FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1973
1973 - 0131.PDF
FLIGHT International, 18 January 1973 81 European airworthiness The enlargement of the Common Market could well have a bearing on European airworthiness standards. In this article, which first appeared this month in the British Civil Aviation Authority staff newspaper "Air way", Dr Walter Tye, CAA controller safety, describes efforts within Europe to get together on airworthiness questions. FOR SEVERAL YEARS past, aircraft and engine manufac turers in Western Europe have been forming partner ships to undertake collaborative design and construction work. The most significant civil ventures have been Concorde (and its power units) and the Airbus, but there are many others. The essential object is to widen the available market, and to share the very high initial costs. Such steps are vital if European countries are to meet the competition of the USA with its huge home market. These collaborative efforts have emphasised the need for common airworthiness rules and procedures. In the post-war Western world there have been only two main airworthiness codes, American and British. Though the end result of airworthiness of actual aircraft is much the same, the codes themselves differ in some respects. Each country has naturally tended to prepare its rules to suit best the way in which its authority and its industry work. For various reasons continental European countries in general chose to base their national requirements on the American code. In the first instance this did little more than facilitate the acceptance of US-built aircraft for import to Europe. As time passed, however, continental countries, and particularly France, became more concerned with their own design and construction, and began to build up airworthiness staffs to control this work. This produced a change of climate in which the European countries began to see the need for home-grown airworthiness codes more suitable for application in Europe. This coincided with the growth of collaborative projects so that the idea of a European code gradually took shape. Anglo-French work on the Concorde underlined the need. Here was a new type bristling with innovations, for which the American requirements did not cater. Britain and France therefore set about the development of a joint code of supersonic aircraft airworthiness requirements, now known as the TSS standards. These TSS standards are not directly applicable to sub sonic aircraft; hence some four years ago the then ARB called an informal meeting of its opposite numbers in France, West Germany and Holland to propose that an effort be made to develop a common code. In parallel, the European manufacturers' organisation, Aicma, was meeting with the same object in mind. As a result seven countries— the above four plus Sweden, Belgium and Italy—estab- M OST OF us flying in civil aviation have undergone a number of conversion courses and are in many cases looking forward to some in the future. The days of being given a handbook, a short time to browse through it and leaping into the air with a relatively unknown quantity strapped to one's backside are long gone. By the same token, the present system has been in force for some time now and perhaps deserves reappraisal. There is no doubt that training in general has become considerably more advanced, in both the aids used and the philosophy applied to it. The experience gained and techniques adopted by some establishments involved in large training programmes have been published and the interchange of ideas has become more common practice. This state of affairs is commendable for its obvious benefits to the industry. Considerable thought has gone into the environment in which the student finds himself during the course, including such details as classroom tempera tures, lighting, timetables that will stimulate interest and ensure maximum receptiveness, even manner of dress, particularly on the part of instructional staff. A step in lished an informal joint committee on which both authority and manufacturers' representatives sit. This informal committee agreed that the seven countries would work together to produce Joint Airworthiness Requirements (JABs), initially for fixed-wing transport aircraft and for engines. Agreeing airworthiness require ments is a slow, painstaking business, but remarkably good progress has been made. The seven countries agreed to use British requirements as the basis for the engine code, and in fact adopted them with virtually no technical change as the JAR. For transport aircraft the US code provided the datum, and the seven countries have agreed to the additions or variations they consider necessary for JAR purposes. This work is well advanced, perhaps 50 per cent complete. Chairmanship of the committee is rotational, the host country providing the chairman. For continuity's sake M Frantzen of the SGAC (France) is permanent vice-chairman, Mr Buys of Fokker the chief industry spokesman and Mr Kennedy of CAA the permanent secretary. The undoubted success of the committee work is attributable partly to the similar interests and objectives of the countries concerned, partly to the direct involvement of industry and partly to the absence of formal constraints. The committee is responsible to no one, and it decides its own terms of reference, its own programmes, and its own working arrangements. The enlargement of the Common Market could well have a bearing on European airworthiness. Any policy of facilitating industrial collaboration will almost certainly lead to the need for common regulations. Fortunately there is close similarity between the seven JAR countries and the nine members of the EEC. There could well be a powerful temptation for the EEC to take over at some stage what the JAR has started. It could be that such a move will have its benefits, but it could also have draw backs. Formalised institutions are more ponderous; legal matters assume greater significance and a well-meaning, but not necessarily knowledgeable, secretariat takes over affairs. Until the present work of JAR has crystallised out it would be dangerous to shake the bottle. Once there is a good technically workable and technically agreed JAR, the time might be appropriate for the EEC to consider giving it the formal blessing as a European code. • By Capt W. Brunn the right direction has been taken by those training estab lishments that submit their instructors to periodic scrutiny and thereby standardise techniques. Standardisation can be achieved by having an instructor present his subject to a class attended by his fellow instructors who can give constructive criticism. An inter change of instructors from different establishments would further this objective. If, in aircraft handling, one instruc tor takes a student through the simulator, another deals with the same student on base flying and yet another observes his final check ride, the best knowledge will be imparted and standardisation will be achieved. The combination of ideal environment, up-to-date instruc tion and the host of adyanced training aids now available should produce the desSred result at an acceptable cost. The cost of flying training has gone up considerably with the introduction of current aircraft. The most expensive item—base flying on the type—has been considerably- reduced by virtue of training methods and the use of such aids as procedure trainers and simulators. Where a company has found it uneconomic to indulge in a very Towards easier conversion training
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
