CHC Helikopter Service AS awarded Statoil contract
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHC Helikopter Service AS awarded Statoil contract
http://www.hegnar.no/hegnar/newsdet....257768&cat=100 (news)
http://www.statoil.com/ (press release in english)
http://www.statoil.com/ (press release in english)
JOEB for EC 225
It may be good the contract does not start until 2010, because I heard that CAA-Norway will probably request a (J)OEB or whatever it is called in this EASA age, before the EC 225 is let loose on operators and passengers.
Those things tend to take some time.
Those things tend to take some time.
Not that I am aware of but it was accepted by the DGAC on behalf of EASA.
It is a moot point whether any/all helicopters previously certificated (anywhere in the world) need to be part of the JOEB program There is a 'catch-up' process being proposed at the moment but, as there is no value-added for the manufacturer, why would they cooperate and involve themselves in further expense - especially for helicopters for which the production line has already closed.
Until EASA recognise that there needs to be some Grandfathering for some of the requirements, progress will be slow.
If you argue the point for the EC225 requiring a Operational Type Certificate, you need to continue the process and involve all other types currently in use in Europe.
Surely the most practical thing to do with the existing fleet, would be to check compliance against (the equivalent of) JAR-OPS 3, attempt to source an MMEL (no mean feat with the FAA and EASA having totally different ownership and processes) and then do only that which is required to provide value-added when required (for any future operational approvals).
Jim
It is a moot point whether any/all helicopters previously certificated (anywhere in the world) need to be part of the JOEB program There is a 'catch-up' process being proposed at the moment but, as there is no value-added for the manufacturer, why would they cooperate and involve themselves in further expense - especially for helicopters for which the production line has already closed.
Until EASA recognise that there needs to be some Grandfathering for some of the requirements, progress will be slow.
If you argue the point for the EC225 requiring a Operational Type Certificate, you need to continue the process and involve all other types currently in use in Europe.
Surely the most practical thing to do with the existing fleet, would be to check compliance against (the equivalent of) JAR-OPS 3, attempt to source an MMEL (no mean feat with the FAA and EASA having totally different ownership and processes) and then do only that which is required to provide value-added when required (for any future operational approvals).
Jim
