Lead – Bon jour - Got the photos thanks. Where on earth are you now?
NTS check – I assume you are talking about
:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c...2002/1151.html I wouldn’t start counting my chickens quite yet. The Tribunal found that the operator had been conducting RPT without an RPT AOC, and that the correct and preferable decision was to
suspend the AOC and Chief Pilot approval until the date of the Tribunal’s decision. Therefore, the operator was not without an AOC for any shorter or longer period than it should have been. I’d therefore calculate its ‘damages’ to be in the order of about $0, give or take $0. Give it a go though – I’ll match, pacific peso for pacific peso, any ‘damages’ paid to the operator by the regulator.
Same with you,
Torres – I’ll match, pacific peso for pacific peso, any compensation ever paid by the regulator to any Russian helicopter operator. And yes: fortunately the regulator is employing more lawyers.
Icarus 2001 – One of the main reasons the FAA-regulated US system works is that the FAA is managed by
professional bureaucrats, not technical experts pretending to be professional bureaucrats. The regulator of the greatest aviation nation on earth can be run by a women who doesn’t hold a pilot’s licence, yet the sky doesn’t fall in. Perhaps Mr Anderson needs to think more deeply about that.