Part 24 - What is happening? I need an update

[gertcoetzee]

I am under the impression that somewhere in Part 24 or 94 it states that an ATF is only valid if the aircraft is maintained as per the manufacturer's instructions. Someone stated this on the forum before. As a matter of interest, it does not state this fact on my ATF. But since new ATFs are not issued based on the crank issue, it makes (sad) sense.

Now if you have a valid ATF, but then go over 300 hours without a crank replacement that renders the ATF invalid, and on this basis Dennis Jankelow advised that they can no longer insure the aircraft. The same goes for the new guys (J Nel).

[skybound®]

That makes sense. The way I understood it from your earlier post was that they would not pay out even for a TCA not following maufacturers recomendations.

In a TCA aircraft you are not forced to follow the manufacturers recomendations - hence your CofA (ATF equivalent for TCA) is still valid and hence any insurance claim will pay out for that TCA even if you did not follow the recommendations.

(Sheez so many TLAs )

[RudiGreyling]

What is the latest wrt part 24?

What are Misasa doing

What is Lamercyfly doing

I see Massimo posted something as well.

I believe Aerolcub is prepping a statement on their meeting, Missasa too, becuase it is a released statement I ams sure they want to ensure they get it just right. I don't have a clue to the content, would like to read it myself ASAP.

Regards
Rudi

Misasa released a statement and the progress 27th Feb.
http://misasa.flyeaaforum.com/?p=451

If you are not a Misasa member or don't support them, then find your news somewhere else (Sorry i could not resist) he he

[skybound®]

Compliments to the writer of the press release. I think it was well worded.

Only suggestion - please replace ACSA with AeCSA. ACSA is the accepted acronym for Airports Company of South Africa. AeCSA became the de facto acronym for Aero Club of SA sometime back.

[RV4ker (RIP)]

Can someone please explain the risks of litigation they refer to to me.

Capt Jordaan rejected the ACSA proposed solutions on the questions both of owner maintenance and compliance with manufacturer maintenance guidelines, citing litigation risks for the CAA.

Almost every request i made at CAA regarding operating my NTCA at night, in IF, over a town etc was greated with "don't think so" due to RISKS OF LITIGATION... Some issueshave now been resolved but I still fail to see what rsks there are for CAA in allowing adults to manage their risks. Surely they should simply advise us of the risks and let us make the decision. Sure when Joe Public is involved there are other issues, but reg's make us stick stickers on the planes to say they do not qualify for CofA, may not be operated for remuneration. Flights are done at own risk etc.

Where is the risk?

When last was CAA sued for allowing someone to fy. i know of plenty cases where they have been sued for not allowing someone to fly at own risk. 582 case in point....