Private Operators and Ops1

[ALFRED]

As Private Operators of Bizjets, have you received a demand from your Aviation Authorities to produce Operator Manuals and Regulations before next year ?
Thx

[His dudeness]

No, not yet. Have you?

Edit: just talked to the german Authority, they said that the rule should be made public on April 1st 2011, with a deadline of implementation on April 1st 2012.

Thats apparently what EASA plans, wether this will be done I don´t know...

[ALFRED]

Yep ! We received this request last fall from our Authorities with the same deadline. :ugh:

[BestAviation]

Yep ! We received this request last fall from our Authorities with the same deadline.

Which authority is that? Is this some new EASA stuff or will it affect everybody?

[His dudeness]

Which authority is that? Is this some new EASA stuff or will it affect everybody?

I´d guess its the fench Authority in Alfreds case...however the regulation has been lurking round the corner since quite a while now.

To my knowledge it will affect everybody, even non EU registred Operators based in the EU... Thats what their objective pages says:

3. Objective:
To develop rules for the implementation of the extended Basic Regulation as regards air operations. These implementing rules should encompass requirements and related acceptable means of compliance/guidance material for:
• commercial air transport, based on existing EU-OPS/JAR-OPS 1 and 3 requirements;
• aerial work using as appropriate the draft of JAR-OPS 4;
• non-commercial operations with complex motor-powered aircraft using as appropriate the draft of JAR-OPS 2;
• non-commercial operations with non-complex motor-powered aircraft using as appropriate the input fromtask MDM.032;
• flight time limitations, based on EU-OPS;
• training and medical fitness of cabin crew, based on JAR-OPS 1/EU-OPS;
• competent authorities based on appropriate JAA JIP’s and harmonised with similar provisions included in other implementing rules.

In realitas, there is one big rulebook and each paragraph is marked either CAT, COM or GEN...IIRC CAT means Commercial Air Transport, COM is for COMplex Aircraft and GEN for GENeral... GEN would more or less be what you know as rules of the air, the basic stuff..

So if your enjoying yourself in a C152 you´d follow the rules laid down in GEN, if your carrying your boss in a non AOCed Citation you'd follow GEN and COM and if your making big bucks as an air taxi chauffeur you follow GEN and CAT.

Hope I did not mix it up...

[ALFRED]

Many Thx Your Dudeness !!

Nice explanations.

Whichever country it is does not matter (I'm afraid we are not that many Private in our and the boss would not appreciate any free add campaign)
Anyway, it looks that we (Europeans) will all be concerned with this lost of flexibility and freedom.

I understand that we appear as a kind of grey area for Authorities and they would be more than happy should everybody works with NJt, Vista or Tag. :=

I think that a bit of consultation could help and prevent us from buying right away the Ops1.
Because, what would come next then ? FDM and phone calls from FSO when you are not stabilized at 999ft ? :yuk:

[apruneuk]

At last, a nearly level playing field for licensed charter operators. This should have happened years ago.

AP

[bizjet inmate]

Is there also truth behind the rumour that N reg aeroplance will cease to exist being based in europe with these regulations.....eg no more single pilot jet ops?

[ALFRED]

"At last, a nearly level playing field for licensed charter operators. This should have happened years ago."


Well, if they are licensed then they are playing on the same field or if Authorities are giving rooms for non-european regulated Operators, unfairly competing with yours, that's just because of their inefficiencies.

We are here talking about Privates, wether they are competing or not with AOCed is not the deal. We are talking about Employers buying jets to go to work across Europe as you are using your car to go n work across the Shire.
And we gonna tell them to sell their tools, sack their drivers and go AirbizJet.
Just because Authorities are scared by shops without any incident report for the last 25 years. :*

Privates are a far cry from slavery, flying way less than low cost airlines and having way more resting time... but not on a rigid Ops1 schedule.


So, if some of Private Operators are already brainstorming on that kind of demand, please pm :)

[His dudeness]

We are talking about Employers buying jets to go to work across Europe as you are using your car to go n work across the Shire.
And we gonna tell them to sell their tools, sack their drivers and go AirbizJet.
Just because Authorities are scared by shops without any incident report for the last 25 years.

Correct, and the AOC holders assosiations are lobbying hard to make our life miserable, jealous bastards put number forward that not backed up by any sort of evidence and the authorities follow suit.

We Europeans will not stop making regulations (not limited to aviation) before we are dead. A dreadful way to ruin what is a good idea (US of E)

Somehow I have the feeling we have lost the ability to use common sense and the brainy thing in our heads.

[His dudeness]

Is there also truth behind the rumour that N reg aeroplance will cease to exist being based in europe with these regulations.....eg no more single pilot jet ops?

Apparently yes. The ruling process is going on right now, the proposed changes had been discussed here IIRC. I think the single pilot ops for FAR 23 aircraft will remain unchanged (non commercial) but taking a non rated dude into a FAR 25 machine is already not legal anymore to my knowledge.

There should be guys around here to answer this, I fly D - registrated...

[bizjet inmate]

Yes Dudeness,

I cant understand why it has gone on this long here anyway......many N reg aircraft in europe have only ever been in the states to be built. as far as I know you cannot base a european aircraft in America permanently....so why should we? (I may be wrong and accept any corrections);)

[mattman]

Biz inmate, there is no law in the states precluding non N reg residing in the US.

But why would you even do this when N makes a whole lot more sense.
Slowly the berucratic lifestyle will catch up and when there is no more non EU around you will start fighting amongst yourselves.

[ALFRED]

We already started as if you do not report your colleague for an unstable approach at 1000ft, then you'll get the axe with him...
What a nice atmosphere in flightdecks and galleys !

Welcome in the wonderful Ops1world, ruled by Airlines Insurance company's Lawyers and Shrinks...:D

[BestAviation]

Ok...so back on topic then: Is this somehow related to the debate that has been going on about Non-European licensed pilots domiciled in Europe that they want to prevent - or is this a separate issue? It sounds a bit far fetched that a small private operator need to jump through all that bureaucracy without an added safety benefit.

But then again, after jumping through all the hoops with the carbon trading scheme the three-huggers dreamt up, the narrow minded vote collectors endorsed and the AOC guys conveniently lobbied their way out of, nothing surprises me anymore.

Wouldn't it be nice if they just published a book once a year with all the regulations in it....in readable English. But that would probably be too American :hmm:

[ALFRED]

I'm afraid that on behalf of the noble concept of Flight Safety, they'll take advantage to get rid off N-reged ACF. Ok, that's one thing but N is a spit away from M... :E

Of course it's good to set some limitations but as far as I'm concerned, I'm way more relaxed flying 400 unregulated corporate hours than 897 regulated commercial ones per annum !!

Then, Authorities will be again crying Mom that they did not collect any big buck doing so.:D
But we will be engaged in the process and probably then have to go the whole hog.:ugh:

[NuName]

Seems like time for a non profit organisation to be formed by the private biz jet operators in Europe, with the expertise contained within all the individual operators, producing Op's manuals and all the other documentation required would be relatively easy, also a collective voice for some of the unfair proposals and accusations.

[bizjet inmate]

Alfred,

M reg is purely a tax thing, and unless im mistaken, Isle of Mann is in Europe.....take more than a "spit" to reach America from europe

[flyingfemme]

Seems like time for a non profit organisation to be formed by the private biz jet operators in Europe
That would be IAOPA then?

[ALFRED]

Taxe issues take even less than a spit, just a "click" ;)

Without setting up any controversy, I see Manx as being more Private friendly than other EASA Authorities but I can be wrong.


Seems like time for a non profit organisation to be formed by the private biz jet operators in Europe
That would be IAOPA then?

It could be The Solution but having words arround LBG, they tried 20 years ago and that was more than a waste as a "non-profit-organization"... some bigwig took over and after a couple of lunches... :zzz:
Nowadays, there is a real pitfall to come, don't know if we could put asside personnal considerations on that one...

There's an EBACE to come and it could be time to emulate a trend..?
Or at least find some means of concertation.

First question is : How many Privates are we ?

[NuName]

I was thinking more for pooling resources to produce the manuals at little expense, personaly I think IAOPA is a wast of space.

Manx is definately more user friendly for private op's.

[185 Lbs of Ballast!!]

It already exists guys.......

IBAC is a non-profit, non-governmental association which represents, promotes and protects the interests of business aviation in international policy and regulatory forums. IBAC was founded on 15 June 1981


And IS-BAO.....
The International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations (IS-BAO) was formally introduced and made available to the business aviation community at the European Business Aviation Conference and Exhibit (EBACE) in Geneva, May 2002.IS-BAO was developed by the industry for the benefit of the industry. It is a code of best practices designed to help flight departments worldwide achieve a high level of safety and professionalism..This Site provides information on the benefits of IS-BAO and how to obtain a copy.In addition, the site describes the process used to keep the standard dynamic and current with new equipment and procedures.

Flight departments interested in obtaining a Certificate of Registration will find information in the audit page regarding the process for choosing a Registrar and how to apply for a Certificate. The IS-BAO audit program commenced in the fourth quarter of 2002. Since that time a number of auditors from all corners of the world have received accreditation. IBAC has awarded Certificates of Registration to many flight departments that have successfully met the IS-BAO standard as verified by an accredited auditor.

http://www.ibac.org/Files/is-bao/Home/steve.mov

Introducing IS-BAO International Business Aviation Council (http://www.ibac.org/is_bao)

I think this is excellent and am very happy that ExecuJet are fully signed up.

Cheers

Ballast.

[HS125]

Frankly, I'm with NuName on all this.

I stand singularly unimpressed with the current representation for genuine private ops, especially in Europe.

We have things like EBAA, IBAC, IS-BAO in force but isn't it time to wake up and smell the coffee?

What on earth to the private operator is IS-BAO than a bunch of hoops to jump through? at the end of the day it is a means of compliance with the new legislation, which in essence is a bunch of costly and unnecessary hoops to jump through.

We proved in the debate about third country licensing and registration that there was no safety disparity between EU reg commercial and non-EU reg private operations, but nobody will fight this. Why? EBAA is in bed with IBAC that created IS-BAO, the end. There are still costs associated with IS-BAO, and whenever a new piece of legislation comes out, as far as I can see the 'representative' bodies do little to fight our corner at the consultation stage and then pedal their compliance solution at the implementation stage.... Don't believe me? why the backpedal by EBAA advising it's members to boycott the ETS when the EU wouldn't approve its ETS solution? A boycott was what was needed from the outset by Airlines, Charter and Private alike.

There is a parallel here with other industries, remember when BS 5750 and ISO 9000 series were 'trendy' routes to go down, These all involve quality systems and audits etc, but at the end of the day it's in the interest of the auditor to accept or pass the applicant as the receiving organisation get membership and service fees from the applicant on an ongoing basis!

This whole thing smells, it does nothing but impose cost an an industry in a precarious economic condition with quite the opposite of tangible benefit for it's efforts. ICAO has acted ridiculously here and, what a surprise, the US of E as someone quite eloquently put it [as long as it meant United S***hole of Europe] was at the front of the queue arm-in-arm with IBAC to jump on the bandwagon.

[His dudeness]

I agree.

And the ISBAO stuff does not come for free. Auditing will cost a fortune.

Major point for me however is, that for the time being nobody can give me the reassurance that if we comply to ISBAO that we are also complying with the new regulations by EASA.

I don´t want to reinvent the wheel again. (As I did with national AOC to JAROPS1 and then EU Ops)

Has any 2 man flight department adopted/introduced ISBAO yet?

[mattman]

I am trying to implement a ISBAO ops Man at this present moment amongst my trusty band of pilots........... Meaning me and co-jo.

Now having worked in a big many pilot company, SOP and the like works really well but a SOP and ops Manuel for me, and the other guy is more like trying to plug a leak with 358 pages of crap. And cost enough to build a new dam.

By the way the auditing of this thing is not so simple especially when you get a out of work seriously pissed with the industry, did this to make some extra cash auditor coming to check how well the Manuel balances on the shelve.

I am with Nuname on this, what is there to have a generic ops Manuel, SMS, ETS and all these other thousand of EU created acronyms from Big brother on one website for just private operators. We can all contribute to having one system being audited and cover everyone. Can't see how this is illegal as we are all under the one banner of private ops and, wait for it, NON REVENUE flights. Seeing that it does not have to be company specific but operation specific I see no problems.

Thoughts will be welcome, criticism well that's another issue.......

[Coolmore M.]

Has any company been ISBAO audited, which doesn't have a VP-B/C aircraft in its ops?

[His dudeness]

I´d join in, mattman. I think that we might have a prob concerning different authorities, just like JAROPS was all the same and different for every country, and in my Country at least, different from Authority Guy in charge for your AOC to Authority guy... but we could at least create a database on the stuff and tease the authorities a bit if they play differently!

Just when I thought I´d be rid of that crap (out of AOC into the coorperate), it gets me again...

Would you mind droppin me a line or two about the ISBAO stuff? I´m highly interested...

[ALFRED]

Evening LaydznGents,

We have given mandat to a company to provide us with books :suspect:

So far it's a great copy n past of Ops 1 :{
Of course, we can not match the rest period without hiring extra crews (Boss will be happy !)
We have not covered the Safety management yet nor question of loadsheet or other short rwy considerations...
Next step is a meeting with those "bookwriters" and check how flexible our Authorities are ?

I meet you here Your Dudeness, was so happy jumping out lowco comm to a private.

[3pins]

I have difficulties to see this happening to private operations in Europe, because it is so far away from what the US would ever dream of doing.

It would end up in another battle between EU and US again (just like the idea of banning N-reg in Europe)

They will try there hardest to make things complicated, but when meeting resistance with facts they will back down.
All they will accomplish is more N-reg aircrafts.

[Pittspilot]

Hi Coolmore,

we have passed ISBAO stage 2 being on the Swiss reg. Looking to pass S3 this year.

Regards Pittspilot

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Now having worked in a big many pilot company, SOP and the like works really well but a SOP and ops Manuel for me, and the other guy is more like trying to plug a leak with 358 pages of crap. And cost enough to build a new dam.


Quote of the year right there....

I'm looking at it the other way, if I'm 80% there then I might as well go the other 20% spend 40k on the CAA fees and a couple of audits at 15k each, cherrypick some choice charterwork and heres the rub.....be able to operate at a loss without worry and give the established charter operators a run for their money..

My boss will see it as being compelled to take the train to Liverpool at vast cost and then deciding to get off at Edge Hill.....(sorry for non UK, Non NW based crew!)

Oversimplistic yes, but imagine a company setup simply to provide AOC cover on common types such as an Excel. You operate under their approval and pay your monthly money, once they get to a 10 aircraft "Fleet" it all starts to make sense.

Imagine an influx of approved AOC operators who dont need to make money...it would be chaos!

[Fanjet]

And because it's on an AOC no stupid ETS.

That's a bonus right there.:ok:

[BestAviation]

I'm looking at it the other way, if I'm 80% there then I might as well go the other 20% spend 40k on the CAA fees and a couple of audits at 15k each, cherrypick some choice charterwork and heres the rub.....be able to operate at a loss without worry and give the established charter operators a run for their money..

Isn't that what a lot of the current AOC operators are doing? Many of them don't own their own aircraft - they're just trying to make a buck off someone else's machine...and I'm sure some operate with a loss.

The idea is nice and I did a cost study for my principals not long ago to check if there was a cost advantage of going AOC. Turned out we needed to sell about 140 charter hours to break even on the added cost of an AOC (when factored against cost-per-hour operating). Which isn't a lot - but then the principals would also like to use the aircraft on their discression, so in the end the view was taken that the financial gain was minimal compared to the convenience of ownership.

[ALFRED]

So the overall idea is to implement, at last, the famous Ops 2, which should be... more stringent than the 1 as "we don't want Privates being more efficient or more free than Commercials or AOCed !":=

Writing down the books what and how we realy operate, identifying who will go to jail if not complying and so one :E
And of course, this Ops 2 is not finalized yet :eek:

That was the sarcastic thought, apologize for that.

Of course, it goes toward flight safety but it's a complete different business to run then. Welcome back to red tape, flight envelope, flight log, loads of paper to endorse... and so much for the Rain Forest...


:{:{:{

[asdf1234]

Does anyone have the link to the EASA webpage where the proposals are discussed? I've searched their website but can't seem to get to the info we need. Thanks.

[ALFRED]

Concretely, the idea is to match ICAO annex 6 part II before implementation of Ops2.

Although it's a step toward safety, it has a cost that many Privates will have to afford on their own. Furthermore, VLJs and manufacturers could also suffer from this implementation...
I am pretty confident that as $ are involved, Lobbyists have tough job to face and we'd better seat back, relax and enjoy :cool:






Hope m right :confused:

[asdf1234]

So if EASA-OPS for corporate/private operators will follow ICAO Annex 6 part II and IS-BAO follows Annex 6 part II, is it prudent to go down the IS-BAO route to comply with EASA-OPS now?. Or wait for the EASA-OPS regulations to be published in a few months time?

Can anyone expand on how long does it take to reach IS-BAO certification and what the cost is (ballpark)?

[asdf1234]

It seems everything EASA will be asking of both commercial and non-commercial operator is here:

http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/g/doc/Regulation/reg_216_2008_consolidated/consolidated-basic-regulation-216-2008-en.pdf

So for us here in the UK we have to work out 2 things. When will the CAA advise us of the regulations and means of compliance (i.e. will IS-BAO suffice for non commercial operators), and how long will we get to implement the required systems?

His Dudeness is correct about implementation latest 8th April 2012 so we don't have much time to either achieve IS-BAO standards or devise an in-house solution. Of course a non-commercial operator can decide on the AOC route - it is well documented and has the added benefit of allowing for revenue flights.

[falconbis]

with complex long haul privatjets and the burgoning of the low cost single pilot jet EASA and Operators have been scared to fly around with low train privat pilots in fastjet flying in high density complex areas. they thought that the gap between OPS1 regulation and Gen ruling was too large OPS2 have already been delayed 2 years and there is some good stuff in for Pilots regarding duty time and training. the Boss won t be happy ?? well if you can pay millions to fly a jet you shld then be able to afford the extra cost, or move into an AOC and get all the tax rebate benefits.

[His dudeness]

well if you can pay millions to fly a jet you shld then be able to afford the extra cost, or move into an AOC and get all the tax rebate benefits.

falconbis... *edited*

Rich people and coorperations don´t get rich by spending money for useless things. Some can´t move to an AOC because of circumstances such as runway lenght at homebase (like in our case), some simply prefer not to.
I wonder what YOU would say, if the auhorities would mandat that your personal driving is not only regulated by the normal road regulation, but also total useless regulations on top, that costs the planet several forrest a year; costs you as an owner on top of already existing irregularities (e.g.ETS - WTF does an AOC holder not pay when we do ????) and don´t do any good.

(nothing wrong in the part of harmonizing the regs, but...)

As accident statistics show, AOC ops have more accidents. There are surely a lot of reasons for that and I´m not saying I can tell exactly why this is, but I can tell you that much: my employer spends more on my training and the fact that the crew they employ are experienced that any previous AOC employer of mine ever has (that was 3 of em in a fixed).

Also I personally do know AOC operators that employ 500 guys in the left seat, that spent 250 hrs next to a guy going from 500 to 750 hours in the process. THAT does not build experience in a way it should.

IF the EU commision, the EASA and the local authorities would clean that stable of Augias before they touch something that works, then I´m convienced their reach has something to do with safety. For the time being its a powertrip and nothing else.

They should stop things like SSTR schemes by law, they should prevent that lowtimers get to fly with lowtimers in fast moving things such as jets. There is PLENTY of things they should do before they touch something that generallly speaking works (there a black sheep, but they will not go away by their proposed regulation)

I don´t know about your country, but in my country if you fly as a employed pilot, you got to obey FDR. And we do. Its part of a small manual that the boss has signed. And which is my reassurance that I will not be pressed to do anything unlawful in my role as a coorperate pilot for them.

[mattman]

Hear hear Dudeness....

The ignorance of some people makes me want to run a warm bath and listen to Celine Dion with a sharp knife.

To the jet jockey flying for a AOC that does not have to put pen to paper and discuss budgetary concerns listen up.

To make a aircraft cost effective, And profitable you need to fly a sssssh!t load of hours, the more you fly the most cost effective it becomes, obviously for a multitude of reasons, which I can discuss if this stupid iPad was not so hard on the fingers.
Now for my boss the idea of arrogant paying clients that don't give a hoot about whose aircraft they flying and how they treat it, and let's be honest pasengers can really stuff an interior up, he did not like the idea of sitting in some ones elses sweat stain. Now for a guy who pays all this money to get away from airlines, and netjets this is his prerogative.

To fly for a one owner operation is to me been an absolute eye owner, I have control and decision of the operation, the owner trusts me impeccably and judgement. I have not to argue with some snot nose 23 year old management about getting to and from a place. If I feel not comfortable it does not happen, on the same side we have a efficient and happy coexistence.

Now me, personally think EASA should make all operations private and follow a brilliant safety record :E

To bring it back to the topic, EASA is on a power trip and all it does is drive the aviation further away from regulations. I believe that every operation does and illegal flight with the amount of regulation in place, and this is just to cover them. All they do is stand back and say we are protecting the public and they broke the law, no matter how small.

Instead of working and cooperating with us they cause us to go against them, but this is the socialist state we live with.

The management and AOC companies are lobbying hard, as they are seeing the last bit of pie stubbornly refusing to be eaten.

Have you ever wondered why in all this fancy aviation magazines at FBO's don't feature the hard working people getting the job done, just snot nose 20 and 30 somethings pitching to rich technocrats how they screw the little guys.

Am I bitter, yes I am.....

[mattman]

By the way, to the private operators out there, I am seeking responses to an idea I pitched earlier on. I would like see if it would be to establish a body that will cover us regulation wise and under a sort of umbrella.

These are thoughts and would like positive PM's by those that are willing to see if it would be cost effective.

Cheers

[ALFRED]

Questions :

How many Operators are landing at LCY with a 1,67 safety margin ?
And I'm not even thinking about a wet rwy..

How many long haule bizjets are equiped with a decent crew rest room ?
just to cover the third Crew and prevent him to go and snooze with Mr and Ms Boss.

Of course, I was thinking about AOCed ones as we, as privates, are fool enough to try n kill our Pax anytime :E


to Mattman
"I am seeking responses to an idea I pitched earlier on. I would like see if it would be to establish a body that will cover us regulation wise and under a sort of umbrella."

That was a kind of my initial idea, opening that thread, but I'm afraid it will take to long before Apr 2012.
It takes about a year to write and check agreements with Authorities.
I'd prefer relying upon big wigs like Manufacturers or airport authorities to call EASA to settle down. (even while writing books :( )



Once again, I'm just a private :o)

[falconbis]

Alfred

Ask his Dudeness I m sure his answer will enlight us by his brightness of Knowledges of aviation and demonstrate one more time who is stupid ! but I am afraid he may explain he is the kind of guy who will maintain that flying 16 h of duty with 2 pilots without proper rest sleep 6h at destination and back next day anoth 16 h is ok in Privat in the interest of the flexibility required by the boss, sure he may shine at the local Aeroclub .

[ALFRED]

Gentlemen,
If I were looking for arguments, I would have put that thread on Radiococo or another French one ;)

This 13 hour duty length is one of the several issues to face for our Bosses.
Some issues are concerning small airports who have invested big bucks in their facilities and will hear that it's not enough because some dudes in offices are not confident with the level of safety demonstrated these past 25 years ..?
Some others will hit manufacturers because they haven't design enough rest room in their crew compartment...($$$)

Next step they'll realize that everything that goes up will have to go down and eventually, plane flying on railtracks could be safer than those relying upon their wings to fly.

In 3,5 years of AOCed I saw more stupid reactions from pilots flying in accordance with FDM thresholds than in 20 year of "unregulated" ops. That is pretty sad.

So, thank you for all your comments Chaps and, by the way, excuse my English :\

[His dudeness]

but I am afraid he may explain he is the kind of guy who will maintain that flying 16 h of duty with 2 pilots without proper rest sleep 6h at destination and back next day anoth 16 h is ok in Privat in the interest of the flexibility required by the boss

but in my country if you fly as a employed pilot, you got to obey FDR. And we do.

Read the foggin post, before you jump to your conclusions

falconbis, I apologize for my first sentence, wasn´t supposed to be too harsh, but actually is. Sorry for that.

Apart from that, I still maintain that we don´t need further regulation. No one that does not play by the rules will follow them just because they are more stringend or renamed. And your argument about the costs is simply...well see mattmans reply, he puts it better than I do.

One can operate private and do it safely in line with the regulations in place NOW. We do, we keep a MEL,we 'empty' the HIL ASAP, we don´t use up tyres to very last bit, we obey FDT, we check rwy performance, we don´t go overweight, we fly shorter legs than most charter operator do with the same type in order to have healthy fuel reserves, our crew get something to eat and drink while flying. You probably would wonder how often we say "no" for safety reasons (that includes FDTs)

[ALFRED]

@ You Dudeness, +1.

But it seems that it's not the evaluable as long as it's not written in books.
They just want it written, with a name at the bottom, somebody else they could hammer live if you do not comply.

[doubleu-anker]

The bottom line guys is this. Common sense went out the window years ago. The obituary has already been written.

The EU bill of human rights is total nonsense to any sane individual. Health and safety has been mad for some years now. The law is an ass, so what hope have any of us really got by being allowed to operate with common sense in mind.

As stupidity only gets worse, soon we will all need and hour extra to prepare the paperwork, to fly a sector, on top of the time it takes to prepare for the safe execution of a flight. This is not conducive to safety. That extra time would be better spent having the crew be involved in pref light preparation on a practical level. Not doing senseless paperwork!! Paperwork will not stop an aircraft crashing. Far from it. I guess it is OK to crash as long as the paperwork is OK and uptodate? Not in my :mad: book it ain't!

Anyone old enough to still remember K.I.S.S? Complicate things too much and the average human being can get confused and divert important energies and focuses in the wrong direction.

[ALFRED]

That reminds me first flight in AOCed airline when by 25 miles from airport, I told the Capt "runway in sight".
He stared at me surprised as it wasn't a correct call at such a range and ask me if I wanted to go visual (a bit upset)
This nice guy wanted to go through the whole hog : loc alive, switch on ILS frq, glide alive and blabla.
I just remind him as a debrief that, as far as I was concern, the goal of a flight was to find the correct airport. But obviously that was not safe at all, as he could not put the wheels on the rwy w/o all this process :uhoh:

Once again, we are not the best pilots on Earth, we are just pilots and some believes that if they stick to the books, they'll become The best pilot on Earth...

It's pancake time now, enjoy your Sunday, Gentlemen.

[pilotms]

Are there any news about the rules? Have they been published?

[theficklefinger]

In the US, part 91, No.

Sorry if you have to go through that crap to fly a plane. Sounds like your getting jerked around and they are stifling private aviation in your country.

[Fossy]

are you sure that Part 91 is not affected? I would have a look for the new ICAO Annex 6.

[His dudeness]

Met an LBA guy the day before yesterday and in our brief discussion he said nothing is ready yet, apparently EASA drowns in 'buts' (not only for the ops part, the FTL thing alone had sumthin like 50.000 replies he said.

He said they think to get it out by september, with April 1st 2012 as date of introduction possibly with a further 6 months leeway...

He said about EASA, and I quote: "headless chicken, running around and not knowing what they do".

He also said that we wonders about the people from various interest groups such as AOPA, Pilot assosiations, EBAA etcetc. that apparently either don´t show up or fail to make an impact in the generating of the rules....

[ALFRED]

The Bookwritter we met few weeks ago settled down a lil as he, and probably EASA as well, realized that :

-Dassault will have to make more rooms for Crews in the cabin of its lovely
7X (so much for the Pax)
-Cessna won't probably sell anymore Mustang to privates ( we don't even talk about Eclipse)
-Swiss FOCA or French DGAC will probably have to close runways like LSGC, LFTZ or some other unkown tricky ones.:=

In a nutshell, it turns now to big money issues, why not sitting on the fence and contemplate lobbyists a work ?:D

[Yogibaboo]

Any news?

Rgds

Yogi

[Flaymy]

From what I hear, Yogi, this has all been delayed. Not sure by how much, but it seems unlikely to be implemented in April.

You guys blaming the AOC operators for supposed lobbying should perhaps look to why they lobby. When private owners let their friends (or indeed others) hire the aircraft it does of course take business away from legitimate operators. It also harms the reputation of GA: I don't know about the rest of Europe, but in the UK in the last few years there have been a number of accidents involving either suspect or definitely illegal charters.

The illegal charter market seems to be far larger than I would ever have imagined before I worked in GA. I have caught one organisation out because I bumped into a passenger I knew getting out of an aircraft I knew. I have seen illegal charters advertised more than once. There are a lot of charters around that are seriously suspect.

Now I am far from convinced that this legislation is a good route, but I can see why the legitimate operators might support it. Maybe a little lobbying from the large number of perfectly honourable private/corporate operators, acknowledging this problem, could have helped steer a more reasonable course.

As for private operations being as safe as AOC, everyone must recognise that there is a lot of variability in private operations. I flew on a private operation for a short time that was only safe because of the public-transport experience of the crew, who recognised that the structure of the organisation did not come close to an AOC and worked hard to make sure professional standards were kept. There has been significant variability in AOC operations, but even over my career there has been a huge improvement at the bottom.

[flyingfemme]

Rules and laws have always been broken by some. Making another (stupid) law won't change that.
The whole aviation scene in Europe needs a total overhaul and a large dose of common sense. It won't happen while the shop (EASA) is being run by idots and politicians who wouldn't know a runway from a parking lot if they were dropped in the middle of it.
People with money and business will begin to move away from Europe as life gets more difficult.

[Flaymy]

Making another (stupid) law won't change thatThe problem is that in some cases this law, stupid as it might be, probably will stop some illegal charters.

The difference in cost between a private operation and paying an operator to manage the aircraft will be much reduced. The unfortunate thing is simply that they made this so just by increasing costs to private operators, and did not even consider reducing costs to AOC holders.

Of course any professional management company, especially if it has an AOC and executives have signed Form 4, is far less likely to sell illegal charters. The ability of the Authority to shut down an operation, or at least demand serious remedies, is far more a deterrent than the £250 fine one company my previous employer managed to prove to be flying illegally was given.

So an owner who wants to charter the aircraft out might as well put it on an AOC, and charter it legally. At the very least the premium for doing so is reduced, and therefore so is the incentive for chartering illegally.

There could have been other remedies that would have been far better for reducing illegal charters. However they would need co-operation of private and corporate operators who never took this problem seriously.

[His dudeness]

You guys blaming the AOC operators for supposed lobbying should perhaps look to why they lobby.

Because they are greedy and because they have blown their market out of proportion AKA they have too many airplanes meaning they sell theirs too cheap and want our business and jobs. (I´m exaggerating, but...)

Now its easy to make the claim that the bad, bad A/C owners sell illegal charters. Who or how many have been proven to do so? A few rotten apples maybe....

We never have chartered illegally out nor will we ever do.

So we get punished for alleged sins of a few others. BTW, the draft I have read will do nothing to prevent illegal charters. The EASA and the German authority consider NetJets owner operation a private one, the NetJets card operation as a commercial one. How can that be? Does NJ not make profits from their shareholders?

The whole system proposed - for commercial and noncomm operators is bollocks IMO. SMS? Won´t change a thing. Fatigue risk management?

BTW, deadline for NCCs (the non comm complex airplanes) is the 8th of April 2014,thats what I have heard from the LBA yesterday.

The new reg is EXPECTED to be translated in Autumn this year...

[Flaymy]

It ain't just a few rotten apples. I am sure it isn't a majority either, but it is pretty common. As I said, I know of four definite illegal charters, by three different companies, spotted by me or colleagues of mine just by pure chance - one of them was on TV! That is the known ones, at least three of which were part of subsequent prosecutions. Suspected ones far outnumber them. Then there are the accidents that either were illegal charters (Biggin Hill for example) or certainly looked like it (obviously for legal reasons I can't name any, but just look through accident reports in GA for the last 10 years or so, and look for the suspicious circumstances).

I know at least three people who have been involved in illegal charters in the past, and I don't know many people with significant experience in non-AOC flying. I have not spent much time at all in flashy handling agents with other crews coming in and out, simply because of where and when I have typically flown, so I don't see that many passenger charters in and out, but I have still seen plenty of pretty suspect flights.

Companies have invested large amounts of time and money in AOCs. A proper operation has a lot of overhead in office staff, expensive people due to the experience requirements. That does pay off in safety, even I can see it at the coal face. They don't want your business at all, unless you are involved in illegal charters or unless you want to pay for management. Of course the latter will be easier to sell now, but did you guys in private GA put out any better solution to what is, after all, a problem that affects us all, at least in image. They want to sit alongside you, and do their business without being undercut by people breaking the law. The size of the fleets is up to them and the market will determine which profit. They should not have to compete with illegal operators.

NetJets doesn't make a profit at all. Sharing is as old as aviation, and legally it would be all but impossible to define flying an owner, shared or otherwise, as CAT.

It will not, of course, stop illegal charters directly. However it removes a large part of the incentive. I explained in detail why I think it will help.

I never said you should be punished at all.

[NuName]

A very large part of the problem is individuals seeing something that they THINK may be an illegal AOC operation and spreading the, so far, unfounded rumour. I always wonder why, when I read someones declaration of witnessing illegal activities, they don't take their evidence to the proper authorities insted of pontificating in forums such as this.

[flyingfemme]

NetJets doesn't make a profit at all.

How does that square with :
"NetJets turned a profit of slightly higher than the goal of $200 million last year, said David Sokol, CEO of NetJets"?

[His dudeness]

Flaymy,

don´t get me wrong, I don´t want a slagging match. OTOH I don´t agree with quite a lot of you reasoning...

It ain't just a few rotten apples. I am sure it isn't a majority either, but it is pretty common. As I said, I know of four definite illegal charters, by three different companies, spotted by me or colleagues of mine just by pure chance - one of them was on TV!

Okay. Did you report them? Did your Authority do something after you did? (if you did...)

Companies have invested large amounts of time and money in AOCs. A proper operation has a lot of overhead in office staff, expensive people due to the experience requirements.

I don´t know your background, but I can tell you that I was employed directly by 3 AOC holders, held all postholder positions but QM and safety officer and I have flown for at least 4 other AOC operations on a freelance basis. Aircraft were ranging from KA90 to Challenger 300. I fly since 1990, so I have pre and post JAR/EU-OPS experience.

Required experience? Forget it, take a 3 days course and there you go.
Expensive staff? Pilot A, we need an XY Postholder, since you are underworked and overpaid you do it...

If there is one thing that I would say is common in all these ops, then that JAR/EU-OPS has done very little to increase safety from my point of view. The reaction of AOC operations is very typical and very human: they pick on the others instead of the Authorities that imposed schemes/legislation/etc that won´t work as they hope for. ( a few things are good, no doubt...)

The structure, 'they' want so see is doable. But only for large operators. Any small one - forget it. The shift from small businesses to big ones one can see in all the EU politics, they don´t openly say it but they act so. They want to get rid of small businesses and operations.

At least in our operation (and there are quite a few I know that are the same) we spent a big amount on training each year. We do see FSI for Simtraining and do all the courses an AOC pilot does as well.

That does pay off in safety, even I can see it at the coal face.

Some things have changed, I don´t say everything is wrong. But a lt of things have been deemed unsafe and therefore changed, that did not need any change. Its sort of a self full-filling prophecy. (e.g.: make London City usable only if there is a supplement for steep approaches in the AFM, it does not matter that you have been operating years and years without said AFM supplement safely into LCY - is it safer now or has nothing changed in that respect? - I flew into LCY with our then KingAir 200 and wasn´t allowed to do so anymore...plenty of examples for this)

I´ve said it umpteen times: make sim training mandatory. Make pay for typeratings illegal. Make management pay for pressure put on flight crews to do illegal things. Make common rules that are first of all really common (up to this day every authority and often also varying from individual principal to principal within the authority has different views)

Make a set of rules that is not as big as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, but is small enough human beings can really understand and work them.

Safety is a mindset that naturally collides with economic interest especially when the main figures in that game don´t understand the cost of an accident.

They don't want your business at all, unless you are involved in illegal charters or unless you want to pay for management.

Sorry, that is simply not true. And having been in air taxi for 16+years I do understand that they want to fly my boss. I would want it too.

As regular and bothersome as the flu NetJets knocks at our door... likewise brokers and air taxi companies, so I´d say there is considerable interest...

Of course the latter will be easier to sell now, but did you guys in private GA put out any better solution to what is, after all, a problem that affects us all, at least in image.

We certainly did. Did anyone listen? No, naturally not. Brussels works via lobbying. For whatever reason, most owners keep a low profile and it is really hard to make them join, say, EBAA. Therefore the voice 'we' have is not a very powerful one. First of all, common rules is fine. If they are sane and regulate what has to be regulated.

Now imagine the EU would say: Mr.Flaymy, your personal car will require a manual, an SMS, a fatigue risk management system and a selfdeclearation as well as record keeping so in case we want to prosecute you, you have collected the evidence for us as well, thank you. Would like that? Would you think that is reasonable?

I guess you agree that the amount of road deaths and accidents is WAY higher than the one of aviation, especially NNC aviation above 5,7tons.

So if that system brings safety, we NEED to have it on the road....



At the very least the premium for doing so is reduced, and therefore so is the incentive for chartering illegally.

Now the costs are higher, the incentive to charter out illegally is higher - the AOC guys prices will move up with their higher costs, so the illegal charter costs could maintain the same margin (if there is substancial illegal chartering that would move to AOC companies at all)

And as we are now all competing in a 'globalized' world, the cost of operation for our companies jet is part of the overall cost. Higher costs will NOT help us if we want to continue to compete with others, namely China, India etc. I´m sure this is true for a lot of company FDs. Thus a good manager will think about his Jet and FD... I would like to keep my job, very simple. (BTW, we sometimes give flights to AOC operators, when our A/C is tech or busy)
We pay mineral oil tax, we pay ETS, we are threatened by the Italian tax, etcetc. This is simply totally unfair. And EASA ops is just one more step towards the end of corperate aviation. WHO is behind these things? WHO will benefit? Mr.NetJets, Mr.Lufthansa, Mr.Airtaxi.

Our Jet has not one time be used for a leisure flight, its ALWAYS company business we fly to. Yet we are taxed as if we were a C152 on a sunday afternoon cake flight....

[flynowpaylater]

Flaymy - totally with you.
At the end of the day it's all about accountability, and private ops on the M, N or VP reg have very little of it. They cross the line when selling a "block" of hours.

Finding loop holes in the law is all very clever, but the alarming rise in "private operators" actively selling "blocks of hours" .....or as others call it...."charters" is very much a cause for concern. There are plenty of idiots who write on this forum that think they are OK to continue to do this, and feel they know better than the CAA / EASA / FAA etc...and therefore have no need to be OPC'd, do CRM, first aid, wet drills etc....Quite often their mate does their LPC, and they're off for another 12 months...that's scary.

Unbelievably arrogant. Ironically, the pilots I have looked into that do this have not made in the airline world, i.e. applied, and failed, and in some cases chopped AFTER gaining their type rating...and I guess decided to try their hand in the murky illegal charter game, occassionally flying the owner. If they were any good, they would have a proper job.

Life style choice do I hear? - How about only choice. Convincing an unsuspecting owner who's knowledge of aviation is limited by the crap he his fed......and lured into this by promises of additional income from "leasing" the aircraft out.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

The net IS closing. The CAA are changing their policy on this. Expect to see licenses getting endorsed, insurance companies being made aware of offending pilots, and finance companies insisting on AOC operation for aircraft over a certain value.

It's up to you corporate boys to weed out the idiots in your sector to avoid getting tarred with the same brush. If you bonefide, you have nothing to worry about.

FNPL.

[His dudeness]

If you bonefide, you have nothing to worry about.

Oh yes? Thanks a lot, that puts my worries to rest...

Never mind that no sane individual will ever buy a european privately operated aircraft again, nor will same sane individuals buy airplanes registered in Europe at all.

There is so much hassle added - not to mention cost - that this will in the end be an issue for all of us in the industry.

So a least the unemployed mechanics, pilots, F/As gnd FD employees can join the line at the local jobcentre knowing they lost their job away for a good cause... :ugh:

Ironically, the pilots I have looked into that do this have not made in the airline world, i.e. applied, and failed, and in some cases chopped AFTER gaining their type rating...and I guess decided to try their hand in the murky illegal charter game, occassionally flying the owner. If they were any good, they would have a proper job.

Life style choice do I hear? - How about only choice. Convincing an unsuspecting owner who's knowledge of aviation is limited by the crap he his fed......and lured into this by promises of additional income from "leasing" the aircraft out.

Unbelievably arrogant.

Indeed, you are...

[flynowpaylater]

Dudeness, its not a dig at you. From reading your posts, you seem to have nice little operation. Look at Pool Aviation as a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Why do you support people who cut corners and damage our industry?

Why do you think running aircraft on AOC's is such a bad thing, and why do you think it will destroy the job market, with engineers and pilots being unemployed?? The guy who's worth £100m+ ain't going easyJet is he? He'll still go on a CJ, KA, G5 or whatever he's used to.

Lets all work to bring standards up, and not down to the lowest point available.

[NuName]

There are some folks out there that see themselves as the "holier than thou" representitives of aviation and no amount of sensible discussion will allow them to accept that anything less than their anal views on how others should live their lives. I guess these folks would ban the ability for us to hire a self drive car and insist we throw ourselves at the mercy of proffessional car services even though we hold legal documentation to drive ourselves. I, and many others I know very well, have chosen to work in corporate aviation as a choice and we very much enjoy it. Arrogant was exactly the right word, as I said before, if these self appointed, self righteous icons of industry see something they think is out of order why don't they do something about it instead of casting aspersions on decent folk doing a decent job and trying to earn a living in a honest and upstanding manner. Have many years of AOC behind me and I'm far, far happier now.

[His dudeness]

Why do you support people who cut corners and damage our industry?

Why do you think running aircraft on AOC's is such a bad thing, and why do you think it will destroy the job market, with engineers and pilots being unemployed?? The guy who's worth £100m+ ain't going easyJet is he? He'll still go on a CJ, KA, G5 or whatever he's used to.

Flynow, I think you have the wrong views on people with money and what they accept. My old boss, for whom I worked the best 14 years of my live so far, left Europe for good because he was so fed up with ever growing regulations.
He was totally fed up with JAROPS etc and other stuff concerning his main business. He held a PPL and a PPL-H as well , owned several helicopters plus 2 aircraft.

Thats the past.

I fly for a big German company these days. The guys there do simple maths. When the airplane is too expensive, they will get rid of it. When operating the airplane will be too much trouble, they will get rid of it. They need this airplane as a tool, not for leisure or anything the like.

Now imagine a company grows to a size or markets or both were they could afford an airplane. The difference between:

yeah, buy the airplane and get 2 pilots and train them

and

buy the airplane, but before you fly write a manual, set up an SMS, do fatique risk managmenet, do ETS, employ a CAMO, train the pilots, train or contract the persons you need further for administration, SMS, etcetc.

is propably the edge were most potential buyers will say: why should I bother? I don´t buy one.

Then there is countries that will stay sane and offer much easier solutions to these 'problems'. So some will leave the socialistic overly regulated Union of Europe - like my old boss. He has a Challenger in the States now and only laughs when we talk on the phone and I tell hi what the lunatics in Brussel come up with next...

Why do you support people who cut corners and damage our industry?

I don´t. And I never have, since I did airtaxi for 16 years. You misunderstand my motivation and reasoning I think.

In a very short form:

1) AOC operators need to have regulation as they sell transport. EASA OPS - and JAR/EU OPS already contains a lot things that are too much for small operators.

2) A common basic air law throughout Europe makes a lot of sense.

3) Any operator operating out of his allowed envelope (charter without AOC, or flying outside the apporoved AOC) needs to be punished. Why we would need JAROPS 2 or the Annex 7 (NCC) EASAOPS to do this is beyond me, more as it won´t change anything.
The Authorities need to come down hard on those who break the law.
Why we (operators not breaking the law) have to suffer - I don´t know.

4) Many of the proposed and soon mandatory things like a SMS is total bollocks for operations such as ours: 2 Pilots, 1 Airplane. I was just on an seminar were a very good CRM trainer (studied guy, former ATP pilot for Lufthansa) explained why SMS in small ops can`t really work. When I started flying in germany we had the LuftVG, the Luft BO and the LuftpersV as basic regulations for private flying, AOC ops and all FCL matters. Every of this regualtions was 80 DIN A5 pages. now we have tons of paper to do the same.
Do you honestly think we humans can master all of that?

5) The european Parliament and the Commisision are on a power trip here and whilst this might be something you like, you will face things from them that you won´t like at all. For this reason alone we should stand up against this s.h.i.t.e.

6) The higher prices an AOC operation has to take will not benefit them.


Lets all work to bring standards up, and not down to the lowest point available

Remember when Ghandi was asked by a western reporter what he thinks about western civilization, he answered: I think it would be a wonderful thing!

Most FDs I know operate to high standards that can rival most AOC operations I know. OTOH, when getting a licence & getting a typerating not gives one the standard required to operate a CJ or the like safely, then we should first ask us all what is wrong with our system? Why do we need all the crutches we find in our new air law?

The EASA and other authorities here in Europe belittle the US system and the FAA, I`d say (looking at the numbers) its probably the best system in the world, giving the individual more rights, but also more responsibility and the authority less to do. Why don´t we just copy them?

One last thing to think about: for whazever reason, the powers to be forbid flying commercially when over 65. In Germany they raised the retirement age to 67 when I was 43. I´m now 45 and there is a probability that they raise the retirement to 70. That would mean 5 years of unemployment, that would mean getting a way lower pension than I would when being able to fly to 67 or 70 respectively. I could ONLY do that in corperate aviation. Have you ever thought about that? I started working with 18, I don´t want to be poor after having worked 45 years.... and if there are no corparate deals any more...?

[Flaymy]

The difference between:

yeah, buy the airplane and get 2 pilots and train them

and

buy the airplane, but before you fly write a manual, set up an SMS, do fatique risk managmenet, do ETS, employ a CAMO, train the pilots, train or contract the persons you need further for administration, SMS, etcetc.andMost FDs I know operate to high standards that can rival most AOC operations I know.How do you square these two sentiments?

Without SMS, Quality System, fatigue management, pilot training then the operation is not as safe. You might feel that you are sufficiently safe, and you might be right. As an individual crew you might actually be as safe, but you have no way of showing that without a Quality System monitoring SMS, fatigue, training, ground ops support and flight ops. The first you see a problem might be in the middle of the accident.

There was a time (when I worked for a rather shabby operation that did not really have a functioning flight-ops management and should never have been allowed to keep its AOC) I would have thought the same as you, that the management structure of an AOC is pointless, I can be safer than that. Now working for a good AOC operator, with all these things in place and having been trained to them, with a Chief Pilot fiercely protective of the safety systems for his pilots, I see why they make flying safer.

As for an SMS, there are ways of making it work with small operations, especially with those who are not competing who can set up a combined SMS. Some of the FOIs are trying to bring small AOC operators together to pool safety statistics, as SMS does need a critical mass of data.

Remember also that when you talk of the best practices in private operations, those are probably not involved in illegal charters. Breaking the law is not considered best practice. Look into a few GA accidents. You will find in most cases there is a major problem with the paperwork behind the flight not directly related to the cause of the accident (aircraft not registered, pilot licence expired, C of A expired to name just a few on accidents I have read about). This to me suggests strong correlation between carelessness as to the legality of flights and carelessness in safety.

Note I said from the start I think these rules are the wrong response; I think it is obtuse and illiberal, only addressing the problem as a side effect.

So if this is a response to charter operator lobbying (the suggestion I originally responded to), what would have been a better response? I am not convinced the operators lobbied for this specifically, I suspect it was a typical EU response to a problem. What should they have done? Did the private/corporate operators lobby for that?

What about considerations of passengers who are not owners, especially employees of corporate aircraft owners? Are they not entitled to flight safety equivalent to AOC operations? Should they have to be informed as to the level of operational management?

I genuinely don't know the answer to the last, BTW. The libertarian in me says allow private and corporate to set up their own management, with minimal regulation, but then how does the potential passenger make an informed choice, who is used to the highly-regulated safety system of western airlines?

[Pace]

FlyNowPayLater

I have never read such a load of insulting and arrogant drivel. Please back up your claims with statistics.

Like the attrocious JAA AOC accident statistics compared with almost airline stats of the equivalent FAA Part 135! Flown by in your eyes substandard FAA pilots with far less regulations than the equiavlent JAA OPS!

We all equally know of some terrible JAA OPS occurences which would make us failed airline pilots turn in our graves ( if we were in them ;) )

The trouble with people like you is that you do not realise who your real enemy is?
Who the real Cancer destroying aviation and our jobs is!

The answer is NOT feeding fat Brussels burocrats to regulate, regulate and regulate for the sake of it!!! just so they can justify their artificially created jobs, expense accounts and gold plated pensions! No wonder Europe is in such a mess!

Why do you support people who cut corners and damage our industry?

Then I ask why do you support EASA the biggest damage creator and suffocator of our industry?


Pace

[Flaymy]

Pace

I think you got the wrong end of the stick. Reading Flynow's post he implies equivalence of operations under EU-OPS and FARs. He is criticising those who "... feel they know better than the CAA / EASA / FAA..." after all, meaning I think private operations and corporate flight ops, specifically those involved in illegal charters.

Unless you are suggesting that pilots are perfectly happy to fly illegally, it is not unreasonable to assume that these are a last resort for those desperate to fly who cannot get any other job or has not made it through airline training. Considering the possible legal implications, perhaps even for those who feel they are never likely to get a legitimate job. If they don't have more than their share of failed airline pilots I would therefore be very surprised.

Of course not all of them will be. I know of one who was moonlighting from his job at a well-known airline by flying illegal charters, and another who seemed blissfully unaware that what he was doing was not legal, and was probably filling the log book while waiting for his big chance. However they risk far more than the guy who has paid over his £80k, managed to scrape through the course but finds he can't hack it in the airlines.

[Pace]

If I got the wrong end of the stick then I apologise to FlyNowPaylater but reading his post it came across as an attack on private ops full stop.

This thread seems to be a push by AOC OPS to load us with the same petty and expensive meaningless regs that they are expected to chew on and a desire to stick us all in the same EASA straight jacket.

My point is its not private ops which need to be trodden on but the straight jacket strangling of poor old AOC OPS with (as proven with the accident stats!) an ever growing, expensive and pointless, unneeded regulations to serve regulators not the industry.

There are some who would like for obvious reasons for every private jet to be forced to run under an AOC.

There are those who regard any charter as illegal charter but when a truck runs into the wing of the company aircraft are happy to charter in a replacement aircraft for their crews to fly while theirs is being repaired! follow that through into the grey areas? At what point does grey become black or white?

Pace

[Flaymy]

I don't know of any EU-OPS operator that would dry-lease an aircraft not approved on their AOC. It wouldn't be worth the risk - and that is accountability, which is largely the point. If they have an aircraft out for a while they can arrange a dry lease through the correct procedure, approved by the regulator.

Everything in an AOC operation is controlled, and for everything the management can be held accountable. Hiring in a random aircraft would not be controlled (maintenance programme, equipment differences etc.) and so affect safety. Consequences for doing so illegally could be very serious for the company and post holders - much more serious than the pathetic fines for dodgy charters by non-AOC holders. Form 4 is a very definite acceptance of responsibility and accountability - I have signed it, and it does make you stop and think.

[Pace]

I was talking about a private jet hit by a truck ;) but again big words without statistical backup regarding safety differences.
The far less regulated and accountable FAA Part 135 having a huge safety advantage over far more regulated and controlled JAA OPS (Fact)
i would take a much loved and cared for private jet flying low hours anytime over some of the overworked beatup AOC aircraft that plough our skies.
We all know of horror stories and aircraft in the AOC world too.

a very definite acceptance of responsibility and accountability

The very in vogue statement which paralysed our airspace with indecision forcing the airlines to act over the volcanic Ash fallouts a year ago to get some sense into the arguement.



Pace

[flyingfemme]

Laws prohibiting non-AOC charters are already there. If they are being flouted it is up to the authorities (paid for by us) to enforce. If they are not producing any enforcement actions there are two possible reasons; one, nothing to prosecute or two, they can't be bothered.
The EU/EASA doesn't care about lives or illegal charter. They care that they (and the politicians that they work for/with) are not held accountable for any deaths and think that inventing tonnes of paperwork and forcing business to pay huge fees will do that. They can either scare people out of business, make it impractical to be in the business or just prevent business from starting in the first place.
As long as they get to stay on their overfed, overpaid behinds in plush offices with large expense accounts they don't care who flies what, when or how. They have proved that, in spades.

[Pace]

FlyingFemme

If they are not producing any enforcement actions there are two possible reasons; one, nothing to prosecute or two, they can't be bothered

There is a third reason! They are scared of loosing a major case in a court of law and opening the floodgates to legal charter thus damaging the revenue they get from all the poor downtrodden AOCs.

Pace

[His dudeness]

Without SMS, Quality System, fatigue management, pilot training then the operation is not as safe.

Pilot training is the one thing in your statement we agree on.

Fatigue management -> FDT regs - if they are sensible, they will take care of that. If a non punitive culture is there, then a pilot not flying cause of fatigue, illness or mental stress wont fly (training again)

As an employed pilot (as I am) in Germany you have to obey the FDT. Is that different in the UK?

SMS/QS does only work when the culture is there. When the culture is there, you don´t need it. (I´m talking small ops here- a BA, a LH or RYR is different in this respect)

[what next]

Hello!

His dudeness: SMS/QS does only work when the culture is there.

I agree with everything you wrote so far on this thread, but not here. As I can currently witness, the installation of SMS/QS can indeed create this culture where it has not been present before. Or at least, it plants the seed for it.
And even if it fails to create the culture right away, at least it provides concerned pilots with a tool (leverage!) by which they can express their concern officially and trigger an official reaction from the postholders. I really think this one has the potential to improve things.

Pace: My point is its not private ops which need to be trodden on but the straight jacket strangling of poor old AOC OPS with (as proven with the accident stats!)

These "stats" have been mentioned several times already. I would really like to see them for myself in order to believe (link?). From my experience, and I have flown many years in private and commercial operations, before and after JAR-OPS, the contrary is true. Especially when I look at those PPL holding self-flying businessmen who load six passengers and a dog into their CJ1 and fly single-handedly to within 30NM of the full-tanks maximum range of their aircraft. I have yet so see this in commercial OPS...

[flynowpaylater]

Hi Pace, my apologies to you if it read that way. It wasn't meant to. I have touched on this in the past on previous threads. Basaically, the way things are at the moment, the dodgy illegal charter boys can conveniently hide amongst the corporate operations, with little fear of of being hounded out.

Without a doubt, the corporate operators and AOC operators could live quite happily together, but there is an underlying responsiblity to self regulate. If these cowboys aren't brought to task, then eventually the cancer will spread. The reason EASA / CAA etc... are bringing in this legislation is partly to solve the problem. This broad brush approach is not palletable to many, but unfortunately, until those on the corporate side can get their head around the fact that these idiots will F*&k it up for everyone, EASA will continue to turn the screw.

There are plenty of organisations (BBGA etc..) that could be the platform for industry induced self regulation which will certainly allow you to govern your own affairs....but you must be clear on the objectives. If you want EASA / CAA and AOC operators to stop bashing you, then get your collective act together and weed out the crooks.

Us AOC boys do the same on our side, so you should all put your heads together. It's in everyones interest.

[Phil Brockwell]

As a non-pilot, non-bizjet passenger, I would prefer to have large powerful chunks of jet powered metal flying above my home and work to be fully audited. Whilst I readily accept that we are only talking about a few bad apples, it is enough for the regulatory authority to trend a pattern of swiss cheese (so to speak).

[Detling]

AOC ops are no safer than Private, its been proved time and again. Especially those flights which operate under someone else's AOC.

Accept this and stop the snobbery please.

[Phil Brockwell]

Ok, I understand that you have an opinion - but what stats do you use to come to this conclusion - I can only remember one bizjet flight in the UK that involved a fatality (I'm sure there are more...please remind us) it was on a private Citation 500. Now this is a very small sample, so we have to look at other "safety yardsticks", but given the lack of audit around private Ops it is a bit hard -

I suppose I'm asking what measure you are using to qualify your statement that "it has been proved time and time again?"

You must understand that if your standards are acceptable to you, your owner and your regulator then no-one really cares - the problem is that there are dozens of Private Ops that take money from bona fide public transport operators that have invested in meeting a more comprehensive procedural infrastructure (that apparently is no safer????) if this was not happenning, I don't think the regulator would be so keen to standardise the infrastructure -

If your industry was more inward looking and governing and made an effort to stop these widespread practices, then you may be allowed to continue to self regulate with the freedom you have till now.

And I know you will say - not me guv'nor - but someone is flying grey and ilegal charters with impunity - the regulator cannot catch you, so they just bring everyone UP to the same infrastructural requirement.

[Detling]

You mention audit and infrastructure but sadly many a time I have seen a total lack of this in an AOC organisation, especially the ones that operate under the umbrella of someone else's AOC. I'm not going to mention names or companies but they know who they are.

Now, I am sure that we are all grown up enough to know that there are good AOC and Private ops, and bad ones. The accident stats you mention were done to death on another pprune discussion thread. I recall that it was in fact statistically proved that Private was safer than AOC with the stats displayed within the thread, so do a search of pprune if you wish. Hopefully one day we can get away from the willy waving snobbery about AOC ops and maybe work together to improve overall flight safety in all ops. But I get the impression that your views are insular, and that whatever is thrust your way in terms of stats won't matter to you.

[Pace]

Phil

That crash at Biggin is a bit below the belt as there was never a definative conclusion as to what happened ?(I actually flew that aircraft before it changed owners)

But we can all bring up examples like a certain AOC Citation which crash landed at a touch down speed of 200 kts up at a certain City airport in Scotland? I am sure you know the details of that 24 something?

AOC ops are not safe compared to FAA 135 a link was placed to a CAA study about a year ago here on pprune.(I cannot find it maybe someone can better at searching than I ?)

Dont presume AOC is such a perfect example as we equally know of complete high houred wrecks with shady maintenance operated under AOCs.

I am all for identifying known safety holes and plugging them. I am against protectionism under the guise of safety concerns or needless regulations loaded onto our industries costs just to keep fat cats in Brussels in a job on their big expense accounts and paying for their gold plated pensions.

If anyone suspects illegal charter its easy report it and let the CAA follow through to a court conviction.
Strange how rarely that happens but there are plenty of reports put in.

But as I said before you are fighting the wrong enemy.

Pace

[Phil Brockwell]

Pace,

I don't think you read my email - It was the only fatality I could think of outside bugswatter GA and therefore dismissed it as a statistic. and asked for someone to supply the statistic as opposed to "someone once did a study, it was in favour of my argument, but I can't find it."

My opinion on the relative safety of Private (relatively unregulated) Ops and AOC (over regulated Ops) is not relevant here - it is the regulator who is instilling these regulations because they think it, I bloody well hope it is open to a higher percentage of safety failure, otherwise all the AOC holders have invested heavily into the required level of belt and braces not required for the private Ops.

The reality is that ilegal ops are regularly reported and rarely prosecuted and even then with fines that are not prohibitive - You would be shocked if you knew how few people have been convicted in the UK, despite it being a very widespread problem.

[frontlefthamster]

To help Phil along, and considering the UK only:

Prior to the Biggin Hill accident, which might be viewed as a private flight or not depending upon your perspective, there was the fatal Challenger 604 accident at Birmingham in 2002 and the UK-registered Learjet 35A at Lyon in 2000...

CAA Paper 2009/03: Business Jet Safety Research: A Statistical Review and Questionnaire Study of Safety Issues gives some helpful analysis, and is available online, here: CAA Paper 2009/03: Business Jet Safety Research: A Statistical Review and Questionnaire Study of Safety Issues | Publications | CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=3486)

One paragraph states (and I had to re-type this because, unhelpfully, the downloadable document is copy protected):

The CAA does not hold data that allows the fatal accident rate for business jets to be broken down into individual operation types.

This might prompt the curious to ask how a regulator hopes to do its work when it cannot even analyse its industry effectively...

That aside, it goes on:

However, data supplied by revealed that there is a large variation for different types of business jet operation. Corporate operations achieved a fatal accident rate of 0.2 (per million hours flown) for the period 2003 to 2007, which is comparable to large western built aeroplanes, whereas air taxi operations, as a whole, had a far higher rate of 3.5 (per million hours flown).

The IBAC report is here: http://www.ibac.org/Files/Safety/Business%20Aviation%20Safety%20Brief%20-%20Issue%207.pdf

The IBAC report breaks the community down like this:

[I]2.4 Organization of the Community
Business Aircraft operations are classified into three (3) separate categories:
1. Business Aviation Commercial
Aircraft flown for business purposes by an operator having a commercial operating certificate
(generally on-demand charters).
2. Corporate
Non-commercial operations with professional crews employed to fly the aircraft.
3. Owner Operated
Aircraft flown for business purposes by the owner of the business.

and it goes on to say:

4.2 Accident Rate by Operator Type
Global data for the numbers of aircraft in each of the business aviation operational categories (commercial, corporate and owner-operated) proved difficult to obtain as few States collect this information. Similarly, flight hours by type of operation are not available. Due to the lack of
good exposure data, it was not possible to calculate, without some error, the rate of each category of operation. Additionally, the operational status of a single airframe may legally vary from flight to flight (i.e., an aircraft may be commercial on one flight and private on a flight made later
on the same day or vice versa).

Nevertheless, by applying US data relevant to the division between categories of operator, and by making the assumption that the division is relatively similar for the rest of the world, an estimate of the rate by operator type can be made. Given that the North American data represents approximately 67% of the global total, it is unlikely that the distortion generated by the assumption will be very large.

The percentage of flight hours based on FAA published statistical data for each of the three categories in the USA is as follows:

Commercial (Air Taxi) 30.4%
Corporate 55.3%
Owner-operated 14.3%

Two interesting tables are presented on page 7, which I can't copy quickly here, after which the data is analysed:

Analysis
The majority of business aircraft accidents occur in the commercial category, where operations are governed by commercial regulations (such as FAA Part 135 and JAR OPS 1). The next most frequent number of accidents occurs with aircraft flown by business persons. Accidents of corporate aircraft remain rare.

I would agree strongly with Pace's remarks about shabby operators, and significant but non-fatal events. The regulator, and others, seem not to understand that once things are going badly wrong, it is often only good fortune which prevents fatalities; the key to this mysterious 'safety improvement' lies in recognising that the Citation at Birmingham, the other at Edinburgh, and many others, are just as significant in pointing to the causes behind fatal accidents, even if they had happier endings.

I agree even more strongly with Phil's remarks about ineffective enforcement.

[clivewatson]

What regulations should be enforced - compliance with AOC regs, or more effort spent on catching those who are carrying out illegal charters?

Illegal charter flights have been going on for donkey's years, and irrespective of the resources any regulator invests they will never be stamped out.

There will always be "checks and balances." Make it simpler and more cost effective to play by the rules, and more will do so. Alternatively, screw every penny out of those who want to go legit, make the hoops smaller and position them higher, and many will choose the alternative.

There is a very good argument for regulation, but over regulation with excessive bureaucracy serves no one - unless of course you happen to be the regulator.

Look up the "Laffer Curve." It applies here just as much as it does to tax evasion.

[clivewatson]

PS. I don't avoid tax, or carry out illegal charters!

[Phil Brockwell]

Amazing - so if less regulation combined with self preservation of pax and crew is safer than AOC compliance, then why are AOC holders disadvantaged?

Ps I think the LR35 flight was private with the owner on, albeit on an aircraft that also flew AOC, but I may be wrong.

[clivewatson]

PB:

If you are referring to DC, he was not the owner, although I am not sure whether or not it was a Commercial fright.

Just as a matter of interest, why do you find it amazing that private ops might actually be statistically safer than Commercial Ops?

Could it not be the case that many private operators place their priorities elsewhere - perhaps not so much on paperwork, signatures and arse covering - although I'm sure the reasons are not so simplistic.

[frontlefthamster]

The evidence, taken at face value, would seem to suggest that regulators should leave corporate operators very well alone, because they are doing very well indeed, and any interference may simply drag them down towards the public transport numbers.

As to why... Corporate operators obtain maximum flexibility from their aircraft, at maximum cost. I hypothesise that it is market forces, which proscribe that AOC operators must meet at the level of the lowest common denominator, as European point-to-point airlines must (more or less) equal Ryanair to survive, which lead to 'low-but-just-acceptable' standards.

Corporate operators have vested interest in and responsibility for their operations, which charterers and brokers do not.

Of course, regulators could up the ante, but as Clive points out, this would have detrimental effect when the penalties are taken into account.

Summing up:

Q: Why are corporate operators safer than AOC?
A: Economics, and inadequate regulation.

Q: Why are AOC operators as unsafe as they are?
A: They kill an acceptable number of people.

[Pace]

I wish I could find the CAA study from a year ago because that did compare JAA AOC OPS to FAA Equivalent of part 135. The link is in one of the threads from a year ago.

While corporate private ops are much safer on both sides of the pond FAA part 135 were not far behind yet far less regulated. For some reason The highly regulated JAA OPS had attrocious safety stats.

Maybe we should be encouraging illegal charter in corporate jets on safety grounds ? (only a wind up :E )

Hence that beggars the question why force something which has excellent safety levels into the same framework as JAA OPS which dont ?

The industry need deregulation and freeing up and that comes back to the question of whos benefit are the regulaltors regulating for? Themselves or the people they are supposed to represent.

EASA cost 100 million plus PA to churn out the rubbish they do when they would have been far better copying the FAA with a few tweeks and saving a fortune.
Remember that is the same EASA which was almost disbanded a while back for trying to reinvent the wheel.

But then they are just a reflection of why Europe is in the mess its in.

Pace

[flyingfemme]

If your industry was more inward looking and governing and made an effort to stop these widespread practices, then you may be allowed to continue to self regulate with the freedom you have till now.
But that's the point - it isn't "an industry". Any more than you, getting in your car to go to the supermarket, are part of an industry. Are you jointly responsible for drivers without road tax? What are you, personally, doing to stamp out that iniquitous practice?
The regulation in force is the basic regulation of pilots and aircraft - it's hardly "unregulated".
Companies are free to provide cars to their employees with, or without, drivers in the same way as they may provide aircraft - as long as the vehicles are maintained in compliance with the law and the operators are suitably licenced. The system works very well and safety records are better than good.
Requiring every driver to have a chauffeurs licence or HGV (with periodic checks) and operate to an approved set of rules/manual (over and above the law and Highway Code) would be unacceptable to the general public who drive.
Pilots already comply with way more regulation than drivers (without complaint) because they recognise that it is safer.
The wrong "problem" is being fixed here and it will only costs a lot of money without improving safety........unless all the operators leave the EU for pastures more inviting.

[Pace]

What puzzles me is that if it is true that private corporate jets flown by professional crews have almost airline safety levels on both sides of the pond while the highly regulated AOC ops have poor levels of safety in comparison then what is the real agenda for trying to force private operations into the straight jacket inflicted on AOCs ?

Sadly this is just a discussion forum for venting views and wont do anything to stop the EASA train from taking us all into dark areas for aviation.

To AOC operations who see corporate ops as some sort of threat and have cried to the regulators to save them be careful what you wish for because you have targeted the wrong enemy.

Pace

[Regulation 6]

All aircraft above a certain weight should be operated to the same regulations - whether private or commercial.

I don't want you fatigued, untested, unstandardised, amateurs flying into me, thanks...

[His dudeness]

I don't want you fatigued, untested, unstandardised, amateurs flying into me, thanks...

Me neither. But to be honest, I wouldn´t care if the opponent is an "amateur" or an overworked and underpaid "professional". Nor would I make a difference bewteen a C172 or a Legacy hitting my aeroplane. For PROFESSIONAL reference ask the PSA 727 crew or the GOL 737 drivers.

I take it from your post that you are an professional?...although your statement does not sound as if you were one...

As an 'amateur' I should probably not post on pprune, I´m so sorry.

As a non native english speaker I probably lack the correct cuss words, so i would to ask you politely take the correct one and fill it in below:

Regulation6, you are a ...........


Thank you very much for your help, dear pro skygod.

[Pace]

Regulation 6

In that case I would keep out of European Airspace because there are loads of aircraft flying into Europe from the states and elsewhere of varying types shapes and sizes who dont fly to your regulations.

My ATP being being FAA is of course not to your Standard either and is purely an amateur rating. There are a whole load of Amateur Airline pilots flying over Europe every day so be very careful up there.

Pace

[Phil Brockwell]

Flyingfemme,

When I go to the supermarket - I don't hire a pro-driver - and my car does not go 400mph - you are talking about self-fly - not corporate.

[His dudeness]

His dudeness: SMS/QS does only work when the culture is there.


I agree with everything you wrote so far on this thread, but not here. As I can currently witness, the installation of SMS/QS can indeed create this culture where it has not been present before. Or at least, it plants the seed for it.
And even if it fails to create the culture right away, at least it provides concerned pilots with a tool (leverage!) by which they can express their concern officially and trigger an official reaction from the postholders. I really think this one has the potential to improve things.

Hello Max, I´m very skeptical on this one.
Now, the ops you´re involved with is of a considerable size. There might be a case for SMS, but knowing the involved persons I doubt that the will, transparency and approach required for an SMS to work (the culture) is there. Just ask the 3 remaining oldtimers about the seminar "Teambildung" we did in early 2006 and what management really took from that. If they are honest they will report a big round zero.

Should I find out it really improves safety, I´ll be the first to admit it.

Are you going to be in FAB in late July/early August? We will...

[flynowpaylater]

So, should Phil :

A) Continue to invest in the infrastructure of his AOC and carry on as is?
B) Tear up the AOC, sell a lease of "block hours" to his clients and pay the £500 fine for the ones actually prosecuted as IPT?
C) as A, but in addition work hard to eradicate this illegal, underhand and unregulated competition that lurks in the grey charter game. Grey my arse...it's the black market gentlemen. No less so than the dodgy plumber that isn't qualified, yet fixes boilers for less.
?????????

By calling it grey, are we all in denial that our wonderful profession is actually not immune from it? WAKE UP!!!!


In fact, should the CAA just give up on all this AOC stuff, and just let everyone fend for themselves? We could all run Waldo Pepper style operations. It would be great fun.....I know I could make money at it. Plenty of wannabes we could get a type rating on a CJ, or LJ, or KA, pay them £10K a year, no extra training costs, no SMS or Quality to run. Easy money. Let's all lobby the CAA to end this madness of AOC's shall we.......

All sit in your ivory towers, doing nothing about it, and let the M reg King Airs fly illegal flights from Biggin and Elstree, and the Pool Aviations of this world make a mockery of the system. Obviously the AOC operators are too weak to fight it, as are the CAA.

Perhaps the big brokers are getting pissed with it too.....Maybe it's in their financial interests to get these cowboys hunted down, they might even invest some significant money into a legal fund to force it through.....now there's a thought.

Trouble is, posters like Pace will claim their innocence, and I have no reason to think that he's not by the way, but if you won't do your bit to stop these parasites that live amongst you in corporate aviation, the broad brush will affect you too.

In the 40's, not every German was a Nazi, but every Nazi was German. Your "colleagues" have effectively invaded Poland now, and we've all sort of had enough of it. Sort them out.....

[Pace]

FlyNowPayLater

No I am not involved in illegal charter and never knowingly done so.
I do however feel that there are grey areas and would be interested as you see it as black or white as to how you would interpret legal and illegal charter? It is a Phrase banded around again with a broad brush so as it is clear to you what is it ?
I stress the word LEGAL or how a judge in a court of law would interpret it?

No one in their right mind would want to fly an uninsured aircraft! Unless of course you are pennyless so suing would be a waste of time.

I am involved in N reg jets in Europe.
I have flown for numerous people and have done Jet only ferry work. I can give a load of good references and consider myself to be a good and experienced pilot who has never knowingly harmed or done anyone in my life.

I probably have another 6-7 years flying as an ATP so the vast cost and hassle of getting and running dual licences wont be worth the money or effort so that will be it for me if EASA go through with their ridiculous intentions.

Remember N reg and 3rd country licences have been prolific in Europe for longer than the EC itself.

I do think that known safety holes should be plugged but that is demonstrable safety holes not percieved.

I am against regulating for regulatings sake and dont see that as improving safety yet regulating for regulatings sake is prolific throughout many areas in Europe and is costing us dearly.
I am known in the forums for supporting the view that Aviation is worldwide and that there should be an acceptable standard especially between EASA land and FAA. But like everyone else I probably have my own interests at heart ;)


Pace

[flynowpaylater]

Hi Pace, thanks for you honest reply. Trouble is, there are a few, quite a few, rotten apples that spoil barrel.

I stress the word LEGAL or how a judge in a court of law would interpret it?

The crux of the problem...unclear, ambiguous, ineffective legislation that is ultimatley toothless.

Unless of course you are pennyless so suing would be a waste of time.

Yep, there's plenty of pilots fit that description I'm afraid.

Quote from the New York Times about the banking crisis...

"In short, there was plenty of regulation — yet much of it made the problem worse. These laws and institutions should have reined in bank risk while encouraging financial transparency, but did not."

Some banks where very badly behaved, others were entirely responsible. We all know about RBS / Nat West, Northern Rock and a whole host of US and EU banks, but I'm pretty sure the likes of HSBC and Barclays were pretty blame free. Yet we simply refer to them as a collective of greedy bankers.....(Which is a wunch):8

In hindsight, they all now wish they had the discipline to weed out the bad practices, and now wish the FSA had been stronger and more effective at regulating the sharp practices. Unfortunately for their industry, it's too late now. The damage is done.

[what next]

Hello!

Now, the ops you´re involved with is of a considerable size. There might be a case for SMS, but knowing the involved persons I doubt that the will ...

About the willingness, I can't say anything, but with SMS they are forced to react (publicly, even if they don't want to), if anyone submits a report. So far it works and some changes are visible already.
But I understand, that it is very difficult - if not impossible - to install such a system in a two or three person operation.

Are you going to be in FAB in late July/early August? We will...

The last three years I went in August, so I suppose this year it will be August again. But nothing has been scheduled yet. Will be left to the last possible moment as usual...

Ciao,
max

[chubbychopper]

By calling it grey, are we all in denial that our wonderful profession is actually not immune from it? WAKE UP!!!!


In fact, should the CAA just give up on all this AOC stuff, and just let everyone fend for themselves? We could all run Waldo Pepper style operations. It would be great fun.....I know I could make money at it. Plenty of wannabes we could get a type rating on a CJ, or LJ, or KA, pay them £10K a year, no extra training costs, no SMS or Quality to run. Easy money. Let's all lobby the CAA to end this madness of AOC's shall we.......

All sit in your ivory towers, doing nothing about it, and let the M reg King Airs fly illegal flights from Biggin and Elstree, and the Pool Aviations of this world make a mockery of the system. Obviously the AOC operators are too weak to fight it, as are the CAA.

Perhaps the big brokers are getting pissed with it too.....Maybe it's in their financial interests to get these cowboys hunted down, they might even invest some significant money into a legal fund to force it through.....now there's a thought.

Trouble is, posters like Pace will claim their innocence, and I have no reason to think that he's not by the way, but if you won't do your bit to stop these parasites that live amongst you in corporate aviation, the broad brush will affect you too.

In the 40's, not every German was a Nazi, but every Nazi was German. Your "colleagues" have effectively invaded Poland now, and we've all sort of had enough of it. Sort them out..... What a load of tosh. If that was true, and in line with your other logic, jets would be crashing left right and centre all over the UK. They aren't, and neither is their an epidemic of dodgy charter work.

Sure there are a few "iffy" operators, but it's up to you to catch them if you feel so wronged by it all. Get the evidence and shop them. If the regulator won't do anything after that, then I agree with your option B as included in your post....


A) Continue to invest in the infrastructure of his AOC and carry on as is?
B) Tear up the AOC, sell a lease of "block hours" to his clients and pay the £500 fine for the ones actually prosecuted as IPT?
C) as A, but in addition work hard to eradicate this illegal, underhand and unregulated competition that lurks in the grey charter game. Grey my arse...it's the black market gentlemen. No less so than the dodgy plumber that isn't qualified, yet fixes boilers for less.
?????????

[Flaymy]

What a load of tosh. If that was true, and in line with your other logic, jets would be crashing left right and centre all over the UK. They aren't ...This is not an argument against the new regulations. It is an argument against any requirement for an AOC. That is one view, but not held by many aviation experts. Even I don't agree with that, and I believe there should be a free market in regulation, without monopoly NAAs.... neither is their an epidemic of dodgy charter work.What would you call an epidemic? What is your evidence that illegal charters are not common?

As I said before, I know at least three people who admit to having been involved in illegal charters. Someone tried to get me involved in one at one point. I know someone who used to put pilots on charters who didn't even have CPLs! Sorry, knew: he ended up in a smoking hole in the ground on a corporate flight. I worked for people who appeared to be doing illegal charters, calling them lessons but in some cases having no real instructional component.

Some people have suggested that there are AOC operators who are pretty shabby. Of course standards vary, but I suspect that this impression is somewhat out-of-date, at least if we are considering the UK. Over the last few years I have seen standards demanded of GA operators by the CAA hauled very quickly upward, with more than one operator failing to keep up and falling by the wayside. This improvement is supposed to occur all over Europe - and if it doesn't then the new regulations are meaningless in any case.

[Detling]

To Phil Brockwell. I don't think that Phil would accept any stats that didn't support his distorted view that AOC is safer than Private. Clearly it is not the case, and blatant snobbery has taken over so you are a lost cause Phil. Not that I (or others on this forum) care anyway. Your CJ's and Kingair crews are welcome to their AOC b*llocks ! Stick it up your a*s :-)

[Detling]

And another thing, how about all those cr*p ops flying under someone else's AOC ? Loads of incidents there and nobody cares. Private ops are best !

[Detling]

Phil Brockwell, are you even a pilot ? If so, what is your experience level ? as you wrongly believe that AOC ops are better. Sounds a bit to me like you got involved in a business and regulations way over your head, let me guess, you started your business with your momma and papas money right ?

[Flaymy]

Detling, you clearly know who Phil Brockwell is, and therefore that he runs a well-respected operation in compliance with regulations. I don't know the origin of his seed funding, but it seems to be irrelevant to the point you are so desperately and unsuccessfully trying to make.

See what I did there - I used the word "clearly" correctly, to describe something that is clear, can be deduced in simple, obvious steps from evidence presented, in this case mention of CJs and KAs.

Contrast with your misuse of the word to describe something that is not only unclear, but would be disputed by most experts in the field. That does not mean it is necessarily untrue of course, lest I be accused of appeal to authority, but it does mean that you have to have a far better argument than to state that it is clear with no evidence.

[Flaymy]

"...how about all those cr*p ops flying under someone else's AOC ? Loads of incidents there and nobody cares"

That is the responsibility of the AOC holder. I learnt a lot flying under a third-party AOC, their Chief Pilot was a good man and they did things differently from my previous company and the next operator I flew for. Always good to see how others do things, and take on board their best practice. They kept fair oversight of our operation, and I like to think we were as safe as, if not safer than, the parent AOC holder's own operation.

Of course I can't speak for other piggy-back ops. Any more than you can speak for other private operations and say "Private ops are best!".

Oh, and to echo what some have said, if you know of loads of incidents then report them! If they are reported then the AOC holder has to deal with them. That's what their quality system is for. Oh, you wouldn't know about that, would you?

[Detling]

After many year of flying for Private ops, accident free and reading of all of the accidents relating to AOC ops, I think I know which system is quality.

[Pace]

But this isn't a yah boo we are better than you thing but a question of why the continued attack on private corporate operations?
If statistics are to be believed private corporate jets flown by professional
Crew have almost airline levels of safety whether FAA or JAA !
JAA AOC do not have as good a record for some reason but are substantially more regulated which could indicate that more regulation and interference does not equal more safety!
If it ain't broke don't fix it yet EASA are trying to force further regulation and restrictions on private corporate ops which equals ever more needless expense and for what ?
My guess it's partly regulators regulating for their own
Job benefits and pressure from
Certain quarters who see private corporate as some sort of threat to their own livelihoods.
Phil Brockwell is a very experienced and respected figure in the industry!
My discussion with him would be that its all the needless burdens on AOC ops which load expense and time which need to be trimmed down unless they are regulations which have proven demonstrable safety benefits.
Ie loosen the straight jacket on AOC OPS not put one on the rest of us.

Addendum

There is a large Grey area in the division between legal charter and illegal charter. In our society there are huge areas of law which are exploited by accountants bankers etc etc etc. You cannot blame people who work within the law as it appears until that grey area is tested in court or the laws are change. It is the fault of the laws not the exploiters of grey areas or loopholes or whatever.
If there is a suspect ILLEGAL charter and I am sure most of us are aware of what that is then those people must be reported to see if there is a case to answer and that case tested through our judicial system which whether we like it or not is still one of the best in the world.

Pace

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Single best thing we could do for safety is not increase the burden of oversight, everybody conveniently forgets that if everybody needs auditing then we will need three times the auditors we have now which will vastly increase ALL costs to EVERYBODY.

How about this......

ALL aircraft required to be operated MULTI CREW or over 12,500lbs should require Simulator training for OPC/LPC's ALL AOC and private operators need to get in the sim twice per year.... That means around the tower LPCs via an in house TRE should be banned.

@Phil

Can you tell me if Bristol conduct any simulator training for recurrent or initials

Do you see that as a satisfactory state of affairs or is it something that could be improved upon, have your pilots ever been exposed to dual gen failures? engine failures with the aircraft actually still on the runway post V1? Control problems? TCAS RA's? landing gear failed deployments? Single engined landings?

My mate walked out of your place with a CJ rating having done 5 hours plus test....

Now I'm not having a particular go at Bristol it's just that AOC operators have a pop at other operators based on safety and operate to the minimum regulatory standards when it suits. pilot training being a MASSIVE cost saving available to commercial operators where arguably its potentially the single biggest factor to improve the crew technically and in the event of a malfunction increase the chances of a good outcome.

FNPL

Regarding the operator you named and shamed on the previous page, would it surprise you if they had already had a visit and no further action taken?

So let's be a little more transparent with each other.....AOC operators are NOT mainly concerned about unaudited operators sharing the sky's in an unsafe manner......IT'S ABOUT LOST REVENUE BE HONEST.....please Mr AOC holder don't pee in my private/corporate pocket and then try to convince me it's raining....

[Flaymy]

G-SPOTAOC operators are NOT mainly concerned about unaudited operators sharing the sky's in an unsafe manner......IT'S ABOUT LOST REVENUE BE HONESTDon't you see that it is the same thing?

The whole point of regulation is to stop a race to the bottom. If money is taken out of the AOC holders' pockets by illegal charters, then there are fewer people willing to pay the costs of AOC, and more willing to operate unregulated. They could well be the same people, so they have no cause for complaint, they're still making money. The logical end to that is an end to regulated charter, and minimising costs taking the place of safety.

People are right to say that hasn't happened in most private and corporate operations. That is because the people who are paying are often those at risk, or at least know them well. In charters that is not the case - there will always be someone who will do it cheaper by cutting training, by not having a quality system or by making pilots run their own ground ops and fly long hours.

You see that people like Detling with many years in private ops have no idea what a quality system is, I doubt he has a clue about SMS. If operators running illegal charters have any management of flight safety and accident prevention it is certain to be many years out of date, very much on traditional lines which are not as good as modern systems.

[flynowpaylater]

Detling hmmmmm not far from Biggin Hill I guess. Touched a nerve have we???

It's total Wa&%ers like you that I am on about. What a grade A plonker!!

[His dudeness]

You see that people like Detling with many years in private ops have no idea what a quality system is, I doubt he has a clue about SMS. If operators running illegal charters have any management of flight safety and accident prevention it is certain to be many years out of date, very much on traditional lines which are not as good as modern systems.

If a quality system is what making operating safer, then AOC ops would be safer as they have QS since JarOPS. Most if not all have an SMS by now.

Look at Samedan: private ops jockey went in, killing himself and the copilot. (The VP-B (IIRC) Falcon) They approached and cycled in wx unsuitable to say the least.

Bad folks, private ones (I do think the VP-B dudes did have a SMS at that time or were just about to be mandated)

Big time bohey, the BAZL saying one needs a special introduction etcetc. (neglecting the high snow banks...)

Next one to kill themselfs was a german AOC operated Premier crew. They killed themselfs in unsuitable wx - to say the least. (does someone see the similarity here?)

No please explain to simple mind as mine is, what exactly is the difference in neglecting BASIC rules (VFR is PPL stuff) in an private environment and in an AOC environment, when the results are the same. The one crew hit the ground with either a small manual or no manual on board and the other with all the 'goodies' the EU-OPS offers.

I found the Premier accident even worse as they most likely (IMO, I know the rep is not out)) stalled the airplane banking close to ground - that is a cardinal sin in my book.

IF I´m right, then I ask the assembled pros here: how on earth can an AOC operator have two guys up front that do such things? (that is the holier than thou approach - others do make mistakes as well)

But we are discussing two different things within this discussion, one is safety and regulations and the other one is about illegal charter - which is not addressed in the new reg AFAIK.

The whole point of regulation is to stop a race to the bottom. If money is taken out of the AOC holders' pockets by illegal charters, then there are fewer people willing to pay the costs of AOC, and more willing to operate unregulated. They could well be the same people, so they have no cause for complaint, they're still making money. The logical end to that is an end to regulated charter, and minimising costs taking the place of safety.

People are right to say that hasn't happened in most private and corporate operations. That is because the people who are paying are often those at risk, or at least know them well. In charters that is not the case - there will always be someone who will do it cheaper by cutting training, by not having a quality system or by making pilots run their own ground ops and fly long hours

Flaymy, the race to the bottom...I can´t speak of the UK market I´m german and was involved mostly in german operations. There are pilots in AOC operations that I have personally flown with that have no business in being in a cockpit. I have seen maintenance corners cut umpteen times in AOC ops. I have seen SSTR pilots that had also to pay their checkrides, courses and medicals and that flew for little more than food.
THESE (poor) pilots and THESE operations are a thread for every decent AOC operator out there. I had them sitting next door to my operation.

There are operations (AOC) that operate close to ten airplanes, that don´t do sim training. There are operations (AOC) that have their own checkers that would fail a hen, despite the fact that a hen just can't fly...

That is the bottom. Right there. Regulation, let alone over-regulation does not change anything.

I do my own ground ops, btw, and I find it not to exhausting.(long trips requiring permits are outsourced...)
Now with new found necessities (EASA-OPS) that might change (the exhausting bit)

[flynowpaylater]

I think most of you are forgetting that with an AOC comes an Operating License. This is not safety related per se, but is more of a trading license. In the same way that we have 145's, and taxi cabs are licensed, or stock broker is licensed to trade. It says to the public that you have proved competence to the regulator to a satisfactory standard, and if it all goes wrong, various individuals will be held accountable. That counts for safety and financially.

If you want to trade in public air transport, go get yourself a license.

So to all those illegal charterers out there : STOP NICKING OUR BUSINESS!!!
GO GET A LICENSE OR F*&K OFF.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

FNPL

What have you done about getting your trade association whipped into shape, I think the time before last......no hang on a minute it was the time before the time before we had this debate we actually managed to agree that they were doing cock all and it was left to brokers and AOC operators to bitch on here and jealously monitor CFMU for perpetrators.

So what exactly have you done to help yourselves since the last time you moaned about it......

You also haven't answered the question that I asked of you the last last last time that if AOC safety standards are that vigorous and oversight is that great then why are 24/7 still trading when everybody calls them fit to burn.

FNPL Should 24/7 have an AOC or Not? Yes or No?

FLAYMY

Very well paraphased, you managed to pickup the safety issue out of my post but managed to avoid answering the main issue within which was the lack of training AOC pilots receive mainly due to commercial financial pressures. Why not pick that up on your next posting

FLAYMY Id be interested in knowing what you thought would be more important for the safety case for a CORPORATE operation Sim trained Crews or an SMS

You also fail to grasp that if twice the number of people need auditing then the authority will need three times the people due to geography and physical limitations so you'll have more competition and heavier oversight charges


HD

Excellent post as ever.

[flynowpaylater]

G-Spot - So what exactly have you done to help yourselves since the last time you moaned about it......

24/7 - agree whole heartedly, but this wonderful capitalist society we live in has a way of weeding out the weak. The fact that pretty much no brokers in the UK use them, and their sales are dwindling would indicate that natural selection is taking place. a search on CFMU looking for TWF callsigns often comes up nil.

Countless airlines / operators have failed over the years for a multitude of reasons. Perhaps if they weren't having business stolen from them by unlicensed "operators" they could have invested in a more robust operation, and spent some cash on their aircraft. Whether they would or not is another discussion altogether!

Understand that to AOC operators, this escalating menace of IPT is as big to us as bi lateral agreements are to flag carriers. Eventually something will have to happen. Think of the eventual and long overdue airline blacklist that is now commonly used. Its only a matter of time that GA, now its moved from aviation enthusiasts, and the odd air taxi company with perhaps a King Air, to a multi billion industry with state of the art, ocean crossing, luxury jets.

Perhaps the airlines that have lost a whole generation of 1st class and business class passengers will also be paying an increased interest in IPT. ??

[flynowpaylater]

G-SPOT - sorry, in answer to the question. Using other tools as well as using a public forum.

[BillieBob]

M reg is purely a tax thing, and unless im mistaken, Isle of Mann is in Europe.You are mistaken. The Isle of Man is not a member of the European Union and, therefore, not subject to EU law, neither are the Channel Islands.

[Phil Brockwell]

Reading Detling's posts, I'm guessing he had a damn good night out on Saturday - and ignored the Golden rule - don't post when your pi$$ed......bless!

[Steak&Kidney_Pie]

Phil,

Going back to your original questions, has the CAA asked for this for you guys at Centreline?

SKP

[Phil Brockwell]

SKP,

Sorry - lost track of this one over the weekend, what was my original question?

Phil

[Steak&Kidney_Pie]

QUOTE:

"As Private Operators of Bizjets, have you received a demand from your Aviation Authorities to produce Operator Manuals and Regulations before next year?"

I was just intrigued as to whether or not this was something that has come off the CAA to Centreline off an FOI or similar.

Cheers,

SKP

[Phil Brockwell]

I don't think that was my question -
Phil

[Steak&Kidney_Pie]

I'm losing it in my old age Phil, sorry! Disregard!

ALFRED???? I ask the same question to you then!

[His dudeness]

As Private Operators of Bizjets, have you received a demand from your Aviation Authorities to produce Operator Manuals and Regulations before next year?

The regulation (EASA-OPS) was set to be in force April 8th this year. It has not made it into force yet, let alone the translations had been made. The LBA told us last week tuesday, that the new deadline will be April 8th 2014. So we will have to have the book ready by then. Reg.SMS - which is a ICAO mandated thingy - I´m not sure, but think it is also 8th of April 2014.

The LBA also pointed out that they have no idea how to meet that deadline, as their demand for personnel has been turned down by the secretary of transport.

I guess the CAA will use the same deadline...

A demand was not and will not be issued, at least not in Germany.

[chubbychopper]

Interesting post hiss dudeness.

If you are correct it would appear that the wheels are starting to fall off some of the latest EASA nonsense.

Let's hope so.

[Yogibaboo]

Any news on the topic?