There's no shortage of posters on PPRuNe, many supposedly working in aviation, who believe that aircraft are kept in hangers

As long as the propellor doesn't hit the hanger door we'll all be OK. :}

Here is a Plane in a Hanger
 

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2685eb4d87.jpg

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.

RAAF are going to need a new hangar door as well. Probably not going to be cheap either.

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 “.

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!!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.