The correct name for it is EU-OPS now, after JAR ceased to exist.

To answer a question like yours is really impossible on an online forum like this. It all depends on what you want to achieve. You can only compare the two by reading them side by side taking notes on how a particular item is going to affect a particular situation.

Overall I´d say they are pretty similar at the end of the day. Some differences are there for sure, but not as much as some would have you believe! I know of one US airline that thought the FAR´s were too much of a hassle, and have decided to register their new aircraft type in an EU-OPS country. Can cut both ways, I suppose!

I saw this aircraft at Duxford in 1999 IIRC in RN paint.

I think I´ve seen reference to this paint scheme in the 1995-96 period. But I might be talking bu*l S*it, and come to think of it, it is more likely than not! :rolleyes:

Yes, it is 42-97046

Jezzz Its HOT in here 😮

This is not the first Dresden thread that has descended rather rapidly. People have strong views on the subject.
However, at the end of the day, the only thing the various Dresden threads have achieved is to increase animosity between forum members.

I´m going to stay out of this one, because I certainly don´t like the tone.

A sad accident.
I do wonder how long it will take, and how many people will have to die, before for the authorities completely BAN one of the biggest killers in commercial air transport these days, the damned Circling Approach.

Why is the Circling Approach such a killer? Well, there are multible reasons for it, but most of the recent Circling Approach crashes have tended to highlight the fact that they are human factor disasters, a black hole that many a good man has been sucked into! And, mind you, you only hear of the ones that end in a crash! You never hear of the ones that had all the ingrediens for a bad ending, but were salvaged. The sadest thing about them is, that in the accident reports, the pilots are usually blamed with something like “the pilots failed to maintain visual contact with the ground/runway” or words to that effect. While true, stricktly speaking, it does not address the underlying REASON for these crashes, namely their human factor element and the regulatory/design differences that are involved around the world.

I hope I´m excused to expend some ammunition here, as Circling Approches are my pet hate, and something that I do a lot in the sim, just to make a point.
The human factor disaster
When doing a Circling Approach, you fly down to a minima given on the approach plates as the Circling Minima. It might be given as low as 700 feet and 5000 meters visibility. At the Circling minima, or slightly above, you see the runway and decide to continue. To continue at the minima involves a lot of things. First of all, you must turn to the left/right (as stated on the plate) by 45°. When the turn is finished (wings level) you must start the crono and time (depending on aircraft type) 30 sec. and then turn again to fly parallel to the runway. The this manuver SHOULD place you at around 1 – 1.5 NM from the runway centerline depending on the speed you are doing. At this point you should be able to see the runway, and abeam the landing threshold you start the crono again and time 21 sec. (3 sec. per 100 feet altitude) and start your inbound turn for the runway. Once on the PAPI/WASI you start your descent for a safe landing. Does not sound very dramatic does it? I have to admit, I does not. BUT there are variables in this kind of approach that are VERY hard to correct for.
First of all wind. During the approach down to Circling Minima, you SHOULD note the wind at altitude which can, and WILL, be different from what is reported on the ground. Particulary the strength. In the ideal world, we, the pilots should be monitoring this on our EFIS. In the real world, I´ve found that all the energy and mental capacity is used to configure the aircraft and fly the approach (maybe there is a superman out there somewhere, but I´ve not met him yet!). The thought of an approach to minima (in this case circling minima) concentrates the mind somewhat, and what is to happen later does not register. Now you arrive at minima, and you can see the runway. You are perfectly in your legal rights to say CONTINUE, meaning you will continue the approach for landing according to the briefed approach.
With the accident we are talking about in this thread, I´d not be surprised if the tailwind on the approach was 30 kts. or more.
OPRN 280500Z 09018KT 3500 RA SCT010 SCT030 OVC100 FEW030 25/24 Q1006.9
OPRN 280400Z 05016KT 3500 SCT010 SCT030 BKN100 FEW030TCU 29/24 1006.7
So, you arrive at minima, with a 30 kts tailwind. On the autopilot you have to select altitude hold, go to heading mode and select 45° off heading and start the turn. All this takes a few seconds, all the while the tailwind is blowing you closer to the runway. FAST. The drift during the turn to 45° off, the drift during that leg, and the turn downwind again will have used up about 2NM! Discounting any time used to set up the autopilot for the turn, and any time delay in operating switches for the turns. Basically, that means, when you are wings level downwind you are abeam the landing end of the runway you intend to use! I can tell you that this is a very disorienting thing to do! And now you have to immidietly start timing for the outbound leg from the threashold! Remember, you might be travelling about 4.5 miles a minute at this time, so any time delay will be significant in terms of distance travelled.
And now comes the crunch! The weather reported at the airport, does not tell you anything about the weather ON THE OTHER SIDE! The weather was reported above minima AT the airport, and you could see what was required when you made the continue decsion, but the weather on the otherside might be crap. You do not know! So you are heading for bad weather at a great rate of knots, having set your clock a bit late on the downwind leg! You loose sight of the airport very quickly, but hey! “I´ve got this wonderful moving map to help me! It shows me where the airport is and if I´m really good at computers, it can even show me the extended centerline of the runway I intend to use I can not go much wrong can I? Just not overshoot the centerline!”
Then comes the call from the tower: “You are 10 NM from the airport according to radar. Execute a missed approach now!” And you start the missed approach. The problems with those, in a circling approach, is that they are not published anywhere on the plates if you are past the missed approach point of the instrument approach you were using to get ground contact! From the comfort of my chair I know that if you are on a down wind to the landing runway, I can tell you that you are supposed to execute the missed approach proceedure for the instrument approach in use at the time. Once on base leg, or final, you have to turn in the direction of runway in use, and then, once above the runway in use (how do you tell once in clouds?) make a 180 turn to follow the missed approach proceedure for the instrument approach in use! Try this in clear skys and see how difficult it is! Then add bad weather and two brains, that are lost, working beyond capacity (serious degration of performance) during bad weather and it can only end in desaster! Sadly!
In the above example, I only talked about tailwind. If we go talking about crosswinds as well, a whole new dimension opens, where aircraft are blown off the downwind leg in the direction of the runway, or, away from it. Resaulting in them hitting hard things that were not supposed to be there according the situational awearness of the pilots!
So what is the human factors disaster, what black hole, is there in the above?
Well, the first black hole is the sight of the runway/airport at minima during the instrument approach. That, alone, will make you, as a pilot, go minded. I´ve seen the runway at 700 feet up! It does not, however, tell you anything about the weather on the OTHER SIDE of the airport! Not only that but you have all those beautiful screens in front of you that SUPPOSEDLY tell you exactly were you are, and have EGWS to screem at you about to hit terrain (small problem here! Normal EGWS is inhibited when in landing configuration). Wake up call! The screens tell you where you are! BUT, and it is a big BUT, you must also know where you are. That situational awearness, knowing where you are without the screen in front of you, is fast fading in todays computerized world. I´m not old, but I´m of the old school! A lot of people continue what is clearly a missed approach, based on what the screen is telling them. A human factor issue? Ofcourse it is! And who is to blame? The tools or the user?

Regulatory/design differences
This is one of my favourits! Is there a difference between countries regarding the “safety zone” built into the approach? In the normal world, we should answer NO! But in reality there is!
When you are flying a Circling Approach, you´ll find that the safety zone (safe altitude above terrain for the given approach) differs widely among countries, depending on which school of thought they are following! ICAO and JAA/EASA classify you as “safe” above terrain, at the decision altitude of the IFR approach in use, for 4 NM from the end of each runway end. So they draw a 4 NM circle around each runway end, figure out what is the highest obsticle within that circle and add 700 feet (or what ever!) and use that as the Minimum Descent Altitude for the approach. The FAA on the other hand use different measuement. The FAA insist on allowing only 1.7 NM as guaranteed safty zone from each runway end!! So, at 700 feet 4 NM from the runway, you have to ask yourself, to which criteria was this approach designed? In your heart, you know it must have been to ICAO recommendations!!! But look closely! No it was FAA criteria!! I´m doomed! There has been more than one crash during a Circling Approach where the pilots were within the ICAO/JAA/EASA safety zone but still went CFIT! That was because the approach was designed to meet FAA standards!
To all my flying buddies, if you are ever to do a circling approach look at the Jeppesen plate!!! In the lower left corner, below the main text there are these very small letters: “Designed to ICAO/JAA/EASA standars” and you know what you have. Anything else, and it was to FAA standards, what ever name the chose to give it on the day!

My rant has been exessive. Mabe this is a post that should be deleted, but I´ll leave that up to the moderators. Thing is, IF these guys crashed during a Circle to Land, I´ll know what was going on all the time! Even if my english is not quite up to the task of decripeing it! I´ve been there, done that!

Did you know that the crash axe in the Boeing 737/757 looks exactly the same as a crash axe from a wartime B-17

Aha! Thought it a bit strange to hear Speedbird 16 descending through FL200 with Brussels Control last night! That explains it!