JAR 25 - what is it?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR 25 - what is it?
Hi all,
Please forgive me my ignorance and I have tried "searching" both here and on Google prior to posting but can someone please give me a simple definition of what qualifies as a JAR 25 aircraft?
Thanks in advance.
Thunor.
Please forgive me my ignorance and I have tried "searching" both here and on Google prior to posting but can someone please give me a simple definition of what qualifies as a JAR 25 aircraft?
Thanks in advance.
Thunor.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks but like I said I already tried a "search" on Pprune.
Perhaps if you - or anyone - can tell me how to overcome the following "bulletin message" I get I can try again:
"The search term you specified (25) is under the minimum word length (3) and therefore will not be found. Please make this term longer. "
T.
Perhaps if you - or anyone - can tell me how to overcome the following "bulletin message" I get I can try again:
"The search term you specified (25) is under the minimum word length (3) and therefore will not be found. Please make this term longer. "
T.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California USA
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although not official (and moreover, I don’t know how current), try this: http://www.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Schol...en/JAR-25.html
JAR 25 says that it is applicable to “the certification of large aeroplanes.” JAR 1 defines “Large Aeroplanes” this way: “'Large aeroplane' means an aeroplane of more than 5700 kg (12,500 pounds) maximum certificated take-off weight. The category 'Large Aeroplane' does not include the commuter aeroplane category “(http://www.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Schol...ten/JAR-1.html )
And like Genghis says, take a look at FAR 25 (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...200&Expand=6#6 )
Note that "jar 25" works great on Google. As for PPRuNe, you're right, "jar 25" won't work because "25" is less than three characters. I tried it with a wild card ("jar 25*") but the search timed-out. However, "jar-25" and "jar25" both yield some results. Among them are posts by Genghis (appropriately) saying, "take a look at FAR 25."
Dave
JAR 25 says that it is applicable to “the certification of large aeroplanes.” JAR 1 defines “Large Aeroplanes” this way: “'Large aeroplane' means an aeroplane of more than 5700 kg (12,500 pounds) maximum certificated take-off weight. The category 'Large Aeroplane' does not include the commuter aeroplane category “(http://www.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Schol...ten/JAR-1.html )
And like Genghis says, take a look at FAR 25 (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...200&Expand=6#6 )
Note that "jar 25" works great on Google. As for PPRuNe, you're right, "jar 25" won't work because "25" is less than three characters. I tried it with a wild card ("jar 25*") but the search timed-out. However, "jar-25" and "jar25" both yield some results. Among them are posts by Genghis (appropriately) saying, "take a look at FAR 25."
Dave
Moderator
JAR 25 is a set of Design Standards relating to the design and certification of large aircraft, ie typical airline big jets ... Boeing, Airbus, etc. - historically, aircraft with a maximum mass exceeding 12,500 lb/5700kg. ICAO States will each have either their own similar Standard (eg US FAR 25) or will adopt that of another, larger State.
The JAA tends to sell documents but the (largely similar) FAA documents are public domain and freely available. You can look through FAR 25 here if you wish.
Generally, the Design Standard regulations (eg FAR 25) can be a bit terse and incomprehensible so it is normal to refer to amplifying words in supporting documentation. The US uses the Advisory Circular system and the relevant ACs supporting FAR 25 can be found here.
There are other, complementary, Standards for other classes of aircraft, helicopters etc. For instance, FAR/JAR 23 relates to the typical small general aviation aeroplane. You could do worse than have a play in the FAA website
The JAA tends to sell documents but the (largely similar) FAA documents are public domain and freely available. You can look through FAR 25 here if you wish.
Generally, the Design Standard regulations (eg FAR 25) can be a bit terse and incomprehensible so it is normal to refer to amplifying words in supporting documentation. The US uses the Advisory Circular system and the relevant ACs supporting FAR 25 can be found here.
There are other, complementary, Standards for other classes of aircraft, helicopters etc. For instance, FAR/JAR 23 relates to the typical small general aviation aeroplane. You could do worse than have a play in the FAA website
You get a much better answer by searching in "tech log".
In best Blue Peter fashion, here's one I prepared earlier.
G
In best Blue Peter fashion, here's one I prepared earlier.
G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks very much guys - greatly appreciated.
I've not been flying for 4 years hence my "ignorant"question now that I've been harbouring notions of returning to the fold!
I have noticed that increasingly potential employers state, "x hours/experience on JAR 25 aircraft" and as an ex-(lowly) turboprop driver I genuinely didn't know whether or not I qualified since as I say I previously didn't know what that meant.
I didn't know whether or not it meant I had to have experience on a "big" shiny jet (Boeing, Airbus etc..) and especially since previous airline applications have required "heavy" turboprop experience as a minimum - apparently defined as "in excess of 20,000kgs." Apparently my years of flying a mere 19,500kgs with 50 pax. on board is deemed not good (or heavy) enough!
Thanks again for enlightening me - I thought it was a simple question but I couldn't find a simple answer via Google or Pprune "searches"
Cheers,
Thunor.
I've not been flying for 4 years hence my "ignorant"question now that I've been harbouring notions of returning to the fold!
I have noticed that increasingly potential employers state, "x hours/experience on JAR 25 aircraft" and as an ex-(lowly) turboprop driver I genuinely didn't know whether or not I qualified since as I say I previously didn't know what that meant.
I didn't know whether or not it meant I had to have experience on a "big" shiny jet (Boeing, Airbus etc..) and especially since previous airline applications have required "heavy" turboprop experience as a minimum - apparently defined as "in excess of 20,000kgs." Apparently my years of flying a mere 19,500kgs with 50 pax. on board is deemed not good (or heavy) enough!
Thanks again for enlightening me - I thought it was a simple question but I couldn't find a simple answer via Google or Pprune "searches"
Cheers,
Thunor.
If you really want to be certain, go to the FAA's website and download the "TCDS" (Type Certificate Data Sheet) for the type (or I think UK CAA's website has them now also).
Somewhere in there the certification basis for the aeroplane should be stated.
G
Somewhere in there the certification basis for the aeroplane should be stated.
G
Moderator
.. and, so no-one can say that G or I make things hard for anyone ...... FAA TCDS
But, be aware that one of the peculiarities of the system is that the TCDS (think aircraft) is listed under the name of the CURRENT TCDS holder, not the original organisation .. this can make finding it more that a bit of a needle in a haystack if you don't now the ins and outs .. if you can't find any specific TCDS you are after, sing out and we'll do the honours for you.
Having said that, am I opening the floodgates ?
But, be aware that one of the peculiarities of the system is that the TCDS (think aircraft) is listed under the name of the CURRENT TCDS holder, not the original organisation .. this can make finding it more that a bit of a needle in a haystack if you don't now the ins and outs .. if you can't find any specific TCDS you are after, sing out and we'll do the honours for you.
Having said that, am I opening the floodgates ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis and John (in particular) - whilst I thank you for your replies and am truly grateful I am even more confused than before!
Perhaps I should re-phrase my original question and/or provide more background information? I really don't know!
Okay my background:
Prior to September 11th 2001 I was an experienced Turboprop Captain (okay what is the point of me continuing to be shy - on a Dash-8, - from my rapidly fading memory 19,500 kgs max. weight and 50 pax. okay 51 when we used the 'jump-seat' which in those days we very regularly did!)
Post September 11th 2001 I 'retired' (for want of a better word - and I am sure there are several!) from aviation.
Almost 4 years later I am
hoping to return to flying.
Many of the adverts. I read state, must have, "x hours experience on JAR 25 aircraft"!
Whilst personally I don't know what that means I figured that my fellow ppruners would - hence my original question!
Of course not wanting to appear like a total ignoramus I first tried to find the answer myself via "searches" on both pprune and Google but sadly to no avail!
Now with one breath I am told a JAR 25 aircraft is one in excess of 5700kgs (great so I do qualify!?) but "Commuter - type" aircraft are not included (oh dear so I don't qualify after all!?)
How simply can I ask this question?:
IS THE DASH 8-300 A JAR 25 AIRCRAFT OR NOT????
Thank you!
Thunor.
Perhaps I should re-phrase my original question and/or provide more background information? I really don't know!
Okay my background:
Prior to September 11th 2001 I was an experienced Turboprop Captain (okay what is the point of me continuing to be shy - on a Dash-8, - from my rapidly fading memory 19,500 kgs max. weight and 50 pax. okay 51 when we used the 'jump-seat' which in those days we very regularly did!)
Post September 11th 2001 I 'retired' (for want of a better word - and I am sure there are several!) from aviation.
Almost 4 years later I am
hoping to return to flying.
Many of the adverts. I read state, must have, "x hours experience on JAR 25 aircraft"!
Whilst personally I don't know what that means I figured that my fellow ppruners would - hence my original question!
Of course not wanting to appear like a total ignoramus I first tried to find the answer myself via "searches" on both pprune and Google but sadly to no avail!
Now with one breath I am told a JAR 25 aircraft is one in excess of 5700kgs (great so I do qualify!?) but "Commuter - type" aircraft are not included (oh dear so I don't qualify after all!?)
How simply can I ask this question?:
IS THE DASH 8-300 A JAR 25 AIRCRAFT OR NOT????
Thank you!
Thunor.
Moderator
Don't know what shyness has to do with it. Now, good sir, you have asked the question which could have been better asked at the start.
Simple answer to the specific question is yes and I refer you to the words on page 10 on Certification Basis. This one is as good an example as any in respect of finding TCDS data. One would think, would one not, that the DHC-8 was a DeHavilland Canada aeroplane, would one not ? Yet, the TCDS is now owned by Bombardier, so that is the name one searches for. A great way to waste time if one doesn't know who owns the bit of paper for the particular machine for which one is searching.
Generally, a vague reference to "FAR 25 aircraft" means an airline aircraft as we generally take that to be, reasonably big jets and propjets. In any reasonable discussion, you would be held to be experienced on Part 25 turboprops. The only problem would be if the asker were to be interested in jets rather than dog whistles.
The details of certification bases used to be real simple. One had little aeroplanes (Tigers, Austers, and so forth) and one had big aeroplanes (DC3 and up) so the wise Masters of the Universe decreed that 12500lb, being a meaningless figure in no-man's land, was a useful boundary to separate the two and would never be a problem in that regard. Ah, but their various crystal balls were defective, as we all know.
I think that a few of us who dabble in this field might put our heads together and write a paper of sorts for the sticky to provide the basis for folk to make some sense of it all. Mind you, my buddies out there haven't been consulted yet, so I might be sticking my neck out here, just a bit, by co-opting them in advance.
However, go, that man ... and the very best of luck with your applications, good sir. We look forward to hearing of your success in due course.
Simple answer to the specific question is yes and I refer you to the words on page 10 on Certification Basis. This one is as good an example as any in respect of finding TCDS data. One would think, would one not, that the DHC-8 was a DeHavilland Canada aeroplane, would one not ? Yet, the TCDS is now owned by Bombardier, so that is the name one searches for. A great way to waste time if one doesn't know who owns the bit of paper for the particular machine for which one is searching.
Generally, a vague reference to "FAR 25 aircraft" means an airline aircraft as we generally take that to be, reasonably big jets and propjets. In any reasonable discussion, you would be held to be experienced on Part 25 turboprops. The only problem would be if the asker were to be interested in jets rather than dog whistles.
The details of certification bases used to be real simple. One had little aeroplanes (Tigers, Austers, and so forth) and one had big aeroplanes (DC3 and up) so the wise Masters of the Universe decreed that 12500lb, being a meaningless figure in no-man's land, was a useful boundary to separate the two and would never be a problem in that regard. Ah, but their various crystal balls were defective, as we all know.
I think that a few of us who dabble in this field might put our heads together and write a paper of sorts for the sticky to provide the basis for folk to make some sense of it all. Mind you, my buddies out there haven't been consulted yet, so I might be sticking my neck out here, just a bit, by co-opting them in advance.
However, go, that man ... and the very best of luck with your applications, good sir. We look forward to hearing of your success in due course.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks (again!) John.
As I thought you - and others - might have gathered I am a very simple person therefore I thought my original question was simple - clearly not!
I look forward to informing you of my success - in due course.
As I thought you - and others - might have gathered I am a very simple person therefore I thought my original question was simple - clearly not!
I look forward to informing you of my success - in due course.
British TCDS for DHC-8 .
Certification basis (pages 2 & 3) is clearly FAR-25.
There you go, it is!
G
Certification basis (pages 2 & 3) is clearly FAR-25.
There you go, it is!
G
Thunor, if I were a Chief Pilot seeking experienced pilots it would be more appropriate for them to have flight time in a FAR Part 121 operation. This implies a higher degree of discipline and a more professional operation; of course I would not include all non 121 operators or even some 121 airlines in this description, the accident records can tell us a lot about the ‘lesser standard’ operations.
If you are in Europe, then there is not quite such a distinction between large-aircraft commercial airlines and other operations.
If you do make it to an interview then I hope that you can convince the prospective employer of the value of what and how you have operated and not necessarily that of the size/weight of aircraft; it not the hours that are important, it is what you have learnt (experience gained) during those hours. Commuter operations have a lot to offer, many sectors and varied airports; thus flight time on a JAR 25 sized aircraft is a good start, but it’s not everything.
If you are in Europe, then there is not quite such a distinction between large-aircraft commercial airlines and other operations.
If you do make it to an interview then I hope that you can convince the prospective employer of the value of what and how you have operated and not necessarily that of the size/weight of aircraft; it not the hours that are important, it is what you have learnt (experience gained) during those hours. Commuter operations have a lot to offer, many sectors and varied airports; thus flight time on a JAR 25 sized aircraft is a good start, but it’s not everything.
