Originally Posted by
atakacs
To be honest the licensing part of this mess is relatively minor when put into the perspective of the glaring mistakes and negligences otherwise comited.
Maybe... but it is untidy. A while ago, two other AUS pilots were flying an N rego B737 around in Africa under similar circumstances, the "PIC" had a valid FAA PPL, but a CASA ATPL, and the copilot had a CPL/IR/ME AUS, no FAA license. Flying out of an interesting mid lattitude country not well known for its high standards, these guys were so on the nose that they were given hours to get out of town... taking their toy with them. When there was some concern raised on the operation by the southern african CAA, the "PIC" commented in response to the regulator that the FO was in fact the typed PIC.... The "FO" picked up his type on the baby Boeing 90 days after they were booted out of mid africa, after having flown for a month doing RPT.
There is an underlying complacency with meeting any semblance of compliance that occurred then, nearly 10 years before the Convair event.
Of light relief, reportedly the "PIC" involved in this had to phone home on a borrowed cell phone to work out how to start the 73 before departing on the adventure. To give the PIC his due, once upon a time he was a very good Checker on B747s with a major carrier, but retirement seems to have altered his view on standards and compliance matters.
FAA was aware of the issue, as was SA CAA, and as was CASA... and no one did a thing about it. FAA has enough work on their plate with other items to be worried about cloned jets, or the same Antonov being used on contract to the UN, 2,305nm apart at the same moment, registered to a country that doesn't have an Antonov on its register. One colourful vignette came from a recovery crew picking up a 737 on a lease that was delinquent, which was parked beside the cloned B737, showing the same registration. The crew were impressed enough to take happy snaps of the twins. The regulators did... nothing.