CAA Information Notice Confusion

[mkheng]

In light of the confusion that has been created with the release of IN-2014/179 last week ARPAS are drafting some questions to put to the CAA for them to clarify.
Could you therefore please list any questions [in regards to the IN only] you think ARPAS could put to the CAA in a reply to this thread.
In order that the thread does not become cluttered can we ask that no replies to questions are posted at this time.
We hope to draft a letter this evening.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[ShackFlyer]

1.Clarify the sub 7kg position
2.How can new applicants applying/submitting Ops manuals to gain PFAW account for this to make the safety case, with both sub 7kg & 7-20kg aircraft (if a difference exists)

 

[Photosignals]

Given this is an annual process, still a bit confused whether this is for a specific location, highly defined type of work or just general sub 150m urban work (or 50m for <7Kg).

 

[PMaughan]

Will there be a visual inspection as part of the assessment?

 

[Carapau]

Basically the safety case is to be completed once per year for anything you want to do outside of standard permissions. So for someone over 7KG that means anyone wanting to work in a congested area for example. For sub 7 it is for someone who wants to work at distances less than the usual 50m. In short the CAA have been trying to deal with one off variations but as more and more people are applying for them and the quality of these applications has dropped, the CAA have decided that better for all is some work up front, ie the safety case and then more freedom for the operator and less work for the CAA. You wont necassarily have to have your aircraft / pilot / procedures inspected but you will need to provide evidence for any claim you make eg, our pilot is exceptional and well skilled in manual flight. Great now how do you back up such a statement, by including a copy of the BMFA B certificate or something like that. So you claim that your aircraft is safe but how? What are your mitigations if you have a failure in the IMU for example and what evidence can you provide to back up the claim? That's the essence of this safety case. ARPAS UK are having a QandA session with the CAA to aid clarification and without doubt the CAA will be tuning this process as it evolves.

 

[Buzz_Roavr]

Basically the safety case is to be completed once per year for anything you want to do outside of standard permissions. So for someone over 7KG that means anyone wanting to work in a congested area for example. For sub 7 it is for someone who wants to work at distances less than the usual 50m. In short the CAA have been trying to deal with one off variations but as more and more people are applying for them and the quality of these applications has dropped, the CAA have decided that better for all is some work up front, ie the safety case and then more freedom for the operator and less work for the CAA. You wont necassarily have to have your aircraft / pilot / procedures inspected but you will need to provide evidence for any claim you make eg, our pilot is exceptional and well skilled in manual flight. Great now how do you back up such a statement, by including a copy of the BMFA B certificate or something like that. So you claim that your aircraft is safe but how? What are your mitigations if you have a failure in the IMU for example and what evidence can you provide to back up the claim? That's the essence of this safety case. ARPAS UK are having a QandA session with the CAA to aid clarification and without doubt the CAA will be tuning this process as it evolves.

[emoji106]