So DutyofCare says: "
V's 1st Hull Loss ???"
While I don't know what happened to the aircraft, the title suggests major damage. I presume that DutyofCare is being rhetorical with his questions to point out some issue with CASA Airworthiness and the controlling office.
Why is it that the grounded VARA ATR 72 in Albury hasn't been repaired as yet ?
Why is it that CASA doesn't provide a P.U.S to allow it to fly to a place so it can be repaired ???
Why is it that the manufacturer hasn't come to aid ( of 1 very good customer ) with a viable fix to free this machine to operate again ?
Presumably the damage is outside normal AMM processes and limits. It would also appear that the manufacturer has not devised a repair scheme and, understandably, no CAR 37 (or whatever it is now) delegate will take on the liability in the absence of OEM support.
The clear implication is that the structural damage is so severe that only an on-site remanufacturing option (such as the B717 and the A380 repairs) is viable. If that is the case, then any reference to a CASA PUS is both nugatory and gratuitous. If it is not the case, then the implied scenario is mischievous or worse.
Does anybody have any clarifying information?
As for the last question, that has me intrigued:
Why won't CASA allow 1 extra - free spare unit - to join the fleet to replace that which is still sitting in Albury ???
Is CASA really preventing such a course of action?
If so, on what basis?
Are there issues with registration, airworthiness control, RPT compliance, leasing arrangements, etc of the spare aircraft?
If the aircraft meets all the requirements to be added to the AOC or substituted in on a temporary basis, what operational requirements could possibly become a roadblock to what seems to be a normal commercial arrangement?
I hate being confused, so can someone shed some light on this, please?
