Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
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.
Yes that is all well-put and accurate however I think the arguing began because someone referred to it as an air or airline or whatever transport category jet which had crashed. If I read that I'd understand what he was trying to say. If he said it was the first in Australia, I'd say he's wrong as there was a B707 hull-loss in Australia back in the '90s. It could be a matter of semantics getting panties all bunched up or some might even say excessive pedanticism.
As for ATSB motivation, they are political same as most departments. It's easy to see why it'll be investigated even without fatalities whereas a Jabiru which hit a tree and killed both POB might not be. Personally I think it sucks.