Peter wrote:
I am pretty sure that IFR in the Eurocontrol system will not work usefully without Mode S – except perhaps in Sweden where you can famously do it at 3000ft
I’ve actually not tried IFR in Sweden without mode S since the requirement was introduced as all aircraft I fly have mode S. But I have done it in class G at 3000 ft and it does work beautifully.
Peter wrote:
I have never seen any such report.
Ok, so let me summarize your statement: There is no official source of public reports on what insurance actually paid and therefore you don’t believe any reports you heard about insurances not paying the full amount.
I personally know two cases where the insurance only paid partially because the plane technically wasn’t airworthy for the planned flight. Yes, you could always argue that these have been the results of a settlement and if the pilot/owner/operater had only taken the case all the way to the international court of human rights (or god himself depending on what you believe) they would have finally gotten the full amount.
But the reality is very different: It is simply a very bad idea to do a flight in a plane which is not airworthy (and this includes all required equipment being fully serviceable at the beginning of the flight) for the flight you plan.
No; I didn’t say that.
Can you find evidence (that you can post in detail) of an insurer not paying out due to equipment carriage rules?
Snoopy wrote:
Exactly. So simply fly the RNP07/25 at EDDS if not DME equipped
Yes and no – if you don’t have a serviceable DME it is you only option anyways.
Last time I checked, however, both DA as well as RVR-requirement has been significantly lower for the ILS than for the RNAV/VNAV RNP approach. And in actual weather 200ft DA and/or 500m RVR more or less can make a difference between an uneventful landing and diversion…
It has been, however, 2 years or so since I’ve last been in EDDS and therefore it might have changed by now…
Peter wrote:
Can you find evidence (that you can post in detail) of an insurer not paying out due to equipment carriage rules?
As you know very well, such settlements are not public and there is nor “evidence” you would accept. Can you find evidence that in the discussed cases where lack of equipment was mentioned as conrtibuting factor in the accident report the insurance paid in full anyways ?!?
There you go 
Can you post details of these two?
I personally know two cases where the insurance only paid partially because the plane technically wasn’t airworthy for the planned flight.
@Airborne_Again i can’t find the requirement in the AIP can you point me to it?
Is there a EASA requirement? Nco.ide?
@Cttime wrote:
Airborne_Again i can’t find the requirement in the AIP can you point me to it?
What requirement are you looking for?
@airborne_again the mode s requirement for ifr in the swedish AIP or EASA requirement
Cttime wrote:
@airborne_again the mode s requirement for ifr in the swedish AIP or EASA requirement
The mode S requirement for IFR is in EU regulation regulation 1207/2011. So that is a legal requirement in Sweden no matter what AIP-Sweden says. OTOH, AIP-Sweden (in GEN 1.5) only mentions mode A and C. As there is no EU requirement for VFR flights to have mode S transponders, it is quite possible that the mode S requirement for IFR isn’t enforced in Sweden.
