時間：2011-08-31 13:49來源：藍天飛行翻譯 作者：航空 點擊：次
|
Secondly, and it was this option that was consulted upon, accept the ‘inconsistency’ throughout the JAA system and let JAR–1 simply list the various words as used in JAR–21, JAR–145, and EU Regulation 3922/91. This would imply no changes to existing JARs and would have no impact on JAA/FAA Harmonisation. This implied drafting a list of terms, that are not defined, but it is indicated where their definition is found in JARs and indicate that they actually are valid for a particular ‘field’ (e.g. maintenance, certification etc.). This manner would be similar to that adopted in NPA 1–7 for Aircraft Type and Category. Of the ten comments received to this proposal, half of the commentors supported the proposal, although a number regretted the fact that complete definitions were not being proposed. The remainder of the commentors noted that the proposal did not contain definitions, and should thus be withdrawn pending the development of consistent definitions as described in the first of the possible options above. These comments were not generally well supported with reasons as to why the commentor preferred the former option. Where arguments were put forward, they were as follows: – current proposal has potential to diverge from ICAO texts; – – –
|
