MK incident at RAF base
 

RAF Lyneham was closed yesterday and today as an MK DC8-63F was taxying onto the main runway and starboard landing gear sheared.
yet another incident for dodgy airline !!:{

yeah, really!!!!!!!!!


:ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

Another MK DC8 blew some tyres at Lyneham later whilst delivering spares for the broken one........

blowawayjet is this something to be pleased about?

Can anyone out there tell us how a non JAR-OPS/JAR-145 compliant airline is still allowed to operate in European airspace delivering cargo from state to state??

How can the MOD justify using this dodgy set-up when there are British regd airlines available complying with JAR OPS??

Cheapest option - again!!?? Except pay in closed runways!!

Mrs Weasel

yes, cr2 :E :E :E

blowawayjet ure a sad sad person. obviousely unemployed by ure comments GROW UP DUDE and getalife.:yuk: :yuk: :ouch: :ouch:

The real shame Grimweasel is that MK are based in the UK!! Their offices are in Sussex!
They just fly in and out of the UK as they please with not a word from the CAA or anyone. It is not fair on other EU carriers who have to satisfy JAR-OPs requirements like undergoing constant audits, getting line stations approved by the authority, having all your ops and maintenance procedures scrutinised and judged fit/unfit for approval, complying with strict flight duty time requirements, (14 hours max duty time, not 20 hours and then 6 hours rest!) etc, etc......

All these requirements obviously add substantially to costs which is why the likes of MK are able to undercut everybody.

Mk is a disgrace to aviation. How the CAA/JAA allows this band of idiots to fly in UK/JAA airspace is beyond me.

CR2, no crash is good, however perhaps in this case some good may come of it, and the desk bound wasters at the CAA may finally have to pull their collective thumbs out of their collective fundaments and ban this shower.

All they have to do is count how many "deadheading" crew get on or off the 747 freighter when it lands in UK...........:E

Hi raitfaiter. Ok I'll bite (yes I do know who & what MK are).
I always understood that CAA had their hands tied since MK are on 9G's register.
JAA does not have the authority to jump on anybody, since they're an agreement of standards as opposed to a (my words) "European Aviation Authority".

As for "banning a shower"....AFX?

And no I'm not MK or anything to do with them.

There may be another side to all this.

It is quiet convenient for the UK MOD, or other organisations, to use "reliable" cargo carriers such as MK to fly their "dirty" cargo, when necessary.

Can you amagine, BA or Virgin crews for eg. flying some of the loads that I know for a fact have left the UK to some very intesting places.

Like it or not, they may not be JAR OPS but they get the job done and with a lot less fuss and BS.:ok:

Loads
 

Irrespective certain 'dirty goods' can be flown by cargo or passenger aircraft providing an exemption is provided by the 'Secretary of State'.

i assume airlines like MK and also DAS AIR et all, operate to the U.K due to the lack of any suitable UK based operator. The many attempts at starting a dedicated Freight operation have always hinged on TRAD markets will little or no initiative on exploring the world, plus the investment angle etc.sadly the likes of TMAC,TRADEWINDS and IAS failed to move with the times,requip at the right time and look further than the last months income

MK in my opinion have a sound operation,FTL may not match the JARS,the equipment seems satisfactory,the front end people professional ( or at least those i have dealt with)

remains to be seen whether the uk wants to take freight seriously

acmi48

I think you hit the nail on the head.

MK seem to perform when others cannot.
They certainly moved freight to Kuwait when others could not!
Always hear good things from their people also!

Old Cessna...it's not COULD not it's WOULD not.... Perhaps a little more research on the subject might help.....

CR2:
The CAA has every right to board and inspect the condition of an aircraft, its technical status and log books, maintenance records, crew licences and experience etc. etc. and in fact impound the aircraft if it is found wanting, this has happened all over the world under various authorities.......lack of political will here perhaps?

Perhaps if the CAA spent less time fannying around worrying about mobile phones and more time worrying about real safety issues there would be more action. The incident report from Lyneham will make interesting reading.....maybe:suspect:

This has nothing to do with their aircraft being on the Ghanian register thus exempting them from complying with JAR regulations.

As pointed out above, the CAA, at any time can board any aircraft of they choose and go through everything. Crew licenses, the tech log, manuals, visually inspect the aircraft etc. I can guarantee that if MK few into Germany for instance, the authorities there would be on board as soon as they were on blocks.
It is a question of fairness, where companies like Cargolion (now defunct), Cygnus and Aer Turas of Ireland have to comply with rigorous requirements thus adding serious amounts to their cost base, MK and the like DON’T. So there is not a level playing field. How many accidents have MK had since their inception? Their pilots regularly do ridiculous duty times with very short rest. This is not safe and fatigue had got to be a serious factor.

By all means let carriers like MK and Intavia continue, but only when they have complied with regulations the same as other European carriers. If they don’t comply they should not be allowed into EU airspace. It makes a mockery of the system that MK are allowed to base themselves in the UK and fly in and out as they choose with not a word said by anyone.

What’s the point in gong to all the trouble and expense in complying with JAR-OPS?

Folks, of course CAA can jump on anybody's aircraft and inspect etc. My point is that any CAA has to report to another CAA (ie UK CAA would not contact my airline, but my govt, telling my govt that my airline needs etc etc) ... So are you seriously telling me that UK CAA is going to get involved wasting their time in DGAC???? doubt it. Like Liberian registered ships....
On the other hand, I will agree that these guys seem to have a seriously easy time in the UK. A Zimbabwean company, flying Ghanaian registered aircraft, crew licences from ? flying out of the EU....
All that aside, have been told by a licensed mechanic who does NOT work for them or have anything to do with them, that their 74s are in pretty good shape. Not being a mechanic myself, I'll have to take his word for it.

Edit for OneWord22: If you're not a JAR operator, do you have to comply with JAR-OPS? Question, not a statement. FAA allow longer duty times that we have. If an FAA outfit would use our callsign (JAR compliant) they'd have to respect JARS. If an FAA outfit uses a US callsign, FARS would have to be respected. Correct me if I'm wrong....
ACMI48....you'd know.

One world22 "Hear! Hear!"

Thats the point exactly. How are new BRITISH registered companies expected to get a fair start in life when you have MK and the likes taking up all the UK contracts under a Ghanaian registered frame??

Surely a call to the Trade and Industry Dept. should aid smaller companies under Fair Trading rules?
If the UK is so stringent with UK freight haulers then the same should apply to ANY aircraft coming into our Airspace. God forbid, if one of these other companies were to crash, what could be said to the CAA then? I told you so..... it would undermine their whole existance in the first place!

ref acmi: jar modules are available each with specific requirments
..for instance european jar operator wet leases a non european jar operator. the module is designed that the 'lessee' performs an audit,submits the documentation ,insurances.certificates etc of the lessor to the goverment or aviation body of the lessee including a copy of the contract between the 2 parties the govt or CAA then approve the lease based on the legality of the lessors approvals and that the lessee will ensure that the lessor complies with the limitations of the JAR,the only sticking point was the issue of the FTL,and this was also the issue with US operators who may stipulate that they would comply with the JAR's providing they did not infringe on their own FAR's.

so i recommend if you make a wet lease contract,ensure your block hour rate includes crew positioning/de positioning and hotac/surface transport ,therefore you can passively conduct compliance and the lessor is responable for any addit cost of supplementing the crew slips and rest periods to comply with your authorities regulations with out passing on the costs to you the lessee

.