|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Apr 22, 2013 15:39:50 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Apr 17, 2013 10:12:02 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Apr 15, 2013 6:55:33 GMT 1
Antonov An-158 shall Enter Into Service in May 2013. airlineroute.net/2013/03/25/cu-a58-update1/The launch customer is Cubana. The initial routes are Havana-Santiago and Havana-Guantanamo. The plane is described as having "up to 99 seats in mono-class configuration". What is the specific Cubana configuration at EIS?
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Apr 13, 2013 8:03:42 GMT 1
And my question was - which frames are in worse condition and more expensive to check up? The non-flying frames stranded at Kingfisher airports (where some parts are missing and the rest are originals) or the frames that were flown by Kingfisher till end of service and then flown away by lessors (where all parts are present, but some of the parts are in fact undocumented cannibalized parts)? How easy is it to spot on aircraft check a replacement part, as opposed to a missing part? I suppose that those Kingfisher planes that have been reclaimed at an early stage, and that are now flying again, had acceptable records when they were repossessed. I suppose the same - records would have been kept acceptable, deliberately. They should therefore be safe. It does not matter if some parts were collected from another frame as long as the changes have been properly documented. Yes. But my question is, how about undocumented changes? On the other hand, aircraft reclaimed at a later stage may miss records. They also may be impossible to ferry to an adequate maintenance center. Yes, but why would the records be "missing" or "unacceptable"? This is something that could have been detected by inspection of the records - as opposed to checking the physical airframes. And detection of missing records might have been grounds to repossess. Kingfisher would therefore have had reasons to keep the records "present", not "missing", and in "acceptable" conditions - but deliberately untrue in purposefully omitting from the record all unauthorized cannibalizations. The records would have looked completely "acceptable" in claiming that the frames flown simply did not happen to have certain parts break over the time period concerned, and the airframe therefore should contain the original parts, or the documented official spares - whereas in fact the airframe contained undocumented cannibalized replacement parts. In this case, the lessors might have inspected the maintenance records, found them "acceptable", and not having the money or reason for a thorough check, flown the frames away completely unaware of the undocumented parts they contained. And the frames still contain these undocumented parts unless and until someone does carry out a thorough check to detect all undocumented parts. If the frames flown away by lessors long ago are full of undocumented parts, are they "safe"?
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Apr 12, 2013 22:13:20 GMT 1
And my question was - which frames are in worse condition and more expensive to check up? The non-flying frames stranded at Kingfisher airports (where some parts are missing and the rest are originals) or the frames that were flown by Kingfisher till end of service and then flown away by lessors (where all parts are present, but some of the parts are in fact undocumented cannibalized parts)? How easy is it to spot on aircraft check a replacement part, as opposed to a missing part?
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Apr 11, 2013 13:45:17 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Apr 10, 2013 15:15:37 GMT 1
No Kingfisher aircraft has been flying since last October, when their flying licence was suspended by the Indian regulator. Not flown by Kingfisher. Are they all at airports where Kingfisher left them, or have any been flown away by lessors? Cannibalisation likely took place earlier. Yes - and the frames flown away by lessors therefore contain since earlier unknown cannibalized parts from the other frames.
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Apr 9, 2013 21:28:07 GMT 1
Which ones cannot be presumed safe? The aircraft which are flying, or the aircraft which are not flying? The not flying ones, because they got stripped of parts to keep the others flying. Yes, but the flying ones contain parts stripped from the not flying ones, and it is not known which parts of the flying ones are the known original parts or officially documented spares, which ones are parts secretly stripped from the not flying ones, and which frames specifically.
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Apr 9, 2013 7:33:09 GMT 1
I suspect that maintenance records are unreliable or missing. In that case, even fitted with new parts, the aircraft cannot be presumed safe. I don't know if there is a way out of such a situation ... Could a thorough check solve the problem ? Which ones cannot be presumed safe? The aircraft which are flying, or the aircraft which are not flying?
|
|
|
Post by chornedsnorkack on Apr 8, 2013 12:30:02 GMT 1
|
|