Yhteenveto EASA:n “Advance Notice of Proposed Amendment (A-NPA) 2014-12” kyselytutkimuksen tuloksista

EASA have published a summary of the responses to the 2014 Commission questionnaire, about Aviation Safety and possible revision of Regulation (EC) 216/2008. This include input made by AOPA.

The response from EASA should be out early in the New Year and it will then go to the Commission with an opinion from EASA. By the 3rd Quarter of 2015 it will go through the European Parliamentary process before any amendment is made to the basic regulation (EC) 216/2008.

You can view the summary of the public consultation results here .

Harrasteilmailun turvallisuuden kehittämisprojekti on keskeytettävä

Sorry, this entry is only available in suomi.

EasyVFR-versio 3.50.1 on julkaistu

Sorry, this entry is only available in suomi.

Määräyshankepäätös: Kansallinen poikkeus 8.33 kHz kanavavälivaatimuksesta

Sorry, this entry is only available in suomi.

Tule keskustelemaan ja kuuntelemaan harrasteilmailun turvallisuuden kehittämisestä 15.12.2014

Sorry, this entry is only available in suomi.

NPA 2014-28 ‘AMC/GM for non-complex approved training organisations (ATOs)’

Please note that NPA 2014-28 ‘AMC/GM for non-complex approved training organisations (ATOs)’ is now open for consultation on the EASA website.

To place comments, please use the automated Comment-Response Tool (CRT) available at http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/.

This NPA aims at the simplification of the way to comply with the requirements — laid down in Part-ORA — for non-complex approved training organisations (ATOs) by providing more focussed detailed information, specific alleviations and more detailed guidance on safety risk management and compliance monitoring in a format of either dedicated new or adequately amended AMCs and GMs. In order for this to be achieved, the amendment of ED Decision 2012/007/R ‘Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material to Part-ORA’ is proposed.

Said amendment is stemming on the one hand from the consultation of rulemaking task FCL.001 during which stakeholders expressed concerns about the level of complexity of the requirements to be complied with in case of ATOs representing the non-commercial sector and providing training mainly for the LAPL and the other non-commercial licences, as well as the associated ratings and certificates, and on the other hand from the recommendations made in the context of the General Aviation (GA) roadmap.

The Agency addressed most of these concerns by simplifying the criteria to meet the intent of the requirements in Section II — Management of Subpart GEN and Section I — General of Subpart ATO of Part-ORA. In Subpart GEN, topics as organisation and accountability, safety policy and safety risk management, and in Subpart ATO issues like the training programme, the training manual and the aircraft and FSTDs used for training are affected. By including this rulemaking task RMT.0421 (FCL.014) in its Rulemaking Programme, the Agency fulfilled the commitment to improve ‘proportionality’ of the rules concerning non-complex ATOs.

Source

EasyVFR:n karttapohjat sekä TripKit

Sorry, this entry is only available in suomi.

EasyVFR ilmoittaa Ilmailukäsikirjan lisäykset (AIP SUP) reaaliajassa

Sorry, this entry is only available in suomi.

Onko koneesi ylivakuutettu?

Are You Overinsured?
November 19th, 2014 by Mike Busch

Cessna 172RG gear-upI received a plaintive email from Bob, the owner of a Cessna 172RG Cutlass who found himself in an unexpected predicament. Seems he had an unfortunate gear-up landing. The airplane suffered only minimal damage, largely limited to minor belly damage and the outer four inches of the prop tips curled back. The engine had only about 100 hours SMOH at the time of the incident. Surely, all of this would be covered by insurance.

Unfortunately, Bob was about to learn a painful lesson about hull insurance:

“When I bought the $60,000 hull insurance policy, I didn’t read the fine print that said $60,000 wasn’t really available to fix the airplane in the event of a mishap. The actual amount available is the $60,000 policy limit minus the salvage value. The insurance company claims that they can get about $15,000 for the airplane for salvage, which only leaves me with about $45,000 to get the airplane fixed.

“Now here’s the rub: The repair shop has given a flat-rate bid of $41,000 plus tax to repair the airframe and do the requisite post-prop-strike engine teardown inspection. However, the bid explicitly excludes the cost of any necessary engine repairs beyond replacement of routine parts (rings, bearings, gaskets, etc.). The engine shop tells me that if the teardown inspection reveals that crankshaft and/or crankcase is damaged, the additional cost to repair could wind up being tens of thousands of dollars.

“Looking at the risk equation: In the best-case scenario, the repair cost is $41,000 plus tax and the insurance will cover it (just barely). In the worst-case scenario (if the case and crank are bad), I could wind up being out of pocket as much as $20,000, which would be painful. Alternatively, I could let the insurance company take the airplane, accept the $60,000 payout, and move on. But the airplane is only minimally damaged, and losing it under these circumstances would also be painful. What should I do?”

Rest of the story is here.

EasyVFR:n Local TRA:t

Sorry, this entry is only available in suomi.