時間：2011-08-31 13:49來源：藍天飛行翻譯 作者：航空 點擊：次
|
The GAMA comments regarding VS1g should be retained pending consultation on those proposals, but are not relevant to NPA 1–2 as such. COMMENT/RESPONSE DOCUMENT: NPA 1–5 ROTORCRAFT DEFINITIONS The following indicated agreement with the proposals without comment:– Transport Canada SBAC CAA Australia CAA Denmark, except to note that the class D load combination should be amended when the ARAC group has finished its work. Substantive comments were received as follows:– Westland Helicopters Limited (Mr M F Mann, Documentation and Quality Manager Aircraft). The only comment I have is the use of the word:– AUXILIARY ROTOR for control and maintenance of the helicopter this rotor has always been referred to as:– TAIL ROTOR I would therefore request that the reference ‘Tail Rotor ’ be annotated for controlling the fore-aft stability and directional control of the helicopter and NOT ‘Auxiliary Rotor’ as currently been quoted. Reply:– While it is noted that the terms ‘auxiliary rotor’ and ‘tail rotor’ are used almost equally in JAR/FAR 27 and 29, in order to maintain harmonisation with FAR 1 the defined term will be retained as ‘auxiliary rotor’. JAA Operations Director As a general comment, it has always been my understanding that, whenever they were acceptable in the JAA context, ICAO definitions should be used wherever possible. This philosophy does not appear to apply in NPA 1–5. With regard to the definitions of ‘Category A’ and ‘Category B’, care should be taken to ensure consistency between the definitions in JAR–1 and those contained in JAR–OPS 3.480. With regard to ‘Category A’ the corresponding text in JAR–OPS 3 refers to JAR 27/29 and, in view of a number of the comments received on the NPA’s for JAR–OPS, perhaps the words ‘or equivalent’ should be added after the reference to the certification JARs in the definitions. |
