someone
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,333
|
Post by someone on Apr 12, 2013 13:24:51 GMT 1
Which is expensive, so it might be more economical to chop it up, and sell it as parts True but the frames are only 5-8 years old. Perhaps a C check would be a good compromise? I don't know, I get a little out of my depth once economics starts getting involved. The name of the check is irrelevant. The worse condition the aircraft is in, the more expensive it is to get it flyable. |
|
harty236
Outfitting in Hamburg
Posts: 974
|
Post by harty236 on Apr 12, 2013 13:27:48 GMT 1
True but the frames are only 5-8 years old. Perhaps a C check would be a good compromise? I don't know, I get a little out of my depth once economics starts getting involved. The name of the check is irrelevant. The worse condition the aircraft is in, the more expensive it is to get it flyable. True. |
|
|
|
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?
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Apr 12, 2013 22:46:31 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. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
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"? |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Apr 27, 2013 21:00:31 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by FabienA380 on Apr 27, 2013 21:52:03 GMT 1
Wao omg!!!....... Fabien  |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Apr 28, 2013 9:26:23 GMT 1
Unbelievable ! That's not just cannibalising, it's outright pilfering !
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Apr 28, 2013 16:50:18 GMT 1
Where do all these parts go? Spare parts for other aircraft in the fleet or the black market dealings by unsatisfied local creditors?
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Apr 28, 2013 16:57:06 GMT 1
Where do all these parts go? Spare parts for other aircraft in the fleet or the black market dealings by unsatisfied local creditors? Parts have a value. Therefore, when wages are not paid, when nobody cares for the company anymore, they get stolen by anybody. |
|
