DC8 - 63 F In UAE [Archive]

dionysius

15th Mar 2006, 08:26

Try Intavia, they have some DC8-62F's. that can operate worldwide. And they have lots of experience in the UAE.
[email protected]
00441293 544706.
www.aiaflycargo.com
:ok:

Thunderbird 3

15th Mar 2006, 12:29

Try [email protected]

mtogw

15th Mar 2006, 14:14

Or you could always try Johnson Air/Heavylift in Sharjah.....................................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dionysius

15th Mar 2006, 16:19

see this thread re Shj based outfit :
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=200057

Banzai Eagle

15th Mar 2006, 20:08

Avoid Johnsons causing enough of a stir @ EMA over alledged overrun of the runway

GuppyEng.com

16th Mar 2006, 01:36

Avoid Johnsons causing enough of a stir @ EMA over alledged overrun of the runway

Has any further action been taken?
I am suprised that the original post from someone that must have had access to the tower or know the controller did'nt know the registration or callsign of the aircraft:confused:

Frt-Door

16th Mar 2006, 14:34

snarfel

17th Mar 2006, 08:38

The registration of the aircraft that overrun the runway @ EMA is 9G-LIL of Johnsons Air, belonging to the controversial Farhad Azima. The aircraft was formerly registered as 9G-MKO and part of MK Airlines' fleet. Its last MK-flight on EBOS, one of MK's bases, was on 20 December 2005.
See also http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209701
EMA picture on http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=446158.
Regards,
Snarf

cressidom

17th Mar 2006, 09:48

Thank all for the various info..have forwarded the same to the requester.

Cheers
Cress

justforfun

20th Mar 2006, 11:25

Snarfel, methinks you are on the right track but a bit wrong :uhoh: ... 9G-LIL and 9G-FAB are owned and operated by Farzin Azima, not Farhad, and both of his aircraft are run as a seperate operation - different company name, support etc - to Johnson although they share the same AOC, and I may add that Farzin's aircraft are operated very well and reliably :ok: ...Overrun?...nothing to report on that one... :zzz:

JFF :cool:

snarfel

21st Mar 2006, 10:06

Justforfun,
You might be right, 9G-LIL and 9G-FAB might be owned by Farzin Azima. However, you fail to mention that Farzin (also spelt “Farsin”) is Farhad Azima’s brother (same father, same mother).
Furthermore, if you consult Aerotransport.org, whose information seems to me even more reliable than the presumed reliability of Farzin and his aircraft, you will find that 9G-LIL (msn 46147) is ex 9G-MKO and that its operator is Ghanaian Johnsons Air, formed in 1995 by Farhad Azima. The same applies to 9G-FAB (msn 46121), ex N786AL.
Regards,
Snarf

justforfun

23rd Mar 2006, 09:11

Snarf,

LIL and FAB, operate under the Johnson Air AOC, and that's where the connection now stops - both aircraft are owned and operated by Race Aviation, which is Farzin - well aware that Farhad and he are brothers... however, Farzin operates this seperatly and is a good operator - been operating for us for some time now, and we have no issues with them whatsover....

Cheers
JFF :ok:

Maurice Chavez

23rd Mar 2006, 09:28

Snarfel and Banzai Eagle,

Farzin has nothing to do with his brothers operation. Runway overrun in EMA, a bit blown out of proportion. Before putting your stamp on carriers such as Race Aviation, I suggest you get your facts straight. Farzin is running a good an safe operation, that I know for a fact, since I have flown with some of his crewmembers in Farhad's operation, "Johnsons Air", 2 years ago.

Justforfun, friend, how's the Sheraton bar? Miss that place!

snarfel

23rd Mar 2006, 12:24

Race Aviation? I didn't find any existing airline company under that name. Strange. But there was from 1985 to 1991 a California company, called Race Aviation. It was then reorganized by Farhad Azima as Aviation Leasing Group. Possibly just coincidence or just a tight inner circle, who knows?
Greetz

Maurice Chavez

23rd Mar 2006, 13:25

Yeah well, I guess you aint the smartest cookie in the box....

Toad of TH

5th Apr 2006, 10:13

Has any further action been taken?
I am suprised that the original post from someone that must have had access to the tower or know the controller did'nt know the registration or callsign of the aircraft:confused:

The CAA are saying that it didn't turn until 15nm out from EGNX - and whilst it's not quite 'turn left at Wales', everyone else seems to manage it rather closer to the airport. So, what were the crew doing ?: chatting about footy, or something else ?

ToTH

Mr Angry from Purley

5th Apr 2006, 17:08

Your obviously a journo or a nimby then :\

Toad of TH

5th Apr 2006, 19:06

Mr. A - Nice to make your acquaintance, give my regards to Danny when you see him next ;-) Nasty business about the authorities dissing the senior ATC guy.

Anyway, what was the problem with the load on 'Lili' ?

ToTH

justforfun

6th Apr 2006, 05:49

There was no problem with the load etc... aircraft was at MTOW and that's about exciting as it gets...:hmm: if there was an incident to be reported or recorded, I'm sure we would all have heard about it by now... :eek:

Cheers,
JFF :ok:

Toad of TH

6th Apr 2006, 09:22

JFF: A civil reply - much appreciated !

If no excitement - why the original posting by senior ATC in two forums ? (and posted in good faith)

The authorities are saying that it was 'close to' permitted TOW, but 'it is not possible to confirm absolutely that the aircraft’s rate of climb was above the minimum required'

Did their lawyers draft the last bit ? ;-)

ToTH

slowfly

6th Apr 2006, 10:16

If no excitement - why the original posting by senior ATC in two forums ? (and posted in good faith)

The authorities are saying that it was 'close to' permitted TOW, but 'it is not possible to confirm absolutely that the aircraft’s rate of climb was above the minimum required'

Did their lawyers draft the last bit ? ;-)

ToTH

ToTH this is the definitive answer : Capt B said there was no problem with that flight and I tend to beleive his word above all the here say and press gossip and his vast flying experience speaks for itself and thats the end of the matter.
Slowfly::}

GRAHAM

6th Apr 2006, 15:39

If Bopster says it was OK, that's fine by me!

Mr Angry from Purley

6th Apr 2006, 17:53

Toad of TH
There you go, guess the Airport can count on your support for the runway extension then as the alledged problem would not occur if the extension is made.
:\

Toad of TH

7th Apr 2006, 10:48

Mr. A - Perhaps you might know why the airport is so circumspect about the direct supply of anything detailed in print that the public might see ?

For instance, it is understood that responses to complaints usually give the altitude of the aircraft in question, and sometimes nice coloured charts showing aircraft tracks if people are lucky, but apparently neither have been forthcoming so far to Melbourne nimbys for this incident.

ToTH

Mr Angry from Purley

19th Apr 2006, 17:08

T of TH
Most of the Airliners that work out of NEMA (despite the NIMBY protests of it being inundated with old night freight planes) are pretty powerful beasts so they get airborne well early along the runway. The odd aircraft such as the DC8 take longer, or the First Choice 767 on the way to Orlando.

Having been a LGW resident for many years (one runway and ten-twenty times as busy as NEMA) i remember many a day watching the Braniff 747 take up all the runway before it departed. Then many years at EMA I remember watching the BMI and Omega Boeing 707s take all the runway length to get airborne.
At Miami I recall DC6's being at about 500 foot over Miami Beach, 5 miles from the Airport.

Ah fond memories.

Anyway back to the subject. Its at Filton by the sounds of it. If its coming up North again I'll post another message and we can go and pole it!

:\ :\

Mr Angry from Purley

22nd Apr 2006, 16:01

T of TH
Aircraft just flew into NEMA. :\

Toad of TH

22nd Apr 2006, 19:58

T of TH
Aircraft just flew into NEMA. :\

9G-TOP rather than 9G-LIL

The future's not garlic bread, it's the DC8 stretched freighter ? :}

ToTH

Mr Angry from Purley

22nd Apr 2006, 20:07

T of TH
And said aircraft departed at 2100, bit noisy otherwise fine.
No CAA ramp check (a good sign for concern):\

justforfun

24th Apr 2006, 06:38

It amazes me that this generates so much interest. Let me point out a few matters here, first there was NO incident to report, and this was confirmed by the CAA. The reason the "incident" came to the knowledge of the CAA, was I believe because of the posts on this forum - picked up by journos etc... shortly after this all surfaced, the operator and crew contacted EMA, who also did not have any issue.... so lets see, the CAA are not concerned, the Airport Management have no concern, and the company for which the aircraft was operating on behalf of, also had no concern - whatsoever.

Think that about wraps it up. :ok:

JFF :p

Mr Angry from Purley

25th Apr 2006, 16:49

JFF
Careful or i'll turn into a NIMBY as well!
The NIMBYs are looking for trouble at NEMA, anything to do with passenger aircraft is fine (recent easyjet fire, delays last year with Scandic) but if its a knackered old DC8 freighter working for DHL then they will pounce on it.
I must right to the new nu's and tell them that Johnsons air came in again!
Remember please the original discussion was started by the ATC Watch Controller..........
:\

justforfun

26th Apr 2006, 05:49

Edited 'cos I can't be bothered anymore.... :zzz:

Cheers
JFF

Toad of TH

26th Apr 2006, 08:21

Remember please the original discussion was started by the ATC Watch Controller..........
and a comment about a 'curvature of the earth departure', which seems increasingly to be vindicated as the story unfolds.

Sir Humphrey has indulged a spot of derriere-covering by saying 'it is not possible to confirm absolutely that the aircraft’s rate of climb was above the minimum required' - but maybe he should check his (NATS) sums again ! If he's reading this, the SIDs doc says something about 8·7% and 7.3% climbs. Apparently, it's to avoid hitting stuff and also annoying the nimbys.

Somewhat amusingly, Sir Humphrey also says that a Mandatory Occurrence Report was submitted by the airport, but then Sir H. says that he later decided that an MOR wasn't needed. He regrets, however, to say that the details can't be released for Freedom of Information reasons.

ToTH

Toad of TH

26th May 2006, 09:36

Just in case Sir Humphrey thinks this is dead ...

Reg Cap (ATC) said: "Subsequent inspection revealed no obvious damage to approach lights or Localiser aerial, but there was a single (wheel?) track in the grass beyond the end of the runway, lasting about 50m.
DC8 drivers - is it possible for the port wing to lift just enough for the outer rear wheel of the main bogie to skim along the ground, but not the inner wheel? It wasn't a vehicle track (only one tyre track, not 2)."

Sir H.'s people seem to favour vehicle tracks - plural - whereas the airport says 'rabbits' ! So, rabbits on motorbikes, perhaps ? ;)

He might also like to know that Reg Cap's 'port wing lift' and associated aircraft yaw, at the end of the runway, generated a corresponding deviation in the NATS radar track.

ToTH