FAQ Answer

FAQ Answer

Does the operator or the CAA determine if an operator is Complex or Non-Complex?

The Acceptable Means of Compliance is phrased: “an operator should be considered as complex when …” and a number of considerations follow. The operator should make an initial determination and advise his assigned Inspector of the outcome, which may lead to discussion between the operator and the CAA. Air Operator’s Certificate conversion will not proceed until an agreement has been reached. (last updated September 2012)


Flights Operations - General

  1. When will the amended Air Navigation Order be drafted, published and live?
  2. Will there be any cost to the operator for the issue of an EASA Implementing Rules Air Operator’s Certificate?
  3. Where can I find answers to questions relating to flight operations?
  4. Will there be a self –assessment compliance document template or will operator need to produce their own? And will it be available in an electronic format?
  5. With EASA, why do we still need the Air Navigation Order? Is there an overlap and what is the difference?
  6. Can a new application be made for the grant of an EU-OPS/JAR-OPS3 Air Operator’s Certificate during the derogation period?
  7. Does the operator or the CAA determine if an operator is Complex or Non-Complex?
  8. Can an existing EU-OPS/JAR-OPS3 Air Operator’s Certificate be varied during the derogation period?
  9. Does the format of the Operations Manual require significant changes or can an existing Operations Manual be tweaked?
  10. If any operator meets any of the criteria for Complex operator, does that automatically make the operator a Complex operator?
  11. When is the earliest date an operator can start the transition process for the grant of an EASA Implementing Rules Air Operator’s Certificate?
  12. Can a Non-Commercial Air Transport operator, operating complex aircraft have the Management System of a non-complex operator?
  13. Is the CAA going to produce a template/example for Section A3 of the Operations Manual?
  14. Will the differences/compliance checklist completed by the stakeholder have to be agreed by the assigned Flight Operations Inspector?
  15. Will the CAA accept an operator managing risks to “as low as reasonably practicable” and not ‘an “Acceptable Level of Safety” and could this be justified in court?
  16. Will the differences/compliance checklist required for the transition to the EASA Implementing Rules be tailored for non-complex operators?
  17. With the EASA Implementing Rules requiring a change of title from Quality Manager to Compliance Monitoring Manager, is there not going to be a disconnect where the same person also holds the Quality Manager post defined by EASA Part M and EASA Part 145?
  18. Can an operator of a State that has opted-out fly in States which have chosen to implement EASA Implementing Rules?
  19. Will the transition to the EASA Implementing Rules require Operations Manuals/Quality Manuals to be re-written?
  20. Will there be any grandfather rights in respect of Minimum Equipment Lists ie should operators not submit amendments to Minimum Equipment Lists for the time being?
  21. If another Member State has accepted an alternative means of compliance, can this automatically be used by a UK stakeholder?
  22. Will there be a charge for the change in Air Operator’s Certificate documentation?
  23. How can standardisation be achieved between the Member States?
  24. It was suggested that the requirement for a pilot to sign off the pre-flight inspections was no longer in the EASA OPS rules. Is it not in the in the cover regulation?
  25. Will Alternative means of compliance be published and submitted to EASA?
  26. Is the Pre-Flight Check as defined in the Flight Manual the same as the Daily Check?
  27. As the activity within the derogation period is likely to be extremely busy, will the resources within the CAA be able to cope?
  28. Should the correct nomenclature for the new requirements not be EASA OPS?
  29. How much scope does the CAA have if it transpires that the introduction of an EASA Implementing Rule causes an ‘unintended change’ (unforeseen problem)?
  30. ORO.GEN.AOC.100(c) says:

    (c) Applicants shall demonstrate to the competent authority that:
    (1) they comply with all the applicable requirements of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, this Annex and Annex IV (Part-CAT) and Annex V (Part-SPA) to this Regulation, as applicable;

    You could read this as saying that operators need to produce a cross reference document linking every relevant heading in the legislation to the Operations Manual. Is that really what’s required, or do we arrive at that position as a result of discussions and oral questioning?
  31. ORO.AOC.125 Non-commercial operations of aircraft listed in the operations specifications by the holder of an AOC
    The holder of an AOC may conduct non-commercial operations with an aircraft otherwise used for commercial air transport operations that is listed in the operations specifications of its AOC, provided that the operator:
    (a) describes such operations in detail in the operations manual, including:
    (1) identification of the applicable requirements;
    (2) a clear identification of any differences between operating procedures used when conducting commercial and non-commercial operations;
    (3) a means of ensuring that all personnel involved in the operation are fully familiar with the associated procedures;
    (b) submits the identified differences between the operating procedures referred to in (a)(2) to the competent authority for prior approval.

    The CAA spreadsheet indicates this is a new requirement, but there are no AMCs or GMs. What are they getting