Rick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 52 Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 18446 times:
JAR25 applies to large aeroplanes. More specifically, large turbine-powered aeroplanes.
That means more than 5,700kgs (12,500lbs) MTOW, though does not include the commuter aeroplane category (JAR23). That category would be aircraft with MTOW less than 8,618kgs (19,000lbs) with 19 passenger seats or fewer.
So a Fokker 50 / 767 etc... are JAR25 aircraft.
I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
Airplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 18388 times:
JAR 25 is the design standard developed by the JAA for transport category aircraft. Pretty much any twin over 12,500 pounds.
However, just because an aircraft design complies with JAR 25 does not mean it complies with FAR 25 (FAA) or AWM 25 (Transport Canada) or any other aircraft design standard.
Certification to each standard must be pursued and granted on its own. JAR 25 tends to be a much more stringent standard than others.
Airplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 18331 times:
I don't "think" so I know so.
The are several differences. Everything from additional standards that don't exist in FAR 25 to different criticalities assigned to specific systems.
If you scan the FAA NPRMs, (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) you will quickly realize that several are dedicated to harmonization with the JARS. So..the FAA is actually incorporating some JAR features in the FARs.
If JAR 25 was an exact copy of FAR 25, what would be the sense in developing it?
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
