Status of IL-76's in the European Union

[AAL]

Experts better versed in European Union customs and standards can perhaps enlighten how it is still possible for former Soviet era countries now part of the Europan Union to continue operating ILyushins on their Civil Aviation Regsitry's.

A case in point is Latvian registered IL-76 registered YA-LAK belonging to or operated by Australian Company ADAGold, these days flying the aircraft in Africa.

Thought all along that to qualify for entry and acceptance into the European Union such states had to dump and get rid of all their former Soviet era aircraft, or is this specific aircraft then now by implication Euro compliant?

[AlphaWhiskyRomeo]

Maybe it'll happen in phases...

Firstly the An-12s, and then through the IL-76s, An-26s and An-72s???

I still don't quite understand the rules about letting in stage 2 Il-76s in the EU....

Yes for (most) operators for any military or humanitarian cause.

But why are they also allowed to use airports like Vatry, Chataeuroux, Brno, Ljubljana etc?
And how long before these airports are taken off the list to bring them in line with all other airfields?

[ZooWarden]

Yes, most (if not even all) of those flights are for Afghan military bases. For instance, SilkWay's IL-76TDs flies to Chateuroux and Luxemburg to feed mil cargo to Kabul, Mazar-I-Sharif etc.
The same is true for Volga-Dnepr IL-76TDs (they fly thier 76s to Iraq).

Who else can take mil vehicles, large boxes/containers etc. flying in extreme conditions within regions with ongoing military activities?? Spiral descents and climbs, low altitude manoeuvres ? These birds and thier crews are just perfect for such operations. IMHO.

Note, that these aircompanies got thier brand-new IL-76TD-90 (new avionics along with Stage-3 engines, shortened crew, better MTOW etc.) .

[AAL]

Understand all and myself a proponent of IL-76 and its capabilities. What I dont understand is how a European Union State Latvia can still carry an IL-76 YA-LAK on its register, as it should then be automatically Euro compliant?

[ZooWarden]

Well, the a/c belongs to Latvian aircompany Inversiya . And they're being supported by some bigwig :cool:
Be patient, their 76s will be kicked out of "YL" very soon, right after the Eurocommision will have tired with playing the !!!!! game with An-12s. :yuk:

[AAL]

Thanks zoowarden, thats more or less the storie as I have it also. If were them though Id ask for Heathrow landing slots everydaty just to peeve the Brits off.

PS: By the way this specific machine professes to carry a Design Buro STC and approved "Quick Change" mod to install 48 palletted passenger seats - claiming to be the only IL-76 approved to do and Design Buro approved in the world.

All lies!

[dionysius]

AAL do you ever post any positive threads............:confused::oh:

[AAL]

AAL do you ever post any positive threads............:confused::oh:

Yes - when it suits me - show me yours then I'll show you mine. Like I said read the one's you prefer and stay off the other! Whats peeving you off - perhaps hitting to close to home?

[AlphaWhiskyRomeo]

I know that quite a few of the IL-76 flights using EU Airports are still not military or humanitarian flights. Cargo such as oil spares, generators and the odd AOG engine are still moved from these airports.

I just want to know why they are still allowed, and why at these specific airports and not others?

[AAL]

Sir, IL-76 rear ramp and onboard crane for loading purposes concept is still of the best in world. Built as good and strong as a General Motors Truck. Just sometimes some maintenance here and there lacking.

In my opinion one of best aircraft ever built - see I can say good things! - just imagine where Africa would have been without the air bridges.

Their stage 2 engines are now obviously a problem and with the new modern and stage 3 simply going to be too expensive nobody will be able too afford.

question however revolves about how come Latvia which is now EU country can still operate unregulatable aircraft, while Bulgaria were blackmailed and co-erced to ban the AN-12's to qualify for EU admission.

Hey,...Here in Africa we dont care - ban the whole bloody lot and send them all here, our roads and rail infrastructure in Africa justifies.

[ZooWarden]

Sir, IL-76 rear ramp and onboard crane for loading purposes concept is still of the best in world. Built as good and strong as a General Motors Truck.


Five-star answer ! :D

SAFA people ain't madmen indeed. Tell me how will you drop some GE/PW large jet engine? Or other outsized stuff like that?

Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[sled dog]

AAl
I might be wrong, but An12`s still operate into ELLX, on Bulgarian regs ?

[AAL]

They dont, AOC's revoked, Vega etc trying to get other reg's - good bargains for sale. Was ver unfair.

[mini]

YA-LAK was "arrested" in LAD recentely - unapproved landing, trying to sneak in without paying dues apparently...

Operated by a ZA concern called adagold or something.

Loophole exploitation at its finest I would say.

[AAL]

Mini, you well versed in the stories flying around here. Dont know if you saw it on thread I posted.

YA-LAK had overflight clearance for Angola but accepted/assumed the guys there are too stupid to realise the difference and proceded to land LAD. Once neatly taxi'd to cargo ramp proceded to off-load cargo in belief they had secure arrangement with their local "connection".

TAAG (National) carrier very jealously protect their routes (like more countries should do) even though they cant always service them, themselves.

Inbound royalties LAD at moment exorbitantly expensive in region US$1.00 p/kg.

Aircraft and crew were eventualy released last Thursday after paying US$80 000.00 fine.

Dont think this IL-76 YA-LAK has seen Latvia for many a year neither Latvian inspectors. It even masquarades as the only IL-76 with a Design Buro approved Quick-Change configuration to be able to simply place flat pallets with 48 pax seats. They sell this STC approved configuration as fact to unsuspecting gullible companies and CAA's in Southern Africa. Design Buro think its a joke and never heard of or approved.

Argument is if EU want to set standards and regulate properly must do so without double standards. Here is good case in point otherwise this Latvian registration (which is now EU) is just a mere registry of convenience.

[the bald eagle]

I thought "YL" was Latvia

"YA" is Afghanistan - Please correct me if i'm wrong

[Navigator33]

Dont think this IL-76 YA-LAK has seen Latvia for many a year neither Latvian inspectors.Actually I think it did. We have to 76´ers standing around the airport.
Every now and then one is gone but generally they never move.
Saw one doing an engine run-up the other day though.
A captain told me they do that before a journey. They also do a
test flight before they leave.
If that´s true than I know what woke me up the other day.
Gotta love these old IL´s. Saw one taking off in Tbilisi a couple of
days ago. It was at night but we could clearly see it was NOT climbing at all.

[AAL]

Navigator33, We share the same love and passion for same machine! Nothing else like it - not even the sound/noise.

IL-76 YA-LAK is however standing/based Johannesburg South Africa operated by South African/Australian company ADAGold and has been here for about last 18 months to 2 years.

[ZooWarden]

AAL, please don't confuse YA (Afghan) and YL (Latvia).

There are no Ilyushins under Afghan reg. You are talking about YL-LAK.

[AAL]

You quite correct, it is YL - sorry guys - sleep deprevation. Thats also why going on about Latvia now being an EU country.

[Navigator33]

Hmm if is LAK is down there then which ones are out here?
Unfortunately they´re on the other side of the field so it´s
hard to get to. I´ll see if I can dig up some regs.
I wouldn´t be surprised if LAK isn´t the only one left on the LV reg.

My first experience with a 76 was as a young boy going up into
the cockpit only to see the skipper wear pyjama trousers, a
thick winter sweater, on top of that a big leather jacket
and two different bunny floppers on his feet.
The good old days.
Flying around now with a couple of skippers who used to
low level these big boys through the Afghan and Uzbek
valleys. Mighty nice stories to hear!

[AAL]

Nav33, I work closely with these machines and crews and have only highest regard for their efficiency and standard of flying, and hard work.

Many IL-76's still operate in Africa and over the past few years I have found that the standard of crew and of course pilots have dramatically improved. The English language 10 years ago was also sometimes a problem and other aviation quickly got out the way when they heard a Russian pilot or radio operator on the air.

But much has changed since - only concern now and then is to see Captain with half-jack Vodka in back pocket - otherwise no problem.

Remember - gripe not against IL-76, or this specific aircraft, merely EU double standards for allowing some and banning others while here in Africa we must endure anything that flies here from Europe.

As for IL's, said it before - ban them all and send them to Africa - we can do with, and need them!:ok:

[Navigator33]

O wait double standards you say? Please don´t forget we are talking about Latvia here :ugh:

[mini]

AAL, info came from trusted source, never asked where he got it.

Agree, IL76 is invaluable, its been the backbone of many ops I've operated and despite what its detractors will say it has no replacement. As a package (aircraft, crew & operators) its a real get the job done option.

As an aside... nothing compares to travelling in the nav dome :ok:

[AAL]

Hi Mini, respect your source because info confirmed.

But remember how and why this thread started:

If Latvia is now a member of the EU - how can IL-76 be flying on Latvian registrations and under EU auspices while AN12's from Bulgaria were banned? Surely then other EU states can not deny such Latvian IL-76's entry.

Also to point out the sheninigans, nonsense, and unethical operations that this specific machine is up to here in Africa (where it is based) when it tried to avoid taxes and royalties in Luanda, Angola - it being an EU aircraft in a country that the EU is/has placed on the European blacklist.

Based in South Africa and only flying in Africa (with an illegal modified QC pax conversion) - can/must we now accept that the European Union are condoning and running registry's of convenience for illegally modified aircraft?

If only someone in authority or with more knowledge about the matter from the EU aviation union/org would comment - cause we know they read these forums - but the silence is deafening! :=

[an-124]

AAL,
As I understand it, it was the Bulgarian CAA that pulled their own countries AN-12 European permissions, not the EU authorities.

[AAL]

AN-124, Yes it was so indeed, but under pressure and coerced by the EU as a pre-condition for entry into and recognition of Bulgarian CAA by the EU.

[ZooWarden]

AAL,
As I understand it, it was the Bulgarian CAA that pulled their own countries AN-12 European permissions, not the EU authorities.

I've been told of that deal - "either you kick out all your An-12s, or you reveal yourself in the blacklist". It's been good deal, huh? Apparently, Moldava got just the same.

But what disturbs me is wether Soviet Aircraft' Operators would be available or rather willing to keep up the av.safety standarts when they finnaly will have been ousted to the Dark Continent? Or will we likely be witnesses of another bloody surge of accidents with Antonovs and Ilyushins overthere?

[bear11]

I'm pretty sare the new "central European" entrants to the EU were given a derogation on their Russian aircraft for a period of time from entry, from memory it was 3 years but I stand to be corrected? Then there's a separate issue of where in the EU they would be allowed to fly into due to airport noise regs. I remember talking to one company in Lithuania in 2004 who were running Antonovs and told me they had every intention of operating them as long as they could before they had to switch to BAe/ATR/whatever freighter, which would cost them more to run. I'm sure any of the guys who run the local freighter operations in those countries could give you chapter and verse.

The Bulgarian situation had more to do with the lousy standards of the operators, and complete inability to come up to some kind of acceptable level both in ops and paperwork, than the aircraft type they were flying.

[LAK]

Hi, everybody!

Nothing personal, but i just can't read all this things.
I'm a first officer on YL-LAK...

1. I am not gonna explain why did we land without the permision, but it has nothing to do whith A/C registration. AAl, Your source is out-of-date. The fine was 8,000$ and belive me, I know what I'm saying! ( BOW 89, 1$/ kg - makes 80 tons, MTOW 170 and fuel from Johannesburg...)

2. About how the Il-76 is still registered in Latvia check JAR, and You will not have any questions. That also means if You are posting any information consisting A/C registration make sure You've got PROPER information. By the way another our company's Ilyushins are YL-LAJ and YL-LAL.

3. Our company has 3 Il-76's. LAK was brought to SA on 28th ( I was fliyng 2 sectors) of february and passed all inspection prior leaving Latvia. Also, Design Bureau technicians inspecting our A/C's in Latvia every time it needed by Latvian CAA.

AAl, sorry, but all information about LAK is a fake!
Everyone, please, do not judge only by a rumors, especialy if You have an internet and want to know what's realy happening!

[AAL]

Dear LAK,

Nobody suggested that it was because of your registration number that you could not land LAD.

The issue of registration was merely a queery about how a now EU country could still continue to carry IL-76's.

You conveniently say that you will not discuss the reasons why you landed without clearance and permission in LAD. That is actualy the contention of the thread. If you did not have landing permission and clearance for LAD, why did you then carry cargo destined for LAD on the flight which was cleared to elsewhere in West Africa. Is this how you normaly operate?

You also at least concede that that you were indeed fined for your unauthorised landing - an admission of having done so!

Regret sincere mistake with your registration number - you are indeed correct it is YL-LAK.

Since you are also so forthcoming and honest, please also share with the forum and thread some more information about your "exclusive" one of a kind Design Buro approved aircraft which you claim is certified to carry commercial passengers in a combi configuration. Must be first or really one of a kind as such is unheard of and unknown in the industry. Remember again,...if your claim that it is Design Buro approved to carry commercial passengers, be so kind to post and publish the Design Buro approved STC for YL-LAK.

Till then, regret LAK, only minor discrepency - your post has substantiated the gist of the thread.

[AAL]

Come on LAK, one post...and now its over-and-out? :uhoh:

Please be so kind and enthusiastic to share with the forum more information about your alleged Design Buro "approved" passenger/cargo combi configuration of YL-LAK.

You see:- the issue of your first class European Compliant registry and oversight comes to bear in your rekcless flying (like flying wittingly into LAD without landing clearance), and disregard for aviation safety matters, professing to hold a Design Buro approved combi reconfiguration, and that by an EU member state. Or otherwise just perhaps your own regulatory body and the EU Aviation Commission are not aware of this "combi-claim" and your otherwise flagrant disregard for international "best flying practises".

Anybody else wish to comment: Is there a Design Buro STC for conversion of IL-76 to pax/cargo configuration and does YL-LAK comply?

Or is it just again one of those "funny" reconfigurations" approved" by some or other "mickey mouse" African registry who is not authorised or doesnt hold STC and type rating to oversee and approve.:confused:

[CargoOne]

AAL,

From your very first post in this thread I had a strong feeling that this has something to do with your personal vendetta rather than avaition.

What is your problem? There are dozens or hundreds of operators flying in Africa and doing stupid things. Why you concentrating on Inversija?

EU register have only one real priviledge - free sky within EU. As far as I know Inversija is issued with some sort of funny AOC which is not allowing them to operate in EU. So they are effectively EU airline operating outside EU only.

[AAL]

CargoOne, why is it when an African airline is banned by the EU you guy's want to can yourselves and justify, but when we want to point out to you inconsistencies with EU oversight and shortcomings with EU regulated aircraft, then you quickly fire off that we have a personal vendetta.

Surely whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

It matters not if this aircraft has some or other funny Latvian AOC as you describe it. Fact is Latvia is today an EU member state and must therefore comply with the unified and standardised EU regulatory requirements.

Incidently the mission and role of the EU Aviation Commission is not merely to monitor "free sky's in Europe". It also and importantly is supposed to serve as the unified body to oversee standardised regulatory oversight in the EU.

The moral of the story is that if your "European" aircraft are not fit to fly in Europe - then they are not fit to fly in Africa, and if the country of oversight is not fit to regulate then the EU should step in.

"Choose your ducks carefully, then get them in a row. It is easy to confuse ducks with geese. Many large birds look alike. While they are very competent flyers, geese seldom want to go in the same direction that you do. If your duck seems to be taking a heading to Ireland or Sweden, you may be safe in assuming that someone has given you a goose". :cool:

[LAK]

CargoOne,

You are completely right that our company has funny AOC. We are not allowed to operate in EU because of Stage II engines and quick-donning oxygen masks for the crew. Inversia is working on oxygen at the moment.
We are normally operating outside EU and every time our aircrafts are scheduled to return home from the operating bases for regular maintenance, company must obtain special JAA overflight and landing clearances.

Thanks for being unemotional and impartial. :D

[LAK]

To whom it may concern,

1. Luanda
YL-LAK arrived on monday 6th of August. We were performing commercial flight and all clearances were provided to the crew by a company which ordered this flight. I don't know how it happened but they sent us clearance just for overflying thinking it is covering landing too. Our crew never had any problems regarding clearances with this company. Same day YL-LAK left Luanda for Johannesburg because the problem was solved. Angolan CAA didn't have any claims to crew, aircraft and its owner.

2. IL-76 and EU.
Europe registered Ilyushins (as far as I know 5 airframes) are permitted to operate by European Comission directive in spring 2007 (check the Internet).

3. Combi modification.

It was designed and tested by Ilyushin Bureau specially for Inversia. I'm not allowed to provide any documents. Anyway this combination is approved by Latvian, South African and Australian Civil Aviation Administrations. For this moment we are flying all around Africa and every official who came onboard didn't have any complaints to aircraft, aircompany and crew documents.


To AAL,

Why any African goverment doesn't prohibit aircrafts with Stage II engines? And we are not talking only about ex-USSR jets. May be you know that even South Africa has in its register B737-200, B727, DC-9 and so on.

Our company is permitted to carry cargo handling persons only (for the difference between them and commercial passengers see JAR-OPS 1).

"CargoOne, why is it when an African airline is banned by the EU..."
So, sounds like the only Africa is worried about the safety. Jealousy is all You have and You will prove it with Your next post.

[CargoOne]

Dear AAL,

I still can't get your point. Inversija is not exploiting any priviledges of being EU airline. It could be true that their aircraft are not 100% EU compliant however I do not see any problems for them to be 100% compliant to Swaziland or Sierra Leone requirements if they wish to move there one day. And then they would operate in the same places. Would this change make you more happy or what?

I don't know what sort of arrangement is in place between them and Latvian CAA, but I don't think it is any secret from EASA.

[sled dog]

Ref remark in post #2 , i was passing through ELLX today, and at 14:20 local a AN12 landed. Too far away to note Reg, though. All i can say is it had a light ( blue ? ) fuselage with a dark blue fin. Obviously not yet banned in the EU ( yet ). :p

[AlphaWhiskyRomeo]

Antonov 12s are not banned in the EU.

It is just that no operators from EU countries can operate them, and some non-EU operators of An-12s are not allowed in the EU at present (some Ukrainian and Moldovan firms.)

There are now at least half a dozen Antonov 12s registered to Kazakhstan, Serbian and Ukrainian firms that will regularly be seen flying throughout the EU until regulations change again.

[Tex]

Who else could take the MIL equipment to the OEF and OIF Theaters? Well, for one, the first US company to be blessed by the FAA to do it...Atlas Air. What happened to keep them (Atlas) from doing it? The insurance company got nervous about it, and the old Soviet Air Force operators claim that they are self insured. Sooooooo, no US operator in Theaters with the Old Soviet AF in place. The USAF depends on the old Soviet AF's word that they are self insured.

Now, if you ship something on the old Soviet AF (pick any IL-76 operator), and they claim to be self insured, AND.... if that airplane ever went down for any reason...do you really think you can collect? BRAVO SIERRA! Write it off.

Now, the USAF is so culturally sensitive, and politically correct, that they hire their old enimies to do their work, instead of US companies. What is really shameful, is that the US unions like to talk about overseas sweat shops, but dont talk about the bastardly low salaries these old Soviets make to fly into OIF and OEF theaters...in a heavy airplane.

[ZooWarden]

Hi man. Do you really think all the US operators are/will be willing to fly to Iraq/Afg ? Yeah, not all of the former Soviet airframes have so-called "good" registration. What's more, I know someone with quite good and EU almost-compliant registration who carries lots of staff for the US Army in Iraq / Afg and doesn't have any real war insuarance at all !
So, it sounds like .... "No matter what aircraft do you operate - either Soviet old-buddy or quite new Boeing or Airbas or something else - it depends only on a company's management.....well plus it depends on who or where from those managers are."

One thing you have highlighted correctly - the Iraqi battle will be stalled once former Soviet Air Force's An-12s & IL-76s discontinue their flights to the region. 'Cause USAF is unable to feed their troops round the world effectively. And - yes - aircrews have ve-e-e-ry low salary packages.

[SBR]

The IL76 YL-LAK is registered in Latvia, and is operated by Inversija.This company has been operating IL76 aircraft with no incidents for over 25 years, and currently have three IL76 is their fleet - All 3 IL76 (YL-LAK, YL-LAL and YL-LAJ) have been on permanent lease to Adagold Aviation for over 5 years - The company has just changed its name of Adajet Aviation.

Latvia is part of the EU and all the aircraft of there register have to comply to JAR specifications. Therefore, IL76 are permitted to be registered in Latvia if they conform to the JAR specifications, and JAR ops 145 maintenance which in the case of Inversija they do.

The Inversija IL76's are also fitted with TCAS 3 and EGWPS, and the probably the best serviced and operated IL76 in the world. The Latvian CAA would never permit an aircraft that does not confirm to JAR specifications to be registered on their register, and they would not issue on going airworthyness certificates if the operators did not comply - Its that simple, and you can take your hat off to Inversija for being the only IL76 operators to comply with JAR regulations !!

Finally, yhey are the only IL76 type aicraft who have Design Bureau certification to carry 48 pax in front facing seats - Although many other IL76 operators have tried to obtain this certification they cant meet the stringent requirements laid down by the Design Bureau.

[AAL]

SBR - there are no doubts that Inversija IL-76's are in a good condition.

The aircraft is however presented as being a combi-configured aircraft certIfied to carry 48 passengers on seats fitted on loose removable pallets. You say also that this combi-modification is approved by the Design Buro.

To have appoved such a modification the Design Buro will have issued an STC and type-certificate no doubt - which according to Design Buro sources they deny!!!!

To carry passengers in a cargo aircraft the passengers have to be seperated from the cargo by means of a 9-G cargo net or bulkhead.

Can you seriously confirm that this is the case with YL-LAK and that the Design Buro approved the aircraft's modification to install the 9-G barrier suitably into the aircraft's fuselage structure, and that it holds a Design Buro STC for this modification that was performed.

Let's take it one step at a time, if you have a "secret combi modification STC" how can your plane be JAR compliant? :ok:

[SBR]

Do you think the SANDF, British MOD and Australian Defence would use Inversijas aircraft if they have not been properly verified by the Design Bureau. The CAA's in all these countries have also verified that aircraft combi configuration and it is 100% compliant. Strange that you are a leading authority on IL76 aircraft and that all these CAA's dont know what they are doing. Firstly check out your facts before you make accusations :=

Furthermore, I dont know where you get your information from, but it is complete rubbish !! The Inversija aircraft are fitted with a fixed 9G bulkhead, forward facing seats, invividual oxygen supply and the list goes on and on.

Finally, as mentioned before do you think the EU authorities would allow these aircraft to operate on their register and issue on going airworthyness certificates if they were not 100% EU compliant ? Once again you know better than them.

Go and pick on some other IL76 operator, but you are going to get no where here.

[AAL]

SBR, if you have a fixed bulkhead seperating the passenger compartment from the cargo maindeck - then how do you load the entire length of the cargo deck when not carrying passengers.

Do you then remove the the "fixed bulkhead"?

Therefore, make sure that you have a real 9-G cargo bulkhead, not some "secret- only one of a kind arranged under the table" - as it is clear that this matter and what a pax/cargo combi config and the requirements of what such a bulkhead should comprise, is not agreed or resolved yet.

Please also explain how a stage 2 aircraft can be JAR compliant! := when it for that very reason can not operate in the EU.

Start talking the truth friend - soon we will publish photo's of your "bulkhead", regardless the Brit MOD, SANDF and Australian impressions of your aircraft and what you believe a bulkhead should be.

[SBR]

AAL :ugh: Once again you need to check your facts := There are many stage two B737-200, B747-200 and B727's operating in Europe and they are regstered in Europe as well. IL76's are not permitted to operate in Western Europe because they are stage 2 and there noise levels are higher than the Boeing aircraft - This is the only reason !!

The Inversija aircraft have a fixed 9G bulkhead that has been inspected and approved by the Design Bureau. If you have any further concerns I suggest you contact the Design Bureau directly and raise your concerns, and send them your pictures.

[AAL]

SBR, it is clear that you dont know what a fixed bulkhead is. Do you even know what any 9G cargo barrier is?

If you are so uncertain then how is it possible that the Design Buro and the authorities whose names you so readily drop are so easily convinced that your aircraft possesses one.

In your own words "it has a fixed 9-G cargo bulkhead" This would then imply that it is a permanent installation. Where in the cargo cabin/main cargo deck's length is this bulkhead then installed erected - that seperates the passenger area/section from the cargo floor/section?

Are you sure you know what you talking about and what such is/should be?

Enlighten the world - post schematic or picture of your one-of-kind "secret" Design Buro approved modification then there can be no argument and further debate.

Issue about your ops into Luanda earlier refered to could have been sincere mistake - and such detail and proof of your bulkhead approval and pax configuration can end debate right here - but if not, somewhere somehow you are going to be asked.

[CargoOne]

AAL,
May I suggest you will send your suspicions and photos directly to Latvian CAA Operations Dept & Maintenance Dept (do you want their contact details?), and tell us the outcome.
Otherwise it really looks like personal vendetta and unsupported allegations.

[AAL]

CargoOne, for aircraft to compete on an equal playingfield the ground must be level. I am sure you will agree.

It does not help if one claims to have a secret Design Buro approved Passenger/Cargo configuration that allegedly complies with manufacturers and JAR requirements, when all it is in fact are a number of pallets with seats bolted to it and no 9-G barrier seperating the cargo and passengers.

On an earlier post the FO of YL-LAK said "only technical cargo handlers fly on the aircraft in this fashion". SBR now says that they have 48 Design Buro approved forward facing passenger seats fitted in the aircraft, with a Design Buro "fixed 9-G" bulkhead seperating the passenger cabin from the cargo deck. - RUBBISH!!!!.

These people fly in this fashion one day - and on the next with the full length of their main cargo deck loaded and filled with cargo. How do they randomly and at will remove and install a "fixed" bulkhead.

He even boasts that this arrangement is approved by the British MOD, Australian Government and the South African Defence Force.

Only Fools and Horses will believe that an IL-76 can be certified and a JAR acceptable STC issued for that. It further boggles the mind that the EU which stands so critical about aircraft from other countries will consider such an aircraft JAR compliant and approve and tolerate the airline's claim.

Inversija is also VERY secretive about this Design Approval. The reason is because it cant be verified - and yes have done my homework, the Design Buro is also puzzled by this claim.

Lastly - if you are not interested and dont agree with the debate, please dont frequent the thread. So simple - or are you also involved with this crowd?

[LAK]

AAL, it looks like you are the one of a kind who can regulate the EU laws. If AC is certified to operate by JAR regulations what else do you need?

As mentioned before you has a personal vendetta. And as I was telling before spend your time to check over the internet for the further invormation about IL-76 in EU.

As far as I can see you have a problem with acceptance of facts!!!!:ugh:

[AAL]

LAK, between yourself and SBR you have badly contradicted yourselves about this claimed Combi configuration of your aircraft.

You may have whitewashed your clients up to now about it but you have not given a straight simple answer.

Point is and remains - if your modification is not legal then you and your regulatory authority are in big trouble with the EU Aviation Regulatory Authority.

I am sure that unlike one or two of your sympathisers posting here on your behalf - the authorities will also be paying close attention.

My facts are straight, plain, and simple, while it appears you have a problem with the English language:

1. You landed in Luanda while only in possesion of overflight clearance to somewhere north of Angola - while you called for and requested a technical landing but with cargo consigned for Luanda - FACT!!!!

2. Explain your "FIXED" cargo bulkhead that seperates your cargo deck from the passenger cabin!!!!! - that you remove between flights and convert from pax/cargo combi to cargo randomly at will. Do you know and understand the meaning and implication of a fixed cargo bulkhead; do you know what a cargo bulkhead is at all?

[CargoOne]

AAL,

No, I'm not affilated in any way with Inversija. Just used their aircraft on charter a couple of years ago.

Now, I can tell you one thing - you are deninately not aware about JAR (exactly which JAR, by the way, you mean?) and Soviet-built aircraft situation. It is not that straight and easy.

However I smell a commercial reason (ie competition) as the background of your allegations. So it is your word against Inversija people words. If you are so worried about flight safety, please proceed to Latvian CAA and EASA and tell them your facts. I'm 100% sure they will not miss your signal.

[dionysius]

AAL seems to have a connection to Silverback which may be the reason for his personal vendetta ?? he seems to be the self appointed consience of Pprune :rolleyes:

Is there not a DC8 operator in the US that operates thier a/c in the pax/frt combi role including regular US military contracts ?

[AAL]

Dear dionysis,

A DC-8 can hardly perform what an IL-76 can and definately not in same class. Sorry to dissapoint, IL-76 is a brilliant aircraft!

I also dont wish to be or assume any role of self-appointed conscience of PPrune and believe I have made my point so prefer to let the matter rest.:p

Flywell!

[CR2]

to let the matter rest

I think that's an excellent idea for the time-being. I don't really like the tone in which this thread has been conducted. Time-out.