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
|
From the viewpoint of the Operations Committee/Division, the matter was not as difficult as some suggested. The origin of a designated commander is from the United Kingdom’s system, and has been in place for many years. It was introduced into the operating requirements following an accident where crew co-ordination was compromised by issues of crew seniority between the pilots following an engine failure shortly after take-off. Additionally, ICAO’s texts were written long before the introduction of ‘ultra-long’ haul flights where multiple flight crews were carried. The essence of the text in JAR–OPS is that a commander is a designated person, and always has overall responsibility; a responsibility which cannot be transferred in flight. It was noted that although Appendix 1 to JAR–OPS 1.940 referred to the ‘relief’ of the commander, it is not specified, what, 3 precisely ‘relief’ entails. Additionally, Appendix 1 to JAR–OPS 1.1045, para 4.3 refers to procedures following flight crew incapacitation. This is seen as only being valid for the most exceptional cases (force majeure etc.), and the wording of these two paragraphs should not be allowed to cause confusion. The Licensing Committee view, in the DEFWG, was that the issue of commander is a purely operational one, and it did not affect JAR–FCL – so long as the pilot-in-command in JAR–OPS meant the same as in JAR–FCL. Some members could not wholly concur with the idea that JAR–FCL could not be affected by the operational requirements. In addition, although if commander was only operational, then it is only valid for commercial operations. In addition, there was a view that the use of commander and pilot-in-command in JAR–OPS was not consistent within itself. The WG did consider whether ‘control’ or ‘conduct’ was more appropriate than ‘command’ in the term pilot-in-command, but concluded that the term was correct as is and did not modify it. |
