PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   Ooops (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/639581-ooops.html)

down3gr33ns 30th Mar 2021 22:00

Ooops
 
When did this happen, and where?
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4ee56507e.jpeg

430W 30th Mar 2021 23:25

Looks like Richmond

PoppaJo 31st Mar 2021 01:02

Answer here

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ad793f6b6.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....1471cfdbd.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


Originally Posted by jrfsp (Post 11019597)
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


Originally Posted by down3gr33ns (Post 11019613)
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.


Originally Posted by Anti Skid On (Post 11019603)
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-...gar-collision/


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3054ec31c.jpeg


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....30fc107d7f.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

Here is a Plane in a Hanger
 
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2685eb4d87.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


Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs (Post 11021366)
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


Originally Posted by tail wheel (Post 11020173)
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


Originally Posted by rjtjrt (Post 11021333)
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


Originally Posted by gerry111 (Post 11021512)
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


Originally Posted by tail wheel (Post 11020173)
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


Originally Posted by J.O. (Post 11023634)
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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:06.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.