時間：2011-08-31 13:49來源：藍天飛行翻譯 作者：航空 點擊：次
|
There was some concern in the WG, reflecting comments received, that the situation was not as clear as had been suggested. The privileges conferred in JAR–FCL as a pilot-in-command could be seen as less than those in other States when JAR–OPS implies that a pilot-in-command is not necessarily the commander. Such a view could prejudice the validation of JAA licenses in States outside Europe. In addition, it did appear clear, from the comments that the requirements behind the definitions were consistent with each other. The DEFWG, in trying to take all of the above into account, concluded that the revised term respected the privileges conferred by ICAO, and made the two roles quite clear. The layout has been modified to try and further clarify the JAA’s intentions. Commander is only being defined in JAR–1 as a cross-reference for the sake of completeness. The DEFWG reviewed a possible text for Commander and commends the following to the Operations Committee; ‘Commander means the pilot-in-command, designated by the operator for a specific flight, who may delegate responsibility to another pilot-in-command’. Adoption of the terms does, however, imply that the JAA’s Operations Committee will need to review JAR–OPS to ensure the internal consistency of the use of the two terms. This work will include reviewing, at least, crew qualification, training, crew composition and responsibilities. The Operations Committee confirmed that it was ready to perform such a review, and will further no longer use pilot-in-command unless really required. Comments regarding a possible new term ‘relief commander’ were reviewed. The term is not, following the above discussions, deemed to be required and would introduce confusion. Co-pilot This term was much simpler to handle; a number of comments all moving away from ICAO were discussed and rejected on that basis. It is retained, as is. Proposal 3: Pilot flying (PF) and Pilot not flying (PNF) |
