The state of Alaska turned down 8 former Army National Guard C-23s after they failed to reach to reach agreements regarding their airworthiness with the FAA.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...ee-demilitarized-cargo-planes.html
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- bunumuring
- Posts: 2849
- Joined:
RE: Alaska Rejects 8 Former National Guard C-23s
Interesting...
I always thought that the deal looked a bit shaky. Those C-23s are well-used, aren't they? Are they tough enough for the Alaskan climate?
Cheers,
Bunumuring.
I always thought that the deal looked a bit shaky. Those C-23s are well-used, aren't they? Are they tough enough for the Alaskan climate?
Cheers,
Bunumuring.
RE: Alaska Rejects 8 Former National Guard C-23s
Always found it fascinating the US military bought the Shorts 330...
Not many left in civilian used anymore either, though the engines are as common as bugs in summer.
Cant think of anything much tougher
There are still a few Skyvan's up there & Canada. The main issue with them is they are unpressurized so cant fly above any weather, of which there is a lot of in AK.
| Quoting elmothehobo (Thread starter): after they failed to reach to reach agreements regarding their airworthiness with the FAA. |
Not many left in civilian used anymore either, though the engines are as common as bugs in summer.
| Quoting bunumuring (Reply 1): Are they tough enough for the Alaskan climate? |
Cant think of anything much tougher
There are still a few Skyvan's up there & Canada. The main issue with them is they are unpressurized so cant fly above any weather, of which there is a lot of in AK.-
- bunumuring
- Posts: 2849
- Joined:
RE: Alaska Rejects 8 Former National Guard C-23s
| Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 2): The main issue with them is they are unpressurized so cant fly above any weather, of which there is a lot of in AK |
Hi mate,
That's exactly what I was alluding too. Lack of pressurization. It killed off the 330/360 in Australia: very spacious and comfortable in good weather/no turbulence, but were awful in bad storms/turbulent air as they couldn't fly above it. I flew many times from Sydney to various rural towns on Hazelton Airlines Shorts 360s. I loved them, but wow when things got bad weather and turbulence-wise, they were a bit rough!
Cheers,
Bunumuring.
RE: Alaska Rejects 8 Former National Guard C-23s
| Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 2): Cant think of anything much tougher There are still a few Skyvan's up there & Canada. The main issue with them is they are unpressurized so cant fly above any weather, of which there is a lot of in AK. |
Actualy the AKANG flew Sherpa's for years and I think several of the proposed frames that where to be transferred where ex-akang.. Although I know that there are a few pilots still out there upset they had to give up their Twin Otters for them.
Will the many village national guard units up here those sherpas where actually pretty vital and I find the use of Blackhawks and Chinooks to cover for the fixed wing assets an expensive non-solution.
The part I don't get is this whole FAA airworthiness issue. My understanding is that state owned aircraft would be considered "Public" aircraft under the FAR's and not required to meet FAA specs. This is the same deal as military aircraft and why they don't need FAA certification.
More likely somebody suggested this as a political move and now just wants the idea to go away since it wasn't a good one in the first place.
RE: Alaska Rejects 8 Former National Guard C-23s
| Quoting bunumuring (Reply 1): Are they tough enough for the Alaskan climate? |
I saw many Army C-23s in and out of Juneau when I lived up in Alaska over the years. Never heard anything wrong with them.
Thanks for sharing.
RE: Alaska Rejects 8 Former National Guard C-23s
| Quoting L-188 (Reply 4): The part I don't get is this whole FAA airworthiness issue. My understanding is that state owned aircraft would be considered "Public" aircraft under the FAR's and not required to meet FAA specs. This is the same deal as military aircraft and why they don't need FAA certification. |
In the article it is stated that the aircraft were to be leased to private operators, therefore they would be required to have FAA certification.
-
- DiamondFlyer
- Posts: 3835
- Joined:
RE: Alaska Rejects 8 Former National Guard C-23s
There may be an issue due to how the C-23B came about . The USAF bought 18 new built C-23As n the mid 1980s. By the time the US Army got around to buying there's, it was out of production. My understanding on how the C-23B was procurded was that Short 360s[ with single tail] were bought and flown to a facility in West Virginia and them converted to to the Short 330 type tail [twin fins]. I am sure there were some other changes also. Maybe they don't have a civil type certificate, much like the U-21.
[Edited 2014-09-28 17:15:57]
[Edited 2014-09-28 17:15:57]
-
- flightsimer
- Posts: 1473
- Joined:
RE: Alaska Rejects 8 Former National Guard C-23s
Rosie, serial #93-1320, one of Alaska's C-23 has found a new home with our Museum near Pittsburgh, Pa.
-
- Revelation
- Posts: 29623
- Joined:
RE: Alaska Rejects 8 Former National Guard C-23s
| Quoting L-188 (Reply 4): The part I don't get is this whole FAA airworthiness issue. My understanding is that state owned aircraft would be considered "Public" aircraft under the FAR's and not required to meet FAA specs. This is the same deal as military aircraft and why they don't need FAA certification. |
Could you imagine the sewage storm that would erupt if one of those a/c had a serious issue or god forbid a fatality? We already have such a storm just because one surly FA wouldn't hang a sergeant's dress jacket in a first class closet. All the usual suspects would winge about how badly we treat the military, etc. Trust me, the state of AK shouldn't touch these a/c with a barge pole. The usual suspects would prefer we let "private industry" solve the problem since we're all for unfettered capitalism these days.
RE: Alaska Rejects 8 Former National Guard C-23s
Maybe they could've accepted this... 
...
View Large View Medium
Photo © Tony Osborne
So those didn't have to go to the scrap heap.....
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-for-pennies-on-the-dollar-404672/
Quote:
"The majority of a fleet of transport aircraft purchased by the US Air Force on behalf of the Afghan National Army Air Corps (ANAAC) has been scrapped for a fraction of their original price tag.
The US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) in December 2013 launched a review of the $486 million deal for 20 Alenia Aermacchi G222s that the Italian air force had grounded and put in storage."
...
Photo © Tony Osborne
So those didn't have to go to the scrap heap.....
Quote:
"The majority of a fleet of transport aircraft purchased by the US Air Force on behalf of the Afghan National Army Air Corps (ANAAC) has been scrapped for a fraction of their original price tag.
The US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) in December 2013 launched a review of the $486 million deal for 20 Alenia Aermacchi G222s that the Italian air force had grounded and put in storage."