And don't badmouth Barossa Shiraz!!
At least I didn't badmouth you Pinky.
Re Duck Pilot's comments that
AOC holders aren’t responsible for a lot of things the PIC does in a Part 135 operation, and his suggestion that some of the commentators here comprehend the new Part 135 regulations.
Maybe, but as Compressor Stall has correctly identified, many of the requirements in Part 135 specifically apply to a person as well as the AOC holder. So if that person is the PIC, then he/she commits an offence if he/she contravenes any relevant requirement referred to in a subregulation.
Also, many of the requirements specifically apply to both the operator AND the pilot in command. And many of the sub regulations also include a ‘catch all’ that a person commits an offence if a person contravenes the subregulation.
Don’t forget either DP that many of the standards in the 135 MOS (which is a legislative instrument) apply to both the operator and the PIC. Where they only apply to the PIC is usually related to inflight circumstances.
But good luck to any operator that thinks it can avoid ‘scrutiny’ from any requirement that is directed at the pilot in command if non-compliance with the requirement, intentional or otherwise, results in an accident.
The Civil Aviation Act 28BEDuty to exercise care and diligence would probably make that very unlikely. Especially if some clown decides that MTOW is 'advisory' rather than a CofA limitation.
At least, that's my take on it.