But I suspect that, as usual, you are making it up Leadsled
Creamie,
You are the lawyer, I didn't say anything about RPT.
I said HiCap Transport. And I did have the caveat that you had all your paperwork together --- which, under the NZ system, is far easier than CASA AU. How do they do it? By not having the answers to the Compliance Statement and the contents of the Exposition subject to the whims of individual inspectors, something that has reached a ridiculous state here. And the quote is usually accurate, very unlike CASA AU.
I really don't care what you believe, I am simply quoting from my personal experience.
which resulted in VH-INH's nose sitting on the deck at SYD APT.
007 minus 3,
That accident had absolutely nothing to do with any "rushed" introduction of the B747 Classic into Ansett, the Captain was highly experienced on the aircraft, but, in my opinion made an error of judgement which resulted in a rushed approach -- so rushed they landed over max. landing weight.
And that is where the buck stops --- he knew, just as any of us who have been on Classics, about the pilot panel gear indication, versus the and-and/and-or logic indications on the F/E panel. You didn't even need a checklist to work that one out. He didn't check. I suggest you read the ATSB ( or was it BASI then) report.
---- if it is correct then the operator applying must be pretty switched on,
Yes, they are, and shouldn't be applying if they are not.
There is simply no point in quoting time in Australia, and suggesting they are reasonable, they have always been beyond the Pale.
It is some years ago now, and in the UK, but getting a new type large 4-engine jet on a Public Transport AOC took us (the airline I was working for at the time) a few days over four months --- and that included getting the CAA Inspector endorsed on the aircraft type.
Tootle pip!!