Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Explanatory Note
EXPLANATORY NOTE
AMC-20 Amendment 8
This Amendment 8 of AMC-20 incorporates the output from the following EASA rulemaking
task:
Rulemaking
TITLE NPA No.
Task No.
This NPA was subject to consultation in accordance with Article 52 of the Basic Regulation 2
and Article 5(3) and 6 of the rulemaking procedure established by the Management Board 3 .
The Agency has addressed and responded to the comments received on the NPA. The
responses are contained in a comment-response document (CRD) which has been produced
for the NPA and which is available on the Agency's website.
Detailed changes incorporated in the text proposed in the NPA are summarised in the
following pages for ease of reference.
1
Decision 2003/12/RM of the Executive Director of the European Aviation Safety Agency of 5
November 2003. Decision as last amended by Decision 2010/012/R of the Executive Director of
the Agency of 16 December 2010 (AMC-20 Amendment 7).
2
Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation
and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC,
Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (OJ L79, of 19.3.2008, p.1.) Regulation
as last amended by Regulation 1108/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21
October 2009 (OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 51).
3
Management Board Decision concerning the procedure to be applied by the Agency for the issuing
of opinions, certification specifications and guidance material (’Rulemaking Procedure’), EASA
MB/08/07, 13.6.2007.
Page 1 of 6
AMC-20 Amendment 8
Explanatory Note
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Page 2 of 6
AMC-20 Amendment 8
Explanatory Note
In response to CRD 2010-03, the Agency received several substantial reactions, which are reproduced below together with the
Agency’s responses:
Page 3 of 6
AMC-20 Amendment 8
Explanatory Note
received it is difficult to understand why would this test code by ORCAM) or other agreed with the ATC
be so in Europe. In addition, in Switzerland, when code, it is assumed that these XPDR readouts will be
discussed with the organizations handling the filtered or disregarded by technical or other means.
transponder tests – this (setting the XPDR to 60 The aim of the procedure is during the test an
000ft) was not raised as a difficulty. unrealistic altitude to be transmitted. The main
consideration for choosing -1000 ft setting is that in
this case an ACAS false warning to any other aircraft
is quite unlikely event. However, during a recent
Eurocae and RTCA meeting, this point was raised and
it was agreed that in the interests of harmonisation
the operator should be given the option to use an
altitude of -1000 feet or more than 60,000 feet. The
decision to use either altitude would be based on
discussions between the maintenance organisation
and the local Air Traffic Control. The AMC will
therefore include an option to use 60,000 feet.
Noted.
ACAS II version 7.0 to ACAS II version 7.1 aircraft
level changes are major in accordance with the
criteria given in the Guidance Material (GM) in Part The guidance material to Part 21 provides guidance in
21A.91, Appendix A, paragraph 4. the classification of changes, Thus paragraph 7.6 has
been deleted.
Page 6 of 6