The AOC would already have to be in place w9..........the 83
bis agreement would be intended to cover an aircraft from a non-Singaporean operator that was intended to be leased (operated) by a Singaporean AOC holder.
Article 83 bis
Transfer of certain functions and duties
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 12, 30, 31 and 32(a), when an aircraft registered in a contracting State is operated pursuant to an agreement for the lease, charter or interchange of the aircraft or any similar arrangement by an operator who has his principal place of business or, if he has no such place of business, his permanent residence in another contracting State, the State of registry may, by agreement with such other State, transfer to it all or part of its functions and duties as State of registry in respect of that aircraft under Articles 12, 30, 31, and 32(a). The State of registry shall be relieved of responsibility in respect of the functions and duties transferred.
CAAS AC AOC-8(1) covers the transfer of State of Registry responsibilities under 83
bis agreements.
14.3 CAAS generally does not transfer its safety oversight responsibilities to other Authorities. However, CAAS may accept the transfer of State of Registry responsibilities from another Authority, if it deems it necessary to maintain effective oversight of the aircraft.
Given the recent (ongoing??) highly-publicised 'antics' of CASA, it would be surprising if CAAS did NOT insist on the transfer of State of Registry responsibilities from CASA (the other Authority) as a necessary precondition to maintain effective oversight of any VH-registered aircraft operated under a CAAS-approved 83
bis agreement.
Others may disagree though.
