Ooops
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.
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.
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?
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!!
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.
"It's an aeroplane, laddie, planes shave wood"
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?
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.
Refer any complaints on the issue to the Commonwealth Department of Finance.