時(shí)間：2011-08-31 13:49來(lái)源：藍(lán)天飛行翻譯 作者：航空 點(diǎn)擊：次
|
The terms are used in relation to training in JAR–FCL and JAR–OPS, and the proposal was based on the FCL Committee’s work. The DEFWG added a short clarification to make it clear that during a flight in an aircraft where only one pilot is required, the concept of Pilot not flying does not apply. Most commentors were generally supportive of the proposal. Based on the comments an IEM was prepared using the clarification that was in parenthesis in the NPA. The comment proposing that the term to be defined be altered to read ‘handling’ in place of ‘flying’, however descriptively accurate, was not adopted. This was due to the proposed term being well understood, and most familiar to the aviation community. A licensing comment objected to the addition of the clarification of the single pilot issue in Pilot not flying, but did not give any reason. The DEFWG feels that the clarification is important due to 4 ‘historical’ confusion for the recording of flight time and responsibility in single pilot aircraft, when two pilots are on board. The clarification makes it clear that only one person is the pilot in such a case, and the other, although he/she may be licensed, is for the purposes of the flight, a passenger. Proposal 4: Infant It was confirmed that a definition of an infant would be required for JAR–OPS, and that the intent was to include all children under the age of 2 years in that grouping. The FAA has a standard phrase for an Infant, although it was not in FAR Part 1. A proposal was drafted with the above intent in mind. Only three comments were received, of which one was supportive. Two commentors noted that the phrase proposed did not account for persons born on 29 February, or for those who chose to count a person’s date of birth as the first birthday. In order to retain the same words as the FAA uses (even though the definition isn’t in FAR Part 1), the definition is not altered, but to take account of the obtuse readings of the text described above, IEM material was drafted by the DEFWG. The DEFWG note that the FAA only defines the term in FAR Part 121 for operations. It was thus decided in the DEFWG to withdraw the term from JAR–1 and offer the text to JAA’s Operations Committee for their consideration of a possible NPA to JAR–OPS 1 and 3. The DEFWG’s final text is as follows: |
