PDA

View Full Version : Ooops


down3gr33ns
30th Mar 2021, 22:00
When did this happen, and where?
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x614/image0_1f3ac94f6dc016544ca55d6cb1bf73c4ee56507e.jpeg

430W
30th Mar 2021, 23:25
Looks like Richmond

PoppaJo
31st Mar 2021, 01:02
Answer here

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x646/fb893381_3dbd_464d_bfbc_828cf02b409f_6976938c46bdada517cffcc 4396fd22ad793f6b6.jpeg

wheels_down
31st Mar 2021, 01:18
Scotty from Flight Ops.

spinex
31st Mar 2021, 01:39
Richmond, yesterday, according to the rumour mill.

Australopithecus
31st Mar 2021, 03:22
I’d like to see the other side.

on edit...saw something on Sky News' website with vidoe. The story claims there is a damaged engine. No steering, no brakes?


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1636x1544/ad2a2bc3_76fc_4aec_ab95_cf57d865011d_476bca40b2b11459590a26e f0a132481471cfdbd.jpeg

jrfsp
31st Mar 2021, 03:27
1 new radome please

Anti Skid On
31st Mar 2021, 04:11
Is this on long term wet-lease, seeing as it is N registered, or is that because certifying locally would be expensive? I presume the winglets were added at the time of the tanker conversion.

Foxxster
31st Mar 2021, 04:14
Bet ya couldn’t hit the side of a hangar at 30 feet...

hold my beer..,

but seriously, ......

down3gr33ns
31st Mar 2021, 04:59
I presume the winglets were added at the time of the tanker conversion.

Was this an ex-South West a/c? I've seen photos of their -300's with winglets.

Chris2303
31st Mar 2021, 05:21
1 new radome please

And some speed tape to go

Magnetomick
31st Mar 2021, 05:46
Nah covid, runny nose, had to wipe it?

Lead Balloon
31st Mar 2021, 09:11
My wild guess: Parked with no chocks and no park brake set.

Add a breeze ...

MickG0105
31st Mar 2021, 10:37
Was this an ex-South West a/c? I've seen photos of their -300's with winglets.
Yes, it was originally Southwest's N608SW.

I presume the winglets were added at the time of the tanker conversion.No, it was fitted with winglets by Southwest in 2009. Flew with SW till 2017, picked up by Coulson in 2018.

rattman
31st Mar 2021, 22:50
Simply flying has actual photos of the damage

https://simpleflying.com/australian-737-hangar-collision/


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/c1203d79_43bf_44a3_8c0b_ad34445bc1d5_d62d229d83807826d9bd00d ab9000743054ec31c.jpeg


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/image1_6254d211478bccaeeb8ec960158f0130fc107d7f.png

(my edit) I intentionally didn't add the photo because wanted people to go look and read the artical for the original posting organisation




rattman
Maybe you should cut and paste the complete article rather than expect everyone to follow your link? A bane of Moderator’s lives is having to follow links, often to subscriber sites, which eat up unnecessary time.

Your assistance to do this would make PPRuNers lives easier all round.

Senior Pilot

tail wheel
1st Apr 2021, 03:13
Is this on long term wet-lease, seeing as it is N registered, or is that because certifying locally would be expensive?

Any Australian operator wanting to operate a high capacity jet on fire fighting operations would be a masochist to even consider trying to convert an Australian registered aircraft and obtaining an Australian AOC for that type of operation. Have you ever noticed the number of Australian based Executive and Special Purpose aircraft, based and operating in Australia, which are not registered in Australia?

Capt Fathom
1st Apr 2021, 10:54
RVSM may need re-certifying!

Is there a difference between a Boeing radome and an Airbus radome?

crwkunt roll
1st Apr 2021, 11:03
Is there a difference between a Boeing radome and an Airbus radome?

The airbus damage would have gone all the way back to the windshields.

TWT
1st Apr 2021, 12:24
I’m sure the damaged paint work will buff out and all they need to do is throw on a serviceable radome. It’s a Boeing, not an Airbus.


You can add replacement of pitot tubes (a bit bent) and some engine nacelle panel beating. I hope the engine mounts aren't damaged.

ex82watcher
2nd Apr 2021, 08:10
Why do Sky News etc employ people who think aircraft are kept in hangers ?

TWT
2nd Apr 2021, 09:30
There's no shortage of posters on PPRuNe, many supposedly working in aviation, who believe that aircraft are kept in hangers

Capn Bloggs
2nd Apr 2021, 14:20
As long as the propellor doesn't hit the hanger door we'll all be OK. :}

Fris B. Fairing
2nd Apr 2021, 21:33
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/500x479/plane_hanger_1_bfdc9c834a2e78ae2feae2dc27df2b2685eb4d87.jpg

By George
2nd Apr 2021, 21:46
With the new weird trend to call aeroplanes 'frames' is that where they get the idea from?

In relation to the photograph of the damage it seems to be stretching into the no skin patches allowed area around the pitot heads. I am not an engineer, perhaps somebody could explain the reason for that rule. NZ registered 737's have that area marked off with red angles.

rjtjrt
2nd Apr 2021, 21:50
RAAF are going to need a new hangar door as well. Probably not going to be cheap either.

Capn Bloggs
2nd Apr 2021, 23:52
Frisbee, that's good. An instructor of one of my crusty old friends said "It's an aeroplane, laddie, planes shave wood".

Get back on thread, Bloggs!

MENELAUS
3rd Apr 2021, 01:09
Frisbee, that's good. An instructor of one of my crusty old friends said "It's an aeroplane, laddie, planes shave wood".

Get back on thread, Bloggs!

Better that then call it “ the jet “.

LeadSled
3rd Apr 2021, 07:33
Any Australian operator wanting to operate a high capacity jet on fire fighting operations would be a masochist to even consider trying to convert an Australian registered aircraft and obtaining an Australian AOC for that type of operation. Have you ever noticed the number of Australian based Executive and Special Purpose aircraft, based and operating in Australia, which are not registered in Australia?
Folks,
Sadly, how very very true.
And remember, if you are battling with an Australian AOC, aircraft do NOT have to be Australian registered, as determined by court precedent.
Bermuda, Aruba and Isle of Mann are favourite, but NZ can work out well under the TTMRA --- use an NZ AOC.
Tootle pip!!

gerry111
3rd Apr 2021, 07:53
RAAF are going to need a new hangar door as well. Probably not going to be cheap either.
That was fixed by Thursday morning 01 Apr 21 and now just needs painting. The frame / plane / jet / B737 / aeroplane / aircraft is hidden from sight in what used to be known as the 2AD Paint Shop Hangar.

Fris B. Fairing
4th Apr 2021, 01:35
The frame / plane / jet / B737 / aeroplane / aircraft.

You forgot "platform". A recent book describes a WWI Bristol Fighter as a platform.

megan
4th Apr 2021, 04:59
"It's an aeroplane, laddie, planes shave wood"Sign of a limited education. :p There is such a thing as a "plane captain" and s/he doesn't wear four rings or sit front left, but does look after planes as the title suggests. Back to regular programming.

J.O.
7th Apr 2021, 02:54
Any Australian operator wanting to operate a high capacity jet on fire fighting operations would be a masochist to even consider trying to convert an Australian registered aircraft and obtaining an Australian AOC for that type of operation. Have you ever noticed the number of Australian based Executive and Special Purpose aircraft, based and operating in Australia, which are not registered in Australia?

In the case of this aircraft, I believe it’s slightly more complicated than just a rubber stamp. A while back there was some discussion in the Australian media about the fact that NSW purchased that aircraft for a dual role - air tanker and passenger carriage (mostly for fire crews and such) but no passengers were being allowed by the CAA. The CAA received unfair criticism in the media for it. Given that the FAA does not have a certification standard for converted air tankers that carry passengers, the only way the Australian CAA could issue such a certification would be to establish its own standards - for one aircraft. Who should foot the bill for that?

Ixixly
7th Apr 2021, 08:59
In the case of this aircraft, I believe it’s slightly more complicated than just a rubber stamp. A while back there was some discussion in the Australian media about the fact that NSW purchased that aircraft for a dual role - air tanker and passenger carriage (mostly for fire crews and such) but no passengers were being allowed by the CAA. The CAA received unfair criticism in the media for it. Given that the FAA does not have a certification standard for converted air tankers that carry passengers, the only way the Australian CAA could issue such a certification would be to establish its own standards - for one aircraft. Who should foot the bill for that?

Considering it's something that's being brought in to serve the public and CASA are the only ones legally able to do this I'd dare say CASA as a Government body probably should, this seems like it would be their entire damned job and they'd be happy to absorb the costs for public benefit.

Lead Balloon
7th Apr 2021, 09:04
CASA isn’t ‘allowed’ to ‘absorb the costs’. CASA is legally obliged to recover them.

Refer any complaints on the issue to the Commonwealth Department of Finance.