Originally Posted by
Eclan
It seems fairly obvious they are referring to the design intention of the aircraft. According to Coulson, the Fireliner has around 70 pax seats in it so even though it might operate under General Aviation (?) it is still intended for and capable of air transport to and from fire tasks. As opposed to Air Transport. It may not be used for airline or other transport category operations however it's still an airliner. A modified airliner. A modified air transport aircraft. Regardless of what it now self-identifies as, it's still a B737-300 which was conceived, designed and manufactured as a transport category aircraft. So there you go!
It's not about what it started out as nor what it self-identifies as. It's about what was on its certificate of airworthiness when operated as a LAT.
That's why there was a regulatory problem that had to be worked through before any people were permitted to be carried in those seats.
I'll try to make my point by putting it this way: If Coulson had sold the aircraft to Qantas, do you think CASA would approve the addition of the aircraft to Qantas's AOC for the conduct of RPT?
And in any event, none of this is relevant if airworthiness had nothing to do with the accident.