Is this legal without AOC? [Archive]

READY MESSAGE

2nd Apr 2008, 11:36

PPRuNeUser0215

2nd Apr 2008, 11:36

So a CPL has no more privileges on this than a PPL?

If you have 700 hours and an AOC, yes you do. You can also do airwork etc which a PPL can't do (for money).

You have to understand what an AOC is (no offense). It means that not everyone can do whatever they like. Aircraft maintenance, Crew qualifications, training and currency, Financial garantees etc..... all form part of a granted AOC.
The pilot is one part and his licence is no more than the right to work. A bit like a passport without a working visa (the AOC).

The two in the UK doing this had the CAA on their back and one was caught because he didn't raise the 2 invoices. One carried newspapers the other carried eels i think!

I used to work for the one carrying eels... The cargo was company cargo and no PAX other than company employees. I m surprised there was anything illegal in this but it is also perhaps to do with the fact that they used a Cessna Caravan and have been trying to get an AOC for single engine public transport. A no, no with the UK CAA.

what next

2nd Apr 2008, 11:46

Hello!

> This would be flying Foxtrot plane around Med - but surely the rules
> are the same for all JAR countries?

I wouldn't be so sure about that...

In our country (eastern neighbor to your F-registration domain) local aviation authorities can issue a permit for "non-commercial (*) flights against revenue" that legally permits you to conduct the type of operation that you have in mind.

There are a lot of requirements to fulfill in order to get this permit (many of them the same as for an AOC) and it is ususally limited to a certain number of flights per year, but especially for light twin operations it is a very cost-effective alternative to a full AOC under JAR-OPS!

Greetings, Max

(*) In this context "non-commercial" mainly means that you are not allowed to make any publicity for your flights nor to offer them through travel agancies or brokers.

READY MESSAGE

2nd Apr 2008, 11:49

The rules may have changed, but I doubt it.

I think the eels problem was that the company weren't 'buying' the eels before carrying them. The guy carrying newspapers was paying for them and then selling them on at the destination.

But, you can carry passengers as long as you stick to the 2 invoices and 2 cheques (one for the pilot and one for aircraft hire)

It must be some time ago now though!!

sispanys ria

2nd Apr 2008, 12:02

I understand you speak about UK (even if not mentioning it), and I'm not competent about your national regulations, but i doubt this would be different.

To me, a private owner has the right to hire a pilot for his bizjet without AOC.
If the guy is just leasing his aircraft it's exactly same, as long as he is not making money (commercial flights) out of the aircraft he is owning/leasing.

What part is wrong for you ready message ?

READY MESSAGE

2nd Apr 2008, 12:08

if you own the aircraft and employ the services of a pilot it is no problem.

richatom

2nd Apr 2008, 12:56

What I have done up to now is hire the aircraft, then send an invoice to the clients for the aircraft and fuel, and another invoice for my own time. I don't actually put on the invoice that I am charging as a professional pilot - I charge for other services rendered (eg I am qualified yacht surveyor, and the clients are all yacht brokers or yacht owners etc). It seems that this is just legal?

Incidentally, the operator that I hire from does actually hold an AOC and they do their own taxi flights. But I don't suppose that changes my own situation.

sispanys ria

2nd Apr 2008, 13:06

What you do is not legal since you are hiring the aircraft, and not the client.
A private client can lease an aircraft (which is very similar to hiring) and then choose some operator to fly it for his private use. You don't need to absolutely be the legal owner of the aircraft.

Expressflight

2nd Apr 2008, 14:56

If you are hiring the aircraft from its owner/operator and you are billing your 'customers' for both the aircraft and your 'services', and it can be proven that those services actually relate to you exercising the privileges of your licence, then you are liable to find yourself in Court.
The fact that you issue two invoices makes no difference, whatever lie you put on the second invoice to try to cover your tracks.
Not a very good basis on which to build a career in aviation is it really, but no doubt you will leave that part off your CV won't you?

Lost man standing

2nd Apr 2008, 15:11

It has been tried before, hiring separately from the aircraft, as has been said here. However local AOC operators will be watching you carefully, and the CAA will almost certainly be asked to investigate by them. You certainly shouldn't arrange the aircraft hire yourself, neither should the aircraft owner arrange your services, then it might be hard to pin anything on you. If anything goes wrong you are going to get looked at very closely. If you are not operating to AOC standards then you are going to get a hammering in court.

It's a nightmare, and really not worth the stress or the risk to your licence.

The 700 hours AMEX mentions will apply if you are flying any twin other than a light piston. If it's a Kingair or similar, even if you have a type rating you will need those hours to fly it single-crew and get paid.

If you want to know exactly what rules apply, then read the ANO and JAR-OPS, documents sadly neglected in pilot training that suddenly become far more important than ICAO rules you do learn once you exercise the privileges of your shiny new CPL. Daft, in't it? JAR-OPS also has the benefit of helping you sleep with all the stress of trying to get some flying work. It is truly dull. It is also about to give way to EU-OPS, but they're not out yet and no real differences for you.

IO540

2nd Apr 2008, 15:21

There is a loophole though and I think there are a couple of operators in the UK doing this....

As long as you have a CPL, you do not own the aircraft and the passengers pay for the hire of the aircraft and your services separately (ie 2 invoices and 2 cheques must be raised) you do not require an AOC.

The two in the UK doing this had the CAA on their back and one was caught because he didn't raise the 2 invoices. One carried newspapers the other carried eels i think!

The loophole is there (cos the CAA told me!!)

Why the 2 cheques?

Surely anybody who has (owns or leases) a plane can employ a CPL to be his personal pilot.

This is how nearly all corporate aviation works. Most corporate ops don't have an AOC.

One grey area is where some of the people carried aren't related to the business...

If you want to carry cargo, you must own the cargo (ie buy it as it's loaded and sell it as it is unloaded at the destination)

Surely it is OK to fly on one's own business. You can do that on a PPL. No CPL is needed. And you can carry items as appropriate to your own business. Obviously you cannot do a delivery service for somebody else's business.

The indications are that the people who get caught for breaches of the AOC requirements are caught because the client went to other companies beforehand, asking for quotes, and when these other companies (AOC holders perhaps) didn't get the work, they went sniffing around to see who did, and reported the person to the CAA.

However, the lists of CAA's successful prosecutions are on their website, and they don't feature very much of this stuff - despite all the folklore.

SkyCamMK

2nd Apr 2008, 15:24

Biggest risk may be invalidating the insurance. I do agree however that it is a nonsense that you can fly the same aircraft with the same people to the same place through the same airspace on the same day and be legal or illegal depending an entry on a piece of paper. I applied for and got an AOC A to A some years ago but the burden to get an A to B is prohibitive unless you can buy an approved one and basically copy it which is what some have done in the past but; you still need premises, staff and lots of bureaucracy based admin before you can make it work. CAA can be very helpful at times and at others very very myopic IMHO. It all depends on who you are, how much you have and how you go about networking. It can just be done but not many think that is worth the hassle for usually low returns. Passengers can be very swift at passing the book to the pilot (who should know better) when something goes wrong. It may help to have a funny handshake but I couldn't possibly comment!

PPRuNeUser0215

2nd Apr 2008, 15:25

I think the eels problem was that the company weren't 'buying' the eels before carrying them.

It is very unlikely that the eels weren't paid for. This business relies on buying it from the fisherman directly and in cash (industry standard). The fishermen would certainly not have dealt with the buyer on the promise of getting paid later. For I have seen it, this is simply not done. I don't doubt you READY MESSAGE as there is obviously something to this story but I am not sure it is that simple.
Still, I have left a while ago and I was being curious more than anything else so thanks for the info. I remember the UK Caravan dealer asssuring the boss that SET (Single engine Turbine) Public Transport in the UK was only months away from being approved :D :D :D Think it was in 96 when they first bought the aircraft (not with me)...

Sorry for the hijack and thanks again READY MESSAGE.

Now back to the thread...
then read the ANO and JAR-OPS, documents sadly neglected in pilot training that suddenly become far more important than ICAO rules you do learn once you exercise the privileges of your shiny new CPL.
How so very true.

Bravo73

2nd Apr 2008, 15:29

richatom,

You started off by telling us that:

I have CPL/IR. I often get asked by friends and acquaintances to do air-taxi work on light twins

Then you give us a few more details. Specifically about:

What I have done up to now is hire the aircraft, then send an invoice to the clients for the aircraft and fuel, and another invoice for my own time. I don't actually put on the invoice that I am charging as a professional pilot - I charge for other services rendered (eg I am qualified yacht surveyor, and the clients are all yacht brokers or yacht owners etc). It seems that this is just legal?

The two don't really tally, I'm afraid. Are you sure that you're telling us the whole story? :suspect:

richatom

2nd Apr 2008, 17:13

Just semantics - I work in the yachting industry in the Mediterranean -people I know in the yachting community here can be friends/acquaintances/clients depending on my relationship with them. Nothing sinister!

Bravo73

2nd Apr 2008, 17:32

Then it sounds like you've been conducting illegal PT.

blablablafly

2nd Apr 2008, 18:35

I have CPL/IR. I thought this was covered in airlaw in the old days :)

richatom

2nd Apr 2008, 18:45

Then it sounds like you've been conducting illegal PT.

Depends who you listen to - read the thread. Seems that if the passengers hire the plane, and hire me, then it is legal. This is what I have done on some occasions when I didn't know the pax well enough to be sure that they would reimburse me if I hired the plane myself. On other occasions, where I knew the pax well, I just hired the plane myself and got reimbursed later. I realise now that by the letter of the law I shouldn't have been doing the latter, though in practical sense it makes no difference to operational safety.

Incidentally, this distinction is not covered in my air law books and I am yet to find this explained anywhere in any legal text.

what next

2nd Apr 2008, 19:12

Hello!

> I realise now that by the letter of the law I shouldn't have been doing the
> latter, though in practical sense it makes no difference to operational safety.

But it makes a difference in two very important ways:

1.) If you happen to get ramp-checked (I'm told this is quite common in France...) and the passengers are interviewed by the inspectors about the conditions of their flight booking (has happended to me on corporate flights in France, Germany and the UK!), you will face a very, very, very substatial fine. I personally know of one case here in Germany where a poor guy was fined in excess of 50.000 Euros for illegal public transport (cargo in his case).

2.) But the most important issue is responsability and liability. When you hire yourself together with the aeroplane, you are the "air carrier" (the German legal term is "Luftfrachtführer" in case that helps) and therefore resposable for everything that happens during the flight. In the most harmless of cases, weather forces you to divert and your passengers have to stay a night longer and hire a car to get to their original destination. The extra cost for all this is on you, of course. In case something serious happens (e.g. one of your passengers slips off the wing when leaving the aeroplane and hits his head on the tarmac) again the resposability and all the ensuing costs and legal consequences are on you alone.
On the other side, if your customers hire the plane from the owner and charge you independently to fly them, they are the "air carriers" and they alone are resposable for everything that happens (unless you behave in negligent manner) - diversion? Not your problem! Bleeding noses? Not your problem...

Greetings, Max

SkyCamMK

2nd Apr 2008, 19:37

You should read this, CAA used to send me one regularly as Trustee of a group aircraft.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summary_of_public_transport.pd

Expressflight

2nd Apr 2008, 19:40

"...... if the passengers hire the plane, and hire me, then it is legal."

I very much doubt it. I think you will find that a simple one-day hire of the aircraft would not satisfy the requirement that the aircraft is owned or operated by your clients, unless the aircraft had been hired to replace an unserviceable aircraft owned or leased by them for example.

If such a simple measure enabled someone to operate legally in the way you describe, it would knock a hole in the very legislation which is in place to prevent such unregulated activities.

Perhaps someone with a deeper knowledge of the current legislation can confirm if this is the case or not.

richatom

2nd Apr 2008, 19:58

Maybe it would be helpful to give a concrete example of some of my flights last year:

1. I hired a plane to fly myself and a colleague from Cannes to Corsica to meet some clients. Cost of the aircraft hire paid for by my company - just as if I had hired a car. Legal or illegal?

2. Some clients were visiting south of France to view some yachts. I hired a prestigious car (mine too ratty) to drive them up and down the coast looking at yachts - my company billed cost of the car to the clients (perfectly legal). Clients also wanted to view some yachts in Mallorca - so I hired a plane and flew them from Cannes to Palma for the day. My company then billed them the cost of the plane (just like the car). Legal or illegal?

3. A yacht that I manage broke down on charter in Sardinia. Captain rang me and asked me to get his electrician down to the yacht to get it fixed so as not to lose charter. I hired a plane, flew the electrician down to Olbia, and billed the cost of the plane to the yacht. Legal or illegal?

4. Another racing yacht I manage was en route to a regatta in Italy, but was stranded in Cagliari with their foresail shredded after a rough crossing from Mallorca. The spare sail was in storage in Cannes. So I hired a plane and flew the sail down to Cagliari so they could continue - then billed the cost of the plane to the yacht. Legal or illegal?

5. On another charter yacht that I managed at the time, the day before a charter in Sardinia, one of the stewardesses fell out with her boyfriend (the yacht's engineer) and stormed off the yacht. The yacht contractually had to have a stewardess for the charter, and the only suitable replacement was in south of France. So I hired a plane and flew the stewie to Olbia, and billed the cost of the plane to the yacht. Legal or illegal?

In all of the above cases I was using the plane as a tool to carry out my profession, and I was not offering public transport. Surely this is not illegal without an AOC?

SkyCamMK

2nd Apr 2008, 20:08

Sorry mate but your profession is not air transport pilot and that is what you were doing. You may only do aerial work on a CPL(A). It is quite clear that you were being an air taxi without an operator's certificate and carrying out illegal public transport flights. It may be wiser not to give examples. Court cases can be brought when evidence is available!! I trust the examples are hypothetical.

Perhaps if only aircraft cost was recovered and zero remuneration earned it could be argued to be a private flight but how was your time paid for? It has always been diffucult for pilots but for CAA it is often very clear to them!

richatom

2nd Apr 2008, 20:41

In those examples I wasn't being paid for my time as a pilot as I was just doing my job as a yacht broker.

And are you sure they are ALL illegal? Even No1 - ie I am not even allowed to fly myself and a work colleague on work business?? That is plain ridiculous..

If these regulations are just there as barriers to free competition and to protect air transport pilots then they could probably get turned over under EU law!

Flintstone

2nd Apr 2008, 21:07

Cathar

2nd Apr 2008, 21:26

Richatom

I think that you need to look at EC Council Regulation 2407/92. This states that "no undertaking established in the Community shall be permitted within the territory of the Community to carry by air passengers, mail and/or cargo for remuneration and/or hire unless the undertaking has been granted the appropriate operating licence." In addition it states that "The granting and validity at any time of an operating licence shall be dependent upon the possession of a valid AOC". For avoidance of doubt the definition of 'undertaking' includes individuals as well as companies etc.

It seems to me that examples 2 to 5 in your list involve the carriage of passengers or cargo for renumeration (you charge your customers for the service). You therefore need both an operating licence and an AOC.

Lost man standing

3rd Apr 2008, 00:43

Some of those examples could actually be legal, depending how you billed them. If, for example, the electrician was your employee, you are managing the yacht (you are not simply hiring out electrical services to any old yacht), and you billed for his services (at a high rate, due to the exceptional demand in terms of urgency) then that is possibly not public-transport. That is equivalent to the airlines who own a light twin which is not on the AOC, but that they use to carry an engineer to repair an aircraft. Likewise the torn sail, if you own the replacement sail and then charge for the sail then this is equivalent to that airline taking an AOG spare on its light aircraft.

A problem might come in you not owning the yachts. However many airlines do not own their own aircraft (I suspect few do, they are in a separate holding company so if the airline has serious financial problems the aircraft are not forfeit), so I think the analogy stands.

Anyone else know if that is true?

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 06:21

My understanding from talking to various people, including the operator from whom I hire the aircraft, is that all the examples are legal as I am hiring the aircraft simply as a means to carry out my business in the yachting industry. I am not in any of the examples carrying fee paying passengers, or carrying manifested cargo for a third party for profit.

However, this does seem to be a very grey area judging by the differing views on this forum.

There is clearly a need for the existing regulation of air-carriers, but the regulation should not impede persons such as myself who are just using an aircraft as a business tool, in the same way that I use a car or computer as a business tool. I can't imagine that the regulations were put in place to prevent people like myself from using an aircraft as a means to make my business more efficient.

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 06:48

How on Earth could they be overturned? The rules are there to say that you need a set level of qualification to fly for hire or reward. Following your train of thought I could sue any yacht owner who told me I can't be a captain of his boat because I don't know rowlocks from davits.

I do have CPL. But in any case I am not flying for hire or reward as a professional pilot in any of the examples I gave. I am flying privately to carry out my business. If what I am doing is entirely illegal, it is the equivalent of insisting that a businessman is forbidden to hire a car and drive it himself to do his job, carry tools, spares or passengers etc, and must only use professional drivers in licenced taxis. I am sure taxi-drivers would love such a rule, but it would be overturned pretty quickly by any EU court as a protectionist practice.

Incidentally, just out of interest, you don't need any qualifications at all to be captain on a private yacht depending on the flag (I have a friend who is captain on a 42m motor yacht who has no qualifications at all - good captain though). A captain only needs qualifications if on a commercial yacht carrying charter passengers. Another almost equally complicated subject though with as many grey areas.

Some seriously flawed thinking there richatom. If I were you I'd stop flying these people around at their expense before you get caught. If you need another reason look here http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=320419 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=320419)

Thanks - it was reading that thread that got me thinking about it! But I still can't see how ALL of the examples I gave were illegal. Am I not even entitled to fly MYSELF on business, charging the hire of the aircraft to my company? And if I take a few tools and spare parts with me, does that suddenly make it illegal? And if a colleague comes with me, that is illegal? All I am trying to establish is where the line is. The existing regulations are not clear.

Expressflight

3rd Apr 2008, 06:59

Richatom

This forum is obviously not giving you the answers that you want to hear, so why not simply contact the regulatory authority in the country where you are carrying out these activities?

They will soon tell you if they consider it a grey area or not and you will know exactly where you stand.

LH2

3rd Apr 2008, 07:26

Richatom, out of interest, are you by any chance a British citizen? (nothing to do with the discussion above, btw -- you may also get better, or at least different, answers to that in the Private Flying section)

sispanys ria

3rd Apr 2008, 08:16

Sorry mate but your profession is not air transport pilot and that is what you were doing. You may only do aerial work on a CPL(A).So what does the C in CPL stands for ???

You are not allowed to take your personal car and provide taxi services without a taxi license. But if an individual rents a car and then SEPARATELY hires you to drive him for private travels, you are not doing anything commercial, and it is perfectly legal. If you fly from Cannes, I doubt CAA has anything to do with it...

DFC

3rd Apr 2008, 09:04

www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/summary_of_public_transport.pdf (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1428/summary_of_public_transport.pdf)

The above is a good explanation of what makes a flight public transport and what does not.

Recomended reading.

As is the following;

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1196/20071015IllegalPublicTransportPRCampaign.pdf

Regards,

DFC

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 09:30

Thank you - very useful.

Bravo73

3rd Apr 2008, 10:22

Depends who you listen to - read the thread.

I have been reading it, thanks. And from the further details that you've given us, please let me re-phrase it:

"Then you've definitely been conducting illegal PT."

Look at it from another angle - if you and your hired aircraft weren't available and yet the buyers still wanted to take the flights, what options would they have? Exactly. They would charter an aircraft and pilot from an AOC operator. Which is, in essence, what you have been doing.

Certain areas of the legislation are indeed 'grey'. But what you've been doing is one of the 'black and white' areas. :mad:

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 11:04

They would charter an aircraft and pilot from an AOC operator.

No, they would not fly at all because without the yacht related business that I generate there would be no need for the travel. My company certainly would not pay for a "professional pilot" who has no productive use outside of the cockpit.

You may be right that it is illegal (I am making further enquiries) but if it is, it is not a good regulation. The regulation is the equivalent of forcing every businessman to travel only in licenced taxis and preventing them from driving themselves on business. Business would clearly suffer for no advantage and that is not good for anybody.

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 11:31

An update on my last post having finally managed to speak to a very helpful chap in the DGAC in Paris.

What he told me is that it is illegal without an AOC to offer air transport services (ie an aircraft and pilot as one service). However, it is legal for third parties to hire an aeroplane without a pilot, and then hire a pilot separately to fly the plane (as long as he is qualifed to fly the plane).

Thus the flights that I have undertaken in the past were legal as the hire of the aircraft was invoiced directly to either my company, or the yacht in question. I did not actually invoice for my time as a professional pilot, though I could choose to raise a second invoice if I wished.

So voilà, in France at least it is legal.

Flingingwings

3rd Apr 2008, 11:32

You're talking about two completely different sets of circumstances.

1) Your employer asks you to fly yourself to a meeting. Your employer pays for all the aircraft hire costs. But you recieve NO additional money for your piloting (and or professional services etc etc). That's legal :ok: See the link to the CAA document. You can even carry your colleagues - so long as they are offered an alternative method of transport (IE they don't travel with you under duress), and it doesn't cost them ANY money.

2) Your main business is not aviation. You hire an aircraft to fly some customers to see a yacht. (You're not doing it for free. The passengers aren't cost sharing). What you're getting the customers to do is pay for the aircraft hire, and then pay for your piloting skills. Doesn't matter how you 'dress' it up, that's what your doing. Bet the potential yacht buyers wouldn't get the trip if the REFUSED to pay for the aircraft hire or for your individual 'yachting services' :{

Your passengers do have a choice. You tell them about a yacht. What stops them from hiring not only the aircraft and a pilot (from the AOC holder you'd be hiring the aircraft from anyway) and then taking you along purely as a yacht sales representative????? The answer is nothing :ugh::ugh:

That you hold a CPL/IR is immaterial. Are you base and line checked? Do you comply with all the other training requirements that charter pilots have to comply with? What about insurance?

I'm amazed the place you hire from lets you. After all, you're only taking business from them.

Your opening post sets the scene when you describe the work as 'Air Taxi'

Sorry but no matter how you twist this the facts won't change :{ And comparing aviation to car driving is a last desperate 'grasp at straws' almost as logical as comparing flying to the moon with eating a curry :(

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 11:51

1) Your employer asks you to fly yourself to a meeting. Your employer pays for all the aircraft hire costs. But you recieve NO additional money for your piloting (and or professional services etc etc). That's legal :ok: See the link to the CAA document. You can even carry your colleagues - so long as they are offered an alternative method of transport (IE they don't travel with you under duress), and it doesn't cost them ANY money.

Thanks for agreeing on that one - some here were arguing that even that was illegal!

2) Your main business is not aviation. You hire an aircraft to fly some customers to see a yacht. (You're not doing it for free. The passengers aren't cost sharing). What you're getting the customers to do is pay for the aircraft hire, and then pay for your piloting skills. Doesn't matter how you 'dress' it up, that's what your doing. Bet the potential yacht buyers wouldn't get the trip if the REFUSED to pay for the aircraft hire or for your individual 'yachting services' :{

Yes, but see my immediately preceding post. In France at least, the passengers can choose to rent a light aircraft without pilot, then they can separately hire a pilot to fly them. If the pilot happens to be me, that is fine (even better for them as I don't actually charge them anything for the flying, and then I can be useful on the ground on arrival at the destination). As long as the aircraft hire is invoiced directly to the client, then this is legal in France at least (and I would be surprised if the UK was more restrictive than France).

Your passengers do have a choice. You tell them about a yacht. What stops them from hiring not only the aircraft and a pilot (from the AOC holder you'd be hiring the aircraft from anyway) and then taking you along purely as a yacht sales representative????? The answer is nothing :ugh::ugh: Except that it costs a lot more, and one seat is taken by somebody who does nothing except fly the plane.

I'm amazed the place you hire from lets you. After all, you're only taking business from them. No, I am bringing them business. The aircraft would sit idly on the tarmac if it was not for my industry.

Your opening post sets the scene when you describe the work as 'Air Taxi' . Admittedly clumsy wording, that is all.

Sorry but no matter how you twist this the facts won't change :{ And comparing aviation to car driving is a last desperate 'grasp at straws' almost as logical as comparing flying to the moon with eating a curry :(

On the contrary, I think it is a very apt comparison. I am not trying to belittle professional pilots, but it is perfectly possible for somebody to fly a plane professionally and safely, but not actually be paid for it and earn their living in another profession.

IO540

3rd Apr 2008, 11:55

An update on my last post having finally managed to speak to a very helpful chap in the DGAC in Paris.

What he told me is that it is illegal without an AOC to offer air transport services (ie an aircraft and pilot as one service). However, it is legal for third parties to hire an aeroplane without a pilot, and then hire a pilot separately to fly the plane (as long as he is qualifed to fly the plane).

The above is quite correct and is the de facto situation with more or less the entire light jet scene around the world (most of which is not owner flown but the owner hires a professional pilot/crew).

sispanys ria

3rd Apr 2008, 12:27

Beside the fact that the topic is about french operations (nothing to do with CAA), I suppose it would be same in UK.

A client can perfectly hire/lease/buy a plane and SEPARATELY hire a pilot to fly him wherever he wants, as long as it's for his PRIVATE USE. What would make the client (and the pilot) conduct illegal OPS, would be to use the aircraft to generate income (that would become COMMERCIAL OPS).

Remember the reference to car-taxi operations. If you provide the car, then it is illegal. If a client hires a car and separately hires a chauffeur, it's absolutely legal as long as he's using as a private car. It's same with a plane...

Bravo73

3rd Apr 2008, 12:42

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 12:42

What would make the client (and the pilot) conduct illegal OPS, would be to use the aircraft to generate income (that would become COMMERCIAL OPS).

Yep, just what the DGAC chap said. The flight itself cannot generate income. But if just carrying spare parts, tools etc that belong to the client, or the client himself, or passengers working for the client, then all is perfectly legal, as long as it is the client who has hired the aircraft.

The only other caveat he mentioned is that the requirement for the flight should be initiated by the client and not by the pilot - thus, for example, it would be illegal for a pilot to promote or advertise such an opportunity, and it would be illegal for the pilot to hire the aircraft as part of the service to the client.

moggiee

3rd Apr 2008, 13:46

Depends who you listen to - read the thread. Seems that if the passengers hire the plane, and hire me, then it is legal. This is what I have done on some occasions when I didn't know the pax well enough to be sure that they would reimburse me if I hired the plane myself. On other occasions, where I knew the pax well, I just hired the plane myself and got reimbursed later. I realise now that by the letter of the law I shouldn't have been doing the latter, though in practical sense it makes no difference to operational safety.

Incidentally, this distinction is not covered in my air law books and I am yet to find this explained anywhere in any legal text.
Have you checked the insurance status of the aeroplane you're hiring?

You may well find that with you using for (probably) illegal "AOC" work then the insurance will probably be invalid, too - potentially leaving you with a huge liability and risk of prosecution if there's an incident.

IO540

3rd Apr 2008, 14:31

A client can perfectly hire/lease/buy a plane and SEPARATELY hire a pilot to fly him wherever he wants, as long as it's for his PRIVATE USE. What would make the client (and the pilot) conduct illegal OPS, would be to use the aircraft to generate income (that would become COMMERCIAL OPS).

The words "private use" above are superfluous and incorrect.

In my business, I can get hold of a plane, and get hold of a pilot to fly it. The pilot needs a CPL. This is legal, even though this is business flying.

The important thing is that the flying has to be incidental to my business (which as it happens is nothing to do with aviation).

The funny thing is that the pilot doesn't even need a CPL (he can be a PPL) if he is my employee, and always has the option to take the train etc. It is only a pilot who is employment-contractually required to fly that needs a CPL. This is how many business owners (with a PPL) fly on their own business, perfectly legally.

The only other caveat he mentioned is that the requirement for the flight should be initiated by the client and not by the pilot - thus, for example, it would be illegal for a pilot to promote or advertise such an opportunity, and it would be illegal for the pilot to hire the aircraft as part of the service to the client.

Yes, this is what under FAA rules is known as "holding out" and one gets closely quizzed on it in the FAA CPL oral. Holding out is out of the question; you need not just a CPL but an AOC and the whole damned lot. This is why, probably in the whole world, a CPL alone is worthless unless one gets a job in a company with an AOC. Except that you can be a paid pilot with it, retained by a company or by a private individual, to fly his plane.

The situation w.r.t. legality varies around the world but is not that complicated. If it was, business flying (especially jets) would be finished, because one is carrying one's own employees, sometimes customers or suppliers, or subcontractors, etc. And the whole business is international anyway. And MONEY is always changing hands.

One can have grey areas caused by who the flight is billed to afterwards. But establishing who a specific flight is billed to could be quite difficult, and obviously if there was an incident then the invoice will not be raised!

An example of a grey area is a G-reg plane, on a Private CofA, owned by a company, and the company owner rents the plane from the company. The act of rental means the plane needs to be maintained to the Transport CofA standard, which multiplies the operating cost through 150hr checks and some component certification issues. But the "rental" is rental only because some adjustment is done in the company accounts (in the Director's loan account) for the private use. The adjustment is done at year-end and if there was an incident then you would obviously not make that adjustment!

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 15:03

By his own admission, richatom has told us that he has hired an aircraft and provided his services as a pilot. (ie illegal PT.) He is just trying to hide behind the '2 invoices' scam.

Yes, I now realise that on some occasions last year when I hired the plane myself, paid for the hire myself, then sent an invoice to the client (at the written request of the client - they wanted it that way), that this was illegal. Hence I have been asking on here to clarify the situation, and I won't be doing it that way again.

However, on the majority of the occasions the aircraft operator sent the invoice directly to the client, and I provided pilot services for free, which we have now established is the correct and legal way to operate, and is what I will be doing in the future.

There is no such thing as a "2 invoices scam". It is not a scam, because it is legal to operate in that way.

Flingingwings

3rd Apr 2008, 15:12

Seems our posts crossed Rich.

Clearly within France what you need to do if you hold an AOC is scrap it. Save the costs! Allow your customers to hire the aircraft and pilot seperately and you're away. :ugh:

The last comment above mine that says 'if there's an incident you wouldn't make the adjustment' highlights the 'dodgy' path you're probably following.

A few questions do spring to mind though.
For the very first yacht viewing trip you ever did. How did the potential purchasers know you had access to another operators aircraft and that you could fly it?????
Were you asked or did you offer?
For subsequent trips are you surprised each time you're asked or do you offer/advertise the aerial viewing service?
How do you decide how much to 'indirectly' charge for your piloting time?

As you provide a freelance piloting service to those that hire an aircraft and then hire you, what liability insurance do you have? Who pays if either the aircraft is damaged or the passengers are injured?

Does the aerial viewing ever clinch the sale? If so, are you not making a profit/income out of that flight:confused: (Hire or reward is different to simply recieving hard cash as payment for the actual flight costs).

It would of course be a different set of circumstances if your employer actually owned the aircraft, and the potential yacht buyers were given the trip for free.

End of the day it's YOUR licence and reputation if things go wrong.

FWIW thats a major fact I'd consider if my long term ambition was a full time flying career. (Apologies if my assumption that you are relatively low hours and trying to get some flying whilst awaiting a 'break' are incorrect.)

Bravo73

3rd Apr 2008, 15:47

There is no such thing as a "2 invoices scam". It is not a scam, because it is legal to operate in that way.

It is a scam because all you are doing is trying to get the paperwork to show that the aircraft hire and the pilot hire were independent. Which they weren't. You, in effect, were offering both services to your clients.

And what was it the man from the DGAC said?

The only other caveat he mentioned is that the requirement for the flight should be initiated by the client and not by the pilot.

So, who's idea were the flights? Your's or your client's? :rolleyes:

If I was you, I would probably be starting to get worried if anybody from the South of France AOC community or the DGAC enforcement department (if such a thing exists) reads these forums. I can't believe that there are that many English CPL/IRs with connections to the yachting industry hiring light twins on an ad-hoc basis in that area. Like FW said, reputation can be everything in this industry.

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 15:54

It is fine - as I said operator is happy for me to use their aircraft, I tell them exactly what I am doing, and DGAC is happy too. It is not a scam - it is perfectly legal so nothing for you to get upset about.

And as I said at the start of the thread, I get asked to fly people, mostly friends and freinds of friends - I don't advertise or initiate anything. So from now on I will just tell callers to hire an aeroplane, and if it is one that I can fly, that I will happily fly them for free and for pleasure. They can have the choice, if they wish, of paying for one of the operator's company pilots. Happy now?

Flingingwings

3rd Apr 2008, 16:08

It is fine - as I said operator is happy for me to use their aircraft and DGAC is happy. It is not a scam - it is perfectly legal so nothing for you to get upset about

Excellent. :cool:

Still a bit confused about whether the potential buyers (and hence the aircraft hirers) are YOUR clients. Or whether you as the hired pilot are simply THIER client????

Perhaps to help further my knowledge you'd spare the time to offer answers to some of the questions posed?

Thanks.

Easy Rich, No need for teddies or soap boxes.
Advice is simply that. You digest it, then either follow or not. After all it was you that asked :E

Lost man standing

3rd Apr 2008, 16:10

richatom

All I can suggest is, as I have said before and Bravo has implied, is that you should not arrange the aircraft hire. Keep as much distance as possible from that side of it, let the customer arrange a price with the owner, and pay directly. You might not get immediate problems but if you are involve in an incident, maybe as small as a passenger falling, then you could end up in court and find you have hefty liability. If the passengers claim you arranged the whole thing, then you could suffer a fine and risk your licence as well. The DGAC might say one thing, but their enforcement branch and a court might disagree - that is where the law is tested!

Remember, it isn't just what is technically legal that matters, but what you can justify to a court.

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 16:14

Yes, I am insured with the operator's insurance. That is first thing I checked!

I don't understand you other question - I have a CPL so I can fly for hire or reward, and I could (if I wished) invoice for my services as a pilot to the passengers. I just choose not to do so, as I enjoy the flying.

All I can suggest is, as I have said before and Bravo has implied, is that you should not arrange the aircraft hire.

Exactly, that is the key point. Incidentally I also learnt today that if somebody wishes to hire an aircraft in this fashion it is considered private hire and they are not restriced by JAR/OPS. So they can, for example hire a SEP, then hire a pilot to fly it.

Flingingwings

3rd Apr 2008, 16:23

The subtle difference of being able to be 'paid to fly' and earning revenue from a flight.

If it was as clear cut as you suggest. Why do operators bother with the not insignificant expense of having an AOC?

Your friends,friends of friends, or clients are NOT aircraft owners. You're not flying them in direct connection to THIER business, you're flying them in direct connection to YOUR business. Clearer?

Flintstone

3rd Apr 2008, 16:30

Flingingwings, Bravo 73 and lost man standing are making a perfectly eloquent case on the legality side so I'll not lower the tone by joining in. I would like to take issue with one comment though.
I have a CPL so I can fly for hire or reward, and I could (if I wished) invoice for my services as a pilot to the passengers. I just choose not to do so, as I enjoy the flying.

It's things like this that p!ss me off. Newly qualified professional pilots have a hard enough time earning a living without this sort of attitude undermining them.

richatom. How would you feel about someone doing your job for nothing?

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 16:35

If it was as clear cut as you suggest. Why do operators bother with the not insignificant expense of having an AOC?

Because they wish to promote and operate an air transport service. I am not proposing to do that.

Your friends,friends of friends, or clients are NOT aircraft owners. You're not flying them in direct connection to THIER business, you're flying them in direct connection to YOUR business. Clearer?

No. As discussed, it is legal for a third party to hire an aircraft and then hire or ask a pilot to fly the aircraft. As long as all parties are properly insured, and the pilot is licenced to fly the plane, then it is fine. The question of the purpose of the flight and what business may be done outside the flight is irrelevant.

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 17:01

richatom. How would you feel about someone doing your job for nothing?

I would certainly like to get paid for flying. But we all know the conundrum of low time pilots like me - no job until you have the hours, but how do you get the hours. Flying for free like this is a lot better than having to pay for it to get the hours. It is just the way the free-market operates.

If it makes you any happier, I have on some flights charged for my time as a pilot, but with others who are genuine friends I have just done it for free. As I now know it is definitely legal for me to invoice as a pilot, and if the market will bear it, I will happily do so !

Flintstone

3rd Apr 2008, 17:11

I'm seeing a pattern here. You started a thread saying you were doing air taxi work then changed your story. Then you said you do charge as a professional yet wrote............I have a CPL so I can fly for hire or reward, and I could (if I wished) invoice for my services as a pilot to the passengers. I just choose not to do so, as I enjoy the flying.

Now you're saying that flying for free and potentially undercutting your 'colleagues' is better than paying your own way like the majority of us.

Just remind us, when were you thinking of venturing into the job market?

Flingingwings

3rd Apr 2008, 17:32

Because they wish to promote and operate an air transport service. I am not proposing to do that

So you're suggesting that merely advertising their services it what forces companies to get an AOC?

Ok. How about my employer stops all advertising, and then simply waits for somebody to walk/drive by and then approach us to fly them. Two invoices one for aircraft and one for pilot. You saying that would be legal? In that case why don't all AOC holders merely advertise 'Aircraft available for hire' :confused:

The question of the purpose of the flight and what business may be done outside the flight is irrelevant.

Actually, no it isn't. The purpose of the flight is what the AOC addresses. Providing your clients with cheaper than AOC flights as a deal incentive is a major issue. If it wasn't you wouldn't be offering this service in the first place :ugh:

Flying genuine friends without ANY other motive is different again.

:ugh::ugh:

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 17:48

Now you're saying that flying for free and potentially undercutting your 'colleagues' is better than paying your own way like the majority of us.

Oh come on! Having paid my way to a CPL/IR, I'm now using my initiative and energy to try to get some hours under my belt so I can get a paying job. Perhaps I'd be better off just sitting around on my butt doing nothing , waiting for somebody to offer me a nice paying flying job.:ugh:

Who is more attractive to you as a potential recruit - somebody who has done his integrated course and then sat at his mum's house with 200 hours waiting for the airlines to offer him a job, or somebody who has the energy and enthusiasm to pay his way through modular course whilst working full time, then , network, build contacts, then fly anything he can get his hands on to build hours, doing light-aircraft transatlantic deliveries, towing gliders, dropping parachutists, flying ag-planes, all of which pays either zilch or else next to nothing? I am not "undercutting" anybody, or putting anybody out of work, because my market value at the moment with 600 or so hours is zero. That is a simple fact.

I am not "changing my story". Last year I did do a number of flights as I have described, and it was a means to get a few hours in after my CPL. When I initiated this thread, I was wondering whether I could try to get some more hours under my belt this summer by "holding out" a little. Having investigated this more, I will not now be doing this.

SkyCamMK

3rd Apr 2008, 17:50

Just check your licence, if it is JAA then it is issued in compliance with JAR. JAR Ops 1 is available on the net and applies to you when you operate the way you have been on some of the occasions you have described! just as relevant sections of JAR FCL 1 and 3 do.

How did you get a CPL without understanding basic air law regarding public transport? Sure, it spolis the fun but their (now EASA) reasons are borne out of accidents, illegal flights and sloppy practises in the past.

Lots of friends on this forum have been quite helpful but you do not wish to see it from the point of view of the regulating authorities. You really should now help us all and explain to them why your operations ALL of them are legal in the EC. I for one will be riveted to hear their responses and I challenge you to contact your insurers and ask them to read this thread! Anyway, Good Luck, fly safely and try to stay legal, I am a sailor too.

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 18:11

How did you get a CPL without understanding basic air law regarding public transport?

I do understand basic air law regarding public transport thank you - passed that first time (along with all my other ATPL subjects). Seems that most other people here don't understand it. As has been established, it is legal for somebody to hire an aircraft then hire a pilot to fly it, without an AOC. Admittedly that is not specifically spelled out in my air law books, but neither is it specifically excluded, which may explain why there has been so much discussion here. But it is legal.

JAR Ops 1 is available on the net and applies to you when you operate the way you have been on some of the occasions you have described!
Not true actually. If somebody hires an aircraft, then separately hires the pilot to fly the aircraft, it is a private flight. So perfectly ok to (for example) hire a SEP and operate it in IMC if you and the pilot were happy to do it.

to them why your operations ALL of them are legal in the EC

I actually asked whether they were legal, and got a lot of different replies, some of which have turned out to be valid and some invalid. What I have now established is that they were legal as long as I did not pay for the hire of the aircraft (which I have admitted doing on a couple of occasions last year at the request of the people who hired the plane and won't be doing again). So most of the flights I did last year were fine, and I will ensure that all future flights are 100% legal too.

There were some on this thread who were authoratively lecturing that it was even illegal to hire a plane to fly myself and a colleague around for business...

Flintstone

3rd Apr 2008, 18:26

Who is more attractive to you as a potential recruit - somebody who has done his integrated course and then sat at his mum's house with 200 hours waiting for the airlines to offer him a job, or somebody who has the energy and enthusiasm to pay his way through modular course whilst working full time, then , network, build contacts, then fly anything he can get his hands on to build hours, doing light-aircraft transatlantic deliveries, towing gliders, dropping parachutists, flying ag-planes, all of which pays zilch or else next to nothing?

There's your clue, in bold. I've rejected applicants who confess to flying for free.

In addition you're allowing your ignorance of commercial ops to show through. Ag flying for example is a highly specialised sector of the industry and is not somewhere you can just pitch up with a wet licence and expect to fly, quite the opposite. No operator will even let you near an aircraft until you've done at least a season on the ground handling chemicals and filling hoppers. Oh, and have several thousand hours in your log book (depending on type).

Transatlantic aircraft delivery. Highly hazardous and certainly NOT for someone without experience. Oddly enough those qualified to conduct such flights charge real money for them.

Seriously, you need to adjust your approach to this industry. Booting your way in in the fashion you've demonstrated so far isn't going to win you many friends. Assuming the authorities don't take your licence first.

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 18:50

Ag flying - just a hypothetical example - not done that seriously yet except a bit for the experience with a friend in Argentina - not regulated there in the way you describe at the time, and he was not getting paid.

Transatlantic aircraft delivery - off to do my first one shortly, alongside somebody who has done a few. Got to start somewhere. The pilot wanted me to pay him for teaching me, but I managed to persuade him to take me for free because I can offer some other interest to him. How else am I supposed to learn how to do what you describe as dangerous and specialised work if I don't do one for free first? Were transatlantic delivery pilots all born with the knowledge? Also doing a delivery to Thailand soon - will be doing that for expenses and the experience - the prospect of a few days holiday in Thailand at the end is enough payment for me thank you.

If you refuse to recruit anybody who has ever flown for free either for the love of flying or to build some hours you must have a very small and venal recruitment pool!

And can you honestly say that you have never once flown for free in your life? If a friend rings you up and invites you to have a go in his Cap-10 for the weekend, would you turn it down? Somebody gives you the chance to fly a Harrier, would you insist on being paid?

Flingingwings

3rd Apr 2008, 19:08

Rich,

Drive and enthusiasm are admirable traits, as is initiative.

Flying hours are only a small part of getting that 'break'. Trying to operate in a very grey area is not a structured route that will develop your abilities. During any interview I would suggest that you omit to mention any of your illegal flights.

As a self funder myself I can assure you that the shady " It's not AOC it's private - basically illegal charters" are seriously frowned upon.

The idea is that you achieve your ambitions legally and with your integrity intact :ok:

I do wonder having 'done a few of these flights last year' what prompted you to raise this matter on Pprune? Perhaps a fear that all was not quite right? The overly defensive tone of some of your replies only reinforcing that theory.(and pointing to low hours and youth)

Be thankful that some on here are trying to help you. It's not our fault you don't like what you are being advised.

Take the advice you've been offered or ignore it. Consider though that a few of the respondents to your enquiry have been flying AOC for a while rotary and/or fixed wing and we have nothing to gain, whereas you have everything to lose.

Having been there myself I do genuinely empathise with your situation and the obvious frustration you will feel being qualified, yet with a licence that you are presently unable to use. Hopefully everything will work for you in time.

Good luck

Flintstone

3rd Apr 2008, 19:51

richatom, you're going round in circles and it's becoming embarrassing. In all honesty you need to learn when to stop.

Ag flying - just a hypothetical example What on earth does that mean? You clearly stated that ag flying was something that was done for little or no pay. This is the Bizjet and Ag forum, any number of people here will put you right yet instead of listening you react with the defence that you were talking 'hypothetically'.

Deliveries. You've just echoed what I wrote, that they are done by people with experience not someone with a wet licence. I never said people simply pop up and do them in fact I said the opposite so why do you feel the need to dispute it? Defence mechanism kicking in I think.

As for having a pool of venal pilots, what a bizarre thing to write.

"Ve-nal. –adjective
1. willing to sell one's influence, esp. in return for a bribe; open to bribery; mercenary: a venal judge.
2. able to be purchased, as by a bribe: venal acquittals.
3. associated with or characterized by bribery: a venal administration; venal agreements."

Doesn't really 'sit' does it? Now if you'd said 'professional' I would have agreed with you. Professional as in those who are qualified to do their job, take pride in doing so and refuse to sell themselves or colleagues short.

A strange thread this one. You posted admitting to having broken the law, have been given advice by some very experienced people in the field in which
you say you want to work yet persist in rebuffing the advice while disappearing down a deeper hole. I'm all for helping those looking for a break but I know when I'm wasting my time.

Good luck. Without a major shift in attitude I'm afraid you're going to need it.

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 20:26

I am not disputing that AG flying may be well paid in some countries - I bow to your experience on that. I know that my friend was not getting paid for it in Argentina, and he was doing it for hours-building, hence I gave it as a hypothetical example of a means to build hours, which it certainly was in my friend's case. Clear and reasonable enough?

My point about transatlantic delivery is that I am doing the first one for free to learn alongside an experienced pilot (better than paying), then I will probably do another for free on my own. Maybe, if I wish to continue, I might be able to ask for payment for subsequent trips. I am giving this as an example of why sometimes you have no choice but to fly for free - nobody is going to PAY me to do a transatlantic delivery with no prior experience. Do you think that experienced transatlantic delivery pilots got paid on their first ever trip? That was my point, which seems reasonable enough.

I am very surprised that you think that it is wrong to fly without being paid in any circumstances. Certainly I fly because I love it and sure, I would like to get paid as well, but at the moment that is not always possible. I think people who will ONLY fly for money are probably in the wrong profession. I notice you didn't answer my question about whether you would demand payment for flying a Harrier if somebody offered you the chance.

Finally, yes I may have broken a law, hence I posted on here for clarification, and have already said I won't be doing it again. I will, however, continue to do trips in the manner that has now been generally agreed is legal. I am not disregarding anybody's advice except advice that I know is completely wrong (eg from you - eg you were claiming that it was illegal for me even to hire an aircraft to fly myself and a colleague).

In contrast I heard from a NetJets captain that you broke a very major aviation law, which was potentially a criminal offence and for which pilots have received jail sentences, and about which there can never be any grey area whatsoever, and you lost your job for it! Or am I wrong about that too?

Flintstone

3rd Apr 2008, 21:23

You're very, very wrong and I received a payoff from the company as proof. Yet again you're not in possession of the whole truth.

richatom

3rd Apr 2008, 21:33

Yet again you're not in possession of the whole truth.

And yet again you are leaping to judgement against me - I didn't say that it was true, I just said that it was an allegation that I heard from a Netjets captain. There's always two sides to these stories.

Flintstone

3rd Apr 2008, 21:38

I just said that it was an allegation

No you didn't, you said.........

In contrast I heard from a NetJets captain that you broke a very major aviation law, which was potentially a criminal offence and for which pilots have received jail sentences, and about which there can never be any grey area whatsoever.....

Seems a pretty solid accusation to me. Care to back it up? I have a healthy out of court settlement from the company on my side of the argument. What do you have?

PS As is often the case in these matters each party is obliged to sign a confidentiality contract covering all aspects of the dispute and settlement. Now, if your friend is spreading stories and he's part of the company they are in breach of that contract. Care to tell me his name so I can set the lawyers on them again?

Life's a Beech

3rd Apr 2008, 22:00

Well it seems to me that it was a very clear rich was reporting an allegation, Flinty my old friend. Hence he said "...I heard from a NetJets captain...", a little snippet that you conveniently ignore despite quoting it. Or did you not quite understand what rich was saying?

sispanys ria

3rd Apr 2008, 22:10

Guys I really don't understand what's wrong with you, and which part of the message you didn't get !

Public transport means open to anybody and generally for commercial purposes.

You don't need to own an aircraft to do private operations (private operations means the contrary of commercial operations...).
Most of private aircrafts are acquired under leasing, meaning most of them belongs to banks and not owners, and still, they are used for PRIVATE operations. Private aircrafts owners are not all pilots, and some are hiring professional pilots (CPL holders) to fly these private aircrafts, and it IS NOT commercial public transport as long as you don't make money out of it.
When you get an aircraft in dry leasing, you are absolutely allowed to hire a pilot or to ask a friend to fly it (for free or not) as long as you DO NOT carry out commercial operations.

Richard said he asked the DGAC, and they had a clear explanation, why the hell do you continue to argue when the CAA just answered the question ?

Do you know that some CPL pilots are legally being paid to fly PC 12 while this aircraft is not approved for IFR commercial flights ? It is possible because they are operated for private purposes...

And by the way, private operations doesn't mean less safety or professionalism ! It's just that some people are not willing to be bothered by AOC restrictions and costs when they are not concerned !
If Richard, who seems to have a quite interesting job, wishes to fly for free in order to build up hours, it's his own right, especially when the concerned flights are not commercial ones ! Private means Private, and it's none of your business how people decide to enjoy the aircraft they are paying for.

Flintstone

3rd Apr 2008, 22:13

Haha:O Look who's back, Life's A Beech/Send Clowns.

Now let's see. richatom makes a ridiculous post, I call him to account for it, he logs off and SC turns up. Kinda answers the 'which name is SC posting under these days' question, doesn't it?

Nice try.

(Actually Clowns I know you and he are different people, completely different posting styles. That's what gave you and LAB away as being the same person. Funny how he (rich) cut and run when I asked him for a name though, eh? Maybe I'll get another car out of this).

Life's a Beech

3rd Apr 2008, 22:49

Flintstone

You mistakes get no less if you compound them with insistence and additional errors. I am who I am, no matter what you insist, and you are wrong in saying "No you didn't", however you insist.

In fact I logged on for the first time in a long while as a colleague pointed me to another article of relevance to me, unconnected with rich who I have never knowingly encountered before, online or in real life, and I tripped over you trying to bully another PPRuNer in very much the same way you tried to bully me - by taking a side issue and running with it, despite the lack of connection with the matter at dispute.

What part of "... I heard from [someone else] ..." are you failing to understand? As he said, richatom didn't say it was true, he said he had heard it, so he was passing on an allegation. In fact I don't personally think he should have done so, but you are the one who decided to start the bullying so you can hardly complain and I can easily understand his reasons for doing.

Of course the fact that former colleagues are willing to pass on such allegations says far more about you than rich's willingness to fly for free (as many pilots do at some point) says about him. Your own words, assuming the worst from that willingness, "Good luck. Without a major shift in attitude I'm afraid you're going to need it", say even more about you. Very much the same bullying tone and very similar nasty sentiments you posted to me.

Flintstone

3rd Apr 2008, 23:08

Oh purlease. Stop whinging.

rich came on here and after a while realised/conceded he'd flown illegally. People tried to help him, he then changed his mind. Personally I think he should have stopped digging early on but he chose not to. He then said he flew on occasion for free when he could have charged. Let's not confuse that with 'flying a Pitts', he said they were commercial flights.

No professional worth their salt likes to see their colleagues undercut. The irony is these low houred pilots are making their own lives harder and if memory serves we've had threads in here where people have reconsidered their actions after such a conversation.

As for accusations of bullying, oh the irony! Take a look at some of your posts both as SC and LaB. Their tone are what identify you. If I recall the reason you got mardy with me was because I cut and pasted some of your 'finer' comments into a thread and I'm sure you didn't change from 'Send Clowns' because that persona had become so popular.

I'm glad you're back Clowns. You make me laugh.

charterguy

4th Apr 2008, 00:47

A good friend of mine who shall remain unnamed has recently ceased operations. He used to operate a fleet of twin engined piston aircraft using the private flight scheme (2 separate invoices etc.) The majority of his clients were jockeys who were fully briefed and were happy to tell any CAA inspector to Foxtrot Oscar.

The real problem is that the CAA knows that this is a loophole that they cannot easily close without testing it in a court of law. If they did, and lost, that would open the floodgates.

So instead the CAA uses intimidation tactics. Some 15 years ago we operated flights in a similar fashion. Company A approached us to carry out a flight from Leeds to France. Two separate invoices were issued and the flight proceeded.

A local AOC operator missed out on this flight and reported it as an illegal charter to the CAA. The CAA arranged a welcoming party at Leeds. The pax were questioned by the CAA man and were asked by immigration to fill in landing cards. Now the CAA had the names, addresses and telephone number of pax.

The passenger’s turned out to be buyers for one of the UK’s largest supermarkets and were flown by Company A to visit its production facility in France.

Needless to say, the pax volunteered that they were guests of Company A.

CAA contacted company A and told them that they have been the victim of an illegal
Public transport charter, threatening to inform their passengers (the buyers from the supermarket chain). Company A panicks and agrees to do whatever the CAA demands to avoid the pax being contacted again.

CAA visits company A and gets a statement to say they thought they were buying a public charter flight and that they paid for a charter flight.

CAA goes to court, but their lawyer is presented with 2 cheques on the steps of the court house. CAA drops case (as they do not wish to test this in court). However, company A will never book another flight without having sight of an AOC certificate.

Job accomplished.

The CAA is now leaning on insurance companies to exclude ‘private corporate flights’ from their policies.

The CAA knows that there are more ways than one to skin a cat.

My advice, get an AOC and do it properly, or stay on the ground and wash airplanes!

CG

NuName

4th Apr 2008, 05:32

Let he without sin cast the first stone:rolleyes:

sispanys ria

4th Apr 2008, 08:00

You are all talking about separate invoices emitted by the same company/individual.

As we said, the way to do it legally is to have the aircraft leased SEPARATELY. I do understand Rich is not owning any aircraft. As long as his passengers are getting the plane on their own, and then asks Rich to fly it, it's absolutely legal, and once again the French CAA confirmed it.
Why do you insist with your AOC stuff ? How many guys do you know that got an AOC to conduct seldom private flights (and for free ?). The AOC is for commercial purposes, and what Rich is doing is not commercial, it's private operations.

Since he is not getting paid, he could even do it with a simple PPL !

richatom

4th Apr 2008, 08:04

Thank you to everybody who has contributed advice to my original question, whether your advice was correct or proven to be incorrect. The arguments have allowed me to establish that it in France it is legal to carry passengers or goods during the course of my job by operating privately and ensuring that the passenger or owner of the goods pays directly for the hire of the aircraft. They can even pay me,when appropriate, though as ria sispanys points out, I could even do these flights with a PPL so I am not "undercutting" anybody if I choose not to charge. This has all been confirmed by my CAA. This is what I will continue to do, until my flying experience is worth enough on the free market to enable me to get a paying flying job.

The advice on here has made me think more carefully about the risks of "holding out" to try to get some more flights, and I will certainly avoid organising the hire/insurance of the aircraft myself, which I admit to having innocently done on a couple of occasions in the past in a desire to be as helpful as possible to the the person ultimately paying for the flight.

IO540

4th Apr 2008, 14:00

The CAA is now leaning on insurance companies to exclude ‘private corporate flights’ from their policies.

How will this work? Private corporate flights are 100% legal. The majority of turboprops (esp. ME) and jets are doing "private corporate flights".

flynowpaylater

8th Apr 2008, 10:17

Bear in mind that this sort activity is at best dodgy, at worst illegal. Corporate man slaughter is the charge that will follow if there was an accident and a passenger died as a result.

Furthermore, the insurance companies will use all means at their disposal not settle the claim, including third party liabilities. This means that if found guilty, you would have to pay all the compensation yourself. This being a potentially huge debt, probably for life.

What sort of sentence do you get for corporate man slaughter, anyone know?

NuName

8th Apr 2008, 10:42

flynowpaylater

Exactly what sort of activity are you refering to as there are some variations mentioned here. And, are you a lawyer or a pilot or both?

flynowpaylater

8th Apr 2008, 14:06

Exactly what sort of activity are you refering to as there are some variations mentioned here. And, are you a lawyer or a pilot or both?

I mean public transport charter flying disguised as "corporate lease". Separate invoices etc etc... We all know what goes on, and the corners that are cut. Pilot - no, Lawyer no, in the business for a long time..yes.

Why should the legitimate AOC operators tolerate cowboys, furthermore, why are the CAA allowing the public to be put at risk in this way? They should close this loop hole for good, and send anyone who operates illegally without the correct licences and operating certificates to prison. It's illegal, dangerous, and damages the General Aviation industry.

NuName

8th Apr 2008, 16:59

flynowpaylater
I have also been in the business for many years, I have flown for private individuals, AOC, AOC/Corporate and have also been hired to fly aircraft that have been leased by an individual and required competent crew, acceptable to the owner(s) and insurance company to operate the aircraft for them. I have always operated within the scope of my licences and ratings and according to the law. Safe and legal flying does not cease to exist just because it is not hire & reward under an AOC and offered in the public domain. I do not think I know anybody in the industry that has not flown something sometime privately for another. On the other hand I think we have all met pilots with whom we are amazed are able to continue flying within an AOC operation, if you know what I mean:ouch:. So, I think we can all agree that there is good and bad throughout the business of aviation, a holier than thou attitude wont change it, nor should it.
All the best (Maybe time to get another name;))

PicMas

8th Apr 2008, 18:39

Richatom:
Wrt your yacht broker business (which I assume is a paid position) I think the words you are looking for are "incidental to employment". If you get paid for doing a job buying/ selling/ managing yachts, and incidentally use an aircraft and your pilots license, it's not really working for free. Somebody mentioned the FAA "holding out" issue, and "incidental to employment" is a part of that story.

flynowpaylater

9th Apr 2008, 09:46

NuName,

I agree that there are many legitimate corporate operations. I also agree that there are some AOC operations that fall below standards. However, with the AOC operator's, the CAA have the power and means to do something about it.
There are many dubious "corporate" operations that hide behind current legislation. It is a farce that this can be allowed to continue. Surely the CAA and their lavishly paid inspectors can come up with a scheme whereby corporate operations are regulated, licensed and accountable? It need not be as stringent as AOC's, but regulated non the less.

IMHO to not properly regulate this lucrative and busy sector of the aviation business is at best remiss, at worst negligent of the CAA as a governing body.

NuName

9th Apr 2008, 09:53

flynowpaylater
Interesting, and what regulations would you like to see introduced and enforced? Besides obeying current regulations that is.

flynowpaylater

9th Apr 2008, 10:51

Interesting, and what regulations would you like to see introduced and enforced? Besides obeying current regulations that is.

One that is able to separate the legal from the illegal. One that regulates and controls, and certainly one that stops the legal loop hole of the separate invoicing for pilot and aircraft bullsh!t. The only people that would suffer would be the cowboys, and that's only right.

Perhaps a minimum term aircraft lease, or maybe aircraft owners being more accountable over who is flying their aircraft, and for what purpose. Maybe regulating corporate pilots flying hours similar to CAP371, the aircraft being maintained and operated to a minimum level and crews having to be trained to AOC standards. Why should the corporate client have to accept a lesser level of safety?

The currently regulations are not strong enough, that is clear, therefore new regulations need to be drawn up to protect the general public, and the bona-fide operators, both AOC and corporate.

G-SPOTs Lost

9th Apr 2008, 10:56

Let he without sin cast the first stone

NuName

Perfect post, this thread should have gone very quiet after that.

Apart from the brokers who have a ve$ted interest in making sure it doesnt happen and the corporate owners who put their pilots under pressure to "fly freinds and aquaintances" around perhaps not illegally but certainly uninsured when the worst happens and you actually need the insurance and not just the certificate within the aircraft docs.

CAA are far from toothless over this, got ramp checked at Biggin last year, in an N reg bizjet. Idiot didn't have his ID with him so I told him to poke off, had just dropped my CEO off who strode 10 yards into our N Reg heli - must have looked really dodgy.

NuName

9th Apr 2008, 11:35

flynowpaylater
Well now, as a ATPL having done AOC work and dutifully completed my OPC's and LPC's I can tell you that it did not change me at all. Any ATPL with a decent type rating could do it, and they do. So you must be talking about all the recurrent training for prohibited articles, fire fighting, first aid, etc etc that has me fighting to stay awake. As for "Why should the corporate client have to accept a lesser level of safety?" they don't do they, they can have even more than you provide if they wish, and some do, like my boss of a few years ago, its only money isn't it. And if the present rules were relaxed for AOC operators in some way, how many AOC operators would say "oh no, we are going to stick with the previous regs as it safer, we don't care about the money" Yeah right. AOC's operate according to the law and as long as everybody else you have nothing to complain about. If Joe Baggsofmoney wants to lease himself a Jet I will be happy to fly it for him.:p

flynowpaylater

9th Apr 2008, 13:25

Nuname, I understand where you are coming from, and as I stated previously, I am sure there are many corporate operations that are totally safe and legal.

The point I make is simple. There are also quite a few individuals that sail very close to the wind, and often cross the line. These operations are sub standard, and therefore need to be stopped. At the moment, the feds are pretty much powerless to stop it, due to the legal framework being inadequate. If you are legal, which it sounds like you are, then no problem. These cowboys tarnish the image of the industry. Surely you can see my point?

A great example being a certain Italian jockey who nearly met his maker at Newmarket. I know of people who refused to fly in PA34's thereafter because they deemed Seneca's dangerous. They are not dangerous, only if trying to operate outside of it's capability, as was the case that day. Better regulation may have avoided this accident, and countless others.

NuName

9th Apr 2008, 13:58

flynowpaylater
OK, we are now on common ground, I just get angry when I see GA pilots being run down for just trying to make a living, you can find rogues in any walk of life. Better the guy that gets off his butt and does something than the guy who sits at home and lives off our taxes.

flynowpaylater

10th Apr 2008, 11:41

NuName - Agreed, but they need to know how to do it properly. A new ATPL (frozen) where the ink is still wet, who thinks he can now fly for money in a rented baron or C340 etc...is a danger to all, including him/herself.

NuName

10th Apr 2008, 11:57

flynowpaylater
This could go on forever, if our glorious leaders (CAA and equivalents) are doing their job newly qualified professional pilots have achieved the minimum safety standards required to charge for their services. The type rating should ensure they are competent and safe in the aircraft they fly. 30 years ago there were plenty of CPL's working in all area's of aviation and well respected for it. These days you can hardly move without a ATPL. I maintain that there is no difference between a particular pilot flying a Baron on a sunny Sunday afternoon for fun to the same guy flying a couple of pax to France, paid or not, the safety issue is still the same. If his licence, ratings, ability and legality are all in order how can there be a problem with one and not the other.

flynowpaylater

10th Apr 2008, 12:19

I maintain that there is no difference between a particular pilot flying a Baron on a sunny Sunday afternoon for fun to the same guy flying a couple of pax to France, paid or not, the safety issue is still the same.

Commercial pressure - Has this guy got the experience to make those difficult decisions, especially without the back up of someone my senior? The answer is simply no. Can he fly his passengers back to Exeter with the weather at minimum, and the HSI in op? - You may know, but does he?

My 18 y/o next door neighbour just passed his driving test, but I certainly wouldn't trust him to drive a mini-bus full of kids to Scotland...but he is licensed to do so.

NuName

10th Apr 2008, 12:45

I'm sorry that you feel that way, you really should take this up with the authorities. To compare a young car driver with a professional pilot is IMHO ludicrous, I had to demonstrate my ability to make weather decisions and fly to a successful landing with many different simulated instrument failures. Please remember, we are discussing professional pilots here not PPL's. And had your neighbour just passed his PSV test would you still feel the same way?

flynowpaylater

11th Apr 2008, 09:04

So what do you want? Paperwork or practical experience?

At a minimum.........both.

Under an AOC, not only would the crew do an OPC/LPC, but also practical line training, with an experienced line training captain. I am sure all of you can handle an engine failure, or gear failure in a simulated situation, but the harsh reality of how accidents occur is normally a combinations of events, and often involving a wrong decision by the PIC. Thats just a fact, read the accident reports for yourselves.

You can all kid yourselves that these types of operations are OK for an inexperienced pilot to undertake on his own, without the support of a professional aviation organisation behind them, but the fact remains it is lot less safe than an AOC operation, or a well set up corporate operation.

Pace

11th Apr 2008, 12:05

FlyNowPayLater

>Why should the legitimate AOC operators tolerate cowboys, furthermore, why are the CAA allowing the public to be put at risk in this way? They should close this loop hole for good, and send anyone who operates illegally without the correct licences and operating certificates to prison. It's illegal, dangerous, and damages the General Aviation industry.<

I find this rather insulting, As A Captain flying private corporate business jets why can you explain are my passengers which could be company personel families of the owner etc less important than a family that charters a jet through an AOC.

If we are talking safety issues then surely every jet private or AOC should fly to the same regulations and restrictions otherwise you are stating that one set of people are less important than another.

Its probably more about protecting the income of AOC operators who in turn pay a lot to maintain that AOC rather than a safety issue.
If it is a safety issue then its double standards. private passengers are not entitled to the same standards of safety as passengers flown under an AOC.

Reading these threads there is a lot of confusion and a lot of grey areas and maybe these need to be clarrified in Law so we all know with clarity where we stand.

Pace

flynowpaylater

11th Apr 2008, 12:18

Hi Pace,

Sorry if my post's seem to be confusing. My stance is simple : A legitimate operation, be it Corporate or AOC is no problem. It is the dodgy pilot, who rents / hires / leases / owns an aircraft, offers his and its services to individuals or companies and hides behind the "corporate" operation banner on the basis of invoicing for the aircraft and pilot separately that is totally wrong.

I am sure that any legitimate operators (AOC and Corporate) would welcome clarification from the feds on the law regarding this, and a far more dogged approach to enforce the law.

Pace

11th Apr 2008, 12:59

It doesnt matter what Law aviation or otherwise people will exploit any so called loopholes and operate legally as they see it. It is the Law that is at fault not people who exploit grey areas or loopholes.

This happens in any industry and is not exclusive to Aviation.

Ultimately it is only the courts who will offer judgement or clarification when these grey areas are tested.

I am not talking about obvious illegal and dangerous operations where a PPL flies as a commercial pilot and takes money, or someone flies without a medical or current type ratings.

What I am stating is that to state safety issues beween say the same business jet flown under an AOC and and one flown under a private operation by fully qualified and licenced crews is an admittance of double standards.

ie the same family might fly legally in a private jet to one set of regulations one day and in an AOC jet to another set of regulations the next. They are just as important in either and entitled to the same level of safety as in either

If the regulators determine a safety issue then they should ban all private jets which do not adhere to the same safety standards, private or AOC.

Try and change an FAA ATP to a JAA and you almost have to start from scratch. Yet statistically there is no difference accident rate wise between an FAA ATP and a JAA ATP. Its all about protectionism and jobs for the boys.

Pace

sedburgh

11th Apr 2008, 13:40

My 18 y/o next door neighbour just passed his driving test, but I certainly wouldn't trust him to drive a mini-bus full of kids to Scotland...but he is licensed to do so.No he is not - you need a D1 category for that and it has been many years since that was included in the entitlement you get from passing a standard car driving test.

Flingingwings

11th Apr 2008, 15:27

Splitting hairs or what????
The comment should surely be taken in context. IE- a comparison of inexperience.

If we're playing pedant concerning driving licences the D1 category now requires you to be over 21 and pass an additional test. Whereas in the few years back to which you refer you got the entitlement automatically upon reaching 21 years of age, not from simply passing a car test.

Not that these facts will really help the discussion :confused:

:ugh:

flynowpaylater

11th Apr 2008, 15:43

There a quite a few pilots flying around in light piston twins, and sometimes turbo props, basically doing illegal air charter. Their customers are often unaware that there is anything illegal or dodgy about it, and unaware that the safety standards of the flight, are not as stringent as a proper corporate or AOC operation. None of you will convince me that these sort of flights are OK, because quite simply, they aren't.

You can split hairs all you like, but the fact remains that this end of the market is dodgy, dangerous, illegal etc....

I know of more than one pilot, who didn't make it with commercial operators through either ability or attitude, who has then decided to embark on a career of "illegal" charters, disguised as "corporate lease".

Speak to a London cabby about illegal taxi's in London. You know, the guy who takes you home from the west end in a old merc for £30 at 2am.

Pace

11th Apr 2008, 16:09

FlyNowPayLater

I think I know what you mean as I knew of one guy a few years back who used to Ferry people all over the place in a C182 solid IMC with a PPL and an IMC rating not even a proper IR.

But this is a bit different to my arguement above

Pace

NuName

11th Apr 2008, 17:55

FlyNowPayLater
You say,
"There a quite a few pilots flying around in light piston twins, and sometimes turbo props, basically doing illegal air charter."

If you know about this why the hell do you not get on to the CAA about it?

Awyrennwr

11th Apr 2008, 22:21

What I am stating is that to state safety issues beween say the same business jet flown under an AOC and and one flown under a private operation by fully qualified and licenced crews is an admittance of double standards.

That depends on the private operator in question and whether they choose to operate to the same standard as a similar AOC operation are required to by law.

ie the same family might fly legally in a private jet to one set of regulations one day and in an AOC jet to another set of regulations the next. They are just as important in either and entitled to the same level of safety as in eitherYes they are entitled to the same standard, but with the private flight there is no guarantee they are getting it.

On an AOC flight the passenger is guaranteed that stringent safety standard in excess of the miniumum legal requirement for the flight to take place under private operations. This protects the general public and thus is required for public air transport.

On a private (non AOC) flight then the owner/operator and/or commander decides any safety standards in addition to the bare miniumum legal requirements.

Pace

11th Apr 2008, 23:05

I am not making any points on the relevant safety standards between AOC operations and private operations.

Naturally AOC operations have to comply with tighter standards and hence have to be "safer".

My point here is that a regulator cannot use an arguement of lack of safety or neglect in a private operation when the regulator determines the regulations for that operation too.

By using that arguement that becomes double standards as the people are the same whether they fly through a private operation or an AOC.
They are entitled to the same protection in Law. That then becomes the fault of the regulators not the operators as long as the operator is working within the safety regulations stipulated for private operations.

If I am a law maker and you are driving a black cab and I am driving a private taxi. As the lawmaker I limit black cabs to 40 mph but say its ok for private cabs to drive at 60 I cannot then point a lack of safety finger at a private taxi that crashes at 55 mph without being responsible for that myself as the regulator.

It is without doubt double standards because without doubt an AOC operation has to be "safer" as it is far more controlled.

pace

charterguy

13th Apr 2008, 01:12

I don’t know why the CAA is struggling with this issue ?

Its simple.

EITHER
charter an aircraft from an AOC holder - you get a public transport flight and pay for everything on one bill (perfectly legal)

OR
buy an aircraft and either fly it yourself or employ a commercial, type rated pilot or crew to fly the thing for you (still perfectly legal).

HOWEVER
If you pay to ‘hire’ or ‘lease’ the aircraft for one flight (or a couple of flights) and pay a pilot separately (this IMHO is highly dodgy). I have seen Senecas depart Newmarket with full tanks and 6 POB. – Say no more. If anyone wishes to defend this type of operation they should not be on this forum.

Remember – it’s PPRuNE, 'Professional Pilot's Rumour Network' Not all commercial pilots are 'professionals' !!! I guess that is why its referred to as a commercial licence as opposed to a professional licence !!! Enough said.

NuName - If you have a commercial licence - get a proper job !!

CG

NuName

13th Apr 2008, 05:39

charterguy

I have a very nice job thank you, but do appreciate your concern and advice. This does not stop me freelancing as and when its required. This "loophole" as its referred to, and the CAA's struggle? Struggle who say's they are struggling? And why is it a loophole, just maybe it was thought that there should be nothing wrong with a person leasing an aircraft and hiring a commercially licenced professional pilot to fly it. When pilots operate outside the aircrafts envelope, and we all know some do, it is obviously wrong and dangerous in all areas of operation, private and all the way up.
And also, do you have a commercial licence? Or a professional one.;)

IO540

13th Apr 2008, 08:32

On an AOC flight the passenger is guaranteed that stringent safety standard in excess of the miniumum legal requirement for the flight to take place under private operations. This protects the general public and thus is required for public air transport.

Oh yes, of course it does.

I started my PPL at a certain firm which has a gold plated CAA AOC for charter (piston twins).

During the preflight, I noticed (being an electronics engineer) a wire had nearly come out of a connector; a large amount of bare conductor was showing.

I told the instructor. He wasn't interested. We went for a flight.

Etc.

Some weeks later, the wire came right off and could easily touch any airframe part, causing a spark. I drew his attention to it again (BTW he had a gold plated CAA fATPL). He said the wire goes to the landing light, so if we don't switch on the landing light, it will be fine.

At which point, I had enough of this and other obviously dodgy maintenance practices, and took a walk elsewhere.

Next, you will be telling me ISO9000 is a guarantee of "quality" :yuk: :ugh:

G-SPOTs Lost

13th Apr 2008, 09:43

FNPL

Im afraidoldchap you are starting to believe the stuff you tell your clients.

You cannot generalise between flights

take two for example

6000 Hour captain flying a 2002 Bravo

or a

1500 Hour Captain flying a early 80´s 550

One of these aircraft is N reg the other is flown by a southern area large AOC holder (Who is NOT 24/7 BTW)

Please pick one to send your wife and kids flying with, dont muddy the waters with hire or reward - Just pick one.

These are facts - I probably wont have to tell you which one is which you have probably guessed already.

AOC holders are under much more commercial pressure for crew as well as hours flown therefore corners will be cut and exemptions applied for-economics 101

Lost man standing

13th Apr 2008, 16:03

G-Spots

I think you have missed the point. One of those is a private aircraft. The owner can increase the safety standards of the operation. There is no rule saying a private operation cannot exceed public-transport standards, so an example of where they do is meaningless.

You also make the case for FlyNowPayLater. You mentioned commercial pressure, which is the most obvious reason that rules have to be so much stricter for an AOC (and they are much stricter). Without those rules the cheapest operations would have standards close to the minimum for private ops - little or no line training, no LPC/OPC, lower standards of maintenance, no strict FTLs. Safer operations would have to charge more, and many unsuspecting charterers would be flying go for the cheaper operation (maybe without knowing it, through a broker).

The waters are not "muddied" by hire or reward. The law uses the distinction for very good reasons.

IO540

So were you doing your PPL in a piston twin?

Otherwise your story only says that the PPL side of the operation was run badly, and your instructor had a poor attitude to flight instruction, both the flying side and what he was teaching you. No reasonable licensing requirements can prevent that happening.

That cannot be considered by the flight ops inspector or the surveyor of the AOC operation. It would not have been considered in the issue of the AOC. The AOC post holders would not be legally liable for your instructors foolish attitude, as they would if he was flying under the AOC. Your instructor would not have been trained on that aircraft under part D of the ops manual, or by the part 145 operation. The maintenance system would be that for aerial work, not that for an AOC operator. There would be no formal MEL.

I know of AOC operators who also instruct, and take some of the safety culture of the operation into the flight school. That is not necessarily a given.

Pace

13th Apr 2008, 17:01

Lost man standing

>You also make the case for FlyNowPayLater. You mentioned commercial pressure, which is the most obvious reason that rules have to be so much stricter for an AOC (and they are much stricter). Without those rules the cheapest operations would have standards close to the minimum for private ops - little or no line training, no LPC/OPC, lower standards of maintenance, no strict FTLs. Safer operations would have to charge more, and many unsuspecting charterers would be flying go for the cheaper operation (maybe without knowing it, through a broker).<

This is my very point you talk about the unsuspecting public, two sets of rules, one for AOC the other for private operations.
The people flying in private aircraft are also the general public, unsuspecting public call them what you will.

but they are people usually with no aviation knowledge. Take my example of the black cab/private charter. Regulators could put a speed limit of 40 on a black cab to protect the unsuspecting public but the regulator also regulates the private cabs and places a speed limit of 60 on those.

When the regulator has to deal with a crash at 55mph in a private charter and finds certain procedures and financial transactions have taken place which encrouch onto black taxi operations he then screams the safety aspect and protecting the general public. But the regulator regulated on both. They are the same public in both with the same needs to be protected by law.

But then this is probably more about protecting the work of the black cabs and the money that licencing generates than any safety issues.
Otherwise there would not be the double standards existing at present.

pace

Lost man standing

13th Apr 2008, 18:00

There is a big difference. Anyone who sets up a private operation decides, sets and pays for his own standards of safety. If they are unsuspecting then that is because they have not taken good advice, which is their decision. That is the nature of freedom, everyone is free to make unwise decisions as well as wise decisions.

Chartering from an AOC operation is a completely different proposition. They have no control over standards of safety and training, or the qualities of the crew. They might well not even know who the operator is until they arrive at the airport. If they do know, then the operator might change at the last minute if an aircraft goes tech, and another one subbed in.

That is the problem with rich's flights. They look more like charter operations than private flights. This is why I suggested that he was unwise.

I'm really not sure what you are saying about private charter of cars. If you mean private hire then it is regulated, they cannot ply for hire, and are still licensed.

G-SPOTs Lost

14th Apr 2008, 08:48

"G-Spots

I think you have missed the point. One of those is a private aircraft. The owner can increase the safety standards of the operation. There is no rule saying a private operation cannot exceed public-transport standards, so an example of where they do is meaningless."

Read before posting this is why I said that you can not generalise between flights. My point that you missed is exactly the one you are trying to make.

I was simply asking FNPL to pick a flight that he would put his kids on!

To say that AOC is always safer than corporate is just tosh, people go on about OPC/LPC last OPC I saw was just over 25 mins

Individual with great personal wealth can afford to pay their individual corporate pilots good salaries, AOC holders due to commercial pressures on occasion need to hire who they can get. Just look at the last 18 months

Lost man standing

14th Apr 2008, 11:21

But FNPL's posts are about the rules under which flights are carried out, and therefore minimum safety standards. Also as far as I have understood from his posts he sees corporate operations as legitimate, safe operations which they generally are. He seems to put them alongside AOCs, in contrast to dodgy charters.

Can't really speak for other AOC operators, but I get paid as much as I would in corporate aviation, and I have not been aware of any real recruitment problems in the last 18 months. Retention, yes, but that is where AOC operations commercial pressure is not allowed to dominate, as we have minimum line training requirements for new crews. Our line training is thorough, although of course I cannot speak for our competitors.

I also met a pilot for a corporate operation, recruited with a shiny new CPL/IR to fly a Cessna 421, single crew. That would not be legal on an AOC, and I know no AOC operator who would do it even on minimum legal hours. Many wealthy people got that way because they are tight, and so are far from immune to the monetary pressures. However that is their free choice. The CAA is not watching until something goes wrong.

flynowpaylater

14th Apr 2008, 12:25

G-Spot lost - What are you waffling on about......of course you know the answer....As I am not the owner, or lessee of either aircraft, I would pick the AOC operation, not some dodgy pilot, who thinks he can fly a citation as well as the charter pilot, but doesn't do the regular recurrence training required. Furthermore, the aircraft may well not be maintained as well as the aircraft on the AOC operation. The age of the aircraft is totally irrelevant, and only a fool would make such a basic and moronic assumption.

There are many good jobs out there, flying all sorts of aircraft, both AOC and corporate. If you have to resort to doing dodgy "separate invoices" flights, then It's highly likely that you are simply not good enough to get a proper job.

Pace

14th Apr 2008, 13:45

>of course you know the answer....As I am not the owner, or lessee of either aircraft, I would pick the AOC operation, not some dodgy pilot, who thinks he can fly a citation as well as the charter pilot, but doesn't do the regular recurrence training required. Furthermore, the aircraft may well not be maintained as well as the aircraft on the AOC operation. The age of the aircraft is totally irrelevant, and only a fool would make such a basic and moronic assumption.<

Cannot let you get away with this Lot. Firstly there are plenty of Non AOC Pilots of Citations many who do not hold JAA licences who I rate far higher than some AOC JAA Pilots I also know.
Some are very highly experienced and very professional in what they do.

Secondly I also know of a few AOC citations which have very high time airframes are literally flown into the ground and have repetative problems.

I was down in Nice while one such aircraft which was there at the same time was stranded, as often happens to be the case with that particular AOC aircraft, but this time with a battery overheat problem.

The same aircraft has continuous pressurisation problems which never seem to get fixed and a host of other squawks which keep rearing their heads.

Some of the earlier citations do not have sytems which are up to the job. Anyone who knows citations will tell you that the earlier temp/ invironmental systems struggle in the winter maintaining adequate temp and in the summer from the cabin getting too hot and the list goes on. As with anything they are improved and refined over different models/ and we are not even touching on the navigation systems.

Jump into a more modern Bravo and while they can and do go wrong they have far more reliable systems and I know which one I would pick.

Pace

flynowpaylater

14th Apr 2008, 16:04

In that scenario though, I am Joe public, and have no clue about the pilot, or his experience / ability, apart from what he tells me. At least with an AOC operation I know that minimum standards are met and enforced.

Maybe the Bravo, and the crew are better, but maybe there not...Joe public has no way of gauging that.

Anyway, I'm bored of this now. We all know that dodgy dangerous illegal flights happen, and they hide behind the corporate banner. If some of you think this is acceptable, fine. I happen to think it is far from OK.

Pace

14th Apr 2008, 17:10

FlyNowPayLater

There are without doubt dodgey charters and I fully take your point. All that I would say is that there are many grey areas between the two and with any business aviation or otherwise it is human nature to explore those grey areas.

When there are grey areas maybe the regulators need to make them less grey and more black and white?

What I do take exception too is the assumption that private jets are flown by cowboys, operated in a dangerous manner and poorly maintained.

To me the use of the word dangerous applies to a poorly maintained aircraft which is knowingly flown as such , a pilot who is not qualified or capable of flying in particular conditions or who makes descisions which are incorrect and as such endangers the aircraft and its passengers.
Each accident has to be viewed in its own light AOC or private (sadly both have accidents) instead of inflamatory language used to point score one above the other.

As a Captain on private jets I know that most of us do our best to operate as professionally as possible and take a pride in what we do.

Take care and no offence

pace

G-SPOTs Lost

15th Apr 2008, 09:38

G-Spot lost - What are you waffling on about......of course you know the answer....As I am not the owner, or lessee of either aircraft, I would pick the AOC operation, not some dodgy pilot, who thinks he can fly a citation as well as the charter pilot, but doesn't do the regular recurrence training required. Furthermore, the aircraft may well not be maintained as well as the aircraft on the AOC operation. The age of the aircraft is totally irrelevant, and only a fool would make such a basic and moronic assumption.

FNPL

Sorry mate - rather be a fool and a moron. The simple point I make is that you are blinkered with AOC safety, each flight should be judged on that day with that captain and that aircraft, because its AOC does not make it better - legal yes but not better.

Age of aircraft makes a big difference modern cockpits make a huge difference in awareness and are therefore safer - period

If you knew anything about actual flying instead of putting your clients in demic a/c you would agree.

flynowpaylater

15th Apr 2008, 12:28

Pace - Thanks for that - take care yourself.

G-Spot lost - grow up and go rattle someone else's cage.

FLY BY NIGHT

15th Apr 2008, 13:16

Just to clear up one point. G-EELS has never had a problem with the CAA. over our operation as we own the cargo.

pilotbear

15th Apr 2008, 14:47

"The simple point I make is that you are blinkered with AOC safety, each flight should be judged on that day with that captain and that aircraft, because its AOC does not make it better - legal yes but not better."

I have to agree with this. I have flown private ops most of the time and the benefit is same aircraft same crews operating in the same way.
Not two people who have never met before, flying an aircraft they might never have even sat in.:eek:

Maintaining an AOC is expensive and corners are cut whether you like to think so or not.
I take great exception to the presumption that private ops are any less safe, there is a lot of pride with private crews in their aircraft for their owner.
Just think how you treat a hire/company car compared to your own?:hmm:

G-SPOTs Lost

15th Apr 2008, 15:57

Pace - Thanks for that - take care yourself.

G-Spot lost - grow up and go rattle someone else's cage

FNPL

If a number of people on here refute your opinion or your logic then instead of throwing a litlle paddy just consider that your opinion/logic may be slightly flawed.

I'l say it again you have a financial interest in making sure that only AOC holders do charterwork this is clouding your judgement regarding safety.

Just to spell it out for you...........

AOC holders are NOT by definition safer simply because they are AOC holders. On occasion yes they are, on occasion no they are not, it depends on the crew and the aircraft.

A large AOC holder for bizjets in the UK based in the midlands does not do ANY sim training at all, just a 40 minute OPC and a 1 hour LPC each year. In contrast my training consists of having to fly to the USA and spending a week in the classroom and a level D sim at a cost of nearly 30k dollars plus expenses.

Explain to me which one again is safer......:ugh::ugh: (This time without the personal jibes)

flynowpaylater

15th Apr 2008, 17:13

i just wish you would read my post, an digest all of it, and not just the bits that you disagree with. So in simple terms, I do not think for one moment that corporate operations are dodgy, or dangerous. What I do think dodgy or dangerous is the few out there who believe it is OK to operate public transport flights, without either an AOC or being a bona-fide corporate operation.

Typically they will have access to a light twin, and meet someone down the pub (or wherever...) and offer to fly them to somewhere for a meeting etc... It is this kind of thing that needs to be stamped out. And as these people hide behind the "corporate" operation banner, it is the corporate side of things that need tightening up. Not to penalise the genuine corporate operators, but to smoke out the dodgy ones.

So, sorry if my post's have been misleading. I do not wish for a broad brush approach, just something in place to clean up the bottom feeders.

Phil Brockwell

16th Apr 2008, 20:30

No-one would give their pay packet to someone with a certificate in banking, therefore why would you allow yourselves to be flown by someone with a certificate in flying?

Safe operations involve a structure of various job descriptions in an agreed format stipulated by a governing body. If any pilot is unwilling to expose himself to the governing body it is unregulated and therefore by definition unsafe. Keeping things safe is a consensus of thousands of peoples opinion, not just some YTS pilot who wants to build some hours.

NuName

16th Apr 2008, 20:42

Dear,
MD of Air Taxi Company & Freighter broker.
Its obvious where your coming from:D

Lost man standing

16th Apr 2008, 21:22

G-SPOT Lost

You are now really obviously missing the point, as you are making exactly the case for FNPL.

"each flight should be judged on that day with that captain and that aircraft" - well how do you do that for a non-AOC charter? That is exactly the reason for an AOC. The only way to have any means of judging is to know how the operation is run, and how that is monitored by an independent body, such as the CAA. That is what an AOC is - a guarantee about the operation and the relevant aviation authority's oversight.

Pace

16th Apr 2008, 21:57

>Safe operations involve a structure of various job descriptions in an agreed format stipulated by a governing body. If any pilot is unwilling to expose himself to the governing body it is unregulated and therefore by definition unsafe. Keeping things safe is a consensus of thousands of peoples opinion, not just some YTS pilot who wants to build some hours<

Phil we are all regulated by a governing body private or AOC operations.
When I take 7 passengers in a private citation am I unsafe as you put it?
Yes an AOC operation runs to stricter rules so by definintion has to be safer but you cannot say a private operation is unsafe. If so why do the regulators allow me to fly 7-8 people in an unsafe situation? But the same 7 to 8 people flying in the same citation under an AOC are safer. Both a regulated.

Lets go to a stupid level. As a regulator I could pass a law that states that before you fly a trip you have to fly the trip fully in a simulator. Totally unpractical! I could then point a finger at an AOC operation and state that because they do not fly the trip first in a simulator they are an unsafe operation.

I Legally fly that citation in controlled airspace in the high flight levels in RVSM airspace with the EasyJets and BA airliners of this world. Would I be allowed to do that if I was considered "unsafe"?

The stupid thing here is if I then with an FAA ATP and C500/550/560 type rating jump into a JAA registered and identical aircraft I am considered illegal.
That would be because I do not hold JAA licences. Apart from maybe the aircraft not meeting the insurance requirements no court would deem that offence as unsafe.

In the same way if I flew Illegal charter in a N reg private plane (which I would not do ) I may be charged with illegal charter but I could not be charged with endangering the lives and safety of the aircraft.
This would be a technical legality infringement not a unsafe infringement.
I would love an aviation Lawyer in these forums to give his considered opinion.

Be careful how you use the word unsafe. Safer maybe but there is a big difference between the two.

pace

Lost man standing

17th Apr 2008, 11:30

Pace

It is not just about being safe. It is about being seen to be safe, with a paperwork trail to prove it and accountability. If an AOC operation is not safe then the CAA is likely to notice and the Chief Pilot, Chief Training Captain, Ops Manager, CAME Manager and ultimately the Accountable Manager are responsible for that, answerable in a court of law. They have been interviewed to establish their suitability and sign a piece of paper to accept liability.

In an illegal charter there is no such accountability. I believe in a corporate charter there is a certain level of accountability, under an employer's duty of care, although the structure is not defined. Many corporate operations are modelled on AOCs, and of course they will be as safe as long as they follow the same rules (such as FTLs, and crew training). This is not alays the case though, and there is no way of knowing from the outside if it is. That is why they can't charter the aircraft.

G-SPOTs Lost

17th Apr 2008, 13:02

Lost man standing.

I really feel that its you that is missing the point.

When I flew public transport, the CAA were not on every flight, daft things happened, mistakes got made by ATC, Crew, Engineers, Ops.

Once again JUST COS ITS AOC DOES NOT MAKE IT SAFE

When things dont go according to plan the CAA find out (if they look hard enough) next time you get audited, by which time its too late.

name me one AOC holder that has not fudged, edited, tippexed, not disclosed, spoke to crew on a split duty and I will gladly show my arse in the department store of your choice.

Let he who has not throw the first stone

Indeed when I feel tired I can say to the boss "enough" I'll come back tomorrow, AOC chaps can do this but oddly enough not when there is 15k's worh of charter the following day ..........

Lets talk about commercial pressure........ I dont have any

You can go on about accountability but that wont count for anything when your chartered aircraft is sticking out of a school roof.........its still sticking out of the roof when it shouldn't be.

I dont need to do dodgy charters, we have a very rangey mid size that we get requests on every day - we say no, I'm not saying we should be allowed to I'm just taking you to task about your perceived safety standards.

Dont think hire or reward, dont think AOC/Corporate/Bottom feeder, its much more low level and uncomplicated than that.

Forgive me for repeating myself

each flight should be judged on that day with that captain and that aircraft, because its AOC does not make it better - legal yes but not better

flynowpaylater

17th Apr 2008, 13:35

G-SPOT - on the basis that you don't seem to be able to read things correctly, and seem to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" I can only assume that you have the same approach to flying.

Please please please tell me you are not a pilot. That would be very scary indeed.

G-SPOTs Lost

17th Apr 2008, 21:05

FNPL

Thats very insulting full marks.

Just explain exactly what qualifies you to assess any pilot

had a great three paragraph reply, which was very witty and insulting and consequently deleted it cos to be honest I bit.....

Anyway when I figure out what the hell you are on, or indeed on about, I might take you to task and ask you to explain your last post until then once again keep your personal jibes to your self.

:*

Phil Brockwell

17th Apr 2008, 21:18

GSPOT,

I know FNPL, he is actually an operator, with an AOC with owned aircraft.

Gotta watch those assumptions.

Phil

G-SPOTs Lost

17th Apr 2008, 22:13

Phil

Indeed we do, applies across the board.This muppet comes on here and casts doubt about our safety standards and personal reputations which we take very seriously both on fixed wing and rotary fleet.

If what you say is true about FNPL (and im struggling to get my head around it) then peoples vested interests & true colours shine through.

My point is really simple, AOC does not equal safe or safer in all cases.

I have no vested interest, in Pub Transport AOC, Dodgy charter. Just interested in getting one of the countrys wealthiest men around safely and efficiently. When somebody comes on here and questions my ability to do so without even knowing my name or the operation, then that persons credibility just nose dives in my opinion.

Lost man standing

18th Apr 2008, 14:55

JUST COS ITS AOC DOES NOT MAKE IT SAFE

and

My point is really simple, AOC does not equal safe or safer in all cases.As far as I read no-one has said otherwise. Perhaps that is why FNPL is concerned that you are not reading well.

It would be foolish to generalise so much in flight safety, where we know the very best occasionally have mishaps. The argument from me, Phil (who I happen to know slightly, who is an AOC operator) and FNPL has been that an AOC is a system to apply minimum standards and to make someone legally responsible for those standards.

That is a minimum safety standard that the charterer can expect, which is not the case in an illicit charter. Certain areas are systemic, and will always match those standards. Training, maintenance, crewing levels and flight planning are areas that the CAA are guaranteed to look into on audits, and would be very hard for the company to fake. It used to be different if stories I have heard are true, but nowadays a light jet on an AOC will always have two line trained pilots, and cases of taking off seriously overloaded are rare. Cases where the runway is inadequate are unheard of, unlike the illicit charters. Even cases where the runway is too short for a landing from screen height with public transport safety factors are rare.

There is a standard, and while you are right that the standard is sometimes slipped from there are limits. That is better than the standards absent from non-AOC charters.

G-SPOTs Lost

18th Apr 2008, 20:36

Nothing wrong with my reading skills.

Maybe regulating corporate pilots flying hours similar to CAP371, the aircraft being maintained and operated to a minimum level and crews having to be trained to AOC standards. Why should the corporate client have to accept a lesser level of safety?

Anyway, I'm bored of this now. We all know that dodgy dangerous illegal flights happen, and they hide behind the corporate banner. If some of you think this is acceptable, fine. I happen to think it is far from OK.

And then the U turn

i just wish you would read my post, an digest all of it, and not just the bits that you disagree with. So in simple terms, I do not think for one moment that corporate operations are dodgy, or dangerous. What I do think dodgy or dangerous is the few out there who believe it is OK to operate public transport flights, without either an AOC or being a bona-fide corporate operation.

All my posts have been to refute the above, I DONT CARE about dodgy charters in G550's, PA 34, Kingairs, 550's discuss it on here until you go blue. I do care about my own personal standards of safety and aircraft governance to my employer.

And then when taken to task about the above, all the best personality traits of this (apparent AOC accountable manger) persons character emerge

Please please please tell me you are not a pilot. That would be very scary indeed.

Which is why this I object to people having a swipe, especially from people who admittedly are lawyer - no, pilot - no who seem to profess to know an awful lot about the law and flying.

LMS its all there perhaps you should commence reading a bit further back ? :confused:

Phil Brockwell

18th Apr 2008, 21:01

G-SPOT,

It is a fact that ilegal public transport flights are done and claimed to be corporate. The reason this is done is BECAUSE there are certain requirements that the CAA, in the interests of safety and accountability, require, and that non-AOC Ops get away without doing.

If you think that this is not true, then you are completely dillusional. You may well work for a bona fide corporate operation, but don't for one second think that all "private Ops" are run without a little corner cutting, otherwise, why would anyone operate without an AOC.

Interestingly, I was chatting to a freelance pilot last week who only worked private Ops because he "couldn't be bothered with all the paperwork etc".

Phil

G-SPOTs Lost

18th Apr 2008, 21:59

Phil

That might be the case.

Once again I DONT CARE.

My operation is "bona fide" because I put a lot of effort in to make it so, hence I'm pissed at somebody broad brushing, hence me doggedly sticking to my guns about this whole thing about given day given aircraft given crew.

Case in point you have just brought a captain on from the chieftains onto the 200 and he's had line training, he's AOC legal but is he as safe as Barnesy on the same day. Yes or No? (possibly a bad example :E)

Interestingly, I was chatting to a freelance pilot last week who only worked private Ops because he "couldn't be bothered with all the paperwork etc".

To be perfectly honest my sentiments exactly having had a gutful.

What really used to annoy me was turning off at the first intersection having been forced to land with min fuel and my private counterparts getting off at the next exit with another hours flying under their belts. So much for AOC safety....

Add in individually negotiated salaries, company cars, first class training and new equipment and perhaps you might begin to agree why there is an amount of attraction to a good corporate gig as opposed to getting barked at by a TV celebrity because its probably not going to be the case that you/ops can get her into Northolt instead of Luton with an hours notice on a Bank Holiday Monday

One other point to discuss is that AOC safety margins and SOP's are there to account for the lowest common denominator in terms of crew ability, as quoted from a large bucket and spade chief pilot.

Lost man standing

18th Apr 2008, 23:36

Why does an AOC mean you have to carry less fuel? Surely in the same aircraft, same load and crew the same fuel can be carried. Or are you suggesting that private aircraft can fly overloaded, as they don't need to keep load sheets for the CAA? Flying overweight is all very well until you have engine problems.

You are doggedly but pointlessly sticking to your guns, because you are having a completely different discussion to everyone else's. You might ensure that your operation is of a high standard, but that does not mean that you should be allowed to charter out your aircraft without oversight and legal responsibility required for an AOC, and complying with the crew experience, training, maintenance and FTL requirements. Therefore it is completely irrelevant to this thread how safe you are.

G-SPOTs Lost

19th Apr 2008, 05:01

LMS

Once again I DONT CARE about the your isssues re Dodgy Charter :ugh:

In the last 10 or so posts I have been accused of not having sufficient reading skills to be a pilot and that dodgy charters hide behind corporate operations - well I can read perfectly thanks and not this operation.

If you are accusing me of thread drift then we are all guilty

And public transport landing distances are factored which means that in effect AOC operators have less runway than there private counterparts - especially in the wet (After reading your post from yesterday shouldn't you know this? going on about runway lengths and screen heights?)

FNPL will explain - he's an AOC Expert

Expressflight

19th Apr 2008, 06:36

GS Lost

I've held back from becoming involved in what appears to have become a private squabble between two posters, but what exactly do you mean by your statement regarding landing distances?

AOC operators have more runway available in any given circumstance due to the factoring element surely? Are you saying that factored distances are not needed for the equally safe operation of a particular aircraft if it's a non-AOC corporate operation? Surely you use factored distances when delivering your wealthy owner to his destination, or is factoring a mere aggravating little piece of regulationary nonsense in your book?

I'm not 'having a go' at you here, just genuinely puzzled by your comment.

Pace

19th Apr 2008, 12:40

Expressflight

I know of one private citation which used to be based at Elstree in London some 700 metres long.

The guy went in and out of this tricky airport light weight and to me it was complete madness. Madness because it was russian roulette and left no room for any error at all.

But private operations can use shorter runways than AOC operations and it is very much up to the pilot. Until something happens and the insurance claims are made.

pace

Expressflight

19th Apr 2008, 15:15

Ah yes, Elstree!

Having at one time held an AOC for some eight years operating a fleet of 10 light twins, I seem to remembner we could operate the Aztec and Navajo from there, but not the Twin Com. Coming out of there in a Navajo was enough for me I recall.

The point I was trying to make is that how can corporate operations be as safe as AOC operations in this regard if 'raw' runway performance is the norm rather than factored distances. Would an owner not expect the safety factor to be as great as if he was on a public transport flight?

Pace

19th Apr 2008, 16:23

Obvuiously not! I have done some of the Grand Prix circuits in formula one.
Go to Spa and see the mass of Business jets parked up on Spa Formula 1 weekend and they are pretty big business jets in there.

We went to the much larger airport up the road :-)

pace

NuName

19th Apr 2008, 16:34

" I know of one private citation which used to be based at Elstree in London some 700 metres long."

The guy went in and out of this tricky airport light weight and to me it was complete madness. Madness because it was russian roulette and left no room for any error at all."

The same guy used to fly a 421 from there and I know which one he preferred. EFATO, no contest, landing, no contest. Citation much preferred. Also, no comments about the madness of operating a 421 from there, let alone a Twin Comm.

Lost man standing

19th Apr 2008, 19:40

G SPOTs

Then why are you posting on this thread? That is the subject of the thread, after all, and if you don't care then surely this is not the most relevant place to post your comments. You are entitled to start your own thread on any subject you do care about.

Expressflight

"Would an owner not expect the safety factor to be as great as if he was on a public transport flight?"

Ask someone at Fairoaks about the Citation V.

pilotbear

19th Apr 2008, 21:06

In a word NO. He/she will say the aeroplane I paid 44 million for can do the take off and landing distances so that is where I want to go.
If the books say it will do it then it will.

I am sick of hearing from you clandestine AOC pilots, operators and brokers how AOC is safer as if you are concerned about pax safety. Your comments are only here because you lose business to people who are smart enough to read the law and use it. That is what the law is about: interpretation.
If your accountant didn't use the law to your advantage you would soon complain.
I have been in the briefing for a multiple aeroplane AOC charter where the pax would have taken all three A/C overweight. The CP's words were exactly this " well boys looks like we are going to have to fudge the figures today, where is that pax weight list?"

Did I do it? yes. Would I do it now? No. But I don't have to now. But there was a nice framed AOC on the wall.

There are many, many more.

Just cause you do a recurrent sim course only means you have done a recurrent sim course. It doesn't mean you won't mishandle an EFATO and tent-peg in any more than anyone else.
How many people do you know who fail recurrents? Almost none because the training organisation would lose business.

Phil Brockwell

19th Apr 2008, 21:11

The reality is that the CAA and other regulatory authorities have set a performance that statistically should show "acceptable levels of fatality" (a direct quote from my old FOI.

You corporate guys use your own levels of safety to have "acceptable levels of fatality", we just have different ideas on how many dead people is OK!

Phil

G-SPOTs Lost

19th Apr 2008, 21:36

Express flight yes indeed by all means accuse me of thread drift - sincere apologies for the squablling, I'll stand by all my comments on here or delete them if I respond a bit too passionately. Just not acceptable to broadbrush people or groups of operators simply because they dont NEED an AOC.

If we did need an AOC we would just get one and legally nick your charters and afford to write 1/2 million off against his tax bill - then you would all be moaning more as we were doing transatlantic charters at 1800 quid an hour

My FMC's tell me what the aircraft will stop in and then factor that figure for AOC distances.

So 1000ft becomes 1920ft wet, if Ive got 1700 and reversers I am totally unworried. Obviously if we go deep due wx then we go around and do it again. Random figures by the way.

If I tell the boss we are going to Shannon instead of Eniskillin then understandably he will be pissed especially when I turned of at the 1/2 way point last time.

LMS

Yep ask anybody about the 560 at fairoaks, was flown by a very good CP and accountable manager for an AOC operator who retired recently. Unsafe AOC operator or dodgy corporate pilot??? or did he just get unlucky.

There is an Excel into wellsbourne weekly, it does very well. These Light jets can go and stop very well its the accelerate stop case that is worrying.

Happy to ceasefire on the squablling, Pilot bear very reasonable post.

CJBoy missed your post hows the CJ?

Expressflight

20th Apr 2008, 07:13

Pilotbear

"......as if you are concerned about pax safety."

Well, it may surprise you but, yes, actually pax safety was one of my concerns, as it was for our crews. I ran an outfit that I was proud of and my pride did not allow me to cheat on my customers and that is exactly what I would have been doing by fiddling the figures.

Call me pious if you like (and you probably will) but that's just the way I am and we still ran a profitable operation and a safe one. Sure, I was annoyed if a CPL poached one of our clients and hired an aircraft to fly them in and once, only once, I called the CAA and suggested they ramp check a certain aircraft on its arrival at GLA.

G-Spot Lost

I assume from you last post that you do actually factor the FMC figure to some degree so that is fair enough, but do the majority of corporate owners actually know there is a difference between private and AOC LDRs for example? I doubt it.

G-SPOTs Lost

20th Apr 2008, 15:21

Xprsflt

Runway requirements used to be a question in the old CAA exams for CPL's and ATPL's, Im sure they will have incorporated them into JAR.

It would probably be the case that in many illegal charters an AOC holder has already been approached to do a certain flight and the client has been told no full stop or has been asked to offload people. He then finds somebody else to do it more often or not in the same kind of aircraft to the same destination.

Please understand that these factors are no doubt there for a reason but are very very punitive, my original quote of multiplying the raw ldr by 1.92 is accurate for a wet runway but lets not forget that its the raw WET figure you are multiplying it by so the CAA or whichever regulatory authority of your pleasing are in effect telling you need double what you actually need to stop. No problem with Nice or Malaga but a rainy gloucester in a citation - forget it. In steps mr dodgy...........

Just to put things into perspective on a FAR/JAR 25 aircraft your raw ldr does not include Thrust Reverse. So in effect the LDR is factored before you start.

not sure about turboprop Phil will know, last b200 I flew in threw me against the straps and stopped in an amazingly short space

Accelerate stop distances did not include T/R unil Airbus had to lobby to have the A340's wet figures to include thrust reverse otherwise it would not have made it into service as it could never have legally gone anywhere public transport!

I assume from you last post that you do actually factor the FMC figure to some degree so that is fair enough, but do the majority of corporate owners actually know there is a difference between private and AOC LDRs for example? I doubt it.

I think you need to differentiate between "corporate" owners and newbie cpl's in senecas here. If anybody has completed a turbine type rating from a beech 90 to a citation I thinks its fairly safe to assume that the pilot knows that AOC ldrs are factored to hell and back which is why he has had the phone call from a freind of a freind to take some other freinds flying.

WRT FMC's I can adjust the factors within the FMS so I get presented with Raw (w/o reverse) and factored 1.67 dry or 1.92 wet. When I click on the runway in use it compares the aircraft weight to the LDR available and advises me against the factored figure. If im going in somewhere short and I get the warning I take great pleasure in telling the boss that we would have gone elsewhere due runway requirement and should he follow through with his threat to put me and the aircraft to harder work on somebodys AOC then he would have had to endure a 60 minute drive!!!!!

Lost man standing

20th Apr 2008, 21:48

G-SPOTs

You are (again) missing the point. I was pointing out to Express that I am pretty sure that landing a Citation V in Fairoaks would not be legal on an AOC, so assuming the owner allowed the approach. That answers Express's point in the negative. The quality of the pilot is completely irrelevant to that argument. What is relevant is the performance charts for the aircraft, and the comparison between those unfactored figures and the same with the public-transport safety factors applied.

Like the pilot of that aircraft I have landed on company business where I would not be allowed to land for a PT flight. The people I work for know the risks, and know me. They accept the increased risk, but as I said to Express they do not always demand public-transport safety factors.

Phil Brockwell

20th Apr 2008, 21:57

LMS,

I admire your application, but I think you are teaching pork.

Phil

Pace

20th Apr 2008, 22:03

Hi

I believe there used to be two Citation 2s based at Fairoaks and they were run under an AOC ?

I flew into Fairoaks once in a Bravo as a co pilot before I started flying as a Captain.

A Citation V is the best of all on short fields as it has the takeoff power and the Five wing was the slowest flying wing of the Citation Range.
Often typically Landing VREF was 100 kts and if light back to 95kts.

The Bravo had faster speeds.

Myself I get uncomfortable with anything below 1200 metres on a standard day temp.

Below that there is little room for any error.

Landing usually isnt a problem as long as you hit the numbers but takeoff is so temp dependant all you can do is to apply max thrust and wait for VR.
Hence the V which people are using as an example has bags of power to get to the low VR. It is the best for a place like Fairoaks.

Pace

G-SPOTs Lost

20th Apr 2008, 22:32

LMS

I did get and understand your point, I was just using your example to prove MY point about perceived AOC safety. Call it debate, irony whatever, in France they just say touche.

You go on about AOC factoring , I had to explain it to you in post 150.

The quality of the pilot is completely irrelevant to that argument. What is relevant is the performance charts for the aircraft, and the comparison between those unfactored figures and the same with the public-transport safety factors applied.

No No No, the quality of the pilot is critical regardless of private or AOC, each AFM has the technique for achieving the figures therein. Just cos you have the 1.92 margin for the wet runway does not mean you should use it, in fact the factor is there to ensure that you get stopped with a percentage of runway left if required - not use it all up.

Even you and I can agree that the aircraft does not know its on a public transport flight!

You fairly obviously do not understand performance - have you done a JAR or CAA performance exam?

What I forgot to include about Fairoaks was the fact that the pilot of the citation landed half way down a 700m runway and expected to stop, it does not matter what rules you fly by either PT or PVT if you do this pax/pilots/plane will come into harms way.

If you land halfway down a runway you do not need to be statistician to figure out that an AOC safety factor of 1.67 is probably not going to help, which brings me back to given crew, given day, given aircraft. On that day it was not an AOC aircraft, on any other runway even when authorised it could have been a AOC flight

Like the pilot of that aircraft I have landed on company business where I would not be allowed to land for a PT flight. The people I work for know the risks, and know me. They accept the increased risk, but as I said to Express they do not always demand public-transport safety factors.

So if the aircraft was on an AOC, I was under the impression that all flights had to be treated as AOC even though the owner was on board and no money changed hands. Perhaps you have an understanding FOI or were you doing an illegal flight? Genuine question i'm not 100% sure about it. If you were referring to a private flight then why mention factoring at all. :confused:

NuName

21st Apr 2008, 06:05

I honestly wonder, hypothetically, if the factoring for landing distances was removed for PT flights, ie book figures allowed, what percentage of AOC operators would choose to retain and apply the old figures, for safety, and let a competitor take the work. Food for thought?

flynowpaylater

21st Apr 2008, 11:21

nu Name - Spot on, without regulation, people will go to the lowest point. Therefore we need regulation.

NuName

22nd Apr 2008, 07:57

Thank you FNPL, that was my point. AOC operators work within the regulations because they have to, because self regulation in the face of competition would fail. That certainly does not mean that anything else is inherently dangerous. Safety is dictated by cost in all walks of life, in aviation 100% safety = not getting airborne, too expensive. I have worked in AOC operations and have been asked to do things that push the boundaries of legality and even cross it, good and bad everywhere. At the same time have had the pleasure to fly with guys, in non AOC ops, who amaze me with their application of self regulation and professionalism. I hope some of it rubbed off on me. But I would like to add, if I am approached to fly an aircraft that has been leased by an individual, and all is legal and above board, I will gladly accept, it is not illegal and there is nothing wrong with it, I earned the right when I achieved my ATPL at great expense. You could always change this, offer me a job with the right salary and conditions and you may have a convert.:ok: