Commercial & Private Operations

[lipgo]

Are their operators (jar ops 1) approved to combine Commercial operations and private operations (an agreed facility to temporarily remove aircraft from Commercial Operations)?

Am I deluding myself? is it an ad hoc agreement with Authority? Is their a facility to do this under JAA?

Thanks in advance.

[HS125]

I prepare to stand corrected here but my appreciation is that if you have a part 25 aircraft affiliated with an AOC then all of the flights conducted with that aircraft MUST be to the standards set out in that AOC.

[BizJetJock]

The CAA will try and tell you that this is the case, but if you challenge them to produce the relevant legislation they back away mumbling.
You can mix private and commercial flights just by having a section on the tech log page to say which a particular flight is. Obviously when you start a commercial sector all the requirements of maintenance, crew duty hours etc must be to the commercial rules, so there are considerations when you are doing the private ops. It is however, possible and regularly done.

[themoonsaballoon]

When you are flying under the AOC the AOC is the Aircraft operator when you are flying privately who is then the operator?

[Fossy]

As BizjetJock explained, there is a section in the Techlog, where the nature of flight is recorded. Although more or less all European countries are following JAR, there are differences between the local authorities, since there are different acceptable means of compliance (AMC).

There is no difference in maintaining the aircraft, but a huge difference on the operation side, like duty times, T/O & landing distances etc, not to say more or less everything which is mentioned in JAR-OPS 1.

As

[themoonsaballoon]

That does not answer the question. I think there is some confusion over the Terminology and think it would be better defined as a non revenue flight under the AOC, that would work but that is not private flying IMO!

[BizJetJock]

There is a big difference between non-revenue AOC flights (positioning and training etc), and private flying for the owner. For example, under JAR-OPS a twin engined aircraft with less than 19 seats may not be more than 120 mins from an alternate without approval, which restricts routeing across the Atlantic. This means that positioning back from a charter is tied to this, but a flight carrying the owner can cut a considerable amount of time off a trip to the Caribbean. Therefore most companies will apply the distinction if they can.

[themoonsaballoon]

So when Private flying in this scenario are you not required to have seperate onboard documentation such as the M.E.L and RVSM approval ? These documents are specifically produced for the Aircraft Reg and operator (i.e The A.O.C) and type of operation, so when 'private flying' for the principal only non RVSM operations would apply and no M.E.L action is approved or are you still saying the operator is the A.O.C ?? Discuss

[Fossy]

The operator remains the same, doesn't matter if the flight is filed "c" or "p", because the CofR will not change.

RVSM has nothing to do it, since it's requirement which affects all aircraft.

[themoonsaballoon]

A red Herring, in many instances the Aircraft will be registered to one company and operated by another under their AOC, C of R is irrelevant.
No one has answered who is the operator when private flying?
I can understand if it is non revenue under an AOC, but this is not private flying.
Anyone reviewed EASA OPS 1 draft? Any changes from JAR OPS 1 on this subject?

[Fossy]

To the best of my knowledge, for aircraft commercially registered in an EASA member state, the operator is mentioned on the CofR (please correct me, if I'm wrong).

themoonsaballoon, I assume you are talking about management companies, which managing the aircraft for an owner.

[themoonsaballoon]

The C of R has the registered owner on it, nothing to do with who operates the Aircraft, the operator may be in another member state.
One large fractional ownership company known to many as the grey squirrel use private flying to allow them to operate into Airfields that would not be permitted if the commercial factored landing distances were to be applied.
Another premier UK Bizjet AOC has been advised by respected aviation lawyers that there is not a watertight means of mixing private and commercial operations and have taken that advice.

[Fossy]

I could prove it from at least two countries, which are EASA member states, where the operator, besides the owner, is recorded on the CofR. So therefore, it looks like it depends on the National CAA, and also if it allows an operator to fly an aircraft which is on an AOC privately if the owner is onboard.

[Riverboat]

Bizjetjockey, I am surprised that your company regard an empty flight as Public Transport. Yes I know the CAA regs, and the CAA standpoint, but if you are flying with no one on board except the crew, I don't think a court of law is going to deem the flight "public transport" even if the CAA would like to think it is.

This all stems from the CAA attempting, quite reasonably, to close a loophole that allowed an operator to deem that a flight wasn't public transport for one reason or another, such as , perhaps, the passengers never paid anything. So the CAA made a rule that stated that all flights carried out by an AOC holder will be deemed public transport.

But like you mentioned earlier, BJJ, if you just fly back empty on the most suitable route, which might not satisfy PT requirements, and the CAA raise the point, when you tell them that they are being absurd because there wasn't even a passenger on board, they are inclined to let the matter drop.

The thing is, as most of us know, to play by the rules and do the right thing. Treat the CAA with respect. But don't always kow tow - argue the point if you feel strongly about it, and often you will find that your inspector actually agrees with you.

In the real world, how can flying an empty aircraft be deemed public transport? It can't.

[BizJetJock]

Riverboat,
The answer lies in the definition of Public Transport. If a third party has paid for the aircraft to fly the sector, then it is PT even if there are physically no pax on board. I agree that lawyers could enrich themselves greatly arguing that the payment was only for the live legs and the positioning is free, but if the customer has been charged for the cost of doing it according to PT rules then we may as well keep our noses clean and save our ammo for arguing with the CAA about flights with the owners.

[Riverboat]

Thanks BJJ. We are on the same side, I assure you! I accept the definition, more or less - valueable consideration or something like that isn't it? But if you are flying back empty, who is to say that your charterer is paying for the flight? He paid for the outbound flight and gave your company a whack of money. He didn't charter you to fly back home. Why would he do that?

No, he chartered you to take him to Nice and that is it as far as he is concerned. But you, your company, wants to have the aircraft back, so you fly it back. It is your flight, not his.

As verification of this, if you had another charter out of Marseilles, you wouldn't fly it back, you'd position to Marseilles. Who is making this flight, the previous charterer or your company? It is you. On this leg you wouldn't have much doubt that it wasn't a PT flight, but really it is similar circumstances to the aircraft flying back to base. You send the aircraft to the most useful point for the next charter, and by default, if you haven't a charter booked, this is usually your base.

Anyway, i don't think it is any big deal. No point in irritating your FOI if he is a stickler for this one. But in my company, we do not always assume that return flights are PT.