Status of IL-76's in the European Union
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Benelux
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm if is LAK is down there then which ones are out here?
Unfortunately theyīre on the other side of the field so itīs
hard to get to. Iīll see if I can dig up some regs.
I wouldnīt be surprised if LAK isnīt 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!
Unfortunately theyīre on the other side of the field so itīs
hard to get to. Iīll see if I can dig up some regs.
I wouldnīt be surprised if LAK isnīt 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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kamapala
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kamapala
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAL,
As I understand it, it was the Bulgarian CAA that pulled their own countries AN-12 European permissions, not the EU authorities.
As I understand it, it was the Bulgarian CAA that pulled their own countries AN-12 European permissions, not the EU authorities.
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?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Latvia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True source
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$/ kg - makes 80 tons, MTOW 170 and fuel from Johannesburg...)
2. About how the Il-76 is still registered in Latvia check JAR, and You will not have any questions. That also means if You are posting any information consisting A/C registration make sure You've got PROPER information. By the way another our company's Ilyushins are YL-LAJ and YL-LAL.
3. Our company has 3 Il-76's. LAK was brought to SA on 28th ( I was fliyng 2 sectors) of february and passed all inspection prior leaving Latvia. Also, Design Bureau technicians inspecting our A/C's in Latvia every time it needed by Latvian CAA.
AAl, sorry, but all information about LAK is a fake!
Everyone, please, do not judge only by a rumors, especialy if You have an internet and want to know what's realy happening!
Nothing personal, but i just can't read all this things.
I'm a first officer on YL-LAK...
1. I am not gonna explain why did we land without the permision, but it has nothing to do whith A/C registration. AAl, Your source is out-of-date. The fine was 8,000$ 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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kamapala
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kamapala
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AdaGold and IL-76 YL-LAK
Come on LAK, one post...and now its over-and-out? 
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.
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.
Last edited by AAL; 23rd Sep 2007 at 08:02.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kamapala
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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".
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".
Last edited by AAL; 24th Sep 2007 at 11:12.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Latvia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Latvia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the Doghouse
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ). 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: KMIA-KJFK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.