時(shí)間：2011-08-31 13:49來源：藍(lán)天飛行翻譯 作者：航空 點(diǎn)擊：次
|
The JAA’s Operations Committee proposed that the text they had prepared for the JIP to JAR–OPS be included as IEM to cover ‘remuneration’ and ‘cost-sharing’. This was initially agreed in principle, and the OC text was used, with a number of changes. The most significant is the addition of a discriminant to state how many people could be involved in the sharing of the costs. However, a late comment regarding this new IEM No. 2, proposed deletion of such texts as they were not yet mature. The comment recognises that guidance on remuneration and cost sharing is required, but the commentor felt that more work was required. The text is withdrawn. The DEFWG noted that other commentors had specifically requested that such material be drafted. The JAA could either adopt the current drafts, or work on the topic further without any texts in place. As neither JAR–FCL nor JAR–OPS Part 2 are in place yet, it was agreed that the DEFWG’s proposed IEM be withdrawn and worked on in the near future. It was noted that work on ‘sight-seeing’ in relation to remuneration was also outstanding. The NPA requested comments on the inclusion/exclusion of Sight-seeing. Only two comments were received, both of which preferred exclusion. However, the DEFWG felt that a decision on the inclusion or exclusion of Sight-seeing, and any associated definitions and/or technical requirements was a long way outside the remit of WG, and it needs to be addressed as a policy matter by Operations Committee / FCL Committee in the future. Proposal 6; Aerial Work 22 comments were received. 8 commentors responded to the query on the inclusion of ‘flight instruction’ (the term is revised from ..flying instruction.. following comments on consistency with JAR–FCL), by proposing its removal from the definition, especially where it was performed privately, or for non-profit clubs. Five commentors proposed splitting the definition into two; one for Commercial Aerial Work, and another for Private Aerial Work. The DEFWG agreed not to make such a distinction as it believes that to perform such activities some specific training or technical expertise is needed. It is proposed that when devising the applicable operational requirements, consideration be given to separate ‘commercial’ and ‘private’ Aerial Work definitions. |
