Murad Ismail / Interlink in the Dock
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pretoria
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about dodgy ops!!!
Found this in afrikaans but maybe someone can post this in english for all to see...
Just shows you how some companies operate!!!
BEELD
Baie vrae, maar dié operateur vlieg nog
Vrae word in lugvaartkringe gevra oor hoekom 'n operateur in dié bedryf wat reeds 'n rits beweerde onreëlmatighede agter sy naam het, steeds toegelaat word om ingevolge 'n staatskontrak vliegdienste aan BBP's en ander regeringslui te verskaf.
Dié operateur word verantwoordelik gehou daarvoor dat 211 polisie- en brandweermanne en amptenare van korrektiewe diens te nié meer eersdaags aan die wêreldpolisie-en-brandweerspele in Kanada kan deelneem nie omdat die vliegtuig waarmee hulle sou vlieg, die bemanning en die vliegmagtigings glo verdag is.
Dit is dieselfde operateur - InterLink Airways - wat in Januarie 'n vliegtuig vir mnr. Jacob Zuma, toe nog adjunkpresident, moes reël om oudpres. Nelson Mandela se seun se begrafnis by te woon.
Dié straler moes weens tegniese probleme op Waterkloof-lugmagbasis se aanloopbaan net voor opstyging en met Zuma reeds aan boord, noodremme aanslaan wat veroorsaak het dat drie van die bande gebars het.
Tydens 'n vergadering wat Donderdagoggend deur hooggeplaastes van die polisie by die Johannesburgse Lughawe gehou is om die jongste probleme te probeer bylê, het dit aan die lig gekom dat die bepaalde DC10-vliegtuig in Swaziland geregistreer was en glo nié oor 'n buitelandse operateurspermit beskik het nie.
Ghanese vlieëniers sou vir die vlug gebruik word, maar hulle was glo nie gesertifiseer vir dié soort vliegtuig nie.
'n Enkele Britse kaptein sou aan diens moes bly vir meer as 20 uur, wat die internasionale toelaatbare maksimum vliegtyd sou oorskry.
Geen oorvlieg- of landingsregte is glo vooraf vir die vlug verkry nie, wat beteken die vlug sou as onwettig gereken en landing by lughawens geweier kon word .
Die vliegtuig het glo ook nie klaring gehad om in Kanada te land nie. By nadere inspeksie het die burgerlugvaartowerheid (BLO) gevind dat die inspeksiedatum vir die lewensbaadjies op die vliegtuig lank reeds verval het.
In die lig van dié tekorte sou die vlug ingevolge BLO-regulasies onveilig gewees het.
Terwyl dié vergadering Donderdag aan die gang was, is daar glo ondanks die probleme probeer om die passasiers in te weeg en aan boord te laat gaan.
Die eienaar van die vliegtuig, wat nié vir die bemanning of die magtigings verantwoordelik was nie, het glo toe die verhuring van die vliegtuig teruggetrek.
Die vliegtuig is deur die depar temente van veiligheid en sekuriteit en van korrektiewe dienste aangelê vir die vlug. Woordvoerders van die polisie, korrektiewe dienste en die BLO het gister ondersoeke na die voorval bevestig. "
Baie vrae, maar dié operateur vlieg nog
Vrae word in lugvaartkringe gevra oor hoekom 'n operateur in dié bedryf wat reeds 'n rits beweerde onreëlmatighede agter sy naam het, steeds toegelaat word om ingevolge 'n staatskontrak vliegdienste aan BBP's en ander regeringslui te verskaf.
Dié operateur word verantwoordelik gehou daarvoor dat 211 polisie- en brandweermanne en amptenare van korrektiewe diens te nié meer eersdaags aan die wêreldpolisie-en-brandweerspele in Kanada kan deelneem nie omdat die vliegtuig waarmee hulle sou vlieg, die bemanning en die vliegmagtigings glo verdag is.
Dit is dieselfde operateur - InterLink Airways - wat in Januarie 'n vliegtuig vir mnr. Jacob Zuma, toe nog adjunkpresident, moes reël om oudpres. Nelson Mandela se seun se begrafnis by te woon.
Dié straler moes weens tegniese probleme op Waterkloof-lugmagbasis se aanloopbaan net voor opstyging en met Zuma reeds aan boord, noodremme aanslaan wat veroorsaak het dat drie van die bande gebars het.
Tydens 'n vergadering wat Donderdagoggend deur hooggeplaastes van die polisie by die Johannesburgse Lughawe gehou is om die jongste probleme te probeer bylê, het dit aan die lig gekom dat die bepaalde DC10-vliegtuig in Swaziland geregistreer was en glo nié oor 'n buitelandse operateurspermit beskik het nie.
Ghanese vlieëniers sou vir die vlug gebruik word, maar hulle was glo nie gesertifiseer vir dié soort vliegtuig nie.
'n Enkele Britse kaptein sou aan diens moes bly vir meer as 20 uur, wat die internasionale toelaatbare maksimum vliegtyd sou oorskry.
Geen oorvlieg- of landingsregte is glo vooraf vir die vlug verkry nie, wat beteken die vlug sou as onwettig gereken en landing by lughawens geweier kon word .
Die vliegtuig het glo ook nie klaring gehad om in Kanada te land nie. By nadere inspeksie het die burgerlugvaartowerheid (BLO) gevind dat die inspeksiedatum vir die lewensbaadjies op die vliegtuig lank reeds verval het.
In die lig van dié tekorte sou die vlug ingevolge BLO-regulasies onveilig gewees het.
Terwyl dié vergadering Donderdag aan die gang was, is daar glo ondanks die probleme probeer om die passasiers in te weeg en aan boord te laat gaan.
Die eienaar van die vliegtuig, wat nié vir die bemanning of die magtigings verantwoordelik was nie, het glo toe die verhuring van die vliegtuig teruggetrek.
Die vliegtuig is deur die depar temente van veiligheid en sekuriteit en van korrektiewe dienste aangelê vir die vlug. Woordvoerders van die polisie, korrektiewe dienste en die BLO het gister ondersoeke na die voorval bevestig. "
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently there was nothing wrong with the aircraft as such. The "operator" neglegted to submit his Foreign Operators Permit to SA CAA in time. The company that leased the aircraft to the operator is a well reputable company, in fact they pulled the plug on the "operator" when it came to light that the aircraft will depart JHB without all the relevant clearances and documentation in place.
The crew that was going to operate the flight was ex-Ghana Airways DC10-30 rated crew. The aircraft designated for this particular flight is a DC10-10. The "operator" knowingly wanted to use this crew, although huge differences exists between the two series aircraft.
Rumour has it that the ex-Ghana Airways crew was not current with Simulator, EPT, CRM, DG etc.
The flight was subsequently cancelled when the owner pulled the plug in realizing that all was not in order with the operators plans..
No notice was given to the Canadian Authorities of the flight, the "operator" merely stated that a overflight and landing clearance was not neccessary , a submittion of a flight plan was sufficient for a clearance.
On closer investigation of the owner, it was found that a clearance was neccessary, a long list of requirements needed to be submitted to the Canadian CAA for such an clearance. This application had to be submitted to the Canadian CAA 1 week prior to departure for approval.
In other words, these poor South African Police athetes would have been turned away just prior Canadian Airspace entry, or, maybe shot out the sky......
I sincerely hope a thorough investigation would be launched against this operator.
The crew that was going to operate the flight was ex-Ghana Airways DC10-30 rated crew. The aircraft designated for this particular flight is a DC10-10. The "operator" knowingly wanted to use this crew, although huge differences exists between the two series aircraft.
Rumour has it that the ex-Ghana Airways crew was not current with Simulator, EPT, CRM, DG etc.
The flight was subsequently cancelled when the owner pulled the plug in realizing that all was not in order with the operators plans..
No notice was given to the Canadian Authorities of the flight, the "operator" merely stated that a overflight and landing clearance was not neccessary , a submittion of a flight plan was sufficient for a clearance.
On closer investigation of the owner, it was found that a clearance was neccessary, a long list of requirements needed to be submitted to the Canadian CAA for such an clearance. This application had to be submitted to the Canadian CAA 1 week prior to departure for approval.
In other words, these poor South African Police athetes would have been turned away just prior Canadian Airspace entry, or, maybe shot out the sky......
I sincerely hope a thorough investigation would be launched against this operator.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Home
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must be one of these aircraft 3D-MRR,S or Q owned by a company called Executive Areo Space.
Can believe that the Ghana crew overlooked the little things like sim checks medicals etc. It is just a small thing guv
As for CRM not sure that has been invented on the West coast of Africa yet
Regards it be a -10 series aircraft, crew licence is annotated DC10 so can fly any variant
Ah Africa don't you just luv the place
Can believe that the Ghana crew overlooked the little things like sim checks medicals etc. It is just a small thing guv
As for CRM not sure that has been invented on the West coast of Africa yet
Regards it be a -10 series aircraft, crew licence is annotated DC10 so can fly any variant
Ah Africa don't you just luv the place
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for the record: Differences between the DC10 -10 and -30 series aircraft are quite minor. Mainly being different wingspan, different start temperatures on the engines and different weights and no body gear on the -10. Operationally insignificant. Same type rating in most parts of the world ie one covers it all, even -40 series with P&W engines.
AD
AD
Still Bopping along then, is he, the funny little fellow?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dubai
Age: 55
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineer,
Please note that these aircraft are not owned or operated by Executive Aerospace!
They are owned by a company called Global Aviation Leasing and were being chartered by a company called Interlink Airlines.
Our only link here is that we operate several of the DC9's owned by GAL.
Generally I feel that people are free to show their ignorance, but on a public forum such as this, you should get your facts right before making statements that could have a negative inference on a reputable company.
Regards
KTK
Please note that these aircraft are not owned or operated by Executive Aerospace!
They are owned by a company called Global Aviation Leasing and were being chartered by a company called Interlink Airlines.
Our only link here is that we operate several of the DC9's owned by GAL.
Generally I feel that people are free to show their ignorance, but on a public forum such as this, you should get your facts right before making statements that could have a negative inference on a reputable company.
Regards
KTK
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: RSA
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Murad "Shaiky" Ismail
Seems our intrepid ex-CAA inspector has become increasingly "Shaiky" of late. The Scopions recently Zumed and arrested him for bribery and corruption (15yrs min) in relation to the Navy flying. He is out on bail an scheduled to appear in court on 22 August 2005.
This saga of trying to fly the SAPS and Correctional Service teams to Canada is but the tip of the ice berg.
Not only did this flight not have a FOP, no clearance to enter Canada, Flight Crew who were not properly qualified, plans to exceed Flight and duty times, but .... listen to this...
Murad had the Swazi DCA issue himself with permission to serve as in flight relief crew on a DC10 when he admitted to the SAPS that he had not done a technical course (studied the notes he says) nor done any check ride. All this was issued on an Interlink letter head!!!
Worse yet, his Swazi ATPL now show him with a P1 for a DC10. And this from the man who wrote Louis Maloma's affidavit alledging ATPL exam fraud in 2000.
Rumour has it that it has become a bit too hot for that top cover from friends in the CAA and his AOC renewal may be under fire as they have discovered that his designated Safety Officer neither works for Interlink nor agreed to serve in this capacity.
Moreover, there is documentary proof floating about that the intrepid Murad flew a DC-9 on a Dept of Home Affair flight from Johannesburg-Lilongwe-Ndola-Luanda-Douala-Lagos-Accra in one day on 18 June 2005. Flight and duty time?? 18 hours plus for ex-CAA inspectors should be OK.
Does anyone know how he got a DC-9 rating on his South African license??
Things are getting shaikier by the day for our beloved inspector Ismail
This saga of trying to fly the SAPS and Correctional Service teams to Canada is but the tip of the ice berg.
Not only did this flight not have a FOP, no clearance to enter Canada, Flight Crew who were not properly qualified, plans to exceed Flight and duty times, but .... listen to this...
Murad had the Swazi DCA issue himself with permission to serve as in flight relief crew on a DC10 when he admitted to the SAPS that he had not done a technical course (studied the notes he says) nor done any check ride. All this was issued on an Interlink letter head!!!
Worse yet, his Swazi ATPL now show him with a P1 for a DC10. And this from the man who wrote Louis Maloma's affidavit alledging ATPL exam fraud in 2000.
Rumour has it that it has become a bit too hot for that top cover from friends in the CAA and his AOC renewal may be under fire as they have discovered that his designated Safety Officer neither works for Interlink nor agreed to serve in this capacity.
Moreover, there is documentary proof floating about that the intrepid Murad flew a DC-9 on a Dept of Home Affair flight from Johannesburg-Lilongwe-Ndola-Luanda-Douala-Lagos-Accra in one day on 18 June 2005. Flight and duty time?? 18 hours plus for ex-CAA inspectors should be OK.
Does anyone know how he got a DC-9 rating on his South African license??
Things are getting shaikier by the day for our beloved inspector Ismail
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dubai
Age: 55
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineer,
It would seem that I owe you an apology.
That said, the data on the websites referred to appears to be inaccurate. We are not involved in these aircraft in anyway. I am not sure where they get their facts from. It would be interesting to actually see what is reflected in the Swaziland register.
To the best of my knowledge, they are owned by(but not operated by) a company called Global Aviation Leasing. We have been involved in a with them as we dry lease some of their DC9's.
Once again I do apologise and hope you understand that I have a keen interest in protecting the name of our company.
KTK
It would seem that I owe you an apology.
That said, the data on the websites referred to appears to be inaccurate. We are not involved in these aircraft in anyway. I am not sure where they get their facts from. It would be interesting to actually see what is reflected in the Swaziland register.
To the best of my knowledge, they are owned by(but not operated by) a company called Global Aviation Leasing. We have been involved in a with them as we dry lease some of their DC9's.
Once again I do apologise and hope you understand that I have a keen interest in protecting the name of our company.
KTK
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: RSA
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doing a technical and sim course in the USA is not necessarily sufficient for an aircraft rating to be placed on your RSA pilot's license.
The CAA usually (for us lessor mortals) insist on a check ride by a CAA DE.
In this case, could the DE involved ( if there was indeed a check ride) step forward? Could we hear which ZS registered DC-9 was used?
The CAA usually (for us lessor mortals) insist on a check ride by a CAA DE.
In this case, could the DE involved ( if there was indeed a check ride) step forward? Could we hear which ZS registered DC-9 was used?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Home
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kenny not a prob 
If you have a web link to show who owns the aircraft let me know
Will be happy to e-mail the DC10 sites to update database
That is the good thing about a public site the correct info is highlighted. Good guys win and the cowboys are exposed
If you have a web link to show who owns the aircraft let me know
Will be happy to e-mail the DC10 sites to update database
That is the good thing about a public site the correct info is highlighted. Good guys win and the cowboys are exposed
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Chile
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE OWNERS OF THE DC-9 AND THE DC-10"s MENTIONED IN THIS POST ARE GLOBAL AIRCRAFT LEASING. I WOULD BE SUPPRISED IF THE CAA ALLOWED THE DC-9 TO BE PUT ON MURAD'S LICENSE WITHOUT A FLIGHT TEST AND ANY WAY THE OWNERS WOULD NOT BE PARTY TO ANY SKULLDUGGERY WHEN IT COMES TO BS LICENCED PILOTS FLYING THEIR AIRCRAFT.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Home
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about the DC9 but the DC10s are 3D registered so what authority do the RSA CAA have over licence holders? Apart from the mandatory checks to ensure that aircraft are operated within the ICAO rules
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: RSA
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA Authority
Engineer,
Interlink Airlines is a RSA registered operator who has been awarded a state tender to among others fly deportees to their countries, VIP flights, Navy target towing, etc.
The DC-9's in question is ZS registered. Hence the operation and crew should be the interest of the CAA. How else would Joe Public be assured about the safety of the operation and aircraft?
The DC-10's in question as 3D registered. But a FOP (Foreign Operators Permit) is required when they conduct business in/from South Africa. The CAA is involved in certifying the safety of the operation when an operator applies for the FOP.
As I recall, in terms of the International Air Services Regulations of 1994
Section 7: states that -
"An applicant who wishes to use an aircraft other than a RSA aircraft in providing an international air service shall ...satisfy the council that:
(d) the aircraft will be operated and maintained by staff who are in possession of licences or validations which in the opinion o the Commissioner for Civil Aviation comply with the standards prescribed in terms of the Aviation Act No. 74 of 1962"
In this instance the issuing authorization for Murad Ismail to conduct relief flight duties and stamping his Swazi license as having a P1 rating on a DC10, where he admits he never even took and passed a technical course, let alone a flight test, ought to be of interest to our CAA where flight with 211 RSA souls was scheduled to depart for Canada from FAJS with our interpid inspector Ismail on board as part of the flight crew.
Interlink Airlines is a RSA registered operator who has been awarded a state tender to among others fly deportees to their countries, VIP flights, Navy target towing, etc.
The DC-9's in question is ZS registered. Hence the operation and crew should be the interest of the CAA. How else would Joe Public be assured about the safety of the operation and aircraft?
The DC-10's in question as 3D registered. But a FOP (Foreign Operators Permit) is required when they conduct business in/from South Africa. The CAA is involved in certifying the safety of the operation when an operator applies for the FOP.
As I recall, in terms of the International Air Services Regulations of 1994
Section 7: states that -
"An applicant who wishes to use an aircraft other than a RSA aircraft in providing an international air service shall ...satisfy the council that:
(d) the aircraft will be operated and maintained by staff who are in possession of licences or validations which in the opinion o the Commissioner for Civil Aviation comply with the standards prescribed in terms of the Aviation Act No. 74 of 1962"
In this instance the issuing authorization for Murad Ismail to conduct relief flight duties and stamping his Swazi license as having a P1 rating on a DC10, where he admits he never even took and passed a technical course, let alone a flight test, ought to be of interest to our CAA where flight with 211 RSA souls was scheduled to depart for Canada from FAJS with our interpid inspector Ismail on board as part of the flight crew.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Can I phone a friend?
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since our law is such a mess (and enforcement so ridiculous that many laws are in danger of being abrogated) it is implicitly legal, and has been since 1974, to fly an aircraft as in flight relief without a type rating. Search "crediting of flight time" in the ANR 1974...
Still doesn't explain a P1 rating, but thats a matter for the Swazis...
Still doesn't explain a P1 rating, but thats a matter for the Swazis...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Home
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
boomarang
Thanks looked on the SA CAA website and it appears that if the aircraft has operators rights it is allowed to carry out intended business. Assuming no local operator objects to the operation.
With regards to the licence the crew need either a Swaziland licence or validation based on they international (Ghana SA UK etc) licence to fly and if that is issued complies with ICAO standards there is not much SA CAA can do.
However if the operational side is at fault then the big yard stick needs to be brought out
But as SA Fred states with regards licence that is upto the Swazis. But I dont hold out much hope because as in many other parts of Africa money does the talking
Thanks looked on the SA CAA website and it appears that if the aircraft has operators rights it is allowed to carry out intended business. Assuming no local operator objects to the operation.
With regards to the licence the crew need either a Swaziland licence or validation based on they international (Ghana SA UK etc) licence to fly and if that is issued complies with ICAO standards there is not much SA CAA can do.
However if the operational side is at fault then the big yard stick needs to be brought out
But as SA Fred states with regards licence that is upto the Swazis. But I dont hold out much hope because as in many other parts of Africa money does the talking
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: RSA
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engineer
You are correct to state that the crew of a Swazi registered aircraft needed to have their licences validated in terms of ICAO procedures..
The RSA CAA is oblidged to accept these IF THE ICAO PROCEDURES wrt validations and flight crew licensing were followed
In this case you had DC10-30 crew licences validated for a DC10-10 operation on the morning they flew in from Ghana (for a flight scheduled to leave later that day). Guess no time for writing Swazi airlaw as is usual with validations and no matter that they are rated on different aircraft.
Murad Ismal's license... well inflight relief authorization - on Interlink letterhead nogal. Guess that must be new for ICAO.
DC10 P1 rating without any need to pass a technical course let alone a flight test?? Now ICAO must certainly have rewritten their annexes to allow this one through.
In the end, the operation had to take place on a RSA issued FOP which requires to the CAA to certify to the NDOT that the operation is safe and at least meets RSA standards.
Would not want to have the potential liability of the Commissioner to issue such a guarantee on the basis of the above, let alone the flight an duty considerations, no clearance into Canada and expired life vests.
Guess the scorpions must have more insight to the operations of Murad "Shaiky" Ismail that led them to arrest him for his flying on the state contract
The RSA CAA is oblidged to accept these IF THE ICAO PROCEDURES wrt validations and flight crew licensing were followed
In this case you had DC10-30 crew licences validated for a DC10-10 operation on the morning they flew in from Ghana (for a flight scheduled to leave later that day). Guess no time for writing Swazi airlaw as is usual with validations and no matter that they are rated on different aircraft.
Murad Ismal's license... well inflight relief authorization - on Interlink letterhead nogal. Guess that must be new for ICAO.
DC10 P1 rating without any need to pass a technical course let alone a flight test?? Now ICAO must certainly have rewritten their annexes to allow this one through.
In the end, the operation had to take place on a RSA issued FOP which requires to the CAA to certify to the NDOT that the operation is safe and at least meets RSA standards.
Would not want to have the potential liability of the Commissioner to issue such a guarantee on the basis of the above, let alone the flight an duty considerations, no clearance into Canada and expired life vests.
Guess the scorpions must have more insight to the operations of Murad "Shaiky" Ismail that led them to arrest him for his flying on the state contract
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Home
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
boomarang
Just to clarify a point the GCAA licence does not differentiate on aircraft variants. In fact on the licence the rating is stated as McDonnell Douglas DC10
As for the rest of your post it appears that some of the shadier characters are slowly making their way south
Just to clarify a point the GCAA licence does not differentiate on aircraft variants. In fact on the licence the rating is stated as McDonnell Douglas DC10
As for the rest of your post it appears that some of the shadier characters are slowly making their way south