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

.

OneWorld22, let me just name a few operators who are NOT JAR-compliant :

Delta
American Airlines
Singapore Airlines
Cathay Pacific
Emirates
JAL
Aeroflot
South African Airways
Air Canada
Varig
LanChile
Qantas

is that enough? call CAA and ask to stop them all.

Cargo One:

So you see an equivalence between the regulatory bodies of the airlines you quote, and that of Ghana? Duh!

I'll have a pint of what he's drinking..........:=

Minimum standards for airline operations are set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Annex 6 to the Chicago Convention. It is the responsibility of individual contracting states to implement those standards for airlines which have their principal place of business within their territory (the registration of the aircraft is irrelevant). JAR-OPS in the JAA's harmonised requirement for commercial air transportation and implements Annex 6. There is absolutely no requirement for non JAA airlines to apply with JAR-OPS.

Although MK appears to base some aircraft in the UK and have some offices here I understand that it also has offices in Ghana and conducts a significant proportion of it to/from Ghana. In issuing MK with an AOC the Ghana CAA are obviously satisfied that MK has its principal place of business in Ghana. In issuing a permit for MK to conduct services to/from the UK the Department for Transport must also be satisfied that MK has its principal place of business in Ghana.

My understanding is that the CAA inspect foreign airlines at the request of DfT and it is DfT that follow up any finding. In my experience they follow these up with both the airline and the relevant national aviation authority. I do not doubt that MK have been inspected.

I am not sure what "dirty goods" have been referred to but exemptions for dangerous goods are issued by the CAA not the Secretary of State.

CargoOne,

If you can prove to me that Delta/AA/QF etc have their pilots doing 20 hour duty times and getting 6 hours rest before going off again, or if their pilots have ever had to sleep on pallets in somewhere like Port Harcourt, or if their maintenance is to the same standard as MK's, then I will fully agree they should be banned from enetering EU airspace.

This is not just about JAR-OPS, but about standards that carriers in Europe have to adhere to and others do not.

It's all about fairness.

the very grey area of a states competency as a member of icao and upholding the minimum requirments of the standard are the responsability of the governing states and not the operators.

The uk caa therefore as a government approved body would conduct an audit on the airline to ensure its competency to operate,the JAR and the FAR are a standard which countries have implemented to further improve the basic criteria set out by ICAO .

The only unfair advantage that an operator not so heavily restricted may enjoy is on the field of maintenance and operating procedures(eg:ftl) so they would only be comprimising safety for cost rather than lack of knowledge

the responsable as stated are the countries that allow the operators to perform 5th freedom flights under their current aviation policy.

if a non uk airline operates services other than scheduled flights from the uk then they are obliged to request a no objection from the uk operators for commerical purposes

However the approving authority will require proof of aircraft
registery,competence of airline to operate and proof of adequate insurance coverage to comply with that states min requirment

meet all those requirment and theirs no reason why you should not operate regardless of registration

the open attitude of european countries and to a certain extent the americas has made it easier for other operators to take over key markets-so its a government issue at heart- complain to your mp or better still brussels- meanwhile ill register my brand new 747 QLRF under a Zanzibar AOC

There seems to be a deafening silence from the MK crews, probably too knackered to switch on the computer.

Perhaps if someone could stir themselves to reply to this comprehensive hosing, they could give us a run down of the Ghanaian CAA surveyors and their qualifications. (Being hastily written now I expect).:p

Interestingly enough, if you go to www.gcaa.gh/ which is the Ghanaian CAA website, MK does not appear as an airline serving Ghana at all, either scheduled or chartered. :confused:

Audits & Inspections
 

I have performed a number of Safety and Security Audits to JAA standards granted the last was about 4.5 years ago and ACCRA failed to comply with the greater majority of the basic requirements.

I have to pose the question that if they are unable to police the ground operation then they might have some difficulty policing the airline/ aircraft requirements.

I am still in touch with several locals and they lead me to believe that nothing has changed.

AS far as crew licences go: I chat to crews virtually every day, albeit on the radio, but they make a good impression. Far better in fact than most who buzz around the European skies.

:confused:
The JAA is not responsible for establishing security requirements or aerodrome standards. Even if it did they would not apply to Accra. It would be interesting to know exactly what these audits covered and what responsibility the GCAA had in the matter.

Cathar,

You may have missed HZ123's point.
As a JAR (or FAA operator)you are required to audit outside facilities from both technical and operational aspect. The point is not to convert the foreign Authority but to comply with your own rules.
If for example you decided to operate to Accra and they did not meet your requirements you would either have to get the foreign Authority to meet your requirements, OR get some exemption from your Authority, OR meet the requirements yourself. This is why you will see airlines providing their own security people at foreign airports for example in order to meet their requirements.
:cool:

Budget
 

Comments are well recieved and to clarify my point.

Previously someone stated that JAA requirements were applied to '9G' airlines. To which a response came that MK could not be found as a registered company in Ghana anyway, which must place a question mark over the JAA/ State compliance.

With a very small budget, limited experience and the vast numbers of other issues, African state registrations may be little better than the large numbers of ships that operate under flags of convience.

I would not dispute that the State of Ghana has compliance and conformance requirements in place and I know they are in the main to ICAO / IATA levels. My concern which seemed to be reflected in earlier threads was to what level do the operators comply and police these requirements and /or are they left entirely to apply their own compliance and conformance.

Surely I am not wrong to reach the conclusion that it is far easier to operate on '9G' than 'G'.

As 'ZRH' said he finds the crew he speaks to better than many European.

..as a matter of interest does any body have an experience of leasing or subchartering non jar or far operators
i recall my own personal case from a couple of years getting a eeu govt to ratify a lease with swiss.. reason..some difficulties with the eu vs non eu procedures

ref non listing of airlines on the GCAA web page,this seems to be a commerical document advertising ACC and others ..as a lot of the uk and european and american freight charter operators who have scheduled rights are also not mentioned on the list of airlines

meanwhile off to watch that sport of kings.. football. will be at a loss for next 3 months on weekend afternoon's.. time to get the clubs out

3C-GIG
 

Many of the threads perhaps reflect the concern that certain state registrations are of some safety concern within the industry.

3C-GIG better known to many as B707 KODA AIR at SEN has had its registration changed this week to 9L-LOU placing it on the Sierra Leon legend.

I cannot imagine that this operation has involved anything more than a few faxes or E-mails. For those of you familiar with its history and the subsequent court case a number of our colleagues described the a/c as unfit to fly and that it posed a danger whlist it operated in UK or anyone elses air space.

That said it is being worked on now by an individual by I doubt it will be hangared and there is only so much you can do outside.

Interesting to note here is that people have assumed that the JAR OPs approach is the bee all and end all of aviation. Holding a Ghanian licence and having flown under GCAA rules and regulations (which in my view are a mixture of UK and FAA requirements) have never experience a degradation in professional attitude. :O

But also holding a JAA licence can comment on the fact if you want to break rules be it duty time or maintenance log entries, does not matter what authority regulates you, that can be easily done. Have seen that done both in emerged and emerging nations. :{

One other comment I would make is that maybe the cost of bringing a company in line with JAR requirements makes them go the cheaper route. For those in Europe just look at the cost of making an amendment to your licence sure you will understand. :ok:

There will be one very good reason for changing the state of registration of the Koda 707 - since aircraft registered in Equatorial Guinea (3C-) are no longer permitted to fly in UK airspace, it would need to change it's tail # or be scrapped. She's worth next to nothing as scrap, but a few revenue flights could well generate enough revenue to pay for the purchase of the airframe.

If the rules let you do it, then people will do it!

Engineer,

As a LAE with several jurisidictions I agree that if someone wants to bend (or break) the rules it can be done under any authorities rules.
It all depends on the ethics of the people involved in all levels of the company from owners down.

The difference is that under a serious jurisdiction it has much more chance of being discovered and the licence is generaly considered more valuable.

It is the ease with which these non serious jurisdictions can be circumvented that is the attraction.

The other point of costs is also very valid. I have just paid £201 for a clerk just just put a date stamp in a UK licence and £100,000 fee for an Export C of A so you can see the point !

:bored:

I sense an extreme case of sour grapes from many of the above.
MK is growing and you can stand it that you probably arent.

Ghanaian registration
 

You will find that the MK DC-8s are also registered on the Icelandic registry - same planes. No, they don't fly to or through Ghana. The main reason for the survial of MK is that it is supported by Panalpina, as MK himself has a close co-operative arrangement with .leave the names out the managing director. The 'exotic cargos' sometimes include 'exotic passengers' on flights to Southern Africa. Alas, you will find MK with us for a while yet

My 2 p worth. MK did have one or two DC8´s on an Icelandic Registery but only for a period of a few months in the late 1990´s if memeory serves me right.

The AOC was then sold of and became MD Airlines operating MD80´s from Sweden amongst other things.

MK however has had considerable dealings in Iceland including a weekly service for Icelandair a few years back so perhaps they will be back that way. Who knows.

Registrations
 

How can these aging 'Queens of the Sky' be on two different registers. I like many of you do not see the JAA-OPS as the be all and all, in fact I see at times with about as much status as BSIA standards, the majority of which are form filing / completed in house and are no more than another badge to wear.

Nopax; The fact that someone can change the registration on an a/c that at the recent trial was described without challenge as dangerous gives me little comfort. More so as the a/c is rumoured to depart soon without having been in a Hangar for a serious service for many years. The sooner it clears UK airspace maybe the better.