Name & Shame - Operating Commercial Flights on Private Aircraft!!!

[Federation]

While the industry seems to be slowing down, I still hear about more and more flights taking place in the UK and probably all over Europe with Operators / Brokers / Aircraft Owners / End Users blatantly selling Privately Registered aircraft for charter.
Im not sure how many of you are in agreement with this or are prepared to try and tighten up this illegal activity but I thought it would be a good start to see what others in the industry may have experienced in the hope to try and crack down on any people, companies or aircraft in a name & shame exercise?
Not that I expect any feedback from those who may be offing this service, but have no doubt that your out there reading this NOW!!!

[Monkey Boy]

So go on then, name and shame the ones you've heard about to get the ball rolling!

[EI-CGO]

Not sure if this is the forum for this sort of thing, and more importantly what sort of action really comes of internet tittle tattle, however.........

....it is time for companies, Accountable Managers etc to really start lobbying the CAA to do something about this, its a cancer that threatens our very existance and is happening more or less every day at an airport near you.

Plenty of talking shops, but very little action, i'm game if anyone else is??

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Ten West]

"...what sort of action really comes of internet tittle tattle?"

The words "Facebook" and "Virgin" spring to mind. :hmm:

[Pace]

If they are operating illegally then the courts are the place to decide! Whether they are is the big question and im not so sure about that.

Sounds more like sour grapes and lets protect our back yard and certainly nothing to do with safety.

Pace

[Dimbleby]

Yeah, go on FED put up the names so we can see how good yer info is!

Hold on, only two posts to your name.... and ..............Slow today, I can usually spot the journo miles off.

[EI-CGO]

Ten West, with all due respect, if you have ever dealt with the CAA's one man and his dog's 'enforcement' division in regard to GA, you will realise we are fighting a losing battle.

Its not sour grapes, why pay for an AOC and all the infrastructure that goes with it when you can buy a jet, run it on a shoestring and provide charters without all the expense of post holders etc.

Already this thread gives an indication why we are fighting a losing battle.

[Pace]

Its not sour grapes, why pay for an AOC and all the infrastructure that goes with it when you can buy a jet, run it on a shoestring and provide charters without all the expense of post holders etc.

its not sour grapes<< what else is it then ? If you know of someone flying illegal charter then there are routes to follow. If you are bemoaning legal leasing arrangements then ??? old saying if you cant beat them join them.

Pace

[doubleu-anker]

Federation

All good stuff and I sympathize with a genuine AOC holder, if they are effected by others who are breaking the "rules".

What are the rules?? If anyone knows the rules please post here in layman's terms.

If I am the owner of a private aircraft and sell a share to a "friend" say for £ 10 then that share holder flies on the aircraft, is that illegal??? As far as payment goes towards costs, how would you track the original source?

I am not involved in charters so cant speak from experience.

[His dudeness]

What do we do with AOC holders that employ aircraft NOT even on a european register, crewed with 2 over 65 year old dudes? I personally know of such a case. Close the company down, so that quite a few fellow pilots loose their jobs?

Face the fact that you have to live with it. It was always so and will always be so. The Authorities dont WANT to take them on, because they usually have good lawyers. German authority lost on one such case long time ago and never stepped in after that one I`m led to believe. Maybe EASA could do something about it, but from what I hear they are drowning in their own legislation already.

[Pace]

Spunky Monkey

No I am not saying that illegal charter is ok. I am saying that it is legal for a company who do not have usage that warrants outright ownership of an aircraft to lease an aircraft for say 50 to 100 hrs.

They then employ their own crew to fly it and deal with the running of that aircraft while its in their hands.

I am sure if you were a business owner and used your corporate jet as a business tool you would lease in a temporary replacement were you unlucky enough to have a truck run into the wing and ground the aircraft for 6 months. I am sure you would not want to double your costs by pulling in an AOC operator to cover that six months.

As for the crew you use you would have to make sure they were licenced to fly that aircraft and had the hours to meet the insurance requirements.

As to the Biggin Hill crash we are still awaiting the AAIB reports. Sadly private and AOC aircraft crash and kill people. Equally there are some superbly run private operations and diabolical AOC operations and visa versa.

If you know of private aircraft being used for illegal air taxi work report them and the CAA will determine if they have a case to bring against them.

As for legitimate companies going to the wall every day dont blame private aircraft for that! We are in a recession and there are companies going to the wall across the board and in every industry unless you are in the debt collection industry :)

Pace

[African Drunk]

I would agree with naming them but would also suggest that you put in info to CAA at the same time.

Doesn't do that much good reporting to CAA, but maybe if it is public then they might take action.

And a point to remember is that a passanger killed or injured on a illegal charter could well receive NO insurance. That is fine if they know they are taking the risk but how many do.

We reported a flight to the CAA gave the pilots details, the registration, the home base, what time it was arriving back into the UK. We gave passanger details and confirmed the passanger had gone through a broker and believed he was on legal flight. Gave CAA 5 hours notice. They were "to busy".

[His dudeness]

They were "to busy".

See? They can get close to climax when a sheet of paper is put in the wrong file, or even better, missing, but they don´t do their job. Very nice people, the lot of them.

I just hope I never ever have to return to the lows of that. Having been DO and MM for 3 outfits, I´m just to desillusionized about them...

[Pace]

I would agree with naming them but would also suggest that you put in info to CAA at the same time.

African Drunk

You cannot make such a list without hard proved evidence and without exposing yourself to liability laws.

The only option you have is to report a suspected illegal air taxi flight to the relevant authorities for them to investigate and to pass through their own legal department to determine whether there is a case to answer.

As in any law there are grey areas or loopholes which will legitimately be exploited. You cannot blame people for that exploitation. I am sure when you visit your accountant he will try and advise you how best to minimise your tax legally he will not try and get you to pay as much tax to the inland revenue as he possibly can.

Pace

[julian_storey]

You cannot make such a list without hard proved evidence and without exposing yourself to liability laws.

The only option you have is to report a suspected illegal air taxi flight to the relevant authorities for them to investigate and to pass through their own legal department to determine whether there is a case to answer.

As in any law there are grey areas or loopholes which will legitimately be exploited. You cannot blame people for that exploitation. I am sure when you visit your accountant he will try and advise you how best to minimise your tax legally he will not try and get you to pay as much tax to the inland revenue as he possibly can.


PACE is absolutely right.

Some kind of 'trial by mob' (which is what this would ultimately descend into) is an utterly inappropriate way to deal with this problem.

If anyone believes that they know of a company or individual undertaking public transport work without an AOC, then I would suggest that they have an obligation to notify the CAA.

The CAA once informed will carry out an investigation and in the event of PROVEN wrongdoing, will prosecute those responsible.

[flynowpaylater]

I have given hard evidence to the feds more than once. a £1500 fine 12 months after the event seems not to deter the cowboys.

Pace - sour grapes - not at all....just would like the governing body to enforce the rules they set. Lease the aircraft for the day, pay the pilot separately etc...that's just boll%4ks. It goes on all the time and the d1ckheads who actually fly the aircraft are the real culprits in this. Greedy pilots who can't get a proper job.
....And don't even think about suggesting that these poor pilots are just trying to make a living. That is the same as a surgeon who performs illegal operations to remove a kidney from someone who is desperate for money. It's not ethical, nor are illegal charters.

[merlinxx]

If you are a member of a trade associations such BBGA, BACA & EBAA, report to/through your association. I did this via the EBAA & NBAA (member of both associations) for a US operator offering Medivac flts with a non 135 N reg LR35. The Feds out of FRA bounced them & they got sorted in their FL home base courts by the FAA, they were also outed by the NBAA & industry media.

A small victory, but a victory never the less:ok:

[Pace]

It goes on all the time and the d1ckheads who actually fly the aircraft are the real culprits in this. Greedy pilots who can't get a proper job.

FlyNowPayLater

Not sure what pilots you are referring to? are you talking about unqualified pilots such as a PPL flying elegal air taxi work or an ATP type rated who happens to have chosen the corporate route rather than the AOC route?

There are very wealthy owners who have a mass of legal advice and get revenue to their aircraft.

Often these aircraft are better maintained and flown to at least equal standards as AOC operations.

There are also some AOC operations which have poor pilots and shoddy maintenance. I could name a few and a few notable accident examples spring to mind

The reasons for accidents are never Illegal air taxi, they are always pilot or aircraft induced ie poor maintenance or piloting skills and that can and does happen in both camps private or AOC.

What I am trying to say here is that you cannot paint all private operations as shoddy or cowboyish because they are not although some are.
Neither can you hold up a glowing torch to AOC operations because while some deserve that accolade many do not.
Each accident has to be viewed in its own right and lessons learnt from that.

While the Biggin crash may or may not be deemed as "illegal operation" when the AAIB reports come out that will not be the cause of the crash .
That will be poor piloting skills or an aircraft fault or a mixture of both.

Pace

[Phil Brockwell]

Pace, what naive rose tinted specs you see through, do you have to keep a spare pair in your flight bag, or is that only for AOC Ops.

Aircraft "rented out" without an AOC are done so because it is a shortcut to having BOTH procedural and manpower accountability - FACT.

[flynowpaylater]

Pace - What part illegal are you finding it difficult to comprehend? I'm sure the Nigerian in the Nissan is quite a reasonable driver, and his car in good servicable order, but if he is touting for business, it's illegal.

If caught someone doing illegal charters, I would punch the pilot, then call the Police, then call the CAA. IT'S ILLEGAL :ugh: and takes food off the table of those who work to the rules.

Not sure what pilots you are referring to? are you talking about unqualified pilots such as a PPL flying elegal air taxi work or an ATP type rated who happens to have chosen the corporate route rather than the AOC route?

All of the ones that partake in dodgy charters. Please don't insult my intelligence by trying to disguise illegal charters with legal corporate operations. I know the difference, so do you, and so do the idiots who claim not to know who partake in illegal charters. Ignorance is not acceptable in the aviation industry. If the CAA fined these morons £30k instead of £1'500 then it would help to deter them. there is simply no excuse for it.

FYI - I do name and shame, and have contacted a number of these "operators" sans AOC to let them know that I, and many others know what they are doing. Shame the CAA don't do it.

Perhaps I have spoken to you pace? - sounds like I either have, or will. Thou protesteth too much not be on the dodgy list me thinks.

[Pace]

Perhaps I have spoken to you pace? - sounds like I either have, or will. Thou protesteth too much not be on the dodgy list me thinks.

No I would not be involved in "known" illegal charter what I am trying to clarify from you is what you consider illegal charter and what is legitimate leasing arrangements.

I also take offence at your implication that all corporate pilots are some sort of quasi cowboys while all AOC operating pilots are superb. You know thats rubbish.

Pace

[Phil Brockwell]

Pace,

Who knows if they are "quasi Cowboys" nobody is auditing them - and that's the point that you don't get.

[long final]

Pace,

Feel you could do with some back up. I have read your posts and cant see how you can be accused of supporting any illegal behaviour. So often people appear not to want to understand what is written clearly in front of them - it just doesnt fit their opinion.

LF

[apruneuk]

I fly for an AOC holder and I see nothing wrong with the owner of a private aircraft lending it to a friend for whatever reason in the same way that he or she might lend his car. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that friend to pay for the direct operating costs of the flight. Indeed, as a private operation, they could even have it flown by a pair of 80-year-old type-rated PPLs if they so wished (so long as they weren't paid). Everybody involved knows what they are doing and can make a judgement on whether or not they are compromising their safety. The safety of those on the ground is another matter.....

The problem, as I see it, arises when that aircraft or seats on it are sold on or offered for "valuable consideration" to third parties who are not necessarily aware that the aircraft is not being operated in accordance with the minimum standards laid down by an AOC and enforced by the regulating body. It may or may not be true that some private operators adhere to excellent standards, but dealing with an AOC operator ensures minimum standards and regular oversight by the Authority and therefore fulfills the requirements of a Duty of Care to innocent third parties who have paid for, and have a right to expect, a uniformly professional standard of service.

Finally, Commanders who knowingly operate private aircraft with fare-paying passengers are complicit in the crime and should do so in the knowledge that at the very least they will lose their licences if discovered and at worst may face punitive damages claims and/or jail if any of their charges are injured during the course of the flight. As a professional pilot, these are risks that I am not prepared to take and I would like to think that there are very few who would and do.

[johnriketes]

flynowpaylater

Common assault is also illegal. If convicted you should have your licence pulled as being unworthy and fit to hold a licence. You would probably have you airport security clearance revoked also.

If a crew fly for a corporation on the PVT category, what are they to do? Question every high rolling exec that steps aboard. The CEO maybe doing someone a favour or the passengers maybe travelling as a guest of the company. The crew are employed to fly the aircraft and not play detective. If it is blatant and you see money change hands (highly unlikely) then some questions should be asked, otherwise it is really none of the crews business is it??

I know a pilot who flies a corporation, private cat., employing more than 70,000 people in their group of companies. Their pilots are checked twice per year and no one with less then 10,000 hours are even looked at. Cowboys running an unsafe operation?? Don't think so.

Shoot me if I am wrong but how can the crew automatically be implicated in those sort of operations.

[Pace]

but dealing with an AOC operator ensures minimum standards and regular oversight by the Authority and therefore fulfills the requirements of a Duty of Care to innocent third parties who have paid for, and have a right to expect, a uniformly professional standard of service.

Finally, Commanders who knowingly operate private aircraft with fare-paying passengers are complicit in the crime and should do so in the knowledge that at the very least they will lose their licences if discovered and at worst may face punitive damages claims and/or jail if any of their charges are injured during the course of the flight. As a professional pilot, these are risks that I am not prepared to take and I would like to think that there are very few who would and do.

Knowingly is the key word and I agree that any pilot who undertook such work is asking for trouble. But some pilots are employed to fly believing the operation is legal only to find later that it is not. The pilot cannot be held responsible in law to check leasing arrangements between an owner and the person leasing the aircraft and that is FACT.

I would also question your use of the words "insures minimum standards" regarding AOC operations. Minimum standards may be made for the flight but on numerous occasions they are not met without naming names which I am not into I am sure many of us in the business know that not to be the case.

May I also stress what one poster said that I do not support Illegal air taxi work and there is not one word in my posts that imply that.

Pace

[flynowpaylater]

Pace - I have implied nothing of the sort. As I said, I understand the difference between illegal charter and legitimate corporate flying.

So, for the avoidance of doubt, and the benefit of clarity.............
1) Legit Corporate flights - No problem.
2) Charter flights performed under an AOC - No problem.
3) charter flights performed without an AOC - BIG PROBLEM !
4) charter flights performed under the disguise of a legit
corporate operation - BIG PROBLEM!

It's not difficult to understand.

[apruneuk]

Pace

Knowingly isthe key word, hence the bold type. It would ultimately be for a court to decide whether or not the Commander of a private operation had knowledge or should have had knowledge that he/she was carrying fare-paying passengers.

As for an AOC ensuring minimum standards, of course this system is potentially open to abuse, but who has more to lose or the greater likelihood of discovery - the private charter or the AOC holder?

[Pace]

Perhaps I have spoken to you pace? - sounds like I either have, or will. Thou protesteth too much not be on the dodgy list me thinks.

Flynowpaylater

I think what you imply is both way off the fact arrogant and frankly insulting you sound a really up your A**E Guy

Pace

[flynowpaylater]

If the context of the word frankly is meaning "to be frank, direct" then yes, that's how it was meant. I find that being frank with people that don't seem to be able to grasp the most basic concepts in life to be the most effective way of educating them.

I also find your remark sexist on the basis that you assume I am male.
Punctuation will assist you greatly in getting your point across.

[long final]

Pace - Give up. Its pointless against some people.

[Pace]

I find that being frank with people that don't seem to be able to grasp the most basic concepts in life to be the most effective way of educating them.

FlyNowPaylater

I think your comments above say it all and apart from your gender reaffirms the impression I get of you. Maybe you could do with being educated in lightning up a bit

Pace

Long Final I think I will take your advice and bow out before I get myself educated :)

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Some knob comes on here with his second post kick starts one of the most emotive arguements ever to be had in this corner of the forum and as yet 30 posts in nobody's had the kahunas to name and shame anybody...

Two things.

1. Dont feed the trolls

2. Flynowpaylater - get off your bloody high horse, last time you spouted oiff about this one you were accusing me off running a crooked dodgy operation which I took umbridge at. As it turned out it was me with the high corporate safety standards in modern multi million$ equipment and you stood on your "enhanced AOC safety soapbox" trying to trash everybody elses reputation who didn't do a quickie OPC/LPC every 6 months in a clapped out seneca/knacked old AOC hack

So instead of generalising about "Pilots" and "operators" why not name names if you are so sure it happens, if you dont want to pipe down.

If My boss tells me to take person A to place B, am I flying illegally because I didn't shine a light in the pax eyes and ask him how he/she knows the boss? what legitimacy test do you suggest that I apply?

Get real it happens (not with me) get over it you would be better served in trying to promote a bit of public awareness about AOC ops so that you can take the high moral ground, you suggest that the crew are implicit in it.... HUGE assumption , not going to get into a pissing contest with you over this but if you feel as though the CAA are impotent over this and you're not getting value for money for the service they provide - GET IN LINE..you're not on your own write to your MP

[youngskywalker]

:D:D:D:D:D

[Lost man standing]

There are people here who need to wake up and smell the coffee.

It is usually blindingly obvious if being asked to fly an illegal charter. I was asked for a couple of flights that were close to the line before I worked for an AOC operator. Even with my very poor showing in the ATPL law exams I knew excactly where that line lay, and refused to operate illegally. I have known of many illegal charters since, with several different operators, and in all cases it was fairly obvious.

Illegal charters, whether or not the individual charter is safe, will always errode overall flight safety. Keeping an AOC is costly but does ensure standards and importantly accountability. If the legitimate operators are undercut then illegal operations will spread, and be in general they are less safe.

Why is everyone assuming that the problem is corporate flight ops departments doing illegal charters? I suspect that is very rare. Illegal flights by private owners, or small organisations without AOCs are not. I could name a few names, even one that advertised charter flights.

There are some specific points that need answers.

G-SPOTs

The statistics speak for themselves. Whatever the aircraft, even "Seneca hacks", AOC flights have an incredibly good safety record. It is many years since public transport flight has crashed in such operations in the UK. In the meantime there have been several crashes of similar sized aircraft on flights that looked remarkably like charters but were not covered by AOCs.

That is despite the large number of AOC flights every day in light twins.

PACEThe reasons for accidents are never Illegal[sic] air taxi, they are always pilot or aircraft induced ie poor maintenance or piloting skillsThis simply makes it obvious you have no clue as to what an AOC operation entails. The AOC improves standards in exactly those areas by a series of important mechanisms.

Pilots are required to undergo conversion training, line training, recurrent training and OPCs, line checks and standards checks.

Maintenance standards are different and engineering checks and monitoring of all aspects of maintenance are much stricter.

Everything stated above must be recorded and the paperwork is checked by the CAA.

Most importantly of all someone is responsible and accountable for all of this. That means that things get done that might otherwise be put off; it means that any problems that are not addressed can be layed at someone's door, in court if necessary. It means that I don't sign someone to the line unless I could justify that decision to anyone, and I have been asked to justify it. It means that if anyone, pilot, ground ops or engineering, screws up then we have to deal with it, if necessary by firing them.While the Biggin crash may or may not be deemed as "illegal operation" when the AAIB reports come out that will not be the cause of the crashWell with at least one arrest and an insurance company refusing to pay out, it's a good bet. The cause of a crash is always a chain of events. The structure of an AOC operation is designed to break that chain. Therefore the true cause might indeed be "illegal operation", whatever the report says.The pilot cannot be held responsible in law to check leasing arrangements between an owner and the person leasing the aircraft and that is FACTSo are you a judge as well? Only a judge can interpret the law, Pace.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

LMS ok here we go again

For every VP-BGE there is a G-ILGW full of flightcrew in recent memory, wrongly identified engine was the case in that one albeit under difficult circumstances (there but for the grace of god and all that).

The statistics speak for themselves. Whatever the aircraft, even "Seneca hacks", AOC flights have an incredibly good safety record. It is many years since public transport flight has crashed in such operations in the UK. In the meantime there have been several crashes of similar sized aircraft on flights that looked remarkably like charters but were not covered by AOCs

Soundbites mate - where are your facts you have posted nothing substantial, please provide a link or a report backing up your purely anecdotal evidence.

AOC makes you LEGAL not SAFER, NON AOC makes you illegal not necessarily UNSAFE.

Instead of pontificating on here about whats legal and whats not heres a suggestion for you, if the CAA wont prosecute and you have "evidence" of specific times, places and people then get the police/fraud office involved via your trade association, because to be honest these dodgy charters involve large amounts of money procured illegaly - copper fodder if ever I heard it.

If you dont have evidence just theorys and emotive opinions then we'll still be rowing about this next year

If my living was being threatened in this way, i'd be straight onto the long arm of the law bringing private prosecutions and embarassing the CAA into action, moaning about it on a internet forum wont help and by the tone of some of the counterposts on here you're not going to get much sympathy.

Yep it shouldn't happen but neither should a lot of things in life

[Pace]

LostManStanding

First I am fully aware how an AOC works am fully aware of the industry and NO AOCs are not nearly as bullit proof as you try to make out if you want some examples of poor maintenance accidents, fiddled paperwork, poor piloting there are plenty. Ok the operator can have their AOC pulled and a number have.

Secondly NO the cause of an accident will NEVER be illegal charter but always will be Pilot induced aircraft faults or a mixture of both. get real!!!

Lastly a Pilot is not responsable to check the legality of agreements between an owner and someone leasing the aircraft That is FACT so please get your facts straight before posting I have.

Lastly dont you think it rather double standards that the public have to be protected through AOC operations but families, employees, customers travelling on a Private jet dont! are they worth less than the general public who charter legally through AOC operations? I am sure if there was a safety issue both would have to operate to the same criteria otherwise passengers in private jets would be discriminated against by the regulators in comparison to the general public and treated as lesser mortals.

Pace

[Pace]

I also find your remark sexist on the basis that you assume I am male.
Punctuation will assist you greatly in getting your point across.

Flynowpaylater

I also assumed you were a pilot apparently I got that wrong too :)As to your gender God Knows?

Pace

[Lost man standing]

Pace

Steve McQueen will be glad that "NO AOCs are not nearly as bullit proof". If he can make any sense of that. I am astounded that you managed to fit four grammatical errors into 8 words, astonishing even by your standards! It does take a bit of effort to read and try to make sense of what you type.

Nowhere did I say that AOCs were proven against any form of projectile weaponry (or San Fransisco police, whichever you meant). You are completely failing (again) to understand the AOC. Even where you refer to one factor yourself it appears not to register. AOCs can be lost, which puts companies out of business, if standards are not maintained. Non-AOC charters have no accountability and much lower standards to maintain. They can operate to higher standards but how would the person you seem to think can safely charter from them know that? Why would they if they are already showing disregard for the rules?

It is not double standards, it's a free world. You can't stop someone endangering their own lives, even their families', but you can stop them doing so to others for commercial gain, however much you plead.

Employees are protected by duty of care, which is already legal accountability. That is another reason that company aircraft are not relevant to the discussion here. This thread is about things that frequently actually happen, like illegal charters on private aircraft or on aircraft leased by a pilot who has no AOC. Company flight departments are irrelevant both due to the unlikelihood of the illegal charters and the accountability they already operate to when carrying employees.

I was just wondering what "Pilot induced aircraft faults" were, but have worked out it is another of your idiosyncrasies.

You are about 30 years behind in your thinking on aircraft accident causes. Ever heard of the "Swiss-cheese model"? It's been around a long time. Every accident I have ever heard of was the result of a chain of events, not a single cause.

A pilot error or engineering fault is never the ultimate cause. The ultimate cause is whatever allowed a pilot who was going to make that error to be in a position to do so, or whatever allowed the aircraft to be airborne with that fault (remembering that the vast majority of faults should not cause an accident). That is a system error. The AOC is a structure to try to break the chain, to set up a system with as few errors as possible. Your idea of accident cause is like the worst kind of old-school blame and prosecute culture, or bad journalism.

G-SPOT

Nowhere has anyone suggested that a non-AOC flight is necessarily unsafe. However illegal charters, as I pointed out, make the whole system overall less safe. They are also unlikely to be carried out by the safe operators. Why would a responsible operator risk the legal consequences? Why do you think an irresponsible operator is safe?

You implied that charters on a Seneca are unsafe with no evidence at all. No Seneca has crashed on a legal charter in the UK for years. Perhaps you have found the last serious accident on a legitimate UK public-transport flight in a light aircraft. What you don't mention is that "recent memory" is nine years.

As for accidents in suspected charters I could name three since then that were in the news longer than usual because of sporting connections, and that's just off the top of my head. However as has been pointed out before we cannot name and shame on this thread due to legal implications. 34, 340 and 350 as a hint (although the last I might have incorrect).

So it is a complete lie to say that "For every VP-BGE there is a G-ILGW ". What is actually true is that it is impossible to prevent all accidents, so you plucked one out of the air from nine years ago, ignoring the fact that there have probably been dozens every day since then. Considering that there are far more AOC public-transport flights than illegal charters, the latter have a very poor record.
However accidents can happen despite all efforts, as you point out. At least G-ILGW was insured. VP-BGE was not.

[African Drunk]

In an AOC operation you have to check pilots ratings are current or there are implications for the company and postholders, this is audited regually. In a recent incidents involving non AOC ac no one was accountable hence ratings were out. In the end of the day there is accoutabilty. There is no justification or illegal flights.

I fly the G550 and the reason many are operated on the N or VP is that the shortcuts taken are shocking. There is one "private" heavy ac operating out of the south of the UK who are doing such stupid duty that if they had an increase in workload I doubt they could cope.

I believe that the CAA should impound ac flying illegal public transport and that the pilots should face jail terms. Nuremburg proved that following orders is not an excuse.

A father of a friend of mine was killed in a flight that proved not to be legal. All his insurance, both personal and for his company, was deemed invalid which left many people affected.

A owner may understand the implications of how they operate. You cannot assume that there friends, employees or the general public are aware of the lesser regulations imposed on non aoc flights.

Give me one good reason that a "responsible" pilot has for not advising their owner to operate AOC.

[Flintstone]

A pilot error or engineering fault is never the ultimate cause.The ultimate cause is whatever allowed a pilot who was going to make that error to be in a position to do so, or whatever allowed the aircraft to be airborne with that fault


*dons pedant hat*

I beg to differ.

An extract from a (long and boring) book on insurance law says: "The proximate cause of an accident is the primary or moving cause that produces the accident and without which the accident could not have happened, if the accident is one which might be reasonably anticipated or foreseen as a natural consequence of the wrongful act."

Had you written "The proximate cause is whatever allowed a pilot who was going to make that error to be in a position to do so..." I'd have agreed with you. The ultimate cause would be the final link in the chain of errors that brings about the accident or incident.

It's perfectly feasible for pilot or engineering error to be the proximate cause, ultimate cause or even both. Your statement "A pilot error or engineering fault is never the ultimate cause" is an incredibly sweeping generalisation and somewhat inaccurate.




PS. Anyone else tired of hearing the worn-out mantra 'swiss cheese'? I fully understand and agree with the ethos but it's been bandied about so much now I cringe every time I hear it. Pint of beer to the person who comes up with a replacement phrase.

[johnriketes]

African Drunk

"Give me one good reason that a "responsible" pilot has for not advising their owner to operate AOC."

Ever heard of KIS? Keep it simple, therefore safe!!

The costs involved in getting and keeping an AOC, are just not worth it. These extra costs are better spent on more training for e.g.

The amount of paperwork that has to be completed before, during and post flight on an JAA AOC operation is absolutely ridiculous. That extra time filling out a**e covering pointless paperwork could be better spent studying notams, SIDS weather, operating the aircraft and looking out, etc., etc. These are conducive to safety. Mountains of pointless paperwork is not conducive to safety. We supposed to be pilots, not pen pushers!!

This is why experienced pilots are normally employed on private operations, ideally, as they are able to stand up to commercial pressure, as this only comes with experience. Any owner that says they will replace a pilot that does make a stand, is not worth working for because when something does go wrong they will be the first to blame the crew.

[Flintstone]

Kerplunk.

I like it.

[scrivenger]

This is an emmotive subject, always has been always will be, and I talk from over 30 years experience. The root of the problem is two fold as I see it,

1. The inability of the relevant authorities to take any effective action.
2. Money talks.

Can any pilot on here honestly say that if requested by the aircraft owner to fly from A to B he wouldn't, assuming of course that the pilot is happy with the operation technically.

[Flintstone]

That's an extremely open ended question scrivener.

If an owner asks "Will you fly me from A to B?" that's different to "Will you take the aircraft to a little strip in the back of beyond, pick up my good friend Mr.....errrmm...hang on. I've got his name here somewhere.......and take him elsewhere".

Faced with doubts I believe that if any pilot showed due diligence and asked the right questions that would serve as a defence. However if a pilot felt they had to ask these questions on a regular basis I'd be wondering why they were still in that job.

[scrivenger]

Flintstone, I quite agree, but you're talking about a very dodgy operation about which most pilots may well query that request on operational grounds alone and quite rightly too. What I am simply saying is can you afford not to do what you are being paid to do?

[Pace]

LostManStanding

You are about 30 years behind in your thinking on aircraft accident causes. Ever heard of the "Swiss-cheese model"? It's been around a long time. Every accident I have ever heard of was the result of a chain of events, not a single cause


30 years behind in my thinking? There has NEVER been one accident where the cause was quoted as Illegal air taxi. I repeat to you that every accident is due to either Pilot error, aircraft failure or a combination of both.

You speak the obvious when you say that accidents are a result of a chain of events but they are all flying events.

Yes anything that is put in place to increase the flying standards of pilots, or to improve the maintenance of aircraft will reduce the likelyhood of an accident whether it be through an AOC structure or a self imposed structure by a private operation.

An aircraft sitting on the ground has zero chance of an accident unless a truck runs into it. As soon as it taxis out and takes off there is a risk factor.
A risk factor from the pilot making a mistake or a failure in the aircraft.

Regulations and legal requirements are put in place to reduce those risks.
A private operation could be safer than an AOC operation should the private operator self impose more recurrent training than an AOC, more maintainance more restrictions on the weather he will operate in etc.

Finally again I stress that no one here is antI AOC operations. No one here is advocating illegal air taxi.

A company that has an AOC is in the business of making money from aviation and like any company will want to maximise their profits. More reason why they should be regulated from cutting corners and hence reduce safety in their quest to maximise profits.

A private operation is not motivated in the same way as their business comes from elsewhere. The aircraft is a tool of that business and not the business and as such not under the pressures to make every last buck from their operation.

Pace

[tommoutrie]

Dear lost man standing

I am a swiss cheese maker and I resent your suggestion that our cheeses are anything but completely safe.

Tom

[tommoutrie]

Instead of the swiss chees model we could call it the "VLJ business plan" model. Thats pretty full of holes..
EBJ for short
and if you catch it before the accident actually happens you could call it an Ambeo

gimme a job someone for christs sake - spending far too much time reading this toss....

[Pace]

Can any pilot on here honestly say that if requested by the aircraft owner to fly from A to B he wouldn't, assuming of course that the pilot is happy with the operation technically.

Srivenger

It is not the responsability of the commander to determine whether passenegers are legitimate or not. He is not party to discussions or qualified to determine the legality of contracts or legal agreements between the owner or people using his aircraft only a lawyer can determine that.

Yes he is in a position where if he suspects with good cause that a flight is illegal to turn it down.
If he "knowingly" takes on a flight which he suspects is illegal air taxi then he is liable and party to that act.

Pace

[Lost man standing]

Flintstone

"Ultimate" as in basic, highest or greatest cause. I suppose it is slightly ambiguous as ultimate can be used to mean last in a sequence in time, but the context should clear that up. Overarching is the term I prefer to think of, but I was not sure of the quality of Pace's English.

Agree about swiss cheese as a term, but I suspect it is fairly new to Pace and it is simple. I did prefer to use the term error chain, but Kerplunk is even better. Cheers Spunky!

Pace

What thread are you reading? It sure isn't this one!

No-one in this thread said that the cause of an accident has been quoted as illegal air taxi. That does not, of course, mean that there are not many accidents that would have been prevented by the systems in place for an AOC. No-one has said private flights cannot be safe.

You still haven't understood the modern concept is that no accident has a single cause. That is exactly what I mean by you being 30 years out of date :ugh: If you don't get that then you'll never understand the safety implications of an AOC.

You have a simple, touching naivity about monetary concerns in corporate flight departments though. I like that, as long as you never work for a tight-fisted company! Nice to see you've repaired your comma button. Any chance you'll get that randomised shift key sorted?

johnriketes

I am dumbfounded. I can't decide whether you are a well-informed troll or an ill-informed aviation worker. To suggest in a thread to which at least three AOC post holders have contributed that paperwork is pointless must, surely, be a windup?

Do you really think that pilots would actually operate more safely if no-one was monitoring them? That operations would not push the boundaries if there was no-one monitoring them? That the postholders reading this would really take legal responsibility for the safe operation by pilots who don't fill out paperwork?

There is something called the real world. In that pilots are not platonic perfect beings always thinking of flight safety first. In that some pilots are rather too relaxed about flight parameters, and some operators are. In that there is a thing called "economics", so that the thorough operator will be outcompeted by the one that cuts corners, which without paperwork will never be spotted until too late for the pasengers who died.

In that "real world" the rest of us inhabit pre-flight paperwork takes about ten minutes, as does after-flight paperwork. The pre-flight includes printing off and reading the weather and NOTAMs, completing a load sheet and checking and filling out the tech log to confirm the serviceability of the aircraft. The only time it takes longer is if there is a problem with any of this, which I personally want to know about before getting airborne. Not sure I want to fly with you if you miss these out even on a private flight!

In fact, now I think about it, I can't think of only one piece of paperwork I do before a public-transport flight I would not do before a private flight. That is a loadsheet that I wouldn't complete if I was well within parameters flying a familiar aircraft. That takes about a minute, maybe two if I have to calculate the departure fuel.

[Lost man standing]

Pace

As for your last post, Flintstone already answered that. To quote his words of wisdom "Faced with doubts I believe that if any pilot showed due diligence and asked the right questions that would serve as a defence. However if a pilot felt they had to ask these questions on a regular basis I'd be wondering why they were still in that job."

I would add that the defence would quickly run out in the case of frequently having to ask.

[Phil Brockwell]

This is what I'm talking about :-

ASG Charter (http://www.flyasg.co.uk/charter/charter.php?page=1)

They did this for a Bristol Rugby player earlier in the year and the Pilot was prosecuted and fined.

I can only really comment on this one because it is in the public domain, but it happens all the time, just go to Weston in Dublin, it would be a real eye opener.

Actually running charter companies without a licence, not an owner lending an aircraft to a mate.

[scrivenger]

Pace.

'It is not the responsability of the commander to determine whether passenegers are legitimate or not. He is not party to discussions or qualified to determine the legality of contracts or legal agreements between the owner or people using his aircraft only a lawyer can determine that.'

I think you will find that quite the opposite is the case.......

[Pace]

You still haven't understood the modern concept is that no accident has a single cause. That is exactly what I mean by you being 30 years out of date If you don't get that then you'll never understand the safety implications of an AOC.

LostManStanding

The utter rubbish you churn out is far worse than my lack of grammer on internet forum writing.

Please respond to what I say not to what your little petty mind wants to think I say.

Please paste any bit that I have written here which indicates that I do NOT consider an accident to be a chain of events which lead to that accident?

Spending time on these forums fits in with my other work so my typing is fast and I dont attempt to make it a grammatical masterpiece.

Pace

[flynowpaylater]

Good work Phil. Tip of the iceberg though.

G Spot / Pace. I hear what you say, and understand that you are probably involved in a totally legal operation on the corporate side. It is NOT this that I have a problem with.

The problem is that because it is not really regulated from an activities point of view, it is easy for the dodgy ones to "pass off" of a corporate operation. Surely you wouldn't want your sector of the industry to be tarnished because of a few idiots who operate illegally? You have no need to defend legitimate corporate ops as this is not the point.

A number of high profile accidents over the years have been on dodgy ground on the legality of the flight. A certain jockey at Newmarket, a football club owner in a helicopter, another at Denham...the list goes on. These flights were dangerous, and operated at a lower standard than an AOC. They were all commanded by Pilots who had a licence to fly the aircraft concerned, and in aircraft that were within check etc....So, if they were illegal, then someone should be prosecuted, and if they were legit corporate operations, the CAA needs to tighten up on the procedures. It's just not right to have this lack of accountability in our industry.

For the record, I only mention AOC as this is the only yard stick to compare standards of operation to. I am sure that many corporate ops are as safe if not safer than AOC, but on the flip side, many are not. Safety standards should not set at the discretion of the individual owner.

[Pace]

FlyNowPayLater

At least now we seem to be talking the same language

Pace

[BigNumber]

Perhaps another point for discussion would be those AOC Charter Operations that fail to adhere to the requisite performance standards?
La Mole springs to mind?

[Pace]

Scrivenger

I think you will find that quite the opposite is the case.......

If you are correct then the legal advice which I recieved from a aviation lawyer on a flight I turned down was incorrect.

Pace

[Flintstone]

Flintstone, I quite agree, but you're talking about a very dodgy operation about which most pilots may well query that request on operational grounds alone and quite rightly too.

Operational grounds? I think more like legal grounds. Operationally, at least as far as aircraft performance, suitability of destination airport(s), weather etc are concerned things are black or white. It's the status of the passengers that is harder to assess. That said (and to answer your original question) if I worked for someone and doubted the bona fides of a flight I would ask. If I didn't like the answer I'd be on my way. In fact I'll be the first here to give a real example and tell you that I did exactly that a couple of years ago when asked to work freelance by Planechartering. I wasn't happy with the experience level of other crewmembers, I wasn't happy with the lack of paperwork, I wasn't prepared to fly over MTOW and I wasn't convinced that it was a legitimate private flight so I walked away and continued to fend off their advances for about a year afterward.

Let's make that clear, I refused work and money because I wasn't convinced. I think that means there are pilots on here who would refuse to fly.

Now the semantics. I can't agree on your definition of ultimate having had a previous life in which both the terms 'ultimate' and 'proximate' were very clear and very, very important with their misinterpretation having the ability to lead all the way up to the High Court. ;)



PS. To keep things lively I'd like to put some questions to those of you thumping the table about this. Firstly, how many aircraft owners do you each know of that are breaking the rules in this fashion?

Secondly. If you have not reported them, why not?

[Lost man standing]

PacePlease paste any bit that I have written here which indicates that I do NOT consider an accident to be a chain of events which lead to that accident?the cause of an accident will NEVER be illegal charter but always will be Pilot induced aircraft faults or a mixture of bothevery accident is due to either Pilot error, aircraft failure or a combination of bothSo you used the singular "the cause". You said that illegal charters, where the systems and accountability which break chains of events are not in place, can never be the cause of accident, implying that those systems cannot prevent accidents. You blame pilot error and/or mechanical failure for every accident, just as used to be the case years ago in accident reports. Nowadays they might be considered proximate cause, but never the sole cause as you imply.

The context also implied that. If you do accept that accidents are chains of events then neither of those pieces I quoted above is in any way relevant to the posts you were answering. If there are other links to the chain that can be broken by sound operations, then the point stands that tighter operations can prevent accidents, regardless of the final link in the chain. So why did you bother to post it in the first place?

Masterpieces are few here and not expected, but most people with good English manage to write so posts can be read easily. That is a common courtesy it is good to see you adopting.

Flintstone

My definitions of ultimate were chosen from a few options at "dictionary.com". They were not intended to be legal or technical definitions, but vernacular.

[Pace]

Flintstone

But that is not unique and happens in AOC work too. We seem to be in the same region so without naming names which I am not into I can give one example of a citation crash landing in Scotland by a london based AOC operator??? I am sure you too know the background and some of the attrocious conditions and pressures the pilots there were put under.

So it is not unique to private illegal operations but also exists within AOC operations.

The reasons pilots tolerate a lot is often that they dont have anywhere else to go other than out on the street on their backsides.

Pace

[Lost man standing]

Pace

You mean an operator that then lost its AOC cover and had to cancel a lot of flights? You make a good case for the safety benefits of an AOC that such failings could be addressed, and addressed swiftly.

[scrivenger]

Pace, then you must have had prior knowledge of your passengers. I am simply saying that it is the commanders responsibility to ensure he is satisfied thats his passengers are legitimate. What I wasn't saying was the fact that once your passengers get on board and you've had a good hard look at them you call your lawyer!.


Flintstone, surely you walked away because of the operational integrity of that flight, not because you thought your passengers might be dodgy.

There is a huge difference between a safe and an unsafe operation, and an operation that has been paid for correctly or incorrectly.

I'm glad that you walked away, you did the absoloute correct thing, but I suspect it was more because of the whole operation rather than wether it had been paid for correctly.

And to answer your question in order to keep things lively, the answer is two! I have reported two and both have ceased operations. They were reported to SB, HMRC and Immigration. Far far more effective than the CAA could ever be

[Flintstone]

Thread drift but I'll go with it for now.

I believe that aircaft operator was piggybacking on another AOC at the time of the 'Scottish Incident'. Sounds a bit like having to say 'The Scottish Play' instead of 'Macbeth' doesn't it? (Considered to be bad luck in the theatre luvvy). I would point out though that they never "crashed". My understanding is that the crew overcame considerable adversity and made a safe if somewhat fast landing.

Oddly enough, said operator now has their own AOC. I can't help thinking that's a case of the CAA keeping their friends close and enemies closer. By granting an AOC they now have control over the operator whereas before it was the host AOC who took it on the chin.

Aaaanyway, where were we?


Pace.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I was told by Planechartering that a flight was private (even though they were piggybacking on another AOC at the time). I didn't believe it so turned the work down. The other factors didn't help either and maybe clouded things on here. I know it happens on AOCs too but this thread is titled "Name & Shame - Operating Commercial Flights on Private Aircraft!!!".

Edit:Flintstone, surely you walked away because of the operational integrity of that flight, not because you thought your passengers might be dodgy.

Nope. My primary concern was the status of the passengers ie, private flight or not. The other factors, which I considered to be 'operational', were potentially fixable. A tech stop would have overcome any need to depart above MTOW, training might have made me happier about the co-pilot or he could have been replaced etc. Even had all that been done though I just wasn't convinced about the passengers. Maybe they were legit but my gut feeling was to walk away.




I'll ask my questions again as they seem to have got lost already. Those of you complaining about private operators allegedly chartering, how many of them do you know about? If you have not reported them, why?

[Pace]

LostManStanding

I will take note on my typing speeds :) Obviously an accident happens with a chain of events which can even start with the pilot having a row with his wife the morning of a flight.

Regulations are put in place to save pilots from themselves and the same goes with the operator maintenance etc.

Once the aircraft leaves the parking lot the regulations become meaningless as there is only the pilot and the aircraft in the skies.
ie if the pilot chose to fly the aircraft into a mountain and kill himself no amount of regulations will stop that.

It is our compliance with the regulations which are on the whole in place to make flying and hence our passengers safer.

When I referred to the fact that an accident is always pilot blame, aircraft blame, or a mixture of both it is.

Ok a pilot may make an approach and land off an ILS with the RVR below minima. That is Pilot Blame if he crashes on landing as the regulations stipulate a minima considered as safe for that approach.

he may get away with it and make a safe landing with an RVR of 200 metres as was the case with a KingAir forced to land when both destination and alternative went down in fog on a ferry flight from the states.

A regulation is a regulation ie the RVR maybe 550 metres so if the pilot lands on 550 Metres he is safe if he lands on 549 metres he is unsafe?
If he lands below the RVR minima yes he is breaking a regulation but that will not be the reason for the crash. The reason for the crash will be that he could not control the aircraft given the visibility.

Maybe I am being pedantic but I think you know what I mean and I am sure you know what I am getting at. Yes an accident is a chain of events which may start with the row at home and end up with the aircraft stuffed in the runway.

Pace

[Pace]

Flintstone

I met the pilot while flying a jet in the south of france prior to that event
We had an evening out and some of the stories made my hair curl so I was not in the least bit surprised.

Pace

[Phil Brockwell]

Flintstone,

I am aware of 2 non-AOC operations in the UK and 3 in Europe, and yes I have reported them.

I'm not talking private aircraft, I'm talking charter Ops without an AOC - dressed up as hours programes etc.

Phil

[tommoutrie]

I don't think the rules are clear. The interesting bit for pilots is probably section 4. There are still cases that are not easy to decide using these rules.


SUMMARY OF THE MEANING OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND AERIAL WORK

1. The Overall Approach
Public transport and aerial work are defined at Article 157 of the Air Navigation Order 2005 using a number of terms which are defined in Article 155 (1) of the Order. The general rules are defined at Article 157 (1)-(8). Six exceptions to those general rules are then established in Articles 158 to 163. (See also table at pages 6 & 7 below).

2. The General Rules
2.1 Aerial Work (Article 157 (1) and (2))
2.1.1 A flight is for the purpose of aerial work if payment is made in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight, unless the flight is in fact for the purpose of public transport (see para 2.2 below).
2.1.2 If the only payment involved is the payment of the pilot, the flight is deemed to be private for airworthiness purposes (although it will still be aerial work for other purposes, e.g. flight crew licensing). This enables a private owner to pay a flying instructor for a flying lesson in his own aircraft even though the continuing airworthiness requirements that would be applicable to public transport aircraft may not have been applied.
2.2 Public Transport (Article 157 (3))
2.2.1 Public transport flights comprise one major category and two other categories.
2.2.2 The major category is when payment is made for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on the flight.
2.2.3 The second category is when passengers or cargo are carried gratuitously by an air transport undertaking. An air transport undertaking is defined as an organisation whose business includes the carriage by air of passengers or cargo. An AOC holder is almost bound to be an air transport undertaking. There is an exception in this second category for employees of the undertaking and authorised persons making inspections or carrying out tests (i.e. they can be carried gratuitously without the flight being deemed to be public transport).
2.2.4 The third category of public transport flights relates only to airworthiness. If an aircraft is hired for a flight, e.g. from a flying club, then that flight is deemed to be public transport for airworthiness purposes, i.e. the aircraft must be maintained as a public transport aircraft. The flight will be private for all other purposes (provided no other payments are made in relation to the flight).
2.2.5 Article 157 (3), (4) and (5) deal with some legal technicalities relating to clubs etc.

3 Definitions(Article 155 (1)
3.1 Passenger
A passenger is defined in the Order as a person other than a member of the crew. Crew means members of the flight crew, cabin attendants and persons authorised to supervise training and carry out tests. It will be appreciated that observers, cameramen and other persons carried to operate particular pieces of equipment on board an aircraft will, if they do not fall within the definition of crew, be passengers. Insofar as payment has been made to enable them to be carried it will be a public transport flight.
Secretary & Legal Adviser’s Office – April 2005 Page 3 of 7
3.2 Direct Costs and Annual Costs
Direct costs and annual costs are defined in the Order. Direct costs means those directly incurred in relation to a flight (e.g. fuel) but excludes any remuneration payable to the pilot. Annual costs means the cost of keeping, maintaining and operating the aircraft over a period of one year (e.g. maintenance and hangarage). There must be no element of profit in either direct or annual costs.
3.3 Valuable Consideration
Throughout this paper, the question of whether a flight is public transport or aerial work is discussed in terms of whether "payment" has been given or promised in respect of the flight. In the Order itself instead of "payment" the term which is used is "valuable consideration". This term has a very wide meaning, including the provision of goods and services.

4 How to determine whether or not a flight is public transport.
4.1 To determine whether or not a flight is for the purpose of public transport of passengers, the first question is whether or not there are any passengers on board. This is not always entirely straightforward as an occupant may claim to be a member of the crew.
4.2 Having determined that there is at least one passenger on board, the next question is whether any payment has been given or promised which, if it had not been given or promised would mean that the passengers would not have been carried. If there is any payment which could fall into this category, consider what would have happened if the passenger had presented himself for carriage and announced that such a payment would not now be made. Would he still be carried?
4.3 If passengers are carried but there appears to be no payment for their carriage consider whether the operator is an air transport undertaking. If it is, even gratuitous carriage will be public transport (subject to certain exceptions - See Article 157 (3) (b)).
4.4 Even if no passenger is carried or there is no payment for the carriage of the passenger (and the operator is not an air transport undertaking) so that it is not a public transport of passengers flight, it may of course be aerial work if any payment has been made in respect of the flight or for the purpose of the flight.

5. THE SIX EXCEPTIONS
There are now set out at Articles 158 to 163, six exceptions to the general rules and these exceptions are summarised below.
5.1 Exception No 1. – Flying displays etc (Article 158)
5.1.1 This exception concerns an aircraft taking part in an aircraft race, contest or flying display or on a positioning flight to enable it to carry out such a flight, or returning from such a flight. The owner or operator may now recover from the organiser of the race contest or display: his direct costs and an appropriate contribution to his annual costs of operating the aircraft, but the flight shall nevertheless be deemed to be a private flight for flight crew licensing purposes.
5.1.2 In addition the pilot is entitled to receive prizes. This means that the aircraft can be flown by a PPL holder since the prizes will be deemed not to be remuneration and the payment of permitted costs will not mean that the flight is for the purposes of aerial work for flight crew licensing purposes.
5.1.3 This exception only affects the appropriate flight crew licence. It does not affect any other requirement of the Order (e.g. airworthiness).
5.2 Exception No 2 - Charity flights (Article 159)
Secretary & Legal Adviser’s Office – April 2005 Page 4 of 7
A flight will be deemed to be a private flight for all purposes if the only payment is to a registered charity which is not the operator of the aircraft and the flight is made with the permission in writing of the Authority. (A general permission has been issued in an Aeronautical Information Circular (79/2005 (White 114)) so that pilots do not have to approach the CAA each time, provided the flight will be conducted in accordance with the operating conditions set out in the annexes to the AIC.)
5.3 Exception No 3 - Cost sharing (Article 160)
5.3.1 A flight will be deemed to be a private flight for all purposes if the only payment is a contribution to the direct costs of the flight (not annual costs) otherwise payable by the pilot in command. This is provided that (a) no more than four persons (including the pilot) are carried, (b) the pilot pays at least his proportionate share (e.g. if four persons are carried the pilot must pay at least 25% of the direct costs) and (c) the flight has not been publicised in any way except within the premises of a flying club (in which case all the adult persons being carried in the aircraft must be members of that flying club).
5.3.2 There is a further proviso that a pilot cannot take advantage of this exception if he is employed as a pilot by the operator of the aircraft. This is intended to deter flying instructors from abusing the exception by offering quasi-public transport flights in aircraft of the flying club for which they work.
5.4 Exception No 4 – Recovery of direct costs (motor mileage) (Article 161)
5.4.1 In the past PPL holders have queried whether they are entitled to recover from their employers the costs of running their own aircraft or hiring an aircraft to fly themselves on business, e.g. to a business meeting. As they have reasonably argued, they would be entitled to travel by train or car and recover their expenses of so travelling and wish instead to recover some or all of the costs of flying. Insofar as the employer has an interest in the employee travelling to a particular location at a particular time, then any payment made by the employer (even a contribution to costs) in relation to the flight will be in respect of the flight or the purpose of the flight. Thus the flight would be for the purpose of aerial work and outside the privileges of a PPL. However, an exception has now been established permitting a PPL holder to recover the direct costs (but not the annual costs) in such a situation the flight being deemed private for all purposes.
5.4.2 There is a proviso ensuring that on such a flight no one is carried who is under any legal or contractual obligation to be carried, e.g. the boss cannot order members of his staff to travel with a PPL holder but must permit the option of an alternative means of travel.
5.5 Exception No 5 - Jointly owned aircraft (Article 162)
5.5.1 Many aircraft are jointly owned by groups of persons. The most sensible way of operating such a group owned aircraft is for all the members to pay into a central fund a contribution related to the number of hours they fly, so as to ensure that the central fund has sufficient money to pay the costs of operating the aircraft over a period of time. Such a contribution by a group member to that central fund is however, in law equivalent to the payment made by a person hiring an aircraft from, e.g. a flying club. This payment has the effect of making a flight public transport for airworthiness purposes so that the group owned aircraft ought to be maintained to the public transport requirements.
5.5.2 An exception has been established so that the continuing airworthiness requirements applicable to public transport aircraft do not have to be applied. This is provided: (a) payments are made by members of the group to a central fund which amount to no more than direct and annual costs of operating; and (b) the group comprises no more than 20 persons (each with at least 5% share) whose names have been notified to the CAA. The exception applies whether the aircraft is jointly owned directly by no more than 20 persons or by a company which is owned by no more than 20 shareholders. The shareholders must be individuals and not companies.
Secretary & Legal Adviser’s Office – April 2005 Page 5 of 7
5.5.3 It should be noted that this exception can only be relied upon if the only payments are those made within the group relating to the direct and annual costs of operation. No other payments can be made if it is wished to rely on this exemption. In particular, a member of the group cannot pay an instructor to train him in the group owned aircraft. (However, see AIC 7/2004 (White 94) which allows a joint owner to undertake flight tests and pilot licence renewal/revalidation flights.)
5.6 Exception No 6 - Parachuting (Article 163)
Where a person pays to be carried up in an aircraft for the purpose of parachuting out of that aircraft then the flight is clearly for the purpose of public transport of passengers, notwithstanding that those passengers will not be on board the aircraft when it lands. An exception has been established so that provided the flight is carried out in accordance with Article 67 of the Order or the flight is positioning for such a flight or returning after such a flight then the carriage of parachutists (and other authorised persons, e.g. a jump master) will not mean that the flight is public transport. The flight will be deemed instead to be aerial work.

6 Application of the exceptions to hired aircraft or jointly owned aircraft.
6.1 The four exceptions relating to flying displays etc, charity flights, cost sharing and recovery of direct costs (motor mileage) are so defined that they are still available to an aircraft which has been hired or a group owned aircraft operated in accordance with the group aircraft exception of Article 162.
6.2 The four exceptions provide that flights coming within them will be deemed to be private flights for the purposes of one or more parts of the order if the only payment in respect of the flight falls within the specified category of payment, e.g. in the case of flying displays the costs of the flight and prize money. However, if an aircraft has been hired then there will be another form of payment in respect of the flight, i.e. the payment for the hire of the aircraft. Similarly, if the aircraft is group owned, there may well be some payment by the group member to the group for the use of the aircraft. Thus two types of payment (group and hire) are discounted when applying the four exceptions (although if the aircraft is hired it will still need to be maintained as a public transport aircraft).

7. Conclusion
The above is intended to be a summary of the effects of Articles 157 to 163. It is somewhat simplified and it is the Order itself which must be relied upon.
Secretary


Tom

[scrivenger]

So there you go then!! simple.

[flynowpaylater]

Tom, thanks for cutting and pasting the ANO onto the thread. Very informative.

[youngskywalker]

So, four pages later and still nobody has been named and shamed! Must we continue??:)

[flynowpaylater]

young sky walker - look through the thread and you will see that a) You have to be careful due to libel etc..., and b) someone did name and shame. Try reading through the posts before commenting on them.

[Pace]

My understanding is that the crew overcame considerable adversity and made a safe if somewhat fast landing.

Flintstone

Somewhat Fast landing :) I think the touchdown speed was worked out at 210 kts in a citation 2.
ATC refused a landing and told them to ditch in the sea.

Whether on the back of an AOC or not it was still legal charter and no more said. I think some of us know more than we are prepared to say.

Some post here on how they think things should be some of us know how things are.

Pace

[Phil Brockwell]

Duck,

I report these guys often as you know, in 10 years, just 2 convictions, however I'd like to think that the unwanted attention from the CAA has acted as a factor to shut down at least 2 others and severely hamper one more.

Phil

[tommoutrie]

The absence of names on this thread reinforces the idea that its not easy to interpret the rules.

If a local council asks an aerial photography company to go for a flight and take photo's of someones back garden to see if they have built an extension thats aerial work isnt it? Is it aerial work if an inspector from the council gets in the plane to ensure the correct back garden is photographed?

Here's a question that I'd like to get the CAA to answer. Why is there so much focus on incidents like the one above (its ongoing at the moment) and so little interest in the ones that Phil and Drunk report?

I posted the CAA's interpretation of the rules because I think that section 4 has a simplified version of the questions that a pilot can reasonably ask himself to satisfy the private/public transport question. While jobs are scarce and cash is tight I think its more likely that pilots will get asked to do things that are moody and applying these questions may keep someones licence intact.

[Lost man standing]

tommoutrieIs it aerial work if an inspector from the council gets in the plane to ensure the correct back garden is photographed?
The answer is in the bit you quoted. If the passenger is not an employee of the operating company then it is public transport, not aerial work.

[tommoutrie]

actually I'm not sure thats correct. The test is in 4.2 "Having determined that there is at least one passenger on board, the next question is whether any payment has been given or promised which, if it had not been given or promised would mean that the passengers would not have been carried."
The flight would have gone ahead without the carriage of that passenger. The payment of the fee was for the collection of the photographs and not for the carriage of the passenger and therefore it is aerial work not public transport. The CAA certainly used to be completely happy with carrying a camera operator in the back of an aerial survey aircraft that I used to fly and he worked for a different company. I just think that imprecise rules make this a difficult subject. Which is why I posted the waffle in the first place.
What surprises me is that the CAA will quite often get involved in situations which are on the borders of what is public transport but may well be aerial work but seem reluctant to bring a prosecution against the sort of operations that Phil and Drunk are reporting. I wonder if the CAA put enough emphasis on the evidence of the whistleblower.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

"But that is not unique and happens in AOC work too. We seem to be in the same region so without naming names which I am not into I can give one example of a citation crash landing in Scotland by a london based AOC operator??? I am sure you too know the background and some of the attrocious conditions and pressures the pilots there were put under."

I was very close to that operation, and the owner of the aircraft was being taken to Scotland by his pilot. There was a PA in the right seat.
I do not rememebr too many attrocious conditions, in fact it was a perfectly clear night, below the cloud layer. I also do not remember any pressures prior to the flight.

However there have been many examples of commercial flights by private aircraft, and in the past perhaps I also undertook some, it is not easy to determine if the owners friend has paid his friend cash to let him go to Nice for the weekend.

glf

[scrivenger]

glf,

QTE However there have been many examples of commercial flights by private aircraft, and in the past perhaps I also undertook some, it is not easy to determine if the owners friend has paid his friend cash to let him go to Nice for the weekend. UNQTE

This is precisely my point. 1. The rules are so complicated that they are at best difficult to interpret. 2.By its very nature this business requires people to act/react pdq, so much so that you may well not be able to acertain the nature of the financial transaction that has placed the passenger behind you, assuming that is, that you understood the rules in the first place and 3. you have a job to do and you need to get on with it.

Phil, I think we all know a dodgy operation when we see one, normally in my experience it is pretty much the same people that keep popping up. What I am refering to here is how easy it is, or can be, to misinterpret the rules and regulations and find that with all the best will in the world you are in fact operating illegally.

I think if the CAA were to get too involved they might be making a rod for their own backs and that of ligitemate operators too.

[Pace]

A number of high profile accidents over the years have been on dodgy ground on the legality of the flight. A certain jockey at Newmarket, a football club owner in a helicopter, another at Denham...the list goes on. These flights were dangerous, and operated at a lower standard than an AOC. They were all commanded by Pilots who had a licence to fly the aircraft concerned, and in aircraft that were within check etc....So, if they were illegal, then someone should be prosecuted, and if they were legit corporate operations, the CAA needs to tighten up on the procedures. It's just not right to have this lack of accountability in our industry.

FlyNowPayLater

Coming back to a point you made earlier in the discussions ref above I would like to point out that a lot of these flights appear to involve Light GA aircraft.
By nature of those aircraft the accident statistics are bound to be much higher for the reasons below.

1. Light GA do not have the performance or reliability of either Jets or turboprops

2. Their commanders private or commercial tend to not be as experienced as the commanders of Jets or Turboprops.

3. The pilots may often be hour builders who may be more open to accepting Illegal air taxi work.

4. Light GA tend to operate out of controlled airspace often in IMC.

5 Light GA often operate more in the weather than jets or turboprops which usually operate above the weather. There is also the added danger of flight in icing using aircraft which are least able to deal with it.

6. By nature of their short field landing capability light GA will tend to use short runways into uncontrolled airfields or even grass strips with the extra hazards that entails.

Accepting that Light GA are bound to be involved in more accidents I would be interested in the accident statistics beween private corporate jets and AOC operated corporate jets only if anyone has those figures?

It would also be interesting to know the maintenance issue figures between the two. I would imagine that private jets are better maintained as they are the owners pride and joy and on the whole will fly less hours than a hard worked AOC business jet.

Pace

[flynowpaylater]

Pace - There seems to be a big problem here.....I feel a tendency to agree with you!!

To cut it to size, to operate piston twins or turbo props or indeed turbo fans on an AOC gives a standard that all work to. To maintain the AOC you would have to demonstrate that all the factors you mentioned as potential hazards to flight safety have been considered within the framework of the AOC before undertaking any given flight. Therefore, an AOC operator would not fly into many grass strips or have inexperienced pilots who have not gone through a fairly vigorous training beforehand. Weather limits, runway performance, crew duty hours, maintenance standards etc...are all clearly defined. That is as much for the safety of the pilot as it is the punters down the back. I know of a private operator that used to land his CJ1 at Elstree. Nothing wrong with that, but clearly not possible under the increased requirements of public transport / AOC operations.

[Pace]

FlyNowPayLater.

We do seem to be getting on better :) must be my improved grammer?

I would still be very interested in the accident statistics between private jet operations and AOC corporate jet operations over Europe only?
That would prove the proof of the pudding (not swiss cheese :) is in the eating.

Ie if there is a large difference then that indicates that the extra restrictions and requirements of an AOC have a large impact on flight safety.

Interestingly the statistics on employment in the UK have shown a massive rise in government based jobs over the last few years with a negligable rise in productive work.

Ie regulators regulating to justify their jobs and whether those regulations have a significant effect on safety or are an expensive indulgence all around?

Thats if anyone has them ?

Pace

[scrivenger]

May need some trawling through but I set the criteria to Public Transport fixed wing and General Aviation fixed wing, and the dates set from Jan 1980 to present, Air Accidents Investigation: Publications (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm) of course this is only the CAA and will not necessarily include foreign registered in non regulated airspace.

[Pace]

Odd tried for accidents between 2000 and 2008 for public transport and just for fun typed in "citation" and came up with 11 pages of incidents

Then tried general aviation with citation and 0 ???

Public transport fixed wing 592 pages of incidents

General aviation fixed wing 1200 but prob made up of cessna 150s and private pilots etc

Corporate jets were not recognised so may have to specify types to get a result?

Pace

[Phil Brockwell]

Tom, or anyone else,

How would you interpret what ASG are trying to do here.

ASG Charter (http://www.flyasg.co.uk/charter/charter.php?page=1)

FLY ASG has introduced a new concept in none scheduled air transport which is equally suited to any individual or organisation that cannot justify the outright ownership of an aircraft.


The concept is simple, for a fixed sum of £250 per month you get a fixed number of hours on a list of aircraft at present including a PA28 (four seat), a PA23 Aztec (six seat) or PA31 Navajo (eight seat).

Members of the scheme can book their hours in advance at the following address www.aircraftbooking.co.uk.


Does it matter if you are experienced on type or not a pilot?

No! FlyAsg can put you in touch with a fully qualified commercial pilot on a daily basis. So whether it is a day trip to see a football match in Liverpool, a business trip to the Isle of Man or Zurich, a girls shopping trip to Brighton the list is endless and the costs are amazingly low. Travel when you want, no night stops, no travelling via a hub, just simple cost effective point to point travel.


This new concept is catching on fast and FlyAsg intends to add to the fleet. New aircraft that have been suggested and being considered are Piper cub, Van’s RV8, Cessna 310, Extra 300, BN2 Islander, King Air & Jet Provost. So if need hours on any of the above but cannot justify an outright purchase then call Mark to register your interest.

[Pace]

Phil

I am not disputing what you say but would be interested to see how that reflects practically in the accident stats like for like.

I am sure you are correct and that there is a huge difference but would just like to know what that difference is?

Normally on safety grounds you identify a problem and then regulate to eliminate that problem which is quite correct.

In our modern times and I am not just talking about aviation there are massive increases in government departments and regulatory authorities all looking for work to justify those jobs. In one year the government introduced 3000 new criminal offences. Is that sense or Mad Sense? It all adds up to unneeded costs without addressing a serious threat.

In aviation safety should be the motivating factor and regulations introduced to plug known gaps in safety.

But as I said you are probably right and anyway I quite like a heated debate :)

Pace

[Phil Brockwell]

Pace,

I was asking what peoples take is on the legality of what ASG is doing, not posting as a result of your post.

[scrivenger]

I suggest, courtesy of the CAA, pushing it to the limits. My immediate reaction is 'this isn't right' but and experience has shown me this, the punter actually doesn't care whose flying them, or how the aircraft is maintained or if they are going to land within the landing distance............so long as someone has told them that everything will be alright.
It's very sad.

[Phil Brockwell]

I reccon it's ilegal, hire of an aircraft for reward, paid crew for the purpose of transport. You can be sure the pilot is not paying towards the costs.

[scrivenger]

The only people who can state its illegal is the CAA. I think they would struggle to be honest, but never the less its their call.

[deskjockey101]

I came into this industry in 1999, and it took me a while to work out why it was a cottage industry, and now i know...People from within their own industry defending, negating and at worst advocating for people who are clearly trying to sidestep regulation to cut cost!! There is no other agenda...they cant/dont want/to put the proper structure in place and therefore look for any way round it.

Pilots who knowingly take that work should be ashamed of themselves. Think illegal minicabbing!!!!!!!!!, clampers, ticket touts.....all people who make a living out of flouting the law.

There are operations who previousley had an AOC and then decided they didnt want to continue to make the required investment in, safety systems, procedures etc.... and so shut the AOC down and continued to fly from the same premises, with the same and different planes flying the same customers to private regulation with no FTL. There are pilots out there who for one reason or another can not get a full commercial license but are still flying aircraft rented to paying customers, some who know and some who dont........thats what safety regulation is for...why do lorry drivers have tacho's?, if you dont know watch the news and see the results, played out on a pitch black motorway.

Lets hope that EASA starts to get to grips. I admire and applaud well run private operations who do an excellent job of which there are many, and who continue to promote the benefits of business aviation, but to the lease/lent to a friend, cash only brigade, look in the mirror becasue money can never change what looks back at you.....

[johnriketes]

flynowpaylater and Pace.

Yes, you two seem to be really getting on. Can we expect an announcement soon?

Any private (non profit) aviation department of any standing will normally operate to public transport limits, regardless. If the crews feel happier to take a little more fuel, they do and will not be called in for "tea and biscuits" to explain. More than I can say for a lot of AOC operations, including some airlines.

The constant drive and push to save money can on occasion, be detrimental to safety also, if pushed too hard. Commercial pressure can be a killer. Admittedly AOC rules protect passengers and crew alike from the unscrupulous, if adhered to.

Just because it is legal does not always mean it is good. Take the FDL's for example. The minimum rest they prescribe is not really enough but is pushed to the very limits in a commercial (for profit) operation. If I do a long day I want a descent rest I. E., time in the hotel and I get it. The rules are also a trade off between the ideal for crew, therefore safety and to try and keep the operators happy.

Fortunately for me I am employed by people who will ask you if this destination is OK, or how much rest will you take. Yes I am blessed in that respect and long may it last but I have seen the wrong side of the tracks also.

[deskjockey101]

You make a good point. You work for a good private operator who is not trying to simply make money but a less cost, but who wants to use their aircraft safely and look after their trusted staff members...If the AOC FTL rules are wrong, then it's time to change the rules, but lets not kid ourselves the private for profit (negate cost) brigade are not the ones who ask if the destination is ok, and give you as much rest as you want...

[Pace]

Just because it is legal does not always mean it is good.

John

I agree with that comment as many regulations have different agendas rather than what they pretend to be.

I am afraid that in any walk of life people will push the boundaries of regulations, look for grey areas and exploit those areas.

As I said in an earlier post when you go to your accountant he doesnt try and extract as much money for the inland revenue from you as he can but tries to get you to pay as little as you can.

You cannot blame people for exploiting those regulations while while operating within them thats human nature.
You can blame people for knowingly flouting regulations which are black or white with no grey areas.
Only the courts can determine the legality of the grey areas.

Aviation is full of protectionsism, terratorialism, burocracy and a host of ulterior motives often legislated for under the guise of safety. All that adds to is a massive burden of cost, paperwork and restrictions all around.

Regulations should be to do with improving safety identifying a safety threat hole and filling it. In a lot of cases that is what happens.

Pace

[Romeo India Xray]

OK, from my experience I can understand why people circumvent the rules. If EU ops are applied literally in EASA land then there are many circumstances where they are convoluted to comply with should you go down the AOC route.

Take the guy who owns a light twin, has a CPL/IR with 700 hours and wishes to charter the damn thing out. He has no intention of operating to lower standards than stipulated in EU-OPS and has procedures which would fulfill his OM B C and D requirements.

If this guy is flying under an inflexible EASA NAA then he will have to find 4 highly experienced and qualified people for his nominated postholders, an accountable manager (probably himself if the authority will accept him with such little experience as 700 hours), quality manager and auditor. After he has funded that lot how competitive do you think his quotes will be?

OK, there is provision for one person to hold more than one NPH position ... IF the authority will let you (and that is a big IF).

Operationally the CAA in question may impose route, performance or other restrictions that are in no way relevant to our intrepid Seneca driver, all in the name of "safety", but showing little consideration for common sense in areas where EU-OPS states "to the satisfaction of the authority", and in my opinion this is stifling the business environment in this sector.

Add to this that the poor git has to pay his 7 employees for three months before the CAA are allowed to issue his AOC, and before he has flown a single revenue flight.

Is it really any wonder that the rules are curcumvented. I for one would like to see provision for air-taxi and charter operations being separate from full AOC OPS (as in USA). No sign of that in the upcoming IRs (as far as I have read (which isn't much as after 2 mins of bedtime reading I am out for the count)), but it is a consideration I will be raisning with EASA when I get the chance next year. :)

RIX

[tommoutrie]

Phil et al..

I think its probably illegal. One of the stipulations is that owners of shared aircraft must own at least 5% and there must be not more than 20. Each owner must be notified to the CAA. There would be nothing wrong with any of these owners paying for the services of a commercial pilot who is appropriately rated but I don't think the ASG model fits into this category because the owners aren't notified to the CAA and don't own 5% of a particular aircraft. I'm also not clear how hours swapping works but I'm going to ask our former but friendly FOI and let you know. I'm wondering if the ASG model nominally requires you to own a share of something and then you hours swap for the other aircraft.

Anyway, I met a 6 foot 30 year old swede worth $500m yesterday (yes a girl) so I'm going to buy a mig 29 and put it on the private register. Yee ha!

[julian_storey]

Is it really any wonder that the rules are curcumvented. I for one would like to see provision for air-taxi and charter operations being separate from full AOC OPS (as in USA). No sign of that in the upcoming IRs (as far as I have read (which isn't much as after 2 mins of bedtime reading I am out for the count)), but it is a consideration I will be raisning with EASA when I get the chance next year.

It does raise the question why someone with a couple of Senecas should be regulated in the same way as Ryanair or Easy Jet.

In the US they have a much more simplified means of regulating air taxi operators. I'd hazard a guess (although I don't know for sure) that their safety record is little different to ours.

[Pace]

In the US they have a much more simplified means of regulating air taxi operators. I'd hazard a guess (although I don't know for sure) that their safety record is little different to ours.

Julian

That is exactly the point. Its the same as FAA v JAA ATP a recent study determined that both reached the same level and neither was safer than the other yet you try and convert from one to the other Its a joke.

Agendas, agendas and who pays. It should be proven safety issues which determine regulations.

Pace

[No RYR for me]

It should be proven safety issues which determine regulations.

A NBAA report from 2004 showed that there is a 11 times higher change that you will have an issue when flying unregulated charter vs the 91K/135 and scheduled operators..... go figure... If even the industries own trade organisation in the US comes up with these figures guess what the regulators will do :8

[julian_storey]

A NBAA report from 2004 showed that there is a 11 times higher change that you will have an issue when flying unregulated charter vs the 91K/135 and scheduled operators..... go figure... If even the industries own trade organisation in the US comes up with these figures guess what the regulators will do

I certainly don't think that air charter / air taxi operations should be UNREGULATED. Any kind of public transport operation most definitely requires regulation, but there is a quite compelling argument for regulating a small air taxi operator in a somewhat different way to a big airline.

The Americans have got this figured out and have what appears to be a perhaps more relevant regulatory framework for small Commercial Operators and a different one for Air Carriers (the big boys).

I should be surprised if there was a difference in the safety record of US REGULATED Commercial Operators and a JAA AOC Air Taxi outfit.

[deskjockey101]

With respect to commercial aviation it is imperative to remember why legislation is there in the first place. As a private operator your sole responsibility is to yourself and those who choose to make the choice to accompany you. You have not sold the service or charged anyone therefore responsibility lies individually.
Once you enter into a commercial situation of anysort (irrespective of the industry) then the issue of liability and the cost of insuring that risk becomes the issue as you now supplying the service commercially.
Just because someone has only one aircraft, why is the liability any less than it is with someone who has 150. Any single flight (just like any car journey, train ride etc...) has the ability to be catastrophic.
A big problem in Europe is that there are too many small operators (2500 a/c, v's 900+ operstors) which means that the legislative cost is too high across the board. What we as an industry require is consolidation (not uncommon in industries where regulation is hefty but necessary).

Business Aviation is more akin to Nuclear Power than a "corner shop" and you wouldnt want any tom dick or harry opening up a nuclear power plant without significant regulation?? or would you??

[merlinxx]

Simply and straight forwardly put:ok: I suggest those PVT/Corp operators check International Business Aviation Council (IBAC) (http://www.ibac.org) and have a look at IS-BAO. Also enlist your associations, BBGA (UK), EBAA, NBAA etc., etc. Bucking the system will be found out eventually:ugh:

[Pace]

As a private operator your sole responsibility is to yourself and those who choose to make the choice to accompany you.

Deskjockey

I understand and agree with a lot that you are saying so maybe I am talking more on the moral differences.

While I agree that the passenger who accepts a free flight with his mate on a scenic tour of the area in a PA28 knows and accepts the risk I see very little difference other than through insurance requirements of many passengers who travel on business aircraft.

Especially regarding larger business jets the private owner may carry his family and friends but may also carry emplyees or unknown people from other companies ie the business people taking a free flight are no different to the same people buying a scheduled flight other than the exchange of money for that flight.

They know no more than the scheduled paying passenger about aviation or the different risks and are probably directed by their company to the private flight as they would be to a commercial flight.

So I question the assumption that that is their choice or the assumption that they accept the increased assumed risk of flying private.

Ie it is rather double standards by the regulating authorities to allow these people in substandard private operations compared to the more regulated and presumed safer AOC operated aircraft.

Pace

[No RYR for me]

The Americans have got this figured out Yes they have as they are warming up to to the JAA way of thinking and are cleaning out all the operators who were renting out their certificates without control after some nasty incidents. They are also considering regulating brokers.

They dont have it right in the US just as we dont have it right in Europe. The one thing we have in common: both keep raising the bar!

In all there will be less space for the one or two aircraft operators which is a good thing for the general public as it generally increase the quality of the operation. It is better for us in the industry as it gets rid of the "fly buy shooter"operator who has no money, no experience and are messing up the change to make a normal margin by undercutting everybody before going bust. :D

Rant over, do i detect thread drift..... ;)

[merlinxx]

Not a thread drift at all, in fact what is happening (has happened) in the US ref 135 tickets is getting a move on. Various items on National Business Aviation Association, Inc. (http://www.nbaa.org) for most all to see (some not in the members enclave). Check EBAA | European Business Aviation Association (http://www.ebaa.org) as well.

There is a very interesting brief for US operators getting 'ramp jumped' in Europe by inspectors for a full ramp audit. I understand this is going to elevated to all Euro operators as well, better have your ducks in a row folks, otherwise you're going to be intercoursed:{:\

[Romeo India Xray]

None of this addresses the fact that there is NO business case for regulating our Senneca driver to the same level as BA!!! The cost and administrative burden are not fit for purpose!

When you have a regulatory system that is not fit for purpose then you will get people finding ways to circumvent the rules - simple.

As in my previous post, you simply cant put the weight of burden of the current AOC requirements on many business aircraft operators and expect them to continue operating profitably.

By legislating to the hilt in this area you are effectively ousting this part of the market.

I would much rather be in a Seneca or Navajo that is regulated, but to (lower) standard that is fit for purpose, than the same aircraft that is being operated outside any regulatory framework.

RIX

[julian_storey]

I would much rather be in a Seneca or Navajo that is regulated, but to (lower) standard that is fit for purpose, than the same aircraft that is being operated outside any regulatory framework.

And that folks, is exactly the point.

The only thing which I disagree on is the the suggestion that 'fit for purpose' regulation of a small air taxi operator would necessarily be to a LOWER standard.

I'm fairly sure that it could be regulated to exactly the same standard, but in a way which placed a lower administrative burden on the operator - in much the same way that the American system does.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Am I just being an old romantic, but is their anybody else missing the old organic growth of a carrier. You know one aircraft outfit Chieftain/C421/C90/B200 built on a safe operation and regular clientele

It seems to me that the only way a carrier can get underway at the moment is to make a huge announcement in EBAN that the manufacturer milks for weeks thereafter and have a revolutionary business model that one trawls around the city for some tax dodge cash.

Its madness the level of regulation for small carriers, the amount of regulation will always end up matching the investment in the kit hence no provision for a small outfit doing a good job. I do not agree that having less operators using more aircraft will improve safety. Easier to administrate and satisfy the oversight requirements and driving out other capacity will justify the paperwork..... but safer.....I'm not sure

[Pace]

Julian

This presumes that more regulations means more safety but that is not always the case.
The motivating factor should be identify a safety threat and close it.

Not regulate for jobs for the regulators, protectionism, burocracy and a whole host of hidden agendas which a lot of this is made up of and someone has to pay.

Pace

[merlinxx]

Maybe you would care to look back at how Air London (Air Partner) was started by Tony Mack, hey have a gander at how Interflight started, I'm sure that Simon could give you the griff:ok:

Anyone remember a chap who had "Steam Chicken Line" on his little twin ay LGW, that was until he got sorted, this was many moons ago, you folks prob do not go back that far. Still he ho, it all comes around:D ain't nothing new, you may think it is, but it ain't:ugh:

Just stop whinging at get on and sort this situ out, if you can't even agree, join an association and fight from a firmer base:= Otherwise just carry on whinging and get no bloody where:ugh:

[fullyspooled]

Pace,

I know not on which register your aircraft fly, but from previous posts suspect that they (or it) wear an N prefix.

I assume therefore that you are familiar with the term "Truth in Leasing" and the requirements one must fulfill prior to, and after, entering into the kind of lease arrangements that you previously mentioned.

It involves quite a bit more than drafting a simple lease agreement, and I suspect that such formalities are put in place to prevent abuse of the system - not that I am in any way suggesting that you might consider so doing.

Hope my grammar and spilling are up to scratch!

[fullyspooled]

Well, that neatly closed the thread - or perhaps many are rushing for the rule book!

[IO540]

Surely this whole debate comes down to what expectation of safety a passenger flying in a 1970s clapped out Seneca (flown under a UK CAA AOC of course :yuk: ) has, compared to flying in a BA 747.

I would say the expectations are, or should be, very different. But one could argue this one for ever. There are no limits to human stupidity and the modern trend is to use regulation to protect stupid people from their own stupidity.

The UK regulation is based on them being more or less identical, and the Seneca operator is regulated as far as he can be without being completely pushed out of business.

There is no way that a Seneca charter will be as safe as a 737 etc - there is a vast difference in component/engine reliability and systems redundancy, not to mention mission capability w.r.t. weather, and the severely limited operating ceiling in the absence of pressurisation and no oxygen available to passengers.

There are also double standards. A PPL student going up in some piece of clapped out wreckage (like those I trained in) does have a reasonable expectation of safety; arguably the same expectation as the above mentioned Seneca charter passenger. He knows nothing about aviation at that point, and unless he becomes an aircraft owner (which only a very tiny % ever do) he will remain forever ignorant of the safety issues and tradeoffs in maintenance. But flight training is exempted from the AOC regs - rightly so of course otherwise the whole lot would go to the wall.

To me, the whole AOC stuff is little more than a protectionist scheme, to keep the airlines in business and to prevent their business being chipped away around the edges by low cost operations.

[pilotbear]

exactly!
If the rules are simpler and yes maybe less stringent then people will follow them. NO one will follow rules and regulations that they don't deem are necessary or apply to them. That is the nature of the Human. How many of you whingy, moaning self righteous do gooders have NEVER, that is NEVER broken the speed limit because it was SAFE in your opinion, or driven while under the influence because you felt OK, or for that matter added a few extra minutes in your logbook......NONE of you:E (or me :ok:)

[Lost man standing]

IO540

That post is quit ... er ... staggering.To me, the whole AOC stuff is little more than a protectionist scheme, to keep the airlines in business and to prevent their business being chipped away around the edges by low cost operations.This is half right. Of course the half that is right is the bit that makes the first half completely wrong.

Yes the idea is to prevent low-cost operations chipping away at our business, which would leave only those low-cost operations. So the next thing to consider is how you make a low-cost operation. There are many easy ways to do so:
Don't train the pilots. They have licences and ratings already don't they?
Hire pilots on minimum hours, desperate for work. Only pay them when they fly, so they will fly whatever the weather, aircraft state and their fatigue level/illness. In fact, don't pay them, they need the hours. The stress will help them fly well, eh?
Don't check your pilots' flying regularly
Minimise pre-flight planning and after-flight paperwork, after all there's no-one checking
Work the pilots the hours the customer wants, regardless of FTLs, after all there's no-one checking
Carry major snags, after all there's no-one checking
Minimum maintenance, carried out by whoever is available with 145 or without, after all there's no-one checking
None of this A-check nonsense, after all there's no-one checking
Have the pilots fly whichever aircraft they can, no need to train for each type or stick to no more than two. After all, they have type ratings don't they?
No need to track maintenance in a well-maintained tech log and with a company CAME, after all there's no-one checkingCan anyone else out there think of any smart ideas for saving money?

[G-SPOTs Lost]

LMS there you go again, self hypnotised by AOC standards of safety. There is nothing to say that your dodgy corporate/fly by night outfit doesn't do all the "good" stuff you profess to.

Fact is their is more commercial pressure on AOC holders to fly than others as flying is their reason d'etre. Others are going to be there anyway.

Having done public transport can you honestly say that you've never fudged figures, sloped on the extra pax or been glad when a crew member has used his initiative and done it late at night down route to get a "friend" home for a newish client. If so then please stop throwing stones cos you are no better than the dodgy operators you slate on here.

if a part on an aircraft is going to let go, or the thing is going to break down then its fair to say that that particular part or the aircraft in general does not know that there is a CAME probably asleep somewhere 1000's of miles away increasing safety and reliability through proper maintenance. Ironically if the aircraft did know that some clown was happy to pay £600 quid a month for CAME cover then it would probably behave better out of pity.....

Certificates on walls do not a safe operation make regardless of how much shafting you are prepared bend over and take in oversight or regulation.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO REALISE THEY JUST MAKE YOU LEGAL NOT SAFER PER SE :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

[Paradise Lost]

Sure....bring your own toilet paper,
print your own boarding cards,
take the minimum possible fuel,
buy uniforms from Woolworths,
enough!enough!

It has been a most entertaining thread with plenty of drama and histrionics so far. About the only commonly agreed point so far is that the current EU Ops AOCs are hideously overbearing in terms of both expense and complexity for operators of corporate aircraft, rather than the airlines for whom the regulations were designed.
Perhaps, if it ever comes to fruition, EU Ops 2 will prove to be more relevant to smaller operators, and thus remove the temptation to avoid the regs. in order to perform illegal charters.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Which very succinctly brings this pointless thread to a close - Again

Please also note that the original post was the OP's second post and he's not posted since.

When will we learn not to feed the Trolls.....

[Lost man standing]

And there you go, G-SPOT, answering a post that was in your head, rather than the one I wrote!

I never said that a corporate operator couldn't do those things. The commercial pressure on the putative legal charter operation without AOC requirements IO540 implied should be allowed would be the same as on an AOC operator. I never said that no AOC operator ever fudged figures. I didn't say that an AOC is necessarily safer per se. I never said that the parts know about the CAME. Not sure how a CAME sleeps though, our documents just sit there on a shelf. I never said a certificate made a safe operator.

When are you going to address the points I actually make, rather than the ones you think people of my opinion must be trying to make, despite what I actually say? :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

See, doesn't even need to be written in all capitals when it actually has relevance to the post to which it responds!

[G-SPOTs Lost]

LMS

And heres me thinking the whole point of the thread was about dodgy operators and how many hoops you had to jump through to do things "properly". If you were sincerley asking how you you can do AOC work on the cheap and cut corners (which is exactly to what this thread refers and you've been moaning about) then please accept my apologies!

When are you going to address the points I actually make, rather than the ones you think people of my opinion must be trying to make, despite what I actually say?

Classic! - You have been trying to make these points all the way through the thread - dont stop now just because it suits and you're beginning to make sense ;)

[Lost man standing]

G-Spots

It might do you good to try again. Read IO540's post, then my response to it. Then you might actually understand the point I am making, because either you don't yet understand it or you are being completely dishonest in your reply. If you are really struggling there is an explanation at the bottom of this post.

Then try reading through the thread again, because in your last post you lied, presumably by again misunderstanding everything you've read rather than through dishonest intentions. I have not been making any of the points you implied I had.





IO540 said that an AOC was only used to keep cheap non-AOC operators out, implying that such operators should be allowed into the market. I pointed out what factors might make a non-AOC flight cheaper, some of those factors already seen in illegal charters I know of.. I really didn't think I needed to point out that those factors make the flight less safe. Economics rule the day, and if they were allowed then these practices would become common, and safer operators would be driven out of business.

[Pace]

It has been a most entertaining thread with plenty of drama and histrionics so far. About the only commonly agreed point so far is that the current EU Ops AOCs are hideously overbearing in terms of both expense and complexity for operators of corporate aircraft, rather than the airlines for whom the regulations were designed.
Perhaps, if it ever comes to fruition, EU Ops 2 will prove to be more relevant to smaller operators, and thus remove the temptation to avoid the regs. in order to perform illegal charters.

Paradise lost NO in my opinion it is far more ominous and reaches far deaper than that.
Yes any regulation could be made in the name of safety. I could regulate that every AOC pilot must dummy run his flight in a simulator first. There could be an arguement that the real flight would be safer?

The UK government boasted that it has increased jobs by 20% before the recession. The fact was those inreases were mainly made up in government and regulatory positions.
Having created all those positions the people employed have to sit there thinking about their next week, next month work. If it breathes regulate it so we have an expensive out of control monster.

3000 new criminal offences in the space of one year?

When it comes to aviation the same things apply too many cooks interfering and loading aviation to the point of collapse especially now with the recession.

Aviation regulations should be guided by safety. Ie identify a genuine safety threat and fix it. But there is a mass of self protectionism evident by some of the opinions placed here and as usual all argued in the name of safety.

As 10540 said you will never make light GA aircraft as safe as the bigger stuff for the reasons he described.

Company employees travelling in a company private jet are NO different or NO more knowlegable about their flight or aviation than Joe Bloggs in the street but Joe Bloggs in the street is entitled to a far higher level of "safety" that to me is double standards.

There was an in depth study on FAA V JAA Atps NO difference was found between the two on safety grounds yet you try and change one for the other. Having the safety angle closed the argument was then made that the same could not be said for licences issued in third world countries and of course the regulators cannot be seen to show bias.

And yes I am a cynic

Pace

[Paradise Lost]

Pace, I completely agree that regulation for beaurocratic satisfaction alone does not make aviation any safer at all. The gist of my post was that the over-regulation of corporate charter ops is because under current EU Ops, there is no difference between trying to operate an airline or a single aircraft on ad hoc charters, in terms of standards or accountability.
For example, presently there is virtually a moratorium on any "computer generated" performance data unless it is certified by the manufacturer to be JAA approved. In an airline with a "performance office", they have the resources to validate this data, and hence get it approved by the AOC authority. For small companies this is not a viable option, just as they cannot afford to employ all the required post-holders full-time, so have to pay 'consultant' personnel at exorbitant costs to meet their mandatory staffing level. When EU Ops2 is approved hopefully some of these ludicrous over-regulations will be tempered by an injection of practical commonsense.

[fullyspooled]

Pace wrote:

There was an in depth study on FAA V JAA Atps NO difference was found between the two on safety grounds

This is the second time among your prevoius posts Pace that I have noted you referring to this "in depth study." Perhaps you would be kind enough to point me in the precise direction of the source document that you refer to. Where can we find the conclusions of the study? It has little relavance to the topic being discussed, but as it is something that you like to bring up from time to time I am interested, especially as one who has CAA, JAA and FAA licences.

[Lost man standing]

I have seen no argument against considering lighter regulation, especially a split between different classes of operation, as is the case in the USA. However that is not the subject of the thread. The subject is aircraft being operated outside the legal authority and well-defined accountability of an AOC.