of third country operators will depend 

to a large  extent on ramp inspections  carried  out by inspecting  authorities.  Therefore,

this  section envisages  the  prioritisation of  ramp  inspections  of third  country  operators
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 58 of 123

landing  at Community  aerodromes  communicated  by  the  Agency  to the  inspecting 

authorities. 

16.  With regard to the  collection of  information also a  number  of  elements  of  Article 3  of 

Directive 2004/36/EC have been transferred to AMC. Again, the background of this is to

keep  flexibility  on what kind  of  information should  be  collected. The requirements  for 

inspectors  conducting  ramp inspections,  the training material  applicable  to those 

inspectors and the requirements for training organisations are transferred from Annex II

of Directive 2008/49 to this section. There is a common understanding that the current

rules on ramp inspections lack an objective, like the duty placed on the inspector to avoid 

any personal interest in a  company  under  the  authority  of  the  entity  the  inspector 

belongs  to.  This  section contains  therefore  a  requirement addressing  this  objective 

(AR.GEN.435). It is considered to be clearer when the different categories of findings are 

transferred to this section. However, the categories of findings have been reduced from 

three to two categories of findings (Level 1 and Level 2 finding). The reason for this is to

harmonise the categorisation of findings with the other Parts. Nonetheless the content of 

Directive 2004/36 on the follow up actions has not been changed. 

17.  The requirement in Directive 2004/36/EC for the inspecting authorities to disseminate a 

list of aerodromes  that are  open to international  air  traffic  with an indication of the 

number of ramp inspections each year and the movement of aircraft at each aerodrome 

on that list has been deleted, because it is considered not to be contributing to a more 

efficient or better way of conducting ramp inspections.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 59 of 123

Appendix  IV  ­ Explanatory memorandum relating  to cabin crew:  Part­CC,  Part­MED 

(Subpart E), Part­OR (Subpart OPS – Section VI) and Part­AR (Subpart AR.CC) 

1.  The  purpose  of  this  memorandum  is  to provide  explanations  on the  proposed 

Implementing Rules for cabin crew in addition to those contained in the general part of 

the Explanatory  Note  to this  NPA.  These  explanations  focus on the new elements 

developed for  the  cabin crew attestation and  on the  differences with the EU  OPS 

approach and the related provisions specified in Subpart O. The Agency has also prepared 

specific  cross­reference  tables  to help  the  comparison between the  proposed 

requirements and EU OPS Subpart O, which can be found in Appendix V to this NPA.

Background

2.  The  provisions  applicable  to cabin crew  which have  been the  subject of  intense 

discussions between the European Parliament and the Council were only finalised with the 

adoption of the Basic Regulation in February 2008. This is the  reason why the Agency 

could only  start from  that date developing  the  related  Implementing Rules,  thus  18 

months after the drafting process had already started for the other fields covered by the 

Basic Regulation. 

3.  The provisions of the Basic Regulation relating to cabin crew, namely Article 8 (4) and 8 

(5)(e)  and Annex  IV  paragraphs 7.a. and  7.b. (i)  and  (ii)  were  considered taking into

account the provisions enshrined in Article 8(6) which states the following:

The measures (the Implementing Rules) referred to in Article 8(5) shall:

­ take  into account worldwide  aircraft experience  in service, and  scientific  and 

technical progress, ­ with regard to commercial transportation by  aeroplane, and without prejudice to

the  previous indent,  be  developed initially  on the  basis  of  the  common technical

requirements  and  administrative  procedures  specified  in Annex  III to Regulation

(EEC) No 3922/91, ­ be based on a risk assessment and shall be proportional to the scale and scope of 

the operation.

4.  Furthermore, to properly understand  the provisions of  Article  8(5)(e), the following 

definitions in Article 3 were also to be considered:

(e)  “certification” shall mean any form of recognition that a product, part or appliance, 

organisation or  person complies  with the applicable  requirements  including  the 

provisions of this Regulation and its Implementing Rules, as well as the issuance of 

the relevant certificate attesting such compliance; 

(f) ... 

(g)  “certificate” shall mean any approval, licence or other document issued as the result

of certification;

5.  To prepare the Implementing Rules and the related acceptable means of compliance and 

guidance material, both Subpart O of EU OPS and the Section 2 material developed by 

the JAA were used as the basis and were scrutinised against the provisions of the Basic 

Regulation referred to above. EU OPS requirements for cabin crew originate from Subpart

O of JAR­OPS 1, itself resulting from the work done in the early 90s at JAA level. Since 

the ‘Scientific and medical evaluation of the EU OPS provisions for cabin crew’ required to

be conducted by Regulation (EC) 1899/2006 is expected to be completed by the end of 

2009,  any inadequacy that would  be identified in those EU OPS requirements that are 

now being transferred  into the  proposed  Implementing  rules  will be  addressed  in due 

time following the applicable rulemaking procedures.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 60 of 123

6.  Furthermore, the  EU  OPS  requirements  only apply  to cabin crew  in commercial air

transport.  The scope  of  the  Basic  Regulation is  wider  and  also applies  to cabin crew 

involved in non­commercial operations. 

7.  Also, the Agency had to ensure that the objectives set in Article 2 of the Basic Regulation

were  met.  Article  2,(2)(b)  “to facilitate  the  free  movement of  goods, persons  and 

services”, and Article 2,(2)(f) “to provide a level playing field for all actors in the internal

aviation market”  were  considered relevant to the  case  of  cabin crew. As  an  example,

Implementing  Rules  should  provide  on one  hand  clear  common criteria  that would 

support a level playing  field, and on the  other  hand  more  clarity  and  certainty to the 

regulated persons as regards to their rights and obligations. 

8.  Finally,  since  experience  shows  that the interpretation and  implementation of the 

requirements  applicable to cabin crew  vary  between the  Member  States  and, in some 

cases  between operators  of  the  same  Member  State, the  Agency  gave  the  necessary 

consideration to Article 2(3)(b) and (d) of the Basic Regulation, thus with the view that

the  Implementing  Rules  establish the  conditions  to the  recognition of  the  cabin crew 

attestations and to coherent enforcement and oversight as foreseen by Article 10 of the 

Basic Regulation. 

9.  The above considerations lead the Agency to the conclusion that the EU OPS structure 

used for the requirements applicable to cabin crew would not allow establishing a set of 

Implementing Rules that would comply  with the decisions made by the legislator  when

adopting the Basic Regulation. The related provisions are indeed clear: common training 

and medical requirements should be developed64, and in addition, for cabin crew involved 

in commercial operations,  compliance  with these  requirements  should  be  assessed  by 

means  of  a  process that leads  to the  issuing  of  a  certificate, called  “cabin crew 

attestation” 65. Such cabin crew attestation should only be issued (and maintained valid) 

when the training and medical requirements are (and continue to be) met.

Structure

10.  The  structure envisaged by the Agency for the set of  requirements  applicable to cabin

crew involved in commercial operations  and to commercial operators  operating  aircraft

with cabin crew  is  shown in Figure  2  below.  As regards  cabin crew involved  in non­  commercial operations  and  to non­commercial operators operating  aircraft with cabin

crew, only some of the elements highlighted in grey shading would be applicable.

64  See, paragraph 7(b)(i) and (ii) of the Essential Requirements for air operations 

65  See, paragraph 5(e) of Article 8 on Air operations
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 61 of 123

Figure 2 

Content

11.  Having  developed a  first draft of  Implementing  Rules  based  on the  above  envisaged

structure, and despite the time constraints explained in paragraph 2 above, the Agency 

consulted  experts,  some  of them from  national authorities  with experience  of  different

regulatory systems for cabin crew and the others as members of the OPS.001 group with

operational  expertise  relevant to cabin crew functions.  Some  of  the  experts  could  not

agree  with the Agency’s  understanding  of the  provisions  of the Basic  Regulation as 

described in paragraph 9 above and requested that the subject be disconnected from the 

NPA and be addressed as a separate stand­alone rulemaking task. The Agency conducted 

a legal analysis of the case in coordination with the European Commission. The analysis 

confirmed the  understanding  of  the  Agency.  In the  absence  of  justification to further 

consider the above mentioned request, the Agency completed its task as required by the 

Basic Regulation. 

12.  Later on, the Agency provided the OPS.001 group with a more mature set of proposals 

for  comments. All comments  received  were  duly  considered  and taken into account to

improve the proposals now contained in this NPA and further explained in the following 

paragraphs. 

13. Part AR – Subpart Cabin crew: As shown in Figure (2) above, the requirements for the 

competent authorities are all compiled in a specific Part covering all authority tasks and 

responsibilities. Subpart AR.CC specifies the tasks of the authority relating to cabin crew 

that are additional to those already established in Subpart GEN, in particular: 

o the approval of organisations providing cabin crew training,

o the procedures for the issue of the cabin crew attestation,  o the format and specifications for the cabin crew attestations, 

o the  procedures  for  maintaining, amending, limiting, suspending  or  revoking  the 

cabin crew attestations. 

In the absence of provisions in the Basic Regulation for common criteria for the approval

of  organisations to provide cabin crew training and/or to issue cabin crew attestations, 

such approvals shall be completed according to the applicable national requirements. The 

related  provisions  proposed as  AMC are mainly  inspired  from Section 2  material

developed by the JAA and updated as necessary to comply with the Basic Regulation. The 

procedures  relating  to the  issuing  of  cabin crew attestations  reflect the  provisions  of 

Article 8(4) of the Basic Regulation, thus leaving to the discretion of the Member State 

the  option to approve  an  operator  or  training  organisation to issue  cabin crew 

attestations. As regards to the procedures for amending, limiting, suspending or revoking 

the  cabin crew  attestations, they  are  similar to those  applicable  for  other  certificates,

Authority Requirements 

Subpart AR.CC Cabin Crew

Personnel Cover Regulation 

Annex II – Part­Medical

Subpart E ­ CC medical fitness 

and 

Annex V – Part­Cabin Crew

Organisation Requirements 

Subpart OR.OPS 

Air Operations 

Section VI – Cabin Crew
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 62 of 123

except for the specific case of medical fitness since the Basic Regulation does not require 

the  issuing  of  a medical certificate. It is  therefore  proposed  that cases  of  suspected 

unfitness and of unfit assessment be reported to the competent authority thus ensuring 

that action can be taken as appropriate as regards the cabin crew attestation. 

14.  The provisions  applicable to cabin crew are distributed into two different sets of  rules. 

The first one – Part­Cabin Crew – is addressed to the individual applicants for, or holders 

of, a cabin crew attestation; it only applies to cabin crew in commercial operations. The 

second one is addressed to the operators and compiled as Section VI – Cabin Crew ­ of

Subpart OR.OPS  –  Air  Operations.  This  section includes  in its  Chapter  1  common

requirements applicable to all cabin crew in commercial and non­commercial operations; 

its  Chapter  2  contains  additional  requirements  only  applicable  to commercial air

transport. Finally, this NPA proposes to include into Part Medical (published with the NPA 

on Flight Crew Licensing 66)  an  additional  Section 4  in the  Subpart A  ‘General

Requirements’ and a new Subpart E – ‘Requirements for medical fitness of cabin crew’. 

15. Medical fitness  of  cabin crew: this  issue  seems  to be  very polemical.  Views  vary 

significantly depending on the national circumstances and on the stakeholders concerned.

Some argue that cabin crew do not provoke accidents, further stating that the occurrence 

of unfitness or incapacitation impacting on flight safety is so seldom that medical fitness 

of  cabin crew, contrary to that of the pilots, needs not be  regulated by  comprehensive 

medical provisions. Others voice that unfitness or incapacitation of cabin crew would pose 

unacceptable risk to the protection of passengers particularly in case of any abnormal or 

emergency situation and to the survivability rate in case of emergency evacuation. 

16.  Even though cabin crew as  flight crew  undertake  their  duties  in flight,  the  Agency 

acknowledges that cabin crew functions are not comparable to those of pilots. Cabin crew

functions  would  be  more  similar  in nature to those  of  airport rescue  and  fire­fighting 

personnel who are not at the origin of accidents either. Cabin crew are tasked to protect

the  passengers  and to ensure their  safety in the  cabin by taking  corrective  actions  as 

necessary  and by mitigating the  consequences of  emergencies. They  also contribute in

preventing incidents and accidents including by alerting the flight crew of any identified 

hazard such as surface contamination or security threat. 

17.  To acquire and maintain the required competence, cabin crew must complete physically 

demanding  training  such as  actual  fire­fighting  or  slide­descending. Similarly,  some 

duties  such as  providing  assistance  to passengers  after  decompression require  being 

capable to sustain physically aggressive  conditions  whilst performing efficiently. Finally, 

managing life­threatening  situations  or  security  events which put at risk  flight and 

passenger  safety  require  also mental fitness,  thus  ensuring  that  decision­making  and 

stress management are not impaired in case of an abnormal or emergency situation. 

18.  As regards the currently  applicable  requirements, EU OPS, as  JAR­OPS 1, does  require 

cabin crew to be medically fit to perform their duties but does not specify under which

conditions  their  medical fitness  should  be  assessed. Neither  medical criteria  nor  the 

frequency of medical checks are specified. This is left to the Member State. As a result,  requirements for medical fitness of cabin crew vary from one Member State to the other 

and show a major lack of harmonisation within the European Union. 

19.  In the light of the above considerations, the Agency decided to conduct, on the basis of 

the  relevance to cabin crew duties  and  responsibilities  as  well as the  related  required 

training, a medical analysis of each and every of the medical conditions already identified 

by  aero­medical specialists.  Table  (a)  below shows  the  cases  that were  identified  as 

incompatible  with the  duties,  responsibilities  and/or  the  training  required  from  cabin

crew, thus leading to temporary unfitness or unfit assessment. 

66  NPA 2008­17c
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 63 of 123

Table  (a)  ­  Medical conditions leading to temporary  unfitness  or  unfit assessment of  cabin

crew 

The following severe health conditions have been evaluated as rendering a person unable to: 

(a)  undergo crucial parts of the training  required from  cabin crew to acquire and maintain

competence  (e.g. actual  fire­fighting, slide  descending, using  a  Protective  Breathing 

Equipment (PBE) in a simulated smoke­filled environment); and/or: 

(b) manipulate  the  aircraft systems  and/or  emergency  equipment (e.g. exits,  rafts,  fire­ 

extinguishers); and/or 

(c)  sustain the aircraft environment (e.g. altitude, pressure, circulated air, noise); and/or 

perform the  required duties and  responsibilities efficiently, particularly those  relating to

emergency  situations  and  psychologically demanding  circumstances  (e.g. assistance to

passengers  in case  of  decompression;  crew coordination,  stress  management and 

decision­making  in case  of  safety  hazard  or emergency,  management of  disruptive 

passengers and security threats). 

System  Health conditions

Temporary

unfitness

Unfit 

assessment

aneurysm  of  the  thoracic or supra­renal 

abdominal aorta, before or after surgery X

significant abnormality of any of the heart valves until satisfactory

surgical repair Requirement for systemic anticoagulant therapy X

heart or heart/lung transplantation X

symptomatic coronary artery disease or X

symptoms of  coronary artery disease  controlled 

by medication

X

symptomatic sinoatrial disease;  X

complete atrioventricular block  X

symptomatic QT prolongation X

automatic implantable defibrillating system  X

Cardiovascular

anti­tachycardia pacemaker X

significant impairment of pulmonary function until satisfactory

Respiratory recovery

Partial pneumonectomy X

Digestive

sequelae  of  disease  or surgical  intervention in 

any part of the digestive tract or its adnexa likely

to cause incapacitation in flight, in particular any

obstruction due to stricture or compression

until satisfactory

recovery (could be 

treated by surgery)

Metabolic and 

Endocrine

diabetes requiring insulin X

sequela of disease or surgical procedures on the 

kidneys or the  urinary tract  likely to  cause 

incapacitation,  in  particular any obstruction due 

to stricture or compression

until satisfactory

recovery (could be 

treated by surgery)

Genitourinary

major surgical operation in the urinary apparatus

involving a total or partial excision or a diversion

of its organs

until full recovery

major gynaecological operation until full recovery

Obstetrics and 

Gynaecology

from 17

th week of gestation until full recovery

after end of 

pregnancy

schizophrenia, schizotypal or delusional disorder X

Psychiatry single or repeated acts of deliberate self­harm  until satisfactory

psychiatric

evaluation
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 64 of 123

epilepsy X

Neurology recurring  episodes of  disturbance  of 

consciousness of uncertain cause 

X

Visual Diplopia; refractive error greater than 9/6; 

colour blindness

X

Oncology intracerebral malignant tumour X

20.  On this basis, and with a view to meet the objective of the requirement set by Annex IV, 

7(b)(ii) of the Basic Regulation, the Agency has developed medical requirements which

ensure uniform implementation within the EU, equivalent protection for the passengers 

and certainty for the cabin crew, while providing a level playing field for the operators. 

Proportionality to the  risks  related  to commercial and  non­commercial operations  is 

proposed to be achieved by less frequent medical checks and different qualifications for 

the medical practitioners  conducting the  medical  examinations  and  assessments:  aero­  medical examiners for cabin crew involved in commercial operations and general medical

practitioners for cabin crew in non­commercial operations. 

21.  Since the Basic Regulation does not specifically require the issuing of medical certificates, 

even though medical fitness is  a  condition to maintain valid the  cabin crew attestation

required by Article 8(5)(e), there is no such requirement in the proposed Implementing 

Rules. To ensure that the authority is informed and can take action when necessary, it is 

proposed  that the  aero­medical examiner  conducting  the  medical examination and 

assessment only  reports  cases  of  suspected unfitness  and  unfit  assessment to the 

competent authority in writing in a form and manner established by that authority. 

22. Minimum age is the same as in EU OPS. Also, requirements for the minimum number and 

composition of cabin crew are in principle the same, except that a reference to Part­21 on

certification of  aircraft67 has been included in consistency  with the  Implementing Rules 

proposed in NPA­2009­01 68 related to the operational suitability certificate.

23. Acquisition and  maintenance  of  competence:  the  proposed  training  requirements  are 

those of EU OPS supplemented by Section 2 material of JAR­OPS 1. Periods of validity of 

the training and associated checking, as well as the requirement for the six month recent

operating experience are also the same as in EU OPS. The main difference compared to

EU OPS is that the training programmes are distributed between Part­CC for those that 

relate to the attestation of cabin crew involved in commercial air transport and Part­OR 

(Subpart OPS)  for  the  operators.  The  training  programs  have  been respectively  re­ 

allocated  by  differentiating  those  training  subjects  that are  aircraft type­specific  and 

common  to all aircraft of  the  same  type, whatever  operator  operates  that  particular 

aircraft, from those that are operator­specific. For cabin crew involved in non commercial

operations, all training requirements are addressed to the operator that is responsible to

ensure  compliance  with the applicable training programmes  specified in Part­CC and in

Part­OR (Subpart OPS ­ Section VI).

24. Proof of compliance with the  requirements: this is the main difference with EU OPS.  In

that regulation,  the  competence of  cabin crew involved  in commercial air  transport

depends entirely on the operator and the required initial safety training attestation is only 

an evidence of training. In the Basic Regulation, the required cabin crew attestation is a 

document to be issued as a result of a certification process under the responsibility of the 

competent authority. The proposed Implementing Rules specify that initial training course 

67  See Annex  to  Commission  Regulation (EC)  No  1702/2003  of 24 September  2003 laying down 

implementing rules  for  the airworthiness  and environmental  certification  of aircraft  and related

products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production (OJ L 243, 

27.9.2003,  p.  6).  Regulation as  last  amended by Commission Regulation (EC)  1057/2008 of 27

October 2008 (OJ L 283, 28.9.2008, p. 30).  68  http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_62
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Page 65 of 123

and aircraft type­specific training are covered as part of the  requirements applicable to

the applicants  for, or  holders  of,  a cabin crew attestation. Compliance  with such

requirements  gives the holder  of  a  cabin of 24 September  2003  laying down  implementing

rules for the airworthiness and environmental  certification of aircraft and related products, parts 

and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production (OJ L 243, 27.9.2003, p. 6).  Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) 1057/2008 of 27 October 2008 (OJ L 

283, 28.9.2008, p. 30).crew attestation the privileges to act as cabin crew in commercial air 

transport, provided they are, and remain, medically fit and competent for the aircraft to

be operated. On one hand, this should facilitate the free movement of holders of a cabin

crew attestation should they wish to move to another employer or another Member State 

of  the  European Union.  On the  other  hand, it should  also provide  new operators  or 

operators  in need  of  new recruits  with more  opportunities  to find  experienced  and 

qualified  cabin crew  who would  be  ready to operate  as  soon as  having  completed the 

operator­specific required training.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment A to Appendix I

1 of 4

Attachment A to Appendix I ­ Explanatory memorandum on Part­OPS

DRAFT  REGULATORY  IMPACT  ASSESSMENT  –  RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF  SELECTED

REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE FOR IMPROVED SEAT/RESTRAINT SYSTEM INSTALLATIONS ON

TRANSPORT CATEGORY (PASSENGER) AIRCRAFT WITH A MAXIMUM TAKEOFF WEIGHT OF LESS 

THAN 5700 KG

1 Purpose and Intended Effect of the Measure

1.1 Issue

In 1988, significant upgrading of the design requirements for aircraft seats took place (US Code of 

Federal  Requirements  CFR  Title 14,  Part  23 (FAR­23) Amendment 23­36,  and similarly  in the

requirements  of  JAR­23,  original issue dated 11 March 1994 which was based on FAR­23 at 

Amendment  23­42).  There was  not  then or since any requirement  in Europe to make all these

upgraded requirements  fully retrospective either on current  operational  aircraft  or aircraft still in 

production certified to an earlier standard. 

The FAA did  devise a limited retroactive requirement, (ref., FAR  23.2 at  Amendment  23­32

effective 12/12/85) ­ aeroplanes  in  the normal, utility  and aerobatic  category  with 9 passenger

seats or less manufactured after 12/12/86 are required to have a safety belt and harness. 

Similarly the CAA­UK amended the Air Navigation Order (Schedule  4, Section 5, Scale  B (i)(f)

applicable to aeroplanes flying for any purpose, (Public Transport or other) so that aeroplanes with

a Certificate of Airworthiness first issued on or after 1 February 1989 with a maximum weight not 

greater than 5,700 kg and 9 passenger seats or less  must be fitted with a safety  belt with one

diagonal shoulder strap or safety harness for each passenger seat.

Following a fatal  accident  to a Cessna Titan,  the UK  Air Accident  Investigation Branch (AAIB)

made the recommendation that the Civil Aviation Authority of the UK (CAA­UK) “undertake a study 

to identify those elements of the current JAR­23 seat standards which may be used for retro fit into

existing aeroplanes whose maximum certified take off mass is less than 5,700 kg. And, separately, 

for those designs in continuing production which are not  covered by the current  JAR  standards. 

These elements  should then be applied at  least  to those that  are operated in  the Transport 

Category (Passenger).” 

The AAIB noted that any proposed retrofit on FAR/JAR Part 23 aeroplanes, of all the elements of 

the upgraded requirements,  would be complex and on some designs  it  would  be particularly 

difficult  to satisfy  FAR/JAR  23.562 the so called “dynamic  seats”  requirement. However AAIB

proposed and CAA­UK agreed that  it was  necessary  to investigate whether incorporating some

elements of the upgraded requirements for aircraft seats would be effective in saving lives.

This RIA considers a further retrospective application of some or all elements of the improved seat 

requirements that would increase occupant safety. 

1.2 Objective

To increase the survivability of occupants subjected to an emergency alighting event by upgrading

the design standards of aircraft seats and restraint systems. The design standard improvements 

are broken down into elements. The elements are then assessed for their benefits and practicality 

in order that a rational selection of effective measure(s) for potential retrospective application can

be developed.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment A to Appendix I

2 of 4

2 Risk Assessment

The continued operation of aeroplanes with seats designed to pre 1988 requirements exposes the

occupants to increased risk of death and injury in the event of an emergency alighting event when

compared with those occupants of  aeroplanes  designed to post  1988 seat  design standards. A

quantitative assessment of risk in the form of lives that could be saved has been performed for the

particular option selected worthy for a detailed cost­benefit study and is contained in the Notice of 

Proposed Amendment (NPA) 26­XXX.

3 Options

Identified options are based on the AAIB recommendation “to identify those elements of the current 

JAR­23 seat standards which may be used for retro fit into existing aeroplanes whose maximum

certified take off mass is less than 5,700 kg”. 

3.1 Option 1

Do nothing. This is inconsistent with the rationale behind the improved seat design standards that 

have been developed in the FAR  / JAR  codes and the risk  of  additional  fatalities  posed by 

continued operation of aircraft that have not been certified to the latest seat standards – historical 

UK  accident  data is explored below  in  para 4 and the potential for future fatalities  under a “do

nothing” approach is unacceptable. 

3.2 Option 2

Fit  the latest  standard of dynamically  qualified seats  to aircraft (with shoulder harnesses  when

fitted to normal, utility and aerobatic  categories, and with conventional  lap straps  when fitted to

commuter category aircraft). Both full dynamic and static compliance to be demonstrated with the

occupant retention and injury criteria contained in current FAR/JAR 23.561, 562, 785 requirements.

FAA research has  led to the conclusion that, except  for products  with new  Type Certificates, 

dynamic  certification testing is  not  warranted, static  testing of shoulder harnesses  being

appropriate. It  is  noted that  static  testing would be intended to account for the increase in

occupancy  weight,  (98 kg,  previously  was  77 kg).  ref JAR23.785(a)).  Dynamic  qualification of 

aeroplane seats  is  much more expensive  and burdensome than static  qualification,  requiring

dedicated facilities  with much more complex test  apparatus  and instrumentation.  There is  also 

some doubt  whether the full benefits  of  dynamically  qualified seats/restraint systems  can be

reaped when such seats are retrospectively mounted on some older designs  of  aeroplane

structures which have not been designed with such dynamic cases in mind. 

3.3 Option 3

Fit reinforced seats and lap strap restraint system only accounting for the increased static mass of 

occupants  ­ current  JAR  23.785(a) requires  a 98 kg occupant, previously  was  77 kg,  (FAR 23

Amendment 23­36 effective 14 September 1988 introduced dynamic seat criteria and an increased

occupant mass). 

It  is  noted that  the occupant  mass  has  increased by  approximately  26% over that  required for

aeroplane certificated to previous  FAR  23 Amendments  and the British  Civil Airworthiness 

Requirements of BCAR Section K that were applicable to the older aircraft of this class. However, it 

is noted that in the UK that the application of BCAR Section K to older types also resulted in the

application of a 9g resultant loading case and higher down and side load cases, these down and

side cases providing higher design loads in the past even allowing for the latest occupant mass 

increase.  JAR­23 could  demand a 26 % higher strength case for the pure forward case which 

would improve occupant retention in this sense alone. These options are not fully dismissed, but
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment A to Appendix I

3 of 4

accounting for increased occupant mass without requiring an upper torso restraint will only provide

a relatively  small overall safety  benefit to occupants whilst  still having the potential for requiring

significant  seat  and airframe reinforcement.  Combining Options  3 and 4 (retention of increased

mass occupant) with the upper torso restraint to make Option 5 makes more logical sense, reaping

further injury reduction benefits for relatively little additional cost over Options 3 and 4. 

3.4 Option 4

Reinforce aircraft floor and restraint system attachment structure to account for the increased static

mass of occupant of 98 kg, (seat with conventional lap strap). See Option 3 for evaluation. 

3.5 Option 5

Fit shoulder harnesses in addition to lap strap restraint as would be required by  JAR 23.785(b),  but only  accounting for increased static mass of occupant  (98 kg) with harness  attaching to

seat/airframe structure,  (reinforcement of both seat and harness attachments to the airframe may 

be necessary), i.e. dynamic compliance with JAR 23.562 not required. 

Evaluation work has been undertaken by the FAA, as detailed in FAR final rule Docket Number

23815 which introduced the FAR 23 Amendment 23­32 effective 12/12/85. FAA concluded that the

most  appropriate option, based on likely  cost  benefit outcome, would be for the more extensive 

retrospective fitment of shoulder harnesses. As noted above, use of the increased occupant mass 

of 98 kg is also recommended when statically qualifying the seat, restraint system and attachments 

to the airframe structure. Hence Option 5 is identified as the best Option.

4 Benefits

Based on an analysis of accident data for aeroplanes of UK registration under 5700 kg over an 11

year period (1992 through 2002), it has been calculated that out of a total of nearly 100 fatalities 

that there were 34 fatalities in potentially “survivable” crashes, (“survivable” = non high speed fly­in 

/ Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT)), and that approximately 14 passenger lives could have been

saved in the impact event  itself by  fitting an improved passenger upper torso restraint  system

alone. In addition a much higher proportion of less severe injuries would also be expected when

using the improved restraints  which in  turn would  lead to a higher probability  of occupant 

evacuation and survival in the event of a post crash fire ­ this would lead to a further reduction in 

fatalities and an increase in potential lives saved in the UK to a value greater than 14 over that 11

year period. 

Future benefits that  could be anticipated from the increased retrospective fitment of  upper torso

restraint sought under Option 5 are likely to be similar, but will be proportional to the number of 

older aeroplanes on the UK register, (i.e. the number of aeroplanes certified with pre­1988 dynamic 

seats and pre­ the retrospective cut­offs of FAR 23.2 and the ANO amendment as referenced in 

the Introduction above). 

Data that would estimate the benefits from retrofitting UTR on older aeroplanes on the EU Member

State register was not available for this RIA, but it is logical to believe that a similar ratio of benefits 

and costs would result from such an analysis.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment A to Appendix I

4 of 4

5 Compliance Costs

It is noted that such retrospective action would place a modification cost burden on a number of 

operators/owners of light aircraft that have been designed and certified to airworthiness codes that 

pre­date the current standards, 

Based on an analysis of data from the UK aircraft register (as at 1 March 2003), for TC(P) aircraft

which have less than or equal to 9 passenger seats (but excluding the passenger seat adjacent to

pilot  in  the total  that  follows  ) and which pre­date the applicability  of the ANO  and FAR  23.3

amendments referenced above: gives a total of 2978 seat places on 1165 individual aircraft which 

could be modified so as to have additional UTR fitted. Data is not immediately available to estimate

the respective numbers for such seats/aircraft that would be affected on EC Member State aviation

registers. 

Restraint System upgrade costs: Precise figures have been difficult to obtain and tend to be very 

aeroplane type and seat layout/installation dependant, thus significant scatter in costs can occur. In

view  of  this, guidance on likely costs  has not  been supplied under this  RIA. (The NPA 26­XXX

does contain some estimates of costs).

6 Consultation/  Results of consultation

Consultation on the proposals will be carried out as part of the NPA process.

7 Summary and Recommendations

Following a number of fatal accidents, a review of applicable requirements to occupant safety has 

been carried out. This review has identified that the retrospective fitment of shoulder harnesses in 

conjunction with reinforced seats and restraint systems, (statically qualified for the increased static 

mass of occupants), offers the most effective solution to address the objective.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 1 of 38  01 May 2007

Attachment B to Appendix I ­ Explanatory memorandum on Part­OPS

JAA NPA­OPS 70

NPA­OPS 70 

JAR­OPS 3 

Dangerous Goods
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 2 of 38  01 May 2007

NPA­OPS XX

NPA to JAR­OPS Part 3 (Commercial Air Transportation Helicopters)

This NPA is comprised of:­

1.  Explanatory Note

1.1.  Regulatory Background

1.2.  Regulatory Impact Assessment 

1.3 Justification Table

2.  Text Proposals

For ease of reference, the proposals are shown in much the same format as they would appear

in the JAR. Thus, Section 1 material is shown in columnar format and Section 2 reads across 

the page. The proposed changes to the text are shown by a combination of strikeout and bold 

italics. The latter indicates proposed new text (or numbering).

Paragraph/s affected:­

JAR­OPS 3.070 Carriage of sporting weapons and ammunition

JAR­OPS 3.080 Offering dangerous goods for transport by air 

JAR­OPS 3.135 Additional information and forms to be carried

JAR­OPS 3.420 Occurrence reporting

Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.1045 Operations Manual Contents (dangerous goods and weapons) 

JAR­OPS 3.1145 General

JAR­OPS 3.1150 Terminology 

JAR­OPS 3.1155 Approval to Transport Dangerous goods 

JAR­OPS 3.1160 Scope

JAR­OPS 3.1165 Limitations on the Transport of Dangerous goods 

JAR­OPS 3.1170 Classification

JAR­OPS 3.1175 Packing

JAR­OPS 3.1180 Labelling and Marking

JAR­OPS 3.1185 Dangerous Goods Transport Document

JAR­OPS 3.1195 Acceptance of Dangerous goods 

JAR­OPS 3.1205 Removal of Contamination

JAR­OPS 3.1215 Provision of Information

JAR­OPS 3.1220 Training programmes 

JAR­OPS 3.1225 Dangerous goods Incident and Accident Reports 

AMC–OPS 3.420 (e)  Dangerous goods Occurrence reporting

IEM OPS 3.1150 (a)  Terminology ­ Dangerous goods Accident and Dangerous goods
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 3 of 38  01 May 2007

Incident

IEM OPS 3.1155 Approval to transport dangerous goods 

IEM OPS 3.1160(a)  Scope

IEM OPS 3.1160(b)(1)  Dangerous goods on a helicopter in accordance with the relevant

regulations or for operating reasons 

IEM OPS 3.1160(b) (3)  Veterinary aid or a humane killer for an animal

IEM OPS 3.1160(b) (4)  Medical Aid for a Patient

IEM OPS 3.1160(b) (5)  Scope – Dangerous goods carried by passengers or crew

IEM OPS 3.1165 (b) 1 States concerned with exemptions 

AMC OPS 3.1215 (b)  Provision of information

AMC OPS 3.1215(c)(1)  Information to the Commander 

AMC OPS 3.1215 (e)  Information in the Event of a Helicopter  Incident or Accident In­ 

flight Emergency 

AMC OPS 3.1220 Training

IEM OPS 3.1220 Training

AMC OPS 3.1225 Dangerous goods Incident and Accident Reports
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 4 of 38  01 May 2007

1.  Explanatory Note

1.1.  Regulatory Background

1.1.1 The origin of the proposals contained in this NPA is detailed under the following four

main headings: 

1.1.1.1 Alignment  with the  International  Civil  Aviation Organization’s  Technical 

Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air

1.1.1.1.1 The carriage of  dangerous  goods by air is  subject to the Standards  and

Recommended Practices (SARPS) of Annex  18 to the Chicago Convention and the

associated Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air

produced by ICAO.  One of the Standards of Annex 18 is that States must take the

measures  necessary  to achieve compliance with the Technical  Instructions  for

international air transport.  Consequently, it is imperative that any other requirements 

peculiar to a particular region of the world, such as JAR­OPS, are closely aligned with

the Technical Instructions  so as to ensure States meet  their international obligations 

under ICAO. 

1.1.1.1.2 The Technical  Instructions  are produced on a biennial  basis  such that  they  have a

validity period of 2 years from 1 January of the first year eg the 2005­2006 edition is 

valid from 1 January 2005.  Since September 2001, attempts have been made to align

JAR­OPS with the Technical Instructions.  However,  at  that time, alignment with the

2001­2002 edition was  sought; since that  time three further editions  have been

produced (2003­2004, 2005­2006 and 2007­2008).  This  has resulted in proposals 

which have sought  to amend text amended previously  but  not yet adopted in JAROPS.  Consequently,  JAR­OPS is aligned to the 1999­2000 edition of  the Technical 

Instructions and this NPA seeks to ensure that all requirements up to and including the

current edition (2007­2008) are reflected in JAR­OPS 3.  Alignment of JAR­OPS 1 with

Technical  Instructions  2005­2006 has  already  been achieved through NPA­OPS 46

from which this NPA has been drawn and then updated. 

1.1.1.2 Increased reference to the Technical Instructions to reduce potential for non­alignment

1.1.1.2.1 The current  process  of proposing changes  to JAR­OPS when a new  edition of the

Technical  Instructions  is  produced means  that  JAR­OPS can never align with the

validity  period of the Technical  Instructions.  The time needed to amend JAR­OPS

means that  by  the time any  amendment is  published,  the latest version of  the

Technical  Instructions  will already  have been valid for some time or may,  as  in  the

current situation, have already been superseded by a later version.  Consequently, at 

the request  of the OST,  a number of proposals  in  this  NPA seek  to adopt  the

requirements  of the Technical  Instructions  by  reference to them as  opposed to

reproducing a requirement, thus removing the potential for non­alignment.

1.1.1.3 Review of Part 2 material

1.1.1.3.1 A review  of  all Part  2 material  relating to dangerous goods  has resulted in some

existing Part material being made rule material. 

1.1.1.4 Amendment proposed by the Dangerous Goods Steering Group

1.1.1.4.1 A small number of proposals  were made by  the Dangerous  Goods Steering Group,  based on experience.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 5 of 38  01 May 2007

1.1.2 The proposals do not result in any significant, contentious and/or interface issues, or

issues of harmonization with other authorities or organizations. 

1.1.3 The Dangerous Goods Steering Group developed NPA­OPS 46 (from which this NPA

is  derived).  The Group consisted of the Authorities  of  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, United

Kingdom;  and AEA (Association of  European Airlines),  FAA (Federal  Aviation

Administration),  IACA (International Air Carriers Association),  IATA (International Air

Transport  Association),  IECC (International  Express  Carriers  Conference),  and

IFALPA (International Federation of Airline Pilot’s Associations). 

1.1.4 Full public  consultation for NPA­OPS 46 was  effected via the JAR  11 process  and

amendment to JAR­OPS 1 progressed in the normal manner. 

1.1.5 The proposals  contained in  NPA­OPS 46 were adopted by  the JAAC  in September

2006 and incorporated into JAR­OPS 1 at Amendment 12 of December 2006. 

1.1.6 Drawing on the experience of producing NPA­OPS 46, this version for JAR­OPS 3 has 

been produced by the HSST in association with the DGSG and will be progressed to

public  consultation in  the accordance with the JAR  11 process.  Minor differences 

between the JAR­OPS 3 and JAR­OPS 1 versions  are retained due to the specific 

requirements of helicopter operations when compared to aeroplane operations.

1.2.  Regulatory Impact Assessment

6.  1.2.1 Purpose and intended effect 

1.2.1.1 The purpose of this NPA is to ensure that JAR­OPS 3 aligns with the provisions of the

International Civil Aviation Organization’s Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport 

of Dangerous Goods by Air.  Acceptance of the proposals will ensure that any State

implementing JAR­OPS will not be in conflict with their obligations under Annex 18 to

the Chicago Convention; it will also ensure that any operator adhering to JAR­OPS will 

also  comply  with the requirements  of all ICAO Contracting States  to which they 

operate. 

1.2.1.2 States and operators are affected by this NPA, but any effect should be minimal since

all JAA States are Contracting States to ICAO and are already bound to implement the

Standards and Recommended Practices of Annex 18. 

7.  1.2.2 Options 

1.2.2.1 The options relating to this NPA are: 

a) Do nothing. 

b) Align JAR­OPS 3 with the Technical Instructions. 

1.2.2.2 To do nothing would have following implications: 

i) Some of the changes implement additional requirements; by maintaining the current 

lesser standard, a JAA operator operating to a non­JAA ICAO contracting state may
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 6 of 38  01 May 2007

find themselves in violation of local laws upon arrival.  Furthermore, every JAA state

would have to file a number of differences against Annex 18. 

ii) Some of the changes  introduce relaxations  to the current  requirements.  By 

maintaining the current standard JAA operators will be penalised in not being able to

take advantage of these relaxations. 

1.2.2.3 To adopt the proposed changes  will ensure that the consequences  identified above

will be addressed. 

8.  1.2.3 Impact 

1.2.3.1 The impact of alignment / non­alignment with the Technical Instructions is as outlined

in 1.2.2.2 above. 

1.2.3.2 There are no significant environmental or social impacts associated with this proposal. 

9.  1.2.4 Consultation

1.2.4.1 The basis  of  this  NPA is  NPA­OPS 46 for JAR­OPS 1 which has gone through full

public consultation. Consultation with this NPA has been conducted within the HSST 

and DGSG.

1.2.4.2 The proposal was thereafter presented and endorsed during the OST 07­1 March

2007 meeting for first RST review before Public Consultation. 

1.2.4.3 The primary consultation prior to the adoption of the JAR will be through the NPA

process of public scrutiny (JAR 11.065). 

10.  1.2.5 Summary and Final Assessment 

The proposed changes  to JAR­OPS 3 will ensure alignment  with the ICAO Technical 

Instructions, thus preventing significant  issues for states and operators alike. The changes 

will also align JAR­OPS 3 with JAR­OPS 1 although where there are differences due to the

special requirements of helicopter operations these are detailed below.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 7 of 38  01 May 2007

1.3 Justification Table

JAR­OPS reference Action Reasons for change

SUBPART B

JAR­OPS 3.070 (c)  Amended Editorial as 3.1150(a)(14) amended to 3.1150(a)(15) 

JAR­OPS 3.080 Deleted This paragraph was originally drafted when JAR­OPS was first

being produced with the intention that it apply  primarily  to

shippers (it originally  stated "A person shall not offer or accept

..."). It was subsequently  amended to include an operator’s 

responsibility. In the opinion of the DGSG, this paragraph now

requires an operator, among other things, to take all reasonable

measures to ensure that no person offers dangerous goods for 

transport by  air  unless that person has been trained; it also

requires that an operator  take all reasonable measures to

ensure that the goods are properly  classified, documented, certificated, described, packaged, marked, labelled and in a fit

condition for transport. In relation to the latter, the DGSG feel

that, whilst this is a reasonable requirement in so far as an

operator  is required to check  conformance of packages and

documents by  carrying out an acceptance check, it is 

unnecessary  since Subpart R already  deals  adequately  and in

detail with this matter. In relation to the former, they feel this is 

unreasonable and impossible to achieve, since there is no

existing requirement in the Technical Instructions which places 

any such onus on operators and there is no existing system by 

which the information can be ascertained. As a minimum, operators would need to have an additional certification from 

shippers  and freight agents, with all the problems that entails 

since there would be no legislation in any  state requiring

shippers  or  others  to provide the information. Moreover,

ensuring persons who are consigning or forwarding dangerous 

goods for  carriage are trained is the responsibility  of their 

employer  and it would seem to be unwise to weaken this 

responsibility or  suggest it may be undertaken by the operator.

In the opinion of the DGSG, the wording of the paragraph is now

seeking to place operators in the position of checking on the

training of persons over which they have no direct responsibility.

JAR­OPS 3.135(a) 8 Consequential

change

Editorial as 3.1215 (d) renumbered as 3.1215 (c).
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 8 of 38  01 May 2007

JAR­OPS reference Action Reasons for change

SUBPART D

JAR­OPS  3.420 (d) 

(4) 

Amended The Technical Instructions have been amended in respect of the

information to be provided by the commander  to the air  traffic 

services in the event of an in­flight emergency  (eg: an engine

fire) about dangerous goods  which are on board the aircraft in

the cargo. The amendment stems from a change to the

equivalent text in Annex  18 to ensure the commander realises 

that he/she must pass on information about the dangerous 

goods on board his/her  aircraft if it is involved in an in­flight

emergency, and for  what purpose. The aim is to ensure that

aerodrome authorities (and through them the fire services)  are

made aware of any potential hazards to persons dealing with the

emergency from what is contained in the cargo on the aircraft. It

is not intended that the commander makes a decision as to what

has caused the in­flight emergency; that is not part of what

he/she is required to report either initially or later. It is to ensure

that essential information is given to those on the ground who

may be involved in dealing with the aircraft when it lands in order 

that they  can be prepared for  whatever  happens, such as 

obtaining protective or  specialist equipment, and do not

exacerbate the situation by taking inappropriate action or cause

injury  to persons by committing them to taking unnecessary 

action. The provision of this information should not be confused

with the responsibility  placed on the operator  to report

dangerous goods accidents and incidents under  JAR­OPS 

3.1225; they are unrelated. The DGSG have noted that JAR­OPS 3.420(d)(4) was amended

so that it now appears as if it relates to an occurrence that

affects flight safety. The requirement on the commander  to

inform the air traffic services of dangerous goods on an aircraft

involved in an in­flight emergency  has nothing to do with the

safety of the flight or the aircraft but, as is identified above, is to

do with alerting persons on the ground of hazards that may arise

when the aircraft lands because of what is contained in the

cargo. The DGSG strongly  recommend that JAR­OPS  3.420(d)(4)  be

amended such that reference to a commander notifying ATC of

any dangerous goods carried on his aircraft be deleted, since it

does not refer to flight safety matters. Since the requirement for 

the commander to notify the air traffic services applies only when

dangerous goods are being carried, the DGSG recommend that

the requirement be added to Subpart R, together with the

associated AMC OPS.  However, 3.420 (d) is a list of all types of

incidents and 3.420(d)(4) also includes a reference to dangerous 

goods incidents and it is suggested it is appropriate to retain text

in this sub paragraph which reflects this. Consequently, it is 

proposed that new text be added, notifying of the requirement to

report dangerous goods incidents and accidents and cross 

referring to similar text (3.1225) in subpart R. (This follows the

precedent set by 3.420(d)(5) “Unlawful Interference”). None of

the requirements of JAR­OPS  as they  reflect the Technical

Instructions have been deleted, there are consequential

proposals in this paper which suggest the information be shown

in a more appropriate location and provide the necessary 

guidance.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 9 of 38  01 May 2007

JAR­OPS reference Action Reasons for change

SUBPART P

Appendix 1 to JAR­  OPS 3.10459.1 (c)  new

paragraph

Appendix 1 to JAR­  OPS  3.1045 9.1

(c),(d) and (e) 

Renumbered as 

(d), (e) and (f) 

Appendix 1 to JAR­  OPS 3.1045 11 (d) 

Amended

See the proposal for  JAR­OPS  3.420(d)(4)  – Occurrence

Reporting. The proposed new paragraph in 9.1 (c)  is a

consequential change arising from the proposal for  JAR­OPS 

3.420(d)(4)  and from the need to ensure compliance with the

Technical Instructions. The DGSG advise that the revised text

of sub­paragraph (d) in A11 of Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.1045

does not cover the requirements of the Technical Instructions, in

that JAR­OPS  no longer  requires the Operations Manual to

contain the procedures for the commander to notify the air traffic 

services of dangerous goods on an aircraft involved in an in­ 

flight emergency. Sub­paragraph (d)  refers to procedures  for 

verbal notification of incidents involving dangerous goods, which

is not a requirement of the Technical Instructions, and does not

cover the notification requirements about the dangerous goods 

on board an aircraft in the event of an occurrence when

dangerous goods are being carried. DGSG recommend that the

notification requirement be added to A9 of Appendix 1 to JAR­  OPS  3.1045, since sub­paragraph (c)  already requires 

procedures for  responding to emergency  situations concerning

dangerous goods. In the proposals for amendment to JAR­OPS 

3.1215(e)  (which appears later  in this paper), it is pointed out

that an operator  will need to have procedures in appropriate

manuals for  notifying dangerous goods on an aircraft which is 

involved in an aircraft accident, serious incident or incident;

therefore, some reference to these notification requirements 

needs to be added to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.1045.

JAR­OPS reference Action Reasons for change

SUBPART R

JAR­OPS 3.1145 Re­positioned text

from 3.1160 (a),

under  a new

heading

Having a “General” introductory paragraph is used elsewhere in

JAR­OPS, such as in sub­part J.

JAR­OPS 3.1145 (a)  Re­positioned text

from 1.1160 (a) 

This text, which was positioned under  “Scope”  was  deemed

more appropriate under “General”.

JAR­OPS 3.1145 (b)  New paragraph Whilst JAR­OPS clearly applies to all operators, there have been

a number of instances where operators in various States have

erroneously believed that Subpart R did not apply to them if they 

did not carry  dangerous  goods  as cargo. Therefore it was 

believed important to highlight at the beginning of the Subpart

that the provisions of JAR­OPS  Subpart R, particularly  those

relating to training, apply to all operators ie not only those with

approval to carry dangerous goods as cargo.

JAR­OPS 3.1150 New sub paragraph

(a) (2) 

Currently in Subpart R there is no explanation for "approval", as 

used in JAR­OPS 3.1165(b)(2). In the context in which it is used
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 10 of 38 01 May 2007

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a) 

(2) 

Renumbered into

(a) (3) 

in this sub­paragraph it has a specific  meaning which is 

explained in the Technical Instructions and such an approval can

only be granted if the conditions specified in the Instructions will

be met. DGSG believe that the rule in JAR­OPS 3.1165(b) 

should be revised to be more specific and that in order to do this 

there needs to be an explanation for "approval".

JAR­OPS 3.1150 New paragraph (a) 

(4) 

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a) 

(3) 

Renumbered as (a) 

(5),

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a) 

(4) 

Renumbered as (a) 

(6) 

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a) 

(5) 

Renumbered as (a) 

(7) 

Currently  in Subpart R there is no explanation as to what are

"dangerous goods". When the Subpart was being developed the

Dangerous Goods Team, who were responsible at that time for 

the development work, understood the explanation would appear 

in JAR 1 but this appears not to have happened. Therefore, an

explanation for "dangerous goods"  does not appear  to exist in

JAR­OPS and it is suggested that this is a serious  omission

which needs to be rectified. The explanation proposed conforms 

to that in Annex 18.

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a) 

(6) 

Renumbered as (a) 

(9) 

Note regarding Unit Load Devices in JAR­OPS 1.1150 (a)(9) and

1.1150 (a)(11) not applicable to helicopters.

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a) 

(7) 

[Re­numbered from 

old (a) (5)]

Amended DG Transport Document. Since the document specified by the

Technical Instructions requires a signed declaration etc, the

second sentence is redundant.

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a) 

(8) 

Deleted The term “ID number” is no longer used in revised subpart R.

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a) 

(8) 

New paragraph

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a) 

(7) 

Renumbered into

(a) (10) 

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a) 

(9) 

Renumbered into

(a) (11) 

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a) 

(10) 

Renumbered into

(a) (12) 

There is no explanation for "exemption". In JAR­OPS 

3.1165(b)(1)  the term "exempted"  is used but the exemption

which would be granted is different to that to which JAR­OPS in

general makes reference. The Technical Instructions has  a

definition for  exemption and lays down the conditions under 

which it can be granted; currently  these are reflected in IEM 

OPS 3.1165(b). Although there are no specific requirements in

the Technical Instructions concerning the length of time an

exemption or approval can be valid, often they will be for only a

short period (eg: a single flight carrying dangerous goods which

are normally forbidden). Moreover, in many cases the Technical

Instructions give detailed guidance on what conditions can be

considered in granting an exemption and, in practice, all the

States concerned have to grant exemptions which contain the

same, or similar, conditions in order for the goods to be carried

(ie: conflicting conditions on different exemptions may  make

compliance with them all impossible for  an operator). DGSG

believes that the rule in JAR­OPS 3.1165(b) should be revised to

be more specific and that in order to do this there needs to be an

explanation for "exemption".

JAR­OPS  3.1150

(a)(11) 

Renumbered into a

(13) and amended. This explanation for “packaging” has been amended in Annex 18and the Technical Instructions and JAR­OPS needs amending to

remain in conformity.

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a) 

(12) 

Deleted

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a) 

(13) 

Renumbered into

(a) (14) 

The term “Proper Shipping Name” is no longer used in revised

subpart R.

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a) 

(14) 

Deleted The term “State of Origin” is no longer used in revised subpart R.

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a)  Amended Reference moved since this also applies to the Supplement of
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 11 of 38 01 May 2007

(15)  the ICAO TI.

JAR­OPS 3.1150 (a) 

(16) 

Deleted The term “UN number” is no longer used in subpart R. The equivalent new paragraph JAR­OPS  1.1150 (a)(16)  Unit

Load Devices is not applicable to helicopters.

JAR­OPS 3.1155 Reference to IEM 

in title deleted

JAR­OPS 3.1155 (a)  Editorial change

JAR­OPS 3.1155 New paragraph (b) 

and “note” 

DGSG recommend that the existing requirements of IEM OPS 

3.1155 be added to the rule, since they  believe that it is the

minimum information that an operator must give to an authority 

for  consideration of an approval. In making this proposal, the

text in the IEM concerning where the dangerous goods approval

may  be located has not been included, since DGELG think  it

inappropriate; it is felt this is a decision for the Authority.

JAR­OPS 3.1160 Replaced with new

text

3.1160 has been completely re­written so as to refer more to the

Technical Instructions. The new text reflects the 2007 TI

changes and now differs from JAR­OPS 1 at Amendment 12

status.

JAR­OPS reference Action Reasons for change

JAR­OPS 3.1165(a)  Amended The Technical Instructions have been radically revised both in

layout and text, due to alignment with the UN Recommendations 

for the Transport of Dangerous Goods. In many places, existing

text in the Instructions has been replaced with the actual text in

the Recommendations. This has occurred in that part of the

Technical Instructions  which sets out what types of dangerous 

goods are totally  forbidden for  transport; the revised text is in

alignment with the equivalent text in the UN Recommendations 

which is more general and does not refer to specific types of

dangerous goods. This means that JAR­OPS 3.1165(a) can no

longer refer to the "generic description" used for these types of

dangerous goods but only that they are generally described. Secondly, as currently written, JAR­OPS appears to require an

operator  to take unspecified “reasonable”  measures to prevent

totally  forbidden dangerous goods  from being carried. It is 

suggested these obligations can only apply to dangerous goods 

which have been declared to the operator. Otherwise this 

places an impractical burden on the operator and does not align

with the Technical Instructions.

JAR­OPS 3.1165(b)  Amended Annex 18 and the Technical Instructions provide for States to

grant exemptions to allow the carriage of dangerous goods 

which are forbidden in normal circumstances; and paragraph 2.1

of the Annex states "In cases of extreme urgency or when other 

forms of transport are inappropriate or full compliance with the

prescribed requirements is contrary  to the public  interest, the

States concerned may  grant exemption from  these provisions 

provided that in such cases every  effort shall be made to

achieve an overall level of safety in transport which is equivalent

to the level of safety  provided by  these provisions."  When

subpart R of JAR­OPS  was  drafted, JAR­OPS  3.1165 (b)  was 

intended to recognise this ability to grant exemptions, as well as 

other  approvals as provided for  in the Technical Instructions. However, DGSG now believe the wording of JAR­OPS 

3.1165(b)  is not sufficiently explicit to make it clear  there are

exemption procedures for  the carriage of dangerous goods 

which need to meet laid down ICAO principles. See also the

proposed definitions for “approval” and “exemption” in JAR­OPS 

3.1150.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 12 of 38 01 May 2007

Secondly, as currently written, JAR­OPS appears to require an

operator  to take unspecified “reasonable”  measures to prevent

totally  forbidden (3.1165(a))  and forbidden unless exempted

(3.1165(b)) dangerous goods from being carried. It is suggested

these obligations can only apply to dangerous goods which have

been declared to the operator. Otherwise this places an

impractical burden on the operator and does not align with the

Technical Instructions.

JAR­OPS reference Action Reasons for change

JAR­OPS 3.1170 Deleted (and

replaced with

“Intentionally 

blank”) 

3.1170 and 3.1180(a) and (c)  can be removed, since the only 

reasonable measures which can be taken is an acceptance

check, which is addressed under 3.1195.

JAR­OPS 3.1175 Retained 3.1175 (Packing)  is retained for  JAR­OPS  3 to allow the

alleviation for specific helicopter operations such as the offshore

area.

JAR­OPS 3.1180 Heading amended Heading amended to ‘Marking’ as labelling now covered by 

3.1195. Reference to ACJ (AMC) OPS 3.1180 added.

JAR­OPS 3.1180 (a)  Deleted Topic now covered in 3.1195.

JAR­OPS 3.1180(b)  Retained as sole

paragraph

Text is retained for  JAR­OPS  3 to allow the alleviation for 

specific  helicopter  operations. Reference to ACJ OPS  3.1180

added.

JAR­OPS 3.1180 (c)  Deleted Topic now covered in 3.1195.

JAR­OPS 3.1185(b)  Deleted (and

replaced with

“Intentionally 

blank”) 

The wording of 3.1185(b) suggests it is aimed at the shipper and

is consequently  inappropriate for JAR­OPS. Therefore

3.1185(b)  has been deleted and 3.1195 amended to address 

this issue.

JAR­OPS 3.1195 (a)  Amended

JAR­OPS 3.1195 (a) 

(1) 

Editorial re­number 

JAR­OPS 3.1195 (a)  New paragraph (2) 

JAR­OPS 3.1195 (a)  New paragraph (3) 

JAR­OPS 3.1195 (b)  Amended

JAR­OPS can only apply to an operator, consequently reference

to handling agent has been removed and the paragraph

rearranged to include text currently referred to in 3.1185 which it

is proposed to delete.

JAR­OPS 3.1200 No change Text is retained for JAR­OPS 3 as Unit Load Devices as covered

in JAR­OPS 1.1200 (b) are not applicable to helicopters.

JAR­OPS 3.1205 (a) 

(1) 

Amended The Technical Instructions have been revised in relation to the

operator’s  responsibilities for  checking that any  baggage and

cargo contaminated by  dangerous goods is decontaminated

before it is carried further  by  air. The Technical Instructions 

already  contain other  information on various contamination

matters and it is suggested that JAR­OPS  should not contain

any of this detail but set down the general principle. Also, the

existing text is not editorially  correct in that it is not leakage or 

damage to the dangerous goods per  se but their  packages (if

they are packed).

JAR­OPS 3.1205 Addition of new (b)  A new requirement has been added to the Technical Instructions 

for the operator to notify the shipper of any non­compliances he

discovers in respect of radioactive material. DGSG

recommends that JAR­OPS 3.1205 is amended accordingly.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 13 of 38 01 May 2007

JAR­OPS 3.1210 Retained The text of JAR­OPS  3.1210 complete with reference to ACJ 

(AMC)  OPS  3.1210 (a), is retained and differs from JAR­OPS 

1.1210 due to helicopter operations.

JAR­OPS reference Action Reasons for change

JAR­OPS 3.1215(a)­ 

(c) 

Amended Information to ground staff (3.1150)  (a))  and crew members 

(3.1150 (c)) combined and amended to align with the Technical

Instructions, which also removes the need for 3.1215(a)(2).

That part of the Technical Instructions dealing with operator’s 

responsibilities contains a requirement concerning the provision

of information to staff and in what documents it should appear.

JAR­OPS  3.1215(a)  does not contain the same text as  in the

Technical Instructions and so the same change is not needed

but it does not currently  say  where information should appear 

and DGSG feel this is an important omission. In JAR­OPS 

3.1215(a)(1)  the current text states that the information must

include actions to be taken in the event of incidents and

accidents involving dangerous goods; the equivalent text in the

Technical Instructions states that it is in the event of

emergencies involving dangerous goods. The text in the

Technical Instructions is considered by  DGSG to be more

correct since an emergency  may  not constitute either  an

accident or  incident but emergency  actions would still be

required. In JAR­OPS 3.1215(a)(2) the word “also” is suggested

for deletion, since many  operators may  only  be providing

information to handling agents and do not employ their own staff. DGSG further recommend that the reference to handling agent

in 3.1215 (b)(2)  be deleted, since it seems inappropriate for 

JAR­OPS to place a direct responsibility on them. It is sufficient

for an operator to have the responsibility to ensure notices are in

place wherever cargo is accepted.

JAR­OPS 1.1215 (d)  Renumbered as (c) 

and amended

Several years ago the Technical Instructions were amended to

require that the commander  of an aircraft be provided with

specific  information for  use in emergencies (eg: the ICAO

document on emergency  response guidance for  dangerous 

goods incidents that occur  in flight). At the time it was 

considered that no change to JAR­OPS was required since the

text was sufficiently  general to encompass any and all

information which the Technical Instructions required. However,

DGSG now feel that since the Technical Instructions have been

significantly  revised concerning the provision of emergency 

information, JAR­OPS  should make specific mention of the

information that must be provided to the commander for use in

emergency response.

JAR­OPS reference Action Reasons for change

JAR­OPS 3.1215 (e)  Deleted reference

to AMC in title

Renumbered as (d) 

and amended

The Technical Instructions have been amended concerning the

information an operator  is required to provide about the

dangerous goods on board an aircraft which is involved in an

aircraft accident or  incident; these provisions require that

procedures are included in manuals and contingency plans.

JAR­OPS 3.1215 (d) 

2

Amended Text amended to reflect the requirements of the Technical

Instructions in respect of notification of dangerous  goods  on a

helicopter involved in a serious incident.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 14 of 38 01 May 2007

JAR­OPS 3.1215 (e)  New paragraph Information to be passed by  a commander  of a helicopter 

involved with an in flight emergency  and carrying DG as 

specified in the TI’s.

JAR­OPS 3.1220 Deletion of

reference to IEM 

OPS in title

JAR­OPS 3.1220 (b)  Replaced with new

text

JAR­OPS 3.1220 (c)  New paragraph

JAR­OPS 3.1220 (c)

old

Renumbered (d) 

and replaced with

new text

JAR­OPS 3.1220 (d) 

­ (f) 

Renumbered (e)­ 

(g) 

JAR­OPS 3.1220 (g)  Renumbered (h) 

and amended

The training provisions of 3.1220 are currently divided into two

parts, those for  operators with an approval to carry  dangerous 

goods as cargo and those for operators without. This does not

reflect the Technical Instructions and results in JAR­OPS being

out of step with those Instructions whenever they are amended, which as experience has shown can be for a considerable length

of time. Consequently, greater  use of references to the

Technical Instructions will solve this issue. New 3.1220 (c) 

introduced by TI’s 2007 regarding the qualifications of instructors 

of DG training.

Consequential paragraph number changes.

JAR­OPS 3.1225 (a)  Amended

JAR­OPS 3.1225 (b)  Amended

In JAR­OPS 3.1225 the operator is required to report dangerous 

goods accidents and incidents or  the finding of

undeclared/misdeclared dangerous goods to the Authority; in

ICAO terminology this is interpreted as meaning the State of the

operator. However, DGSG believe that it is necessary  for 

dangerous goods accidents and incidents and the finding of

undeclared/misdeclared dangerous goods to be reported not

only to the State of the operator but also to the State where they 

occurred. Annex 18 to the Chicago Convention places a

responsibility on a State to investigate and keep records of

dangerous goods accidents and incidents which occur  on its 

territory. Although there is no similar requirement for the finding

of undeclared/misdeclared dangerous goods, their  reporting is 

with the intention that States take enforcement and penalty 

action if there is evidence of a violation of dangerous goods 

regulations, and this is a requirement of the Annex. If

occurrences are only  reported to the Authority  there is the

possibility  that when they  happen in another  State that State

may not be told within a reasonable period of time (if at all) so

that it may be unable to carry  out its responsibilities for 

investigation or, more particularly, so that it may take action to

secure the situation if the occurrence appears to be serious. DGSG strongly recommends that JAR­OPS 3.1225 be amended

to require that dangerous goods accidents and incidents and the

finding of undeclared/misdeclared dangerous goods be reported

to both the Authority  and the State where the event occurred. When developing this text, the latest EU Directives on

occurrence reporting were taken into account.

JAR­OPS reference Action Reasons for change

JAR­OPS 3.1225 New Appendix 1 DGSG also recommends that the present AMC OPS 3.1225 be

made an Appendix to the rule since, whilst the Technical

Instructions do not specify in detail what information needs to be

reported, what is  contained in the AMC OPS  is considered by 

DGSG to be the minimum necessary  for  the appropriate

authority to establish the seriousness of the occurrence and

know what information exists about it.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 15 of 38 01 May 2007

Section 2

AMC OPS 3.420 (e)  Deleted Consequential following deletion of 3.420(d)(4).

IEM OPS 3.1150 (a)  3 renumbered as 5, 4 renumbered into

6 and amended

Consequential following addition of terms “Approval”  and

“Exemption”.

IEM OPS 3.1155 Deleted Consequential due to adoption of appropriate text into rule.

IEM OPS 3.1160 (a)  Renumbered as 

ACJ OPS 3.1160

Consequential due to re­write of 3.1160 and text retained

differing from JAR­OPS 1 due to helicopter  operations. Minor 

editorial changes to text.

IEM OPS 3.1160 (b) 

(1) 

Renumbered as (b)  Consequential due to re­write of 3.1160.

IEM OPS 3.1160 (b) 

(3) 

Deleted Consequential due to re­write of 3.1160.

IEM OPS 3.1160 (b) 

(4) 

Deleted Consequential due to re­write of 3.1160 and TI 2007.

IEM OPS 3.1160 (b) 

(5) 

Renumbered as 

3.1160 (c) (1) 

Consequential due to re­write of 3.1160.

IEM OPS 3.1160 (b) 

(5) (3) (b) 

Amended To align with the Technical Instructions .

IEM OPS 3.1160 (b) 

(5) (3) (c) 

Amended To align with the Technical Instructions.

IEM OPS 3.1160 (b) 

(5) (3) (e) 

Amended To align with the Technical Instructions.

IEM OPS 3.1160 (b) 

(5) (3) (h) 

Amended To align with the Technical Instructions.

IEM OPS 3.1160 (b) 

(5) (3) (j) 

Amended To align with the Technical Instructions.

IEM OPS 3.1160 (b) 

(5) (3) (m) 

Amended To align with the Technical Instructions.

IEM OPS 3.1160 (b) 

(5) (3) (p) 

New Paragraph To align with the Technical Instructions.

IEM OPS 3.1160 (b) 

(5) (3) (q) 

New Paragraph To align with the Technical Instructions.

IEM OPS 3.1160 (b) 

(5) (3) (r) 

New Paragraph To align with the Technical Instructions (2007).

JAR­OPS reference Action Reasons for change

IEM OPS 3.1160 (b) 

(5) (4) 

New Paragraph Due to the time required to amend JAR­OPS, DGSG thought it

useful to add this paragraph explaining that the Technical

Instructions should be consulted for the definitive up to date list of

passenger and crew exceptions.

IEM OPS 3.1165 (b) 

(1) 

Heading

renumbered as 

ACJ OPS 3.1165

(b) and amended

Consequential changes resulting from proposal for 3.1165(b).
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 16 of 38 01 May 2007

IEM OPS 3.1165 (b) 

1

Amended

IEM OPS 3.1165 (b) 

2

Amended

IEM OPS 3.1165 (b) 

3

Replaced with

new text 

IEM OPS 3.1165 (b) 

4

Amended

AMC OPS 3.1175 Renumbered ACJ 

OPS 3.1175

Different from JAR­OPS  1 and retained due to requirements of

helicopter operations. AMC OPS  3.1180

(b) 

Renumbered ACJ 

OPS 3.1180

Consequential change due to amendment to 3.1180. Different

from JAR­OPS 1 and retained due to requirements of helicopter 

operations. AMC OPS  3.1210

(a) 

Renumbered ACJ 

OPS 3.1210(a) 

Different from JAR­OPS  1 and retained due to requirements of

helicopter operations. AMC OPS  3.1215

(b) 

Deleted This AMC OPS is unnecessary  since all the information is in the

Technical Instructions and JAR­OPS  3.1215(b)  already  makes 

reference to the need to comply with those Instructions. ACJ  OPS  3.1215

(c)(1) 

New text OST requested addition of text reflecting the recommendation of

the Technical Instructions to provide a summary of the NOTOC if

it is of such a size that transmission to ATC of all information

would be impracticable. AMC OPS  3.1215

(e) 

Replaced with new

text

The current text replaced an earlier version which stated “If an in­ 

flight emergency occurs and the situation permits, a commander 

shall inform the appropriate air traffic services unit.....”. This text

can be interpreted as requiring a commander, in all

circumstances, to inform ATS  of dangerous  goods on board his 

aircraft, whereas the original text was clear  that this may  not

always be the case. It is suggested the intent has not changed –

the situation may never permit the commander to pass information

­ but to avoid any confusion it is proposed to add a clarification to

the associated AMC OPS.

AMC OPS 3.1220 3 Amended

AMC OPS 3.1220 4 Amended

AMC OPS  3.1220

4.2

Deleted

ACJ OPS 3.1220 5 New text

transferred from 

IEM OPS 3.1220 2

AMC OPS 3.1220 5 Amended and

renumbered 6

AMC OPS 3.1220 6 Renumbered and

amended 7

AMC OPS 3.1220 7 Renumbered and

amended 8

IEM OPS 3.1220 Deleted

Consequential changes resulting from amalgamation of AMC OPS 

3.1220 and IEM OPS 3.1220. AMC amended to ACJ.

AMC OPS 3.1225 1

AMC OPS 3.1225 2

Replaced with new

text, including a

In this paper there is a proposal to add the requirements of AMC

OPS 3.1225 to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.1225, since it contains
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 17 of 38 01 May 2007

AMC OPS 3.1225 3

AMC OPS 3.1225 4

report form  the minimum information that should be sent to States for them to

establish the details of the occurrence. Therefore, the present text

in AMC OPS 3.1225 is no longer needed. DGSG have developed a report form which contains all the

required elements and would wish to encourage its use, since it

would introduce a standard means  of reporting. It has  been

introduced informally and used successfully  in a number  of

European countries for several years; IATA have now included it

in the current edition of the Dangerous  Goods Regulations (the

industry  field document)  as an example of a form  for  reporting

dangerous goods occurrences. If it is completed fully it will ensure

that all the required information is provided. The numbering of the

boxes is intended to facilitate transmission of the details by e­mail

(so that the actual form does not need to be used). The DGSG

recommend that the form be included in AMC OPS 3.1225, with

the information for  the reporting of dangerous  goods accidents 

and incidents so that procedures for reporting can be based on a

common scheme.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 18 of 38 01 May 2007

6.  Text Proposals

SUBPART B

JAR­OPS 3.070 Carriage of sporting  weapons and

ammunition (See IEM OPS 3.070)

(c)  Ammunition for sporting weapons may be

carried  in passengers’ checked  baggage, subject to 

certain limitations, in accordance with the Technical

Instructions (see JAR­OPS 3.1160(b)(5)) as defined 

in JAR­OPS 3.1150(a)(14) (15).

JAR­OPS 3.080  Offering dangerous goods

for transport by  air Intentionally 

blank

An operator shall  take  all reasonable  measures to 

ensure  that  no  person offers or accepts dangerous goods

for transport by air unless the person has been trained and 

the  goods are  properly classified, documented,  certificated, described, packaged, marked, labelled and in  a fit condition for transport as required by the  Technical 

Instructions. 

JAR­OPS 3.135  Additional information and

forms to be carried

(a) An operator shall ensure  that, in addition to  the 

documents and manuals prescribed in JAR­OPS 3.125 and 

JAR­OPS 3.130, the  following information and forms, 

relevant to the type  and area of operation, are  carried on 

each flight:

(8) Notification of special loads including 

dangerous goods including written  information to  the 

commander as prescribed in JAR­OPS 3.1215(d) (c); 

SUBPART D 

JAR­OPS 3.420  Occurrence reporting

(d) Specific Reports. Occurrences for which specific  notification and reporting methods must be  used are 

described below; 

(4) In­flight Emergencies with Dangerous goods on Board. If an in­flight emergency occurs and 

the  situation permits, a commander shall inform the 

appropriate  air traffic  service  unit of any dangerous

goods on board. After the  aircraft has landed, the 

commander shall, if the occurrence has been associated  with  and  was related  to  the transport of dangerous

goods, comply  also  with the  reporting requirements

specified in JAR­OPS 3.1225. (See AMC OPS 

3.420(d)(4))

(4) Dangerous Goods Incidents and Accidents. An operator shall report  dangerous goods incidents

and accidents to the Authority  and the appropriate 

Authority in the State where the  accident or incident 

occurred, as provided for in Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 

3.1225.  The first report shall be despatched within 72 

hours of the event, unless exceptional circumstances

prevent this, and include the details that are known at 

that time. If necessary, a subsequent report must be  made as soon as possible giving whatever additional 

information has been established. (See also JAR­OPS 

3.1225)

SUBPART P

Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.1045 

Operations Manual Contents

(See IEM to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.1045)

9  DANGEROUS GOODS AND WEAPONS

9.1  Information, instructions and general guidance

on the transport of dangerous goods including:

(c) Special notification requirements in the event of

an accident or occurrence when dangerous goods are 

being carried;

(cd) Procedures for responding to  emergency 

situations involving dangerous goods; 

(de) Duties of all personnel involved as per JAR­OPS 

3.1215; and 

(ef) Instructions on the  carriage  of the  operator’s

employees. 

11  HANDLING, NOTIFYING AND REPORTING 

OCCURRENCES

Procedures for the handling,  notifying  and reporting  occurrences. This section must include: 

(d) Procedures for verbal notification to  air traffic 

service units of incidents involving  ACAS RAs, bird 

hazards, dangerous goods and hazardous conditions; 

SUBPART R

JAR­OPS 3.1145  General

An operator must comply with the  applicable provisions

contained  in the  Technical  Instructions,  irrespective of

whether :

(a) the flight is wholly or partly within or wholly outside 

the territory of a state; or

(b) an approval to carry dangerous goods in accordance

with JAR­OPS 3.1155 is held.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 19 of 38 01 May 2007

JAR–OPS 3.1150 Terminology

(a) Terms used in this Subpart have  the  following  meanings: 

(1) Acceptance  Check  List. A  document used 

to  assist in carrying out a check on the  external 

appearance of packages of dangerous goods and  their associated documents to determine that all appropriate 

requirements have been met.

(2) Approval.  For the purposes only of compliance

with JAR­OPS 3.1165(b)(2), an authorisation referred to 

in the Technical Instructions and issued by an authority, 

for the transport of dangerous goods which are normally 

forbidden for transport or for other reasons, as specified 

in the Technical Instructions;

(23) Cargo Aircraft. Any aircraft which is

carrying goods or property but not passengers. In this

context the  following are  not considered to  be 

passengers: 

(i) A crew member; 

(ii) An operator’s employee permitted 

by, and carried in accordance with, the 

instructions contained in the Operations Manual; 

(iii) An authorised  representative  of an  Authority; or

(iv) A person with duties in respect of a 

particular shipment on board.

(4) Dangerous Goods.  Articles or substances

which  are  capable  of posing  a  risk  to  health,  safety,  property or the environment and which are shown in the 

list of dangerous goods in the Technical Instructions or which are classified according to those Instructions.

(35) Dangerous Goods Accident. An occurrence 

associated with and related to the transport of dangerous

goods which results in fatal or serious injury to a person  or major property damage. (See IEM ACJ OPS 

3.1150(a)(3) (5) & (a)(4) (6).)

(46) Dangerous Goods Incident. An occurrence,  other than a dangerous goods accident, associated with 

and  related  to  the  transport of dangerous goods, not  necessarily occurring on board  an aircraft, which 

results in  injury to  a person, property damage, fire, 

breakage, spillage, leakage  of fluid or radiation or

other evidence that the  integrity of the  packaging has not been maintained. Any occurrence relating to  the 

transport of dangerous goods which seriously 

jeopardises the aircraft or its occupants is also deemed 

to  constitute  a dangerous goods incident. (See IEM

ACJ OPS 3.1150(a)(3) (5) & (a)(4) (6).)

(57) Dangerous Goods Transport Document. A 

document which is specified by the  Technical 

Instructions. It is completed by the  person  who  offers

dangerous goods for air transport and  contains

information about those  dangerous goods.  The 

document bears a signed declaration indicating that the 

dangerous goods are fully and accurately described by 

their proper shipping names and [UN/ID numbers] and 

that  they are  correctly classified, packed, marked, 

labelled and in a proper condition for transport.

(8) Exemption. For the purposes only of

compliance with this Subpart, an authorisation 

referred to in the Technical Instructions and issued 

by all the authorities concerned, providing relief from 

the requirements of the Technical Instructions.

(69) Freight Container. A freight container is

an article  of transport equipment for radioactive  materials, designed to  facilitate  the  transport of such  materials, either packaged or unpackaged, by one  or more modes of transport. 

(710) Handling Agent. An  agency  which 

performs on behalf of the  operator some  or all of the 

latter’s functions including receiving, loading,  unloading, transferring or other processing of

passengers or cargo.

[(8) ID number. A temporary identification  number for an item of dangerous goods which has not 

been assigned a UN number.]

(911) Overpack. An enclosure  used  by a single 

shipper to  contain one  or more  packages and to  form  one  handling unit for convenience of handling and 

stowage. 

(1012) Package. The  complete  product of the 

packing operation  consisting of the  packaging and its

contents prepared for transport. 

(1113) Packaging. Receptacles and any other 

components or materials necessary for the receptacle to 

perform its containment function  and to  ensure 

compliance with the packing requirements. 

(12) Proper Shipping Name. The name to be used 

to describe a particular article or substance in all shipping 

documents and  notifications and,  where appropriate,  on  packagings. 

(1314)Serious Injury. An  injury which is

sustained by a person in an accident and which: 

(i) Requires hospitalisation for more 

than 48 hours, commencing within seven days

from the date the injury was received; or

(ii) Results in a fracture  of any bone 

(except simple fractures of fingers, toes or nose); 

or

(iii) Involves lacerations which cause 

severe  haemorrhage, nerve, muscle  or tendon 

damage; or

(iv) Involves injury to any internal organ; 

or
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 20 of 38 01 May 2007

(v) Involves second or third  degree

burns, or any burns affecting more than 5% of

the body surface; or

(vi) Involves verified  exposure  to 

infectious substances or injurious radiation. 

(14) State of Origin. The  Authority in whose 

territory the  dangerous goods were  first loaded on an  aircraft. 

(15) Technical Instructions. The latest effective 

edition of the  Technical Instructions for the  Safe 

Transport of Dangerous goods by Air (Doc  9284–  AN/905), including the  Supplement and any 

Addendum, approved and published by decision of the 

Council of the  International Civil Aviation 

Organization. (ICAO Doc 9284–AN/905)

(16) UN Number. The  four­digit number 

assigned by the United Nations Committee of Experts

on the  Transport of Dangerous goods to  identify a 

substance or a particular group of substances. 

JAR–OPS 3.1155 Approval to Transport

Dangerous goods

(See IEM OPS 3.1155)

(a) An operator shall not transport dangerous goods unless approved to do so by the Authority.

(b) Before the issue of an approval for the transport 

of dangerous goods, the operator shall satisfy the Authority 

that  adequate  training has been  given,  that  all  relevant

documents (e.g. for ground handling, helicopter handling, 

training) contain information and  instructions on 

dangerous goods, and that there are procedures in place to 

ensure the safe handling of dangerous goods at all stages of

air transport. 

Note:  The  exemption or approval  indicated  in JAR­OPS 

3.1165(b)(1) or (2) is in addition  to  the  above and  the 

conditions in (b) may not necessarily apply.

JAR–OPS 3.1160  Scope

(a) An operator shall comply with the  provisions

contained in the  Technical Instructions on all occasions when dangerous goods are carried, irrespective of whether 

the flight is wholly or partly within or wholly outside the 

territory of a State. (See IEM OPS 3.1160(a).)

(b) Articles and substances which would otherwise 

be  classed as dangerous goods are  excluded from the 

provisions of this Subpart, to  the  extent specified in the 

Technical Instructions, provided: 

(1) They are  required to  be  aboard the 

helicopter in accordance with the relevant JARs or for

operating reasons (See IEM OPS 3.1160(b)(1)); 

(2) They are  carried as catering  or cabin 

service supplies; 

(3) They are  carried for use  in flight as

veterinary aid or as a humane killer for an animal See

IEM OPS 3.1160(b)(3)); 

(4) They are  carried for use  in flight for medical aid for a patient, provided that (See IEM OPS 

3.1160(b)(4)):

(i) Gas cylinders have  been  manufactured specifically for the  purpose  of

containing and transporting that particular gas; 

(ii) Drugs, medicines and other medical  matter are under the control of trained personnel 

during the  time  when they are  in use  in the 

helicopter; 

(iii) Equipment containing wet cell 

batteries is kept and, when necessary secured, in  an upright position to  prevent spillage  of the 

electrolyte; and 

(iv) Proper provision is made to stow and 

secure  all  the  equipment during take­off and 

landing  and at  all other times when deemed  necessary by the  commander in  the  interests of

safety; or

(5) They are  carried by passengers or crew members. (See IEM OPS 3.1160(b)(5).)

(c)  Articles and substances intended as replacements

for those in (b)(1) [and (b)(2)] above shall be transported 

on an helicopter as specified in the Technical Instructions.

Articles and substances which would otherwise  be  classed 

as dangerous goods are excluded from the provisions of this

subpart providing that:

(a) they are not subject to the Technical Instructions 

in accordance with Part 1 of those Instructions. 

(b) they are required to be aboard the helicopter and 

are  in accordance with the relevant JARs or for

operating  reasons  (See  ACJ  OPS  3.1160(b)),  although articles and  substances intended as

replacements or which  have been  removed  for

replacement must be transported on an aeroplane 

as specified in the Technical Instructions. 

(c)  they are in baggage: 

(1) carried by passengers or crew members in  accordance with the Technical Instructions. 

(See ACJ OPS 3.1160 (c)(1); or

(2) which has been separated from its owner

during transit (e.g.: lost baggage or improperly 

routed baggage) but which is carried by the 

operator.  See ACJ OPS 3.1160(c)(1).”
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 21 of 38 01 May 2007

JAR–OPS 3.1165 Limitations on the Transport

of Dangerous goods

(a) An operator shall take all reasonable measures to 

ensure  that articles and substances or other goods

declared as dangerous goods that are  specifically 

identified by  name  or generic  description generally 

described in the Technical Instructions as being forbidden 

for transport under any circumstances are  not carried  on 

any helicopter. 

(b) (see IEM ACJ OPS 3.1165(b)) An operator shall 

take  all reasonable  measures to  ensure  that not carry

articles and substances or other goods declared as

dangerous goods that are  identified in  the  Technical 

Instructions as being forbidden for transport in normal 

circumstances are  only transported when  unless all 

applicable the following requirements of those 

Instructions have been met: 

(1) They  are  exempted  The necessary 

exemptions have  been  granted by all the  States

concerned under the  provisions requirements of the 

Technical Instructions (see IEM OPS 3.1165(b)(1)); or

(2) The  Technical Instructions indicate  they  may be  transported under an approval issued by the 

State  of Origin. an approval  has been granted by all 

the State(s) concerned on those occasions when the 

Technical Instructions  indicate that  only such 

approval is required.

JAR–OPS 3.1170  Classification Intentionally 

Blank

An operator shall  take  all reasonable  measures to 

ensure  that articles and substances are  classified as

dangerous goods as specified in the  Technical 

Instructions.

JAR–OPS 3.1175  Packing

(See AMC ACJ OPS 3.1175)

An operator shall take  all reasonable  measures to 

ensure that dangerous goods are packed as specified in the 

Technical Instructions or in  a way which will provide  an  equivalent level of safety subject to  the  approval of the 

Authority.

JAR–OPS 3.1180 Labelling and Marking

(See ACJ OPS 3.1180)

(a) An operator shall take all reasonable measures to 

ensure that packages, overpacks and freight containers are 

labelled and marked as specified in the  Technical 

Instructions. 

(b) An operator shall take all reasonable measures to 

ensure  packages, overpacks and  freight containers are  marked  as specified in the  Technical Instructions or as

specified by the Authority. (See AMC OPS 3.1180(b).)

(c)  Where  dangerous goods are  carried on a flight  which takes place wholly or partly outside the territory of

a State, labelling and marking must be  in the  English 

language in addition to any other language requirements

JAR–OPS 3.1185  Dangerous goods Transport

Document Intentionally Blank

(a) An operator shall ensure  that, except when 

otherwise  specified in the  Technical Instructions,  dangerous goods are  accompanied by a dangerous goods

transport document. 

(b) Where  dangerous goods are  carried on a flight  which takes place wholly or partly outside the territory of

a State, the  English language  must be  used for the 

dangerous goods transport document in addition to  any 

other language requirements. 

JAR–OPS 3.1195 Acceptance of Dangerous 

goods

(a) An operator shall not accept dangerous goods

unless: for transport until

(1) the  package, overpack  or freight container has

been inspected in accordance with the  acceptance

procedures in the Technical Instructions;

(2) except  when  otherwise specified  in the  Technical 

Instructions,  they  are  accompanied  by  two  copies of a 

dangerous goods transport document. 

(3) the English language is used for:

(i) package marking and labelling; and 

(ii) the dangerous goods transport document

in addition to any other language requirements.

(b) An operator or his handling agent  shall use  an  acceptance check list which The  acceptance check list 

shall allow for all relevant details to be checked and shall 

be  in such form as will allow  for the  recording  of the 

results of the acceptance check by manual, mechanical or

computerised means. 

JAR–OPS 3.1205 Removal of Contamination

(a) An operator shall ensure that: 

(1) Any contamination  found as a result  of

resulting from the leakage from or damage to articles
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 22 of 38 01 May 2007

or packages containing of dangerous goods is

removed without delay and steps are taken to nullify 

any hazard as specified in the Technical Instructions; 

and 

(2) A helicopter which has been contaminated 

by  radioactive  materials is immediately taken out of

service and not returned until the radiation level at any 

accessible surface and the non­fixed contamination are  not more  than the  values specified in the  Technical 

Instructions.

(b) In  the  event of a  non­compliance with any 

limit  in the  Technical Instructions applicable  to radiation 

level or contamination, 

(1) the operator must:

(i) ensure  the shipper is informed  if the  noncompliance is identified during transport;

(ii) take  immediate  steps to mitigate  the 

consequences of the non­compliance; 

(iii) communicate  the  non­compliance to  the 

shipper and  relevant  competent

authority(ies), respectively,  as soon as

practicable and immediately whenever an 

emergency situation has developed  or is

developing;

(2) the  operator must  also,  within the scope  of

his responsibilities:

(i) investigate, the non­compliance and its

causes, circumstances and consequences;

(ii) take appropriate action, to remedy the 

causes and circumstances that led to the 

non­compliance and to prevent a  recurrence of similar circumstances that 

led to the non­compliance; 

(iii) communicate to the relevant competent

authority(ies) on the causes of the noncompliance and on corrective or preventative actions taken or to be taken.

JAR–OPS 3.1210  Loading Restrictions

(See  AMC ACJ OPS 3.1210(a))

JAR–OPS 3.1215  Provision of Information

(a) Information to personnel.  An operator must provide

such information in the operations manual and/or other appropriate manuals as will enable personnel to carry out 

their responsibilities with regard to the transport of

dangerous goods as specified in the Technical Instructions, 

including the actions to be taken in the event of

emergencies involving dangerous goods.  Where applicable, 

such information must also be provided to his handling 

agent.

(a) Information to Ground Staff. An operator shall 

ensure that: 

(1) Information is provided to enable  ground 

staff to  carry out their duties with regard to  the 

transport of dangerous goods, including the  actions to 

be  taken in the  event of incidents and accidents

involving dangerous goods; and 

(2) Where  applicable, the information referred 

to in sub­paragraph (a)(1) above is also provided to his

handling agent. 

(b) Information to Passengers and  Other Persons

(See AMC OPS 3.1215(b).)

(1) An operator shall ensure that information is

promulgated as required by the Technical Instructions

so that passengers are warned as to the types of goods which they are  forbidden from transporting aboard  a 

helicopter; and 

(2) An operator and, where  applicable, his

handling agent shall ensure that notices are provided at 

acceptance points for cargo  giving information about 

the transport of dangerous goods. 

(c) Information to Crew Members. An operator shall 

ensure  that information is provided in the  Operations

Manual to  enable  crew members to  carry out their

responsibilities in regard  to  the  transport of dangerous

goods, including the  actions to  be  taken in the  event of

emergencies arising involving dangerous goods. 

(dc) Information to the Commander. An operator shall 

ensure  that: the  commander is provided with written 

information, as specified in the Technical Instructions

(1) written information is provided to the commander about the  dangerous  goods to  be  carried  on  a 

helicopter, as specified in the Technical Instructions

(see ACJ OPS 1.1215(c)(1));

(2) information for use  in responding  to in­flight 

emergencies is provided,  as specified  in the  Technical 

Instructions;

(3) a  legible copy  of the  written  information to  the 

commander is retained  on  the  ground  at  a  readily 

accessible  location  until after the  flight  to  which  the 

written  information  refers.  This copy,  or the 

information contained in it, must be readily accessible 

to the aerodromes of last departure and next scheduled 

arrival  point,  until after the  flight  to  which  the 

information refers;

(4) where  dangerous goods are carried on  a  flight  which 

takes place wholly  or partially  outside  the territory  of  a  State,  the  English  language  is used  for the  written 

information  to  the  commander in  addition  to  any  other

language requirements.

(See Table 1 of Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.1065 for the 

document storage period). 

(ed) Information in the Event of a helicopter Incident
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 23 of 38 01 May 2007

or Accident (See AMC OPS 3.1215(e).)

(1) The  operator of a helicopter which is

involved in a helicopter incident shall, on request,  provide  any information as required  to  minimise  the 

hazards created by any dangerous goods carried. by the 

Technical Instructions

(2) The  operator of a helicopter which is

involved in a helicopter accident or serious incident 

where dangerous goods carried as cargo may be 

involved shall, without delay, provide any information  as required by the Technical Instructions. as soon as

possible, inform the  appropriate  authority of the State 

in which the  helicopter accident occurred of any 

dangerous goods carried.

(3) The operator of a helicopter shall include 

procedures in appropriate manuals and accident 

contingency plans  to  enable this information to be 

provided. 

(e) Information  in  the  Event of an  In­flight Emergency 

(See JAR ACJ OPS 3.1215(e))

(1) If an in­flight  emergency occurs the 

commander shall,  as soon  as the  situation permits, 

inform the appropriate Air Traffic Services unit of any 

dangerous  goods carried  as cargo  on  board  the 

helicopter as specified in the Technical Instructions.

JAR–OPS 1.1220  Training programmes

(See  AMC ACJ OPS 3.1220)

(See IEM OPS 3.1220)

(a) An operator shall  establish and  maintain staff

training programmes,  as required by the  Technical 

Instructions, which shall be approved by the Authority.

(b) An operator must ensure that staff receive training 

in the  requirements commensurate  with their

responsibilities.

(b) Operators not  holding a permanent  approval  to  carry dangerous goods. An operator shall ensure that: 

(1) Staff who  are  engaged in general cargo

[and baggage] handling have received training to carry 

out their duties in respect of dangerous goods. As a  minimum  this training must cover the  areas identified 

in Column 1 of Table 1 and be to a depth sufficient to 

ensure  that  an awareness is gained  of the  hazards

associated with dangerous goods, [how to  identify 

them and what requirements apply to  the  carriage  of

such goods by passengers;] and 

(2) The following personnel: 

(i) Crew members; 

(ii) Passenger handling staff; and 

(iii) Security staff employed by the 

operator who  deal  with the  screening of

passengers and their baggage, have  received 

training which, as a minimum, must cover the 

areas identified in Column 2 of Table 1 and be to 

a depth sufficient to  ensure that  an  awareness is

gained of the  hazards associated with dangerous

goods, how to  identify them and what 

requirements apply to the carriage of such goods

by passengers.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 24 of 38 01 May 2007

Table 1 

AREAS OF TRAINING 1 2

General philosophy X  X 

Limitations on Da ngerou s  Goods in air tra nsport X 

Packa ge ma rking and la belling X  X 

Dangerous goods in

pa ssengers ba gga ge X  X 

Emergency procedur es  X  X 

Not e: ‘X’ indica t es a n a rea to be cover ed.

(c)  Instructors of initial and recurrent dangerous goods training 

programmes shall  meet  the  qualifications  specified  in the  Technical 

Instructions. 

(d) An operator must ensure that training is provided or verified upon

the  employment of a  person  in a  position  involving  the transport  of

dangerous goods by air.

(c) Operators holding  a  permanent  approval to carry dangerous goods. An operator shall ensure that: 

(1) Staff who  are  engaged in the  acceptance of dangerous

goods have received training and are qualified to carry out their duties.  As a minimum this training must cover the areas identified in Column  1 of Table  2 and be to  a depth sufficient to ensure the staff can take 

decisions on the acceptance or refusal of dangerous goods offered for

carriage by air; 

(2) Staff who  are  engaged in ground handling, storage  and 

loading of dangerous goods have received training to  enable  them to 

carry out their duties in respect of dangerous goods. As a minimum this

training must cover the areas identified in Column 2 of Table 2 and be 

to  a depth sufficient to  ensure  that an awareness is gained of the 

hazards associated with dangerous goods, how to identify such goods

and how to handle and load them; 

(3) Staff who  are  engaged in general cargo [and  baggage]

handling have received training to enable them to carry out their duties

in respect of dangerous goods. As a minimum this training must cover

the areas identified in Column 3 of Table 2 and be to a depth sufficient 

to  ensure  that an awareness is gained of the  hazards associated with 

dangerous goods, how to identify such goods, how to handle and load 

them [and what requirements apply to  the  carriage  of such goods by 

passengers;]

(4) Flight  crew members have  received training  which,  as a  minimum, must cover the  areas identified  in Column 4 of Table  2.  Training must be  to  a depth sufficient to  ensure  that an awareness is

gained of the  hazards associated  with dangerous goods and  how they 

should be carried on a helicopter; and 

(5) The following personnel: 

(i) Passenger handling staff; 

(ii) Security staff employed by the  operator who  deal  with the screening of passengers and their baggage; and 

(iii) Crew members other than flight crew members, have
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 25 of 38 01 May 2007

received training which, as a minimum, must cover the  areas

identified in Column 5 of Table  2. Training must be to  a depth 

sufficient to ensure  that an awareness is gained of the  hazards

associated with dangerous goods and what requirements apply to 

the  carriage  of such goods by passengers or, more  generally, 

their carriage on a helicopter. 

[Table 2 

AREAS OF TRAINING 1 2 3 4 5

Limitations on Dangerous goods in air transport X  X  X  X 

Classification of Dangerous goods X 

List of Dangerous goods X  X  X 

Pac kaging specifications and markings X 

Storage and loading

procedures X  X  X  X 

Dangerous goods in

passengers’ baggage X  X  X  X  X 

Emergenc y procedures X  X  X  X  X

]

Not e: ‘x’ indi cat es a n ar ea to be cover ed. 

(de) An operator shall ensure  that all staff who  receive  training  undertake a test to verify understanding of their responsibilities. 

(ef) An operator shall ensure  that all staff who  require  dangerous

goods training receive recurrent training at intervals of not longer than 2 

years. 

(fg) An operator shall ensure that records of dangerous goods training 

are maintained for all staff as required by the Technical Instructions. 

(gh) An operator shall ensure  that his handling agent’s staff are 

trained in accordance with the applicable column of Table 1 or Table 2 as

required by the Technical Instructions.

JAR–OPS 3.1225  Dangerous Goods Incident and Accident

Reports

(See AMC ACJ OPS 3.1225)

(a)  An  operator shall  report  dangerous goods incidents and 

accidents to the Authority and the appropriate Authority in the State where 

the  accident or incident occurred, as provided for in Appendix 1 to JAR­ OPS 3.1225. An initial The first report shall be despatched within 72 hours of

the event  unless exceptional  circumstances prevent  this and  include  the 

details that are known at that time.  If necessary, a subsequent report must 

be  made  as soon  as possible  giving  whatever additional information has

been established.

(b) An  operator shall  also report  to the Authority and  the 

appropriate Authority in the State where the event occurred, the finding of

undeclared  or misdeclared  dangerous goods discovered in  cargo or passengers’ baggage as provided for in Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.1225. An 

initial The first report must be despatched within 72 hours of the discovery 

unless exceptional circumstances prevent this and include the details that are 

known at that time.  If necessary, a subsequent report must be made as soon 

as possible giving whatever additional information has been established.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 26 of 38 01 May 2007

Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.1225

Dangerous goods incident and accident reports

1.  An operator shall ensure that any type of dangerous goods incident 

or accident  is reported,  irrespective of whether the  dangerous  goods are 

contained in cargo, mail, passengers’ baggage  or crew baggage.  The 

finding  of undeclared  or misdeclared  dangerous goods in cargo, mail  or baggage shall also be reported. 

2.  The  first report shall  be  despatched within 72 hours of the event 

unless exceptional circumstances prevent this.  It may be sent by any means, 

including e­mail, telephone or fax.  This report shall include the details that 

are known at that time, under the headings identified in paragraph 3 .  If

necessary, a subsequent report shall be made as soon as possible giving all 

the details that were not known at the time the first report was sent.  If a  report has been made verbally, written confirmation shall be sent as soon as

possible. 

3.  The first and any subsequent report shall be as precise as possible 

and contain such of the following data that are relevant:

a.  Date of the incident or accident or the finding of undeclared 

or misdeclared dangerous goods;

b.  Location, the flight number and flight date; 

c.  Description of the goods and the reference number of the air waybill, pouch, baggage tag, ticket, etc;

d.  Proper shipping  name  (including  the  technical  name,  if

appropriate) and UN/ID number, when known;

e.  Class or division and any subsidiary risk;

f.  Type of packaging, and the packaging specification marking 

on it;

g.  Quantity; 

h.  Name and address of the shipper, passenger, etc;

i.  Any other relevant details; 

j.  Suspected cause of the incident or accident;

k.  Action taken;

l.  Any other reporting action taken; and  m.  Name, title, address and telephone number of the person  making the report. 

4  Copies of relevant documents and any photographs taken should be 

attached to a report.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 27 of 38 01 May 2007

SECTION 2 

SUBPART D

AMC OPS 3.420(e) 

Dangerous goods Occurrence reporting 

See JAR­OPS 3.420(e)

1  To assist the  ground  services in preparing for the  landing of a helicopter  in an emergency situation, it is 

essential that adequate and accurate information about any dangerous goods on board be given to the appropriate air

traffic services unit. Wherever possible  this  information should  include  the  proper shipping name  and/or  the  UN/ID

number, the class/division and for Class 1 the compatibility group, any identified subsidiary risk(s), the quantity and

the location on board the helicopter.

2  When it is not considered possible  to include  all the  information, those  parts thought most relevant in the 

circumstances, such as the UN/ID numbers or classes/divisions and quantity, should be given.

SUBPART R

ACJ/AMC/IEM R — TRANSPORT OF DANGEROUS GOODS BY AIR

IEM ACJ OPS 3.1150(a)(3)(5) & (a)(4)(6)

Terminology ­ Dangerous Goods Accident and Dangerous Goods Incident

See JAR­OPS 3.1150(a)(3)(5) & (a)(4)(6)

As a dangerous goods accident (See  JAR­OPS 3.1150(a)(3)(5)) and dangerous goods incident (See  JAR­OPS

3.1150(a)(4)(6)) may also constitute  an aircraft accident, serious  incident or incident the  criteria for the reporting 

both types of occurrence should be satisfied.

IEM OPS 3.1155 

Approval to transport dangerous goods 

See JAR­OPS 3.1155

1  Permanent approval for the transport of dangerous goods will be reflected on the Air Operator Certificate. In 

other circumstances an approval may be issued separately.

2  Before  the  issue  of an  approval for the  transport of dangerous goods, the  operator should satisfy the 

Authority that adequate  training has been given, that all relevant documents (e.g. for ground handling, helicopter 

handling, training) contain information and instructions on dangerous goods, and that there are procedures in place to 

ensure the safe handling of dangerous goods at all stages of air transport.

3  The exemption or approval indicated in JAR­OPS 3.1165(b)(1) or (2) is in addition to that indicated by JAR­ OPS 3.1155.

IEM ACJ OPS 3.1160(a) 

Scope

See JAR­OPS 3.1160(a)

1  Although the Technical Instructions use the term 'aircraft' throughout the document, the wording may suggest that

the provisions are relevant only to fixed wing scheduled operations. The Technical Instructions contain all the information 

which  is relevant to the transport of dangerous goods by  air, irrespective of what type of aircraft is used  and in what

circumstances.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 28 of 38 01 May 2007

2  Unless  the wording  in the Technical Instructions makes  it otherwise apparent, all the provisions of the Technical

Instructions apply on every occasion when dangerous goods are carried by helicopter. Dangerous goods may be carried 

other than in accordance with the Technical Instructions only when:

a. They have been exempted under JAR­OPS 3.1165(b)(1); or

b. An approval has been issued under JAR­OPS 3.1175 or 3.1210 (a); or

c. The Authority has specified different markings under JAR­OPS 3.1180(b).

IEM ACJ OPS 3.1160(b)(1)

Dangerous goods on a helicopter in accordance with the relevant regulations or for operating 

reasons 

See JAR­OPS 3.1160(b)(1)

1  Dangerous goods required to be on board a helicopter in accordance with the relevant JARs or for operating 

reasons are those which are for:

a. The airworthiness of the helicopter;

b. The safe operation of the helicopter; or 

c. The health of passengers or crew.

2  Such dangerous goods include but are not limited to:

a. Batteries;

b. Fire extinguishers;

c. First­aid kits;

d. Insecticides/Air fresheners;

e. Life saving appliances; and 

f. Portable oxygen supplies.

IEM OPS 3.1160(b)(3)

Veterinary aid or a humane killer for an animal

See JAR­OPS 3.1160(b)(3)

The  dangerous goods referred to in JAR­OPS 3.1160(b)(3) may also be  carried on a flight made  by the  same 

helicopter or preceding the flight on which the animal is carried and/or on a flight made by the same helicopter after 

that animal has been carried when it is impracticable to load or unload the goods at the time of the flight on which the 

animal is carried.

IEM OPS 3.1160(b)(4)

Medical Aid for a Patient

See JAR­OPS 3.1160(b)(4)

1  Gas cylinders, drugs, medicines, other medical material (such as sterilising wipes) and wet cell or lithium 

batteries are the dangerous goods which are normally provided for use in flight as medical aid for a patient. However, what is carried may depend on the needs of the patient. These dangerous goods are not those which are a part of the 

normal equipment of the helicopter.

2  The  dangerous goods referred to in  paragraph  1 above  may also be  carried on a flight made  by the  same 

helicopter to collect a patient or after that patient has been delivered when it is impracticable to load or unload the 

goods at the time of the flight on which the patient is carried.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 29 of 38 01 May 2007

IEM ACJ OPS 3.1160(b)(5) (c)(1)

Scope  –  Dangerous goods carried by passengers or crew

See JAR­OPS 3.1160(b)(5) (c)(1)

1  The  Technical Instructions exclude  some  dangerous goods from the  requirements normally applicable  to 

them when they are carried by passengers or crew members, subject to certain conditions.

2  For the convenience of operators who may not be familiar with the Technical Instructions, these requirements 

are repeated below.

3  The dangerous goods which each passenger or crew member can carry are:

a. Alcoholic  beverages containing more  than 24% but not exceeding 70% alcohol by volume, when in retail

packagings not exceeding 5 litres and with a total not exceeding 5 litres per person;

b. Non­radioactive medicinal or toilet articles (including aerosols, hair sprays, perfumes, medicines  containing 

alcohol); and, in  checked baggage  only, aerosols which  are  non­flammable, non­toxic and without subsidiary risk, when for sporting or home use. Release valves on aerosols must be protected by a cap or other suitable means

to prevent inadvertent release. The net quantity of each single article should not exceed 0∙5 litre or 0∙5 kg and the 

total net quantity of all articles should not exceed 2 litres or 2 kg;

c. One small packet of Safety  safety matches or a cigarette lighter that does not contain for the  person’s 

own use and when carried on him. ‘Strike anywhere’ matches, lighters containing unabsorbed liquid fuel (other than 

liquefied gas), intended for use by an individual when carried on the person. Matches  and lighters  are not

permitted in checked or carry­on baggage. lighter Lighter fuel and lighter refills are  not permitted  on one’s 

person, in carry­on or checked baggage;

d. A hydrocarbon gas­powered hair curler, providing the safety cover is securely fitted over the heating element. Gas refills are not permitted; 

e. Small carbon dioxide gas cylinders of a gas of division 2.2 worn for the operation of mechanical limbs and 

spare cylinders of a similar size if required to ensure an adequate supply for the duration of the journey;

f. Radioisotopic cardiac pacemakers or other devices (including those powered by lithium batteries) implanted 

in a person, or radio­pharmaceuticals contained within the body of a person as a result of medical treatment;

g. A small medical or clinical thermometer containing mercury, for the person’s own use, when in its protective 

case;

h. Dry ice, when used to preserve perishable items, providing the quantity of dry ice does not exceed 2 2.5 kg 

and the package permits the release of the gas. When such packages are contained within bags or suitcases etc,

these must also permit the release of gas. Carriage may be in carry­on (cabin) or checked baggage, but when in 

checked baggage the operator’s agreement is required. Each piece of checked baggage containing dry ice must

be marked:

· “DRY ICE” or “CARBON DIOXIDE, SOLID; and

· with the net weight of dry ice or an indication that the net weight is 2.5kg or less;

i. When carriage is allowed by the operator, small gaseous oxygen or air cylinders for medical use;

j. When carriage is allowed by the operator, not more than two small carbon dioxide cylinders of carbon dioxide

or another suitable gas of Division 2.2 fitted into a self­inflating life­jacket and not more than two spare cylinders;

k. When carriage  is allowed by the  operator, wheelchairs  or other battery­powered mobility aids with non­ 

spillable batteries, providing the equipment is carried as checked baggage. The battery should be securely attached to 

the equipment, be disconnected and the terminals insulated to prevent accidental short circuits;

l. When carriage is allowed by the operator, wheelchairs or other battery­powered mobility aids with spillable 

batteries, providing the  equipment is carried as checked baggage. When the  equipment can be  loaded, stowed, secured and  unloaded always in an upright position, the  battery should be  securely attached to the  equipment, be 

disconnected and the  terminals insulated to prevent accidental short circuits. When the  equipment cannot be  kept

upright, the  battery should be  removed and carried in a strong, rigid packaging, which should  be  leak­tight and 

impervious to battery fluid. The battery in the packaging should be protected against accidental short circuits, be held 

upright and be surrounded by absorbent material in sufficient quantity to absorb the total liquid contents. The package 

containing the  battery should have  on it ‘Battery wet, with wheelchair’ or ‘Battery wet, with mobility aid’, bear  a
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 30 of 38 01 May 2007

‘Corrosives’ label and be marked to indicate its correct orientation. The package should be protected from upset by 

securement in the  cargo compartment of the  helicopter. The  commander should be  informed of the  location of a 

wheelchair or mobility aid with an installed battery or of a packed battery;

m. When carriage is allowed by the operator, cartridges for sporting weapons, (UN0012 and UN0014 only) in 

Division 1.4 S, providing they are in Division 1.4S (See Note), they are for that person’s own use, they are securely 

boxed and in quantities not exceeding 5 kg gross mass and they are in checked baggage. Cartridges with explosive 

or incendiary projectiles are not permitted. Allowances for more than one person must not be combined into one 

or more packages;

NOTE: Division 1.4S is a classification assigned to an explosive. It refers to cartridges which are packed or designed so that any dangerous effects

from the accidental functioning of one or more cartridges in a package are confined within the package unless it has been degraded by fire, when the 

dangerous effects are limited to the extent that they do not hinder fire fighting or other emergency response efforts in the immediate vicinity of the  package. Cartridges for sporting use are likely to be within Division 1.4S. 

n. When carriage is allowed by the operator, a mercurial barometer or mercurial thermometer in carry­on (cabin) 

baggage when in the possession of a representative of a government weather bureau or similar official agency. The 

barometer or thermometer should be packed in a strong packaging having inside a sealed inner liner or bag of strong 

leak­proof and puncture resistant material impervious to mercury closed in such a way as to prevent the escape  of

mercury from the package irrespective of its position. The commander should be informed when such a barometer or

thermometer is to be carried; 

o. When carriage is allowed by the operator, heat producing articles (i.e. battery operated equipment, such as 

under­water torches and soldering equipment, which if accidentally activated will generate  extreme  heat which can 

cause a fire), providing the articles are in carry­on (cabin) baggage. The heat producing component or energy source 

should be removed to prevent accidental functioning;

p.  When carriage is  allowed by the operator(s), one avalanche rescue backpack per person equipped 

with a pyrotechnic trigger mechanism containing not more than 200 mg net of Division 1.4S and not more than 

250 mg  and a cylinder  of compressed gas  of Division 2.2  not exceeding 250 mL. The backpack must be

packed in such a manner that it cannot be accidentally activated. The airbags within the backpack must be

fitted with pressure relief valves; 

q.  Consumer electronic devices  (watches, calculating machines, cameras, cellphones, lap  top

computers, camcorders, etc.) containing lithium or lithium ion cells or batteries when carried by passengers 

or crew for personal use. Spare batteries must be individually protected so as to prevent short circuits and 

carried in carry on baggage only. In addition, each spare battery must not exceed the following quantities:

· for lithium metal or lithium alloy batteries, lithium content of not more than 2 grams; or for lithium ion

batteries, an aggregate equivalent lithium content of not more than 8 grams.

· Lithium ion batteries  which an aggregate equivalent lithium content of  more than 8 grams  but not 

more than 25 grams may be carried in carry on baggage if they are individually protected so as to 

prevent short circuits and are limited to two spare batteries per person.

r. Portable  electronic  devices (for  example  cameras, cellular  phones, laptop computers, and  camcorders)

powered by fuel cell systems, and spare fuel cartridges, under the following conditions:

(1)  fuel cell cartridges may only contain flammable liquids (including methanol), formic acid and butane; 

(2)  fuel cell cartridges must comply with IEC PAS 62282­6­1 Ed. 1;

(3)  fuel cell cartridges must not be refillable by the user. Refueling of fuel cell systems is not permitted

except that the installation of a spare cartridge is allowed. Fuel cell cartridges which are used to refill fuel

cell systems but which are not designed or intended to remain installed (fuel cell refills) are not permitted

to be carried;

(4) the maximum quantity of fuel in any fuel cell cartridge must not exceed:

i) for liquids 200 ml;

ii) for  liquefied gases, 120 ml for non­metallic fuel cell cartridges or  200 ml for  metal fuel cell

cartridges;
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 31 of 38 01 May 2007

(5) each fuel cell cartridge must be marked with a manufacturer’s certification that it conforms to IEC PAS

62282­6­1 Ed. 1, and with the maximum quantity and type of fuel in the cartridge; 

(6)  each  fuel cell system  must conform to IEC PAS 62282­6­1  Ed.  1, and  must be  marked with  a 

manufacturer’s certification that it conforms to the specification; 

(7)  no more than two spare fuel cell cartridges may be carried by a passenger;

(8)  fuel cell systems containing fuel and fuel cell cartridges including spare cartridges are permitted in 

carry­on baggage only; 

(9)  interaction between fuel cells and integrated batteries in a device must conform to IEC PAS 62282­ 6­1 

Ed. 1. Fuel cell systems whose sole function is to charge a battery in the device are not permitted;

(10)  fuel cell systems must be of a type that will not charge batteries when the portable electronic device 

is not in  use  and  must be  durably  marked by  the manufacturer: “APPROVED FOR CARRIAGE IN

AIRCRAFT CABIN ONLY” to so indicate; and 

(11)  in addition to the languages which may be required by the State of Origin for the markings specified

above, English should be used.

4. The list in the Technical Instructions of items permitted for carriage by passengers or crew may be

revised periodically and JAR­OPS may not always reflect the current list. Consequently the latest version of 

the Technical Instructions should also be consulted.

IEM ACJ OPS 3.1165(b)(1)

States concerned with exemptions Exemption and approval procedures of the Technical

Instructions

See JAR­OPS 3.1165(b)(1)

1  The  Technical Instructions  provide  that in certain circumstances dangerous goods, which are  normally 

forbidden on a  helicopter, may be  carried. These  circumstances include  cases of extreme  urgency  or when other 

forms of transport are inappropriate or when full compliance with the prescribed requirements is contrary to the public 

interest. In these circumstances all the States concerned may grant exemptions from the provisions of the Technical

Instructions provided that every effort is made to achieve an overall level of safety which is equivalent to that provided

by the Technical Instructions. Although exemptions are most likely to be granted for the carriage of dangerous 

goods which are not permitted in normal circumstances, they may also be granted in other circumstances, 

such as when the packaging to be used is not provided for by the appropriate packing method or the quantity 

in the packaging is greater than that permitted. The  Instructions  also make provision for some dangerous 

goods  to  be carried when an approval has  been granted only by the  State of Origin, providing specific 

conditions which are laid down in the Technical Instructions are met.

2  The States concerned are those of origin, transit, overflight and destination of the consignment and that of the 

operator. However, the Technical Instructions allow for the State of overflight to consider an application for 

exemption based solely on whether an equivalent level of safety  has  been achieved, if none of the other 

criteria for granting an exemption are relevant.

3  Where the Technical Instructions indicate that dangerous goods which are normally forbidden may be carried 

with an approval, the exemption procedure does not apply. The Technical Instructions provide that exemptions 

and approvals  are granted by the "appropriate national authority", which is  intended to  be the authority 

responsible for the particular aspect against which the exemption or approval is  being sought. The 

Instructions do not specify who should seek exemptions and, depending on the legislation of the particular 

State, this may mean the operator, the shipper or an agent. If an exemption or approval has been granted to 

other than an operator, the operator should ensure a copy has been obtained before the relevant flight. The

operator should ensure all relevant conditions on an exemption or approval are met.

4  The exemption or approval referred to required by in JAR­OPS 3.1165(b)(1) is in addition to the approval

required by JAR­OPS 3.1155.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 32 of 38 01 May 2007

AMC ACJ OPS 3.1175 

Packing

See JAR­OPS 3.1175

AMC ACJ OPS 3.1180(b) 

Marking 

See JAR­OPS 3.1180(b)

AMC ACJ OPS 3.1210(a)

Loading Restrictions 

See JAR­OPS 3.1210(a)

AMC OPS 3.1215(b)

Provision of information 

See JAR­OPS 1.1215(b)

1  Information to Passengers 

1.1  Information  to passengers should  be  promulgated in  such a manner that passengers  are warned as to the 

types of dangerous goods that must not be carried on board a helicopter.

1.2  As a minimum, this information should consist of:

a. Warning notices or placards sufficient in number  and prominently  displayed, at each of the  places at an 

airport where  tickets are  issued and passengers checked in, in helicopter boarding areas and at any other place 

where passengers are checked in; and 

b. A warning with the passenger ticket. This may be printed on the ticket or on a ticket wallet or on a leaflet.

1.3  The information to passengers may include reference to those dangerous goods which may be carried.

2  Information to Other Persons 

2.1  Information to persons offering cargo for transport by air should be promulgated in such a manner that those 

persons are warned as to the need to properly identify and declare dangerous goods.

2.2  As a minimum this information  should consist of warning notices or placards sufficient in  number  and 

prominently displayed at any location where cargo is accepted.

3  General

3.1  Information should be easily understood and identify that there are various classes of dangerous goods.

3.2  Pictographs may be used as an alternative to providing written information or to supplement such information.

ACJ OPS 3.1215(c)(1) 

Information to the Commander 

See JAR­OPS 3.1215(c)(1)

If the volume of information provided to the commander is such that it would be impracticable to transmit it in 

the event of an in­flight emergency, a summary of the information should be provided to the commander by

the operator, containing at least the quantities  and class  or division of the dangerous goods  in each cargo

compartment.

AMC ACJ OPS 3.1215(e)

Information in the Event of an helicopter Incident or Accident In­flight Emergency

See JAR­OPS 3.1215(e)
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 33 of 38 01 May 2007

The information to be provided should include the proper shipping name, UN/ID number, class, subsidiary risk(s) for

which labels are required, the compatibility group for Class 1 and the quantity and location on board the helicopter.

1. To assist the ground services in preparing for the landing of a helicopter in an emergency situation, it

is essential that adequate and accurate information about any dangerous goods carried on board as cargo be 

given to the appropriate air traffic services unit. Wherever possible this information should include the proper 

shipping name and/or the UN/ID number, the class/division and for Class  1 the compatibility group, any 

identified subsidiary risks(s), the quantity and the location on board the helicopter.

2. When it is  not possible to  include all the information, those parts  thought most relevant in the 

circumstances should be given, such as the UN/ID numbers or classes/divisions and quantity or a summary of 

the quantities and class/division in each cargo compartment. As an alternative, a telephone number can be

given from where a copy of the written information to the commander can be obtained during the flight.

3. It is  accepted that due to the  nature of the in­flight emergency, the situation may never permit the 

commander to  inform the appropriate air traffic services  unit of the dangerous goods carried as  cargo  on 

board the helicopter.

AMC ACJ OPS 3.1220 

Training 

See JAR­OPS 3.1220

1  Application for Approval of Training Programmes. Applications for approval of training programmes should 

indicate how the training will be carried out. Training intended to give general information and guidance may be by any 

means including handouts, leaflets, circulars, slide presentations, videos, etc, and may take place on­the­job or offthe­job. Training intended to give an in­depth and detailed appreciation of the whole subject or particular aspects of it

should be by formal training courses, which should include a written examination, the successful passing of which will

result in the  issue  of the  proof of qualification. Applications for formal training courses should include  the  course 

objectives, the training programme syllabus/curricula and examples of the written examination to be undertaken.

2  Instructors. Instructors should have  knowledge  not only of training techniques but also of the  transport of

dangerous goods by air, in order that the subject be covered fully and questions adequately answered.

3  Areas Aspects of training. The  areas aspects of training  given in  Tables 1 and 2 of JAR­OPS 3.1220

specified in the Technical Instructions are applicable whether the training is for general information and guidance 

or to give  an in­depth and detailed appreciation. The  extent to which any area of training should be  covered is 

dependent upon whether it is for general information or  to give in­depth appreciation. Additional areas aspects not

identified in Tables 1 and 2 the Technical Instructions may be needed need to be covered, or some areas aspects

omitted, depending on the responsibilities of the individual.

4  Levels of Training 

4.1  There are two levels of training:

a. Where  it is intended to give  an in­depth and a detailed appreciation of the whole  subject or of the  area(s)

being  covered, such that the  person  being trained gains in  knowledge  so  as  to be  able  to apply  the  detailed 

requirements  of the  Technical Instructions. This training  should  include  establishing, by  means of a written 

examination covering all the areas of the training programme, that a required minimum level of knowledge has been 

acquired; or 

b. Where it is intended to give general information and guidance about the area(s) being covered, such that the 

person being trained receives an overall awareness of the subject. This training should include establishing by means 

of a  written or oral examination  covering all areas  of the  training programme, that a  required minimum level of

knowledge has been acquired.

4.2  In the absence of other guidance, the staff referred to in JAR­OPS 1.1220(c)(1) should receive training to the

[extent] identified in sub­paragraph 4.1.a above; all other staff referred to in JAR­OPS 1.1220(b) and (c) should 

receive  training to the [extent] identified in sub­paragraph 4.1.b above. However, where  flight crew or other crew

members, such as loadmasters, are responsible for checking the dangerous goods to be loaded, their training should 

also be to the [extent] identified in paragraph 4.1.a above.

5  How to Achieve Training
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 34 of 38 01 May 2007

5.1  Training providing general information and guidance is intended to give a general appreciation of the 

requirements for the transport by air of dangerous goods. It may be achieved by means of handouts, leaflets,

circulars, slide presentations, videos, etc, or a mixture of several of these means. The training does not need 

to be given by a formal training course and may take place ‘on­the­job’ or ‘off­the­job’.

5.2  Training  providing in­depth  guidance  and a  detailed appreciation of the whole subject or particular 

areas of it is intended to give a level of knowledge necessary for the application of the requirements for the 

transport by air of dangerous goods. It should be given by a formal training course which takes place at a 

time when the person is not undertaking normal duties. The course may be by means of tuition or as a self­ study programme or a mixture of both of these. It should cover all the areas of dangerous goods relevant to 

the person receiving the training, although areas  not likely to  be relevant may be omitted (for instance,

training in the transport of radioactive materials  may be excluded where they will not be carried by the

operator).

56 Training in Emergency Procedures. The training in emergency procedures should include as a minimum:

a. For those  personnel covered by JAR­OPS 1.1220(b) and (c), except for crew members whose  emergency 

procedures training is covered in sub­paragraphs 56b or 56c (as applicable) below:

i. Dealing with damaged or leaking packages; and 

ii. Other actions in the event of ground emergencies arising from dangerous goods;

b. For flight crew members:

i. Actions in the event of emergencies in flight occurring in the passenger cabin or in the cargo compartments;

and 

ii. The  notification to Air Traffic Services should an in­flight emergency occur (See  JAR­OPS 3.420(e)

3.1215(e)).

c. For crew members other than flight crew members:

i. Dealing with incidents arising from dangerous goods carried by passengers; or 

ii. Dealing with damaged or leaking packages in flight.

67 Recurrent training. Recurrent training  should  cover  the  areas  in  Table  1  or Table  2  relevant to initial

Dangerous goods training unless the responsibility of the individual has changed.

78 Test to verify understanding. It is necessary to have some means of establishing that a person has gained in

an understanding as a result of training; this is achieved by requiring the person to undertake a test. The complexity 

of the  test, the  manner of conducting  it and the  questions asked should be  commensurate  with the  duties of the 

person being trained; and the test should demonstrate that the training has been adequate. If the test is completed 

satisfactorily a certificate should be issued confirming this.

IEM OPS 3.1220 

Training 

See JAR­OPS 3.1220

1  Areas of Training. Dangerous goods is The areas of training identified in Tables 1 and 2 of JAR­OPS 1.1220 

are applicable whether the training is:

a. For general information and guidance; or

b. To give an in­depth and detailed appreciation of the subject.

1.1  The  extent to which the  training should be  covered and whether areas not identified in Table  1 or Table  2 

need to be added [or the identified areas varied,] is dependent on the responsibilities of the person being trained. In 

particular, if a crew member is a loadmaster the  appropriate  areas of training required may be different than for 

other types of crew. may be those in column 4 of Table 2 and not those in column 5. [Also, if an operator carries 

only cargo, those areas relating to passengers and their baggage may be omitted from the training.]

2  How to Achieve Training
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 35 of 38 01 May 2007

2.1  Training providing  general information  and  guidance  is  intended to give  a general appreciation of the 

requirements for the  transport by air of dangerous goods. It may be  achieved by means of handouts, leaflets, circulars, slide presentations, videos, etc, or a mixture of several of these means. The training does not need to be 

given by a formal training course and may take place ‘on­the­job’ or ‘off­the­job’.

2.2  Training providing in­depth guidance and a detailed appreciation of the whole subject or particular areas of it

is intended to give a level of knowledge necessary for the application of the requirements for the transport by air of

dangerous goods. It should be given by a formal training course which takes place at a time when the person is not

undertaking normal duties. The course may be by means of tuition or as a self­study programme or a mixture of both 

of these. It should cover all the areas of dangerous goods relevant to the person receiving the training, although areas 

not likely to be  relevant may be  omitted (for instance, training in the  transport of radioactive  materials may be 

excluded where they will not be carried by the operator).

AMC ACJ OPS 3.1225 

Dangerous Goods Incident and Accident Reports 

See JAR­OPS 3.1225

1  Any type of dangerous goods incident or accident should be reported, irrespective of whether the dangerous 

goods are contained in cargo, mail, passengers’ baggage or crew baggage. The finding of undeclared or misdeclared 

dangerous goods in cargo, mail or baggage should also be reported.

2  Initial reports  may be  made  by any  means, but in all cases a written report should be  made  as soon  as 

possible.

3  The report should be as precise as possible and contain all data known at the time the report is made, for 

example:

a. Date of the incident or accident, or the finding of undeclared or misdeclared dangerous goods;

b. Location, the flight number and flight date, if applicable;

c. Description of the goods and the reference number of the air waybill, pouch, baggage tag, ticket, etc;

d. Proper shipping name (including the technical name, if appropriate) and UN/ID number, where known;

e. Class or division and any subsidiary risk;

f. Type of packaging, if applicable, and the packaging specification marking on it;

g. Quantity involved;

h. Name and address of the shipper, passenger, etc;

i. Any other relevant details;

j. Suspected cause of the incident or accident;

k. Action taken;

l. Any other reporting action taken; and 

m. Name, title, address and contact number of the person making the report.

4  Copies of the relevant documents and any photographs taken should be attached to the report. Use of a standard form for the reporting of dangerous goods incidents and accidents would assist the Authorities and 

enable them to establish quickly the essential details of an occurrence.  The following form has been developed for such use 

and its correct and full completion means that all the details required by Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.1225 would have been  covered.  It may be sent to the relevant Authorities by any appropriate means including fax, mail, electronic mail, etc.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 36 of 38 01 May 2007

DANGEROUS GOODS OCCURRENCE REPORT 

DGOR No: 

Using this form will meet the reporting requirements of JAR­OPS 1.1225 and JAR­OPS 3.1225.  See the Notes on the reverse of this form.  Those boxes where the heading is in italics need only be completed if applicable. 

1. Operator:  2. Date of occurrence:  3.  Local  time of  occurrence: 

4. Flight date:  5. Flight no: 

6. Departure airport:  7. Destination airport: 

8. Aircraft type:  9. Aircraft registration: 

10. Location of occurrence:  11. Origin of the goods: 

12. Description of the occurrence, including details of injury, damage, etc 

(if necessary continue on the reverse of this form): 

13. Proper shipping name (including the technical name):  14.  UN/ID  no (when

known): 

15. Class/division (when known):  16. Subsidiary risk(s):  17. Packing group 18. Category, (class 7 only) 

19. Type of packaging:  20. Packaging specification marking:  21. No of packages:  22.  Quantity  (or  transport 

index, if applicable): 

23. Reference no of Air Waybill: 

24. Reference no of courier pouch, baggage tag, or passenger ticket: 

25. Name and address of shipper, agent, passenger, etc: 

26. Other relevant information (including suspected cause, any action taken): 

27. Name and title of person making report:  28. Telephone no:
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 37 of 38 01 May 2007

29. Company:  30. Reporters ref: 

31. Address:  32. Signature: 

33. Date: 

Description of the occurrence (continuation): 

NOTES

1.  Any type of dangerous goods occurrence must be reported, irrespective of whether the dangerous goods are contained in cargo, mail or  baggage. 

2.  A dangerous goods accident is an occurrence associated with and related to the transport of dangerous goods which results in fatal or  serious injury to a person or major property damage.  For this purpose serious injury is an injury which is sustained by a person in an

accident and which: (a) requires hospitalisation for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date the injury was received;  or (b) results in a fracture of any bones (except simple fractures of fingers, toes or nose); or (c) involves lacerations which cause severe haemorrhage, nerve, muscle or tendon damage; or (d) involves injury to any internal organ; or (e) involves second or third degree burns, or  any burns affecting more than 5% of the body surface; or (f) involves verified exposure to infectious substances or injurious radiation.  A 

dangerous goods accident may also be an aircraft accident; in which case the normal procedure for reporting of air accidents must be

followed. 

3.  A dangerous goods incident is an occurrence, other than a dangerous goods accident, associated with and related to the transport of 

dangerous  goods,  not necessarily  occurring on board an aircraft, which results  in injury to a person,  property damage, fire,  breakage,  spillage, leakage of fluid or radiation or  other  evidence that the integrity  of  the packaging has  not been maintained.  Any occurrence

relating to the transport  of  dangerous  goods  which  seriously  jeopardises  the aircraft  or  its occupants  is  also deemed to constitute  a

dangerous goods incident.

4.  This form should also be used to report any occasion when undeclared or misdeclared dangerous goods are discovered in cargo, mail or  unaccompanied baggage or when accompanied baggage contains dangerous goods which passengers or crew are not permitted to take on

aircraft.

5.  An initial report, which may be made by any means, must be despatched within 72 hours of the occurrence, to the Authority of the State 

(a) of the operator; and (b) in which the incident occurred, unless exceptional circumstances prevent this.  This occurrence report form,  duly completed, must be sent as soon as possible, even if all the information is not available. 

6.  Copies of all relevant documents and any photographs should be attached to this report.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment B to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 70 (JAR­OPS 3) Dangerous Goods

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 38 of 38 01 May 2007

7.  Any further information, or any information not included in the initial report, must be sent as soon as possible to authorities identified

in 5. 

8.  Providing it is safe to do so, all dangerous goods, packagings, documents, etc, relating to the occurrence must be retained until after the

initial report has been sent to the Authorities identified in 5 and they have indicated whether or not these should continue to be retained.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment C to Appendix I

JAA LO (HSST)  Page 1 of 5 Submitted 05/06/07

For First Review at RST 07­2 Jun 07

Attachment C to Appendix I ­ Explanatory memorandum on Part­OPS

JAA NPA­OPS 69

NPA­OPS 69 

(JAR­OPS 3) 

Helicopter Hoist Operations
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment C to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 69 (JAR­OPS 3) Helicopter Hoist Operations

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 2 of 5 01 May 2007

NPA­OPS XX to JAR­OPS Part 3 (Commercial Air Transportation Helicopters)

This NPA is comprised of:­

1. Explanatory Note

1.1. Regulatory Background

1.2. Regulatory Impact Assessment

2. Text Proposals

For ease of reference, the proposals are shown in much the same format as they would appear in the

JAR. Thus, Section 1 material is shown in columnar format and Section 2 reads across the page. The

proposed changes to the text are shown by  a combination of strikeout and bold italics. The latter 

indicates proposed new text (or numbering).

Paragraph/s affected:­ 

Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(h) Helicopter Hoist Operations (HHO)  Amended

ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(h) sub­paragraph (e)(1) ­  Airworthiness Approval for Human External Cargo New paragraph
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment C to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 69 (JAR­OPS 3) Helicopter Hoist Operations

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 3 of 5 01 May 2007

1. Explanatory Note

1.1. Regulatory Background

1.1.1 Introduction

Some of the requirements relating to Helicopter  Hoist Operations detailed in Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 

3.005(h)  have been found to be difficult to interpret and implement. This is particularly  relevant to

subparagraph (e)(1) of Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(h) which relates to the helicopter hoist equipment and

its standard of airworthiness approval appropriate to the intended use or function. The aim of this paper is to

introduce a new ACJ to provide explanatory material to clarify and explain the requirements.

The FAA included the airworthiness standard for HEC application into Part 27.865 Amendment 36 and Part

29.865 Amendment 43. The JAA  endorsed these regulations as JAR requirements accordingly  in JAR

27.865 Amendment 2 (with some modifications ­ including JAR 27.865(c)(6), the requirement for one­engine­ 

inoperative hover  performance data ­  not present in FAR 27.865)  and JAR 29.865 Amendment 2, which

were released in May 2001. Later, the EASA adopted the JAR requirements with some modifications and

released them in November 2003 as CS 27/29.865. The FAA advisory circular (AC), AC29­2C Change 1,

remains the current guidance for the compliance finding process as indicated in the Acceptable Means of

Compliance Book 2 of CS­27/29. However, this AC has been updated to Change 2 status which amongst

other  subjects included merging MG 12 into AC27.865B  and AC29.865B. AMC to CS­27/29 are under 

review by EASA and the updated status of the AC material is likely to be incorporated in due course when

some outstanding issues ­ including the restoration of performance compliance for HEC Class D in AC 27­1B 

­ have been dealt with.

The majority  of hoist installations currently  in existence were certificated in accordance with previous 

amendment standards where the airworthiness requirements did not distinguish between the kinds of

external cargo that were intended to be carried. In interpreting the phrase “appropriate to the intended

function”, and due to past experience following several accidents, some Authorities decided to require the

higher standards necessary for HEC applications to be applied for existing installations even though it was 

clearly explained in AC29­2C MG12 that the described methods of compliance were intended to apply only 

to either new designs or major modifications to existing designs that occurred after the effective date of these

specifications. Such Authorities require that retrofit actions or further investigations are mandatory for the

granting or maintaining of the operational approval for existing hoist systems.

1.1.2 Proposal

In order  to achieve a European wide solution to the interpretation of the requirements, it is proposed to

introduce a new ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(h) sub­paragraph (e)(1).

The new ACJ describes alternative approaches to the minimum level of retrofit effort necessary to achieve a

satisfactory standard of equipment installation. These approaches could include a comprehensive review to

confirm  safe design of the existing hoist installation to demonstrate an acceptable level of compliance

against the actual specifications of HEC as required by  CS  27/29.865 or  JAR 27/29 Amendment 2

(27/29.865).

Additionally, it is proposed to insert references to the relevant ACJs into the heading of Appendix 1 to JAR­  OPS 3.005(h) which are currently missing.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment C to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 69 (JAR­OPS 3) Helicopter Hoist Operations

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 4 of 5 01 May 2007

1.2. Regulatory Impact Assessment

1.2.1 Purpose and intended effect.

The effect of the new text at ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.705(a) sub­paragraph (e)(1) will be to make

the interpretation of the requirement to have an airworthiness approval for HHO equipment appropriate to the

intended function clearer  and to ensure that the intent of the code is harmonious with FARs and

standardised across JAA States.

1.2.2 Options 

a. One option would be to do nothing and this would leave the interpretation of the subject code unclear.

b. The other option is to introduce the ACJ material to provide a clear form of interpretation. This is the

preferred option.

1.2.3 Impacts 

There are not expected to be any additional economic, safety or other effects following these amendments.

1.2.4 Consultation

This proposal has received wide input from operators, National Authorities and manufacturers during its 

development within the HSST and has been reviewed and amended by EASA. 

The proposal was thereafter presented and endorsed during the OST 07­1 March 2007 meeting for first RST

review before Public Consultation.

1.2.5 Summary 

The introduction of this advisory material will help to alleviate different interpretations of text within Appendix 

1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(h) sub­paragraph (e)(1) and a more harmonious approach to its application.

Those affected would be operators of older helicopter / hoist equipment combinations which had certification

completed before more stringent standards were applied for the external carriage of human cargo.

The preferred option is to insert the new ACJ as proposed.

2. Text Proposals

A. Section 1

Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(h) 

Helicopter Hoist Operations (HHO)

Insert:

(See ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(h), sub­paragraph (d)(2)(iv)) 

(See ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(h), sub­paragraph (e)(1))

B.  Section 2

Insert new ACJ:

ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(h) sub­paragraph (e)(1)
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment C to Appendix I

NPA­OPS 69 (JAR­OPS 3) Helicopter Hoist Operations

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 5 of 5 01 May 2007

Airworthiness Approval for Human External Cargo

(See Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(h))

1. Hoist installations which have been certificated according to any of the following standards are

considered to satisfy the airworthiness criteria for Human External Cargo (HEC) operations when

required under subparagraph (e)(1) of Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(h): 

a. CS 27.865 or CS 29.865; 

b. JAR 27 Amendment 2 (27.865) or JAR 29 Amendment 2 (29.865) or later; 

c. FAR 27 Amendment 36 (27.865) or later ­ including compliance with CS 27.865(c)(6); 

d. FAR 29 Amendment 43 (29.865) or later.

2. Hoist  installations which have been certificated prior to the issuance of  the airworthiness

criteria for HEC as defined in paragraph 1 may be accepted as eligible for HHO operations in

accordance with subparagraph (e)(1) of Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(h) provided that following a

risk assessment either: 

a. The service history of the hoist installation is found satisfactory to the Authority; or

b. For hoist installations with an unsatisfactory service history, additional substantiation to allow

acceptance by the Authority should be provided by the Hoist Installation Certificate Holder (TC or

STC) on the basis of the following requirements: 

i. The hoist installation should withstand a force equal to a limit static load factor of 3.5, or some

lower load factor, not less than 2.5, demonstrated to be the maximum load factor expected during

hoist operations, multiplied by the maximum authorised external load.

ii. The reliability of  the primary and back­up quick release systems at  aircraft  level should be

established and Failure Mode and Effect  Analysis at  equipment  level should be available. The

assessment of the design of the primary and back­up quick release systems should consider any

failure that  could be induced by a failure mode of  any other electrical or mechanical rotorcraft 

system.

iii. The operation or flight  manual contains one­engine­inoperative hover performance data and

procedures for the weights, altitudes, and temperatures throughout the flight  envelope for which

hoist operations are accepted.

iv. Information concerning the inspection intervals and retirement life of the hoist cable should be

provided in the instructions for continued airworthiness.

v. Any airworthiness issue reported from incidents or accidents and not addressed by (i), (ii), (iii) 

and (iv) should be addressed.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment D to Appendix I

HSST/WP­07/03.4 

PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT OF HEMS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS POST

NPA­OPS 38 

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 1 of 11  01 May 2007

Attachment D to Appendix I ­ Explanatory memorandum on Part­OPS

HSST­WP­07­03.4 

Appendix D to Explanatory memorandum on Part­OPS

NPA­OPS XX

(JAR­OPS 3)

PROPOSAL  FOR  THE  AMENDMENT OF  THE  HEMS  PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 

POST NPA­OPS 38
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment D to Appendix I

HSST/WP­07/03.4 

PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT OF HEMS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS POST

NPA­OPS 38 

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 2 of 11  01 May 2007

NPA­OPS XX 

NPA to (JAR­OPS Part 3 (Commercial Air Transportation Helicopters))

This NPA is comprised of:­

1. Explanatory Note

1.1 Regulatory Background

1.2 Regulatory Impact Assessment

2 Text Proposals

For ease of reference, the proposals are shown in much the same format as they would appear in the

JAR. Thus, Section 1 material is shown in columnar format and Section 2 reads across the page. The

proposed changes to the text are shown by  a combination of strikeout and bold italics. The latter 

indicates proposed new text (or numbering)

Paragraph/s affected:­

Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(d) paragraph (c)(2)(i) 

Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(d) paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) 

Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(d) paragraph (c)(2)(ii)
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment D to Appendix I

HSST/WP­07/03.4 

PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT OF HEMS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS POST

NPA­OPS 38 

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 3 of 11  01 May 2007

Explanatory Note

1.1 Regulatory Background

1.1.1 Introduction

Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) operations have now been conducted under the auspices of

JAR­OPS 3 for many years. Some of the terms used within the context of HEMS are:

HEMS flight. A flight by a helicopter operating under a HEMS approval, the purpose of which is to

facilitate emergency medical assistance, where immediate and rapid transportation is essential, by 

carrying: Medical personnel, or Medical supplies (equipment, blood, organs, drugs), or Ill or injured

persons and other persons directly involved.

HEMS operating site. A site selected by the commander during a HEMS flight for Helicopter Hoist

Operations(HHO), landing and take off.

By the very nature of the task, helicopters responding to scenes of accidents and incidents may be required

to land and take­off from HEMS operating sites that have not been used before and that cannot be prepared. Aircraft Commanders are required to assess the risk of such manoeuvres and balance those risks against

the urgency of the task. ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(d) provides a comprehensive overview of the

philosophy  of HEMS  operations and in particular the basis behind such risk  assessment and the

considerations that should be employed to manage those risks.

The performance and operating conditions of the helicopter must be taken into consideration when

assessing the suitability of a HEMS operating site. For helicopters with a maximum Take­off Mass (MTOM) 

greater  than 5700 kg, Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS  3.005(d)  stipulates that such performance must be in

accordance with Performance Class 1 (PC1). The reference requires helicopters lighter  than this and

conducting operations to a HEMS operating site located in a hostile environment to do so as far as possible

in accordance with Subpart G (PC1). It goes on to say that ‘the commander shall make every reasonable

effort to minimise the period during which there would be danger to helicopter occupants and persons on the

surface in the event of failure of a power unit (See ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(d) sub­paragraph

(c)(2)(i)(B))’.

Due to the unpredictability of where accidents may occur and thereby the location of the HEMS operating

site, the requirement to meet PC 1 specifications, in particular with regards to the obstacle environment in

the take­off and landing areas, is difficult if not impossible to meet. As a result, HEMS operations to HEMS 

operating sites have not been conducted by helicopters with a MTOM of more than 5700 kg and for lighter 

helicopters into sites in hostile environments different interpretations have been applied to the phrase “so as 

far as possible in accordance with Subpart G (PC1)” causing variations in practices across States. With the introduction of changes to JAR­OPS  3 brought about by  the adoption of NPA­OPS  38, the

opportunity  now exists to rationalise the text of Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS  3.005(d)  and amend the

requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) to be both achievable and realistic for all helicopters by requiring such

operations to be conducted to Performance Class 2 (PC2). In addition, the previous caveat on operations of

helicopters with a MTOM greater than 5700 kg can be removed.

1.1.2 Proposal

The proposed changes to the regulations in Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(d) will allow more realistic and

achievable performance criteria to be set for HEMS operations whilst retaining the level of safety necessary 

for such operations by the appropriate assessment and management of risk.

1.1.3 Harmonisation
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment D to Appendix I

HSST/WP­07/03.4 

PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT OF HEMS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS POST

NPA­OPS 38 

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 4 of 11  01 May 2007

The proposal does not introduce any  harmonisation issues but will clarify  and help standardise the

interpretation of the requirements across States.

1.2 Regulatory Impact Assessment 

1.2.1 Purpose and intended effect

a. This paper  examines the HEMS  performance requirements contained in Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 

3.005(d) ­ and their rationale. It explains how these might be amended subsequent to Amendment 5 of JAR­  OPS  3 (NPA­OPS 38); it contains a reassessment of the ability of helicopters to operate in Performance

Class 1 (PC1) outside of heliport boundaries, with un­surveyed obstacle environments, and makes proposals 

to bring such operations into compliance with the revised performance regulations.

b. General performance requirements are contained in the Subparts of F, G, H and I with more specific 

text in Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(d) ‘Helicopter Emergency Medical Service’. Guidance for application of

the requirements is contained in Section 2 of JAR­OPS 3; these requirements and their associated guidance

are now examined in detail.

1.2.2 Application of the Extant Requirements

a. Performance requirements for  HEMS  are expected to be applied pragmatically; they  are

targeted at the three basic HEMS operational sites: · The HEMS Operating Base;

· The Hospital Site – i.e. the heliport at a hospital which is located in a hostile environment.

· The HEMS Operating Site;

b. As stated in paragraph 7 of ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(d):

“The HEMS  philosophy attributes the appropriate levels of risk for each operational site;  this is

derived from practical considerations and probability of use. The risk is expected to be inversely

proportional to the amount of use of the site.”

The text that follows this statement in the ACJ (shown as bold in the following sections) explains the policy.

i. “HEMS Operating Base; from which all operations will start and finish. There is a high

probability of a large number of take­offs and landings at this heliport and for that reason no

alleviation from operating procedures or performance rules are contained in the HEMS 

appendix.”

This is a clear  statement that the applicable requirements of Subparts F, G, H, I and JAR­OPS 

3.240(a)(5) 69  should be applied. The text does not call for  the application of any  specific 

Performance Class per  se only  that the existing requirements for  Commercial Air  Transport ­  as 

contained in the main body of JAR­OPS 3 ­ be applied. Because the number of occupants carried in

HEMS is usually less than nine

70 , any applicable Performance Class could be applied.

Note: no changes are proposed

69  The requirement, in PC3, to fly over surfaces which would permit a safe­forced­landing to be carried

out ­ which is repeated in Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(d) paragraph (c)(1). 70  Specifically that the maximum approved passenger seating configuration (MAPSC) is (normally) nine 

or less.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment D to Appendix I

HSST/WP­07/03.4 

PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT OF HEMS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS POST

NPA­OPS 38 

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 5 of 11  01 May 2007

ii. “The hospital site;  is usually at  ground level in hospital grounds or, if  elevated, on a

hospital building. It  may have been established during a period when performance criteria

were not a consideration. The amount of use of such sites depends on their location and their

facilities; normally, it will be greater than that of the HEMS operating site but less than for a

HEMS operating base. Such sites attract some alleviation under the HEMS rules.”

The text of paragraph 8 that follows this text in the ACJ  clearly explains problems with existing

hospitals; Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS  3.005(i)  provides alleviation that can be applied to these

locations. Note 1: after  the HEMS guidance was produced, the alleviation was removed from  the HEMS 

Appendix and a pointer to ‘Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(i) ­ Public Interest Sites’ inserted.

Note 2: no changes are proposed

iii. “HEMS operating site; because this is the primary pick up site related to an incident or

accident, its use can never be pre­planned and therefore attracts alleviations from operating

procedures and performance rules ­ when appropriate.” When the requirement and this guidance was written, it was well known that HEMS would be

performed in city  centres such a London and Amsterdam where, if Subpart F were to be applied, PC1 would be required. Obviously, with most accident sites there is little possibility of applying the

associated requirements of PC1

71 .

1.2.3 Issue

a. The text in Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(d) paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B):

“Helicopters conducting operations to/from a HEMS operating site located in a hostile environment 

shall as far as possible be operated in accordance with Subpart  G (Performance Class 1). The

commander shall make every reasonable effort to minimise the period during which there would be

danger to helicopter occupants and persons on the surface in the event of failure of a power unit...”

was intended to be an indicator to the commander that no unnecessary risk should be taken; routes in and

out of the accident site should be such that the consequence of engine failure would be minimised. The

reference to PC1 rather than PC2 was because there was, at that time, no framework (in Subpart H) for 

establishing ground level exposure. This has changed with the introduction of Amendment 5 (NPA­OPS 38) 

and ground level exposure is now permitted to a maximum height of 200ft72 .

b. This particular text has caused problems for Authorities and operators alike because “shall as far as 

possible be operated in accordance with Subpart G” it is open to interpretation. Guidance was provided in

ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(d), paragraph 7 (repeated at the head of this section) but still, different

practices have ensued.

c. At one end of the spectrum it could have meant OEI HOGE  performance; it could have meant a

Category A ‘helipad’ procedure (where the take­off and landing site could be as small as 1D); it could merely 

have been a reference to second segment climb performance.

71  The  requirements of PC1 are: a  rejected take­off area with a suitable surface (in terms of size and

surface condition) where a helicopter can be (re)landed OEI without damage; provision of specified

obstacle  clearance in  the approach and take­off segments. These requirements  have to  be

substantiated (calculated using graphs in the RFM) before PC1 operations can be commenced at any

site. 72  200ft  is  the last  point  at  which  the requirement  for  the take­off­flight­path  can  be applied and

compliance with PC1 established.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment D to Appendix I

HSST/WP­07/03.4 

PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT OF HEMS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS POST

NPA­OPS 38 

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 6 of 11  01 May 2007

1.2.4 Scale of Issue

a. To understand the implication of each or  any of these, we have to look  at the elements that are

required to operate in Subpart G:

· the first requirement is for a surface on which a rejected take­off can be conducted without damage

to the helicopter  (for  take­off or  landing); whilst this might not be necessary  with OEI HOGE 

performance (because a re­landing is not forced following a power­unit­failure) it is not present at

most HEMS Operating Sites ­ thus precluding compliance with a Category A Helipad procedure;

· the second requirement is for obstacle clearance on the continued take­off – once again this might

be possible with OEI HOGE  performance or  even a ‘steep’ Category  A  helipad procedure but, without a survey of the site to establish the required climb gradient, it precludes deterministic (PC1) 

performance;

· the final requirement is that all obstacles are cleared following a power­unit­failure at or after LDP – while it may  be possible to continue and land with OEI HOGE  performance following a steep

approach, it would be difficult (for the same reasons as in the take­off) to establish clearance from 

obstacles in the balked landing, when the required climb gradient is unknown. There is  no

regulatory requirement for a manufacturer to provide a ‘steep’ approach for the Category A helipad

procedure (some provide an approach to meet the ICAO Annex 14 slopes – where 6° is regarded

as steep); hence, while the helicopter could approach to land on one engine (with the proviso about

the surface made earlier), it could not (without a steep procedure in the Flight Manual)  tolerate

obstacles in the approach sector – which are normal at a HEMS Operating Site. This would almost

inevitably ensure that most HEMS Operating Sites are outside of any Category A procedure – i.e. exposed. Note: if take­off and landing masses for a Category A helipad procedure are required (without being

more specific), the type which has  a procedure with a near  vertical approach from  100ft will be

disadvantaged against the one which has only a 3°approach – thus penalising the more powerful one.

b. What could be achieved by requiring OEI HOGE performance, or the restricted mass of a Category A 

helipad procedure, is the reduction of exposure. Quantifying that reduction under circumstances where the

actual take­off and landing paths (at the HEMS Operating Site) are unknown, is problematical. c. It has also recently  been established (in a paper  produced to assess performance for HEMS in

mountain conditions)  that while modern helicopters have good power margins at sea level with ISA 

conditions; OEI HOGE  performance at higher  altitudes and with higher  than ISA  temperatures is not

practical. d. Recent work  on PC1 has reinforced the understanding that, even if one engine inoperative (OEI) 

hover out of ground effect (HOGE) performance is available, the approach and take­off flight paths still have

to be assessed (by  surveying the obstacle environment)  before obstacle clearance can be established. Clearly, such assessment is impractical at the HEMS Operating Site and PC1 is not therefore achievable.

e. In a Hostile Environment (congested or  otherwise), flights in or  out of the HEMS  Operating Site

inevitably have a level of risk attached. Now that PC2 with ground level exposure is described in Subpart H,

requirements at a HEMS Operating Site can be precisely established and compliance with JAR­OPS 3.520, 3.525, 3.530, 3.535 can be achieved without further interpretation. This would not substantially change the

way that operations are conducted to a HEMS Operating Site but would provide a clear, unambiguous and

risk assessed compliance with regulations.

f. The proposal for amendment of (c)(2)(i)(B) is shown in Section 2.

1.2.5 Helicopter Development

a. We are about to witness  the introduction to HEMS of helicopters that have operational masses in

excess of 5,700kg. These helicopters introduce a measure of safety that has not previously been seen in
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment D to Appendix I

HSST/WP­07/03.4 

PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT OF HEMS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS POST

NPA­OPS 38 

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 7 of 11  01 May 2007

HEMS  both with regard to inherent performance and the standard of certification. It would not be in the

interest of safety to make compliance with requirements difficult for these helicopters.

b. Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(d) paragraph (c)(2)(ii) requires that helicopters with a MTOM exceeding

5,700 kg shall be operated in accordance with PC1.

c. What has been discussed above also applies to helicopters of this size – i.e. it is not possible for 

operators to apply  PC1 under  conditions where the site does not permit appropriate procedures (lack  of

knowledge about size and obstacles). It is therefore illogical (to attempt) to apply a higher standard and it is 

proposed that paragraph (c)(2)(ii) be deleted.

d. As these larger  helicopters are introduced, operators should ensure that the risk  assessment that

precedes their introduction, takes account of both the additional size73 required at the HEMS Operating Site

and the increased propensity  for  damage caused by  rotor­wash in a confined area – particularly  in a

congested hostile environment.

e. The proposal for amendment of (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) is shown in Section 6.

1.2.6 Equipment and Exposure Issues

a. Because the existing text calls for  compliance with PC1 (and not PC2), it is not clear  whether 

operators have considered it a necessity to fit UMS. If the proposed changes occur, there would be a direct

link between the requirements of Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.005(d), paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) and Appendix 1 to

JAR­OPS 3.517(a). It is understood that some HEMS  operators have already  been required to fit UMS 

(probably because of operations to Public Interest Sites).

b. It is not clear whether the proposed change in the rule should require full compliance with Appendix 1

to JAR­OPS  3.517(a)  although risk  assessment indicates that the majority of HEMS  flights include a

landing/take­off at a HEMS Operating Site (a high proportion of which will be in a hostile environment) where

exposure is likely  to be extant. Currently, partial compliance with Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS  3.517(a)  is 

specified for operations to a Public  Interest Site which, as  with the HEMS Operating Site, could be in a

congested hostile environment.

c. It is not intended to modify  operations to a HEMS  Operating Site, only  to revise the text so that

compliance with the performance requirement can be achieved without interpretation; the onus for risk 

reduction is already placed upon the operator in complying with paragraph (c)(2)(i)(D) “Guidance on take­  off and landing procedures at a previously unsurveyed HEMS operating sites shall be contained in

the Operations Manual” for which: size­related guidance is provided in ‘IEM to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 

3.005(d), sub­paragraph (c)(2)(i)(C)’; procedure­related guidance in paragraph 5 of ‘AMC No 1 to OPS 

3.220’; and performance­related guidance in paragraph 7 of ACJ to Subpart H.

d. Opinion is therefore sought from all parties on whether  compliance with Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 

3.517(a) should be part of the requirement and, if so, whether such compliance should include the formality 

of an additional risk assessment (under circumstances where the risk profile is already well understood and

described). Option 2 contains three sub­options which reflect this issue ­  and the proposed text contains 

conditional statements which correspond to each of the three sub­options.

e. As part of the changes proposed in NPA­OPS 38, the prescriptive requirements of Appendix 1 to JAR­  OPS 3.517(a) were replaced by objective text; it is considered that compliance with the requirement for UMS 

could be provided by  (appropriately  configured)  FADEC with its associated non­volatile memory, and

recording and download functions (which are present in most modern light twins used for HEMS). Modern

73  For example, the overall size (‘D’) of the AW139 is 16.7m compared to: 12.2m for the EC135; 13m for 

the EC145; 13m for the A109; and 13.7 for the AS365.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment D to Appendix I

HSST/WP­07/03.4 

PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT OF HEMS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS POST

NPA­OPS 38 

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 8 of 11  01 May 2007

helicopters could therefore be able to comply  without further  investment; the same is not true for  older 

helicopters, for which exposure could be longer.

1.2.7 Options

a. Option 1: One course of action would be to do nothing and rely  upon interpretation of the

HEMS appendix; this has already been shown to be unsatisfactory as the regulation is interpreted in quite

different ways by  individual States. It would leave helicopters in excess of 5,700kg at a substantial

disadvantage – i.e. without an implementable regulation. It would also be unfortunate not to provide a clear 

regulation which can be transitioned to EASA without further discussion or amendment.

b. Option 2: The second course of action would be to make the proposed changes and provide

a regulation that does not need interpretation and which could be applied universally; this would permit

operations to a hostile environment by taking advantage of ground level exposure (as permitted in Subpart H

post NPA­38). It would also permit the introduction of larger helicopters with increased flexibility, payload and

performance so that more sophisticated equipment and more specialist personnel could be carried. If this 

course of action is preferred it leads to further choices of if and how compliance with Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 

3.517(a) needs to be shown:

i. Option 2(a)  – full compliance with Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS  3.517(a). This would put HEMS 

operators on the same footing as  operators who, post NPA­OPS  38, will be seeking approval to

operate with ground level exposure.

ii. Option 2(b) – no requirement to show compliance with Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.517(a). This 

would leave HEMS  operations as they  are today  – i.e. no need to seek  additional approval for 

operations with exposure (albeit now with the ability to show compliance with the operating rule).

iii. Option 2(c) – partial compliance with Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.517(a). As the risk profile at a

HEMS Operating Site is already  well known, there would be no requirement for  the operators to

provide the additional risk  assessment that is called for  in Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS  3.517(a) 

paragraph (a)(1) but would have to show compliance with paragraph (a)(2).

c. The preferred option is Option 2 to amend the text. However, this option leads to the three

choices detailed above and requires comment and response from industry as to the most appropriate route

to be selected before the final decision can be made.

1.2.8 Impacts

a. Sectors Affected

The Authorities; will be impacted positively  by this proposal as it will reduce the need to interpret the

regulation. Regulatory  oversight should also be improved with the simplification of the rule and by  the

reduction of non­compliance. There are no costs associated with the proposed changes apart from revision

of the text. The code will also be submitted to EASA without the necessity for further amendment. Operators; there will be a positive impact for HEMS operators because it will clarify the exact meaning of the

rule. There could be additional cost if it is decided that a change in rule will require the fitting of UMS where it

is not currently  required. For  modern helicopters with FADEC – i.e. the majority  – this should not be

necessary.

Manufacturers; will not be affected by this proposal.

b. Impacts Identified

The following text considers the overall impact of the proposed amendment of the regulation.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment D to Appendix I

HSST/WP­07/03.4 

PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT OF HEMS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS POST

NPA­OPS 38 

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 9 of 11  01 May 2007

i. Safety

It is not possible for PC1 to be applied deterministically at the HEMS Operating Site. The proposed

change to PC2 at the HEMS Operating Site will permit uniform  compliance without a reduction in

safety. A  rule which can be universally  applied and for  which compliance is  not a matter  of

interpretation or dispute can only improve the relationship between the Authority and Operator. The

application of Risk  Assessment will remove the false sense of security  that has surrounded the

impractical requirement for PC1 “as far as possible” – it was never possible at an un­surveyed site.

ii. Economic

The Authorities; for  the majority  of Authorities, there will be no economic impact; for  the minority 

there might be an additional cost of approving equipment and procedures required for operations 

with exposure.

The Operators; for the majority of HEMS operations there will be no impact; for a minority, there will

be the once­and­for­all cost of the provision of UMS.

The Manufacturers; there should be no additional cost for the manufacturers 

iii. Harmonisation

Harmonisation will be improved; operations to the HEMS Operating Site will all be conducted to a

single standard.

iv. Environmental

It is not considered that there will be any detrimental effect on the environment.

v. Social

There is not considered to be any detrimental social effect.

vi. Other aviation requirements outside the JAA/EASA scope

This proposal is unlikely to have any impact outside the JAA/EASA scope

1.2.9 Consultation

This proposal has been extensively discussed in the HSST and in the HEMS organisations (EHA/EHAC);

they are in support of the intent of this policy.

1.2.10 Summary and Final Assessment

The proposed change provides a substantial simplification to the rules. It removes the current text with its 

uncertainties and potential for dispute and replaces it with text that permits universal compliance with no

impact on safety. The proposal also removes the unnecessary division between rules for helicopters with a

MTOM  greater  than 5,700kg and the others  – thus permitting larger  and more capable helicopters into

HEMS operations without artificial constraints.

The proposal leaves open the question of whether UMS will be required; initiatives like the IHST – supported

by the FAA, EASA and most manufacturers ­ appear to be moving towards a recommendation for universal

adoption of usage and other monitoring systems.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment D to Appendix I

HSST/WP­07/03.4 

PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT OF HEMS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS POST

NPA­OPS 38 

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 10 of 11 01 May 2007

The preferred option is to amend Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS  3.005(d)  as indicated but to leave the final

decision on which of the three choices of text is most appropriate to be made following the results of

consultation. Industry is therefore encouraged to provide feedback on these choices.
NPA 2009­02a  30 Jan 2009

Attachment D to Appendix I

HSST/WP­07/03.4 

PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT OF HEMS PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS POST

NPA­OPS 38 

HSST WP­07/03.4  Page 11 of 11 01 May 2007

2 Text Changes

2.1 Amend Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 

3.005(d) paragraph (c)(2)(i) as shown:

(i) Take­off and landing ­  helicopters  with a

MTOM of 5 700 kg or less

2.2 Amend Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 

3.005(d) paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) as shown:

(B) Helicopters conducting operations to/from a

HEMS  operating site located in a hostile

environment shall be operated in Performance

Class 2

(Option 2(a) no additional text would be

required and compliance would be shown) 

(Option 2(b) the following text would be

added; “without  the requirement  to comply

with Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 3.517(a)”) 

(Option 2(c) the following text would be

added; “without  the requirement to comply

with Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS  3.517(a) 

paragraph (a)(1)”) 

as far  as possible be operated in accordance

with Subpart G (Performance Class  1). The

commander  shall make every reasonable effort

to minimise the period during which there would

be danger to helicopter occupants and persons 

on the surface in the event of failure of a power 

unit (See ACJ  to Appendix 1 to JAR­OPS 

3.005(d) sub­paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B)).

2.3 Remove Appendix  1 to JAR­OPS 

3.005(d) paragraph (c)(2)(ii) 

(ii) Take­off and landing ­  helicopters  with a

MTOM  exceeding 5 700 kg. Helicopters 

conducting HEMS  shall be operated in

accordance with Performance Class 1.