Name & Shame - Operating Commercial Flights on Private Aircraft!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Lostmanstanding
A pilot error or engineering fault is never the ultimate cause.The ultimate cause is whatever allowed a pilot who was going to make that error to be in a position to do so, or whatever allowed the aircraft to be airborne with that fault
*dons pedant hat*
I beg to differ.
An extract from a (long and boring) book on insurance law says: "The proximate cause of an accident is the primary or moving cause that produces the accident and without which the accident could not have happened, if the accident is one which might be reasonably anticipated or foreseen as a natural consequence of the wrongful act."
Had you written "The proximate cause is whatever allowed a pilot who was going to make that error to be in a position to do so..." I'd have agreed with you. The ultimate cause would be the final link in the chain of errors that brings about the accident or incident.
It's perfectly feasible for pilot or engineering error to be the proximate cause, ultimate cause or even both. Your statement "A pilot error or engineering fault is never the ultimate cause" is an incredibly sweeping generalisation and somewhat inaccurate.
PS. Anyone else tired of hearing the worn-out mantra 'swiss cheese'? I fully understand and agree with the ethos but it's been bandied about so much now I cringe every time I hear it. Pint of beer to the person who comes up with a replacement phrase.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK.
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
African Drunk
"Give me one good reason that a "responsible" pilot has for not advising their owner to operate AOC."
Ever heard of KIS? Keep it simple, therefore safe!!
The costs involved in getting and keeping an AOC, are just not worth it. These extra costs are better spent on more training for e.g.
The amount of paperwork that has to be completed before, during and post flight on an JAA AOC operation is absolutely ridiculous. That extra time filling out a**e covering pointless paperwork could be better spent studying notams, SIDS weather, operating the aircraft and looking out, etc., etc. These are conducive to safety. Mountains of pointless paperwork is not conducive to safety. We supposed to be pilots, not pen pushers!!
This is why experienced pilots are normally employed on private operations, ideally, as they are able to stand up to commercial pressure, as this only comes with experience. Any owner that says they will replace a pilot that does make a stand, is not worth working for because when something does go wrong they will be the first to blame the crew.
"Give me one good reason that a "responsible" pilot has for not advising their owner to operate AOC."
Ever heard of KIS? Keep it simple, therefore safe!!
The costs involved in getting and keeping an AOC, are just not worth it. These extra costs are better spent on more training for e.g.
The amount of paperwork that has to be completed before, during and post flight on an JAA AOC operation is absolutely ridiculous. That extra time filling out a**e covering pointless paperwork could be better spent studying notams, SIDS weather, operating the aircraft and looking out, etc., etc. These are conducive to safety. Mountains of pointless paperwork is not conducive to safety. We supposed to be pilots, not pen pushers!!
This is why experienced pilots are normally employed on private operations, ideally, as they are able to stand up to commercial pressure, as this only comes with experience. Any owner that says they will replace a pilot that does make a stand, is not worth working for because when something does go wrong they will be the first to blame the crew.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an emmotive subject, always has been always will be, and I talk from over 30 years experience. The root of the problem is two fold as I see it,
1. The inability of the relevant authorities to take any effective action.
2. Money talks.
Can any pilot on here honestly say that if requested by the aircraft owner to fly from A to B he wouldn't, assuming of course that the pilot is happy with the operation technically.
1. The inability of the relevant authorities to take any effective action.
2. Money talks.
Can any pilot on here honestly say that if requested by the aircraft owner to fly from A to B he wouldn't, assuming of course that the pilot is happy with the operation technically.
Guest
Posts: n/a
That's an extremely open ended question scrivener.
If an owner asks "Will you fly me from A to B?" that's different to "Will you take the aircraft to a little strip in the back of beyond, pick up my good friend Mr.....errrmm...hang on. I've got his name here somewhere.......and take him elsewhere".
Faced with doubts I believe that if any pilot showed due diligence and asked the right questions that would serve as a defence. However if a pilot felt they had to ask these questions on a regular basis I'd be wondering why they were still in that job.
If an owner asks "Will you fly me from A to B?" that's different to "Will you take the aircraft to a little strip in the back of beyond, pick up my good friend Mr.....errrmm...hang on. I've got his name here somewhere.......and take him elsewhere".
Faced with doubts I believe that if any pilot showed due diligence and asked the right questions that would serve as a defence. However if a pilot felt they had to ask these questions on a regular basis I'd be wondering why they were still in that job.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flintstone, I quite agree, but you're talking about a very dodgy operation about which most pilots may well query that request on operational grounds alone and quite rightly too. What I am simply saying is can you afford not to do what you are being paid to do?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LostManStanding
30 years behind in my thinking? There has NEVER been one accident where the cause was quoted as Illegal air taxi. I repeat to you that every accident is due to either Pilot error, aircraft failure or a combination of both.
You speak the obvious when you say that accidents are a result of a chain of events but they are all flying events.
Yes anything that is put in place to increase the flying standards of pilots, or to improve the maintenance of aircraft will reduce the likelyhood of an accident whether it be through an AOC structure or a self imposed structure by a private operation.
An aircraft sitting on the ground has zero chance of an accident unless a truck runs into it. As soon as it taxis out and takes off there is a risk factor.
A risk factor from the pilot making a mistake or a failure in the aircraft.
Regulations and legal requirements are put in place to reduce those risks.
A private operation could be safer than an AOC operation should the private operator self impose more recurrent training than an AOC, more maintainance more restrictions on the weather he will operate in etc.
Finally again I stress that no one here is antI AOC operations. No one here is advocating illegal air taxi.
A company that has an AOC is in the business of making money from aviation and like any company will want to maximise their profits. More reason why they should be regulated from cutting corners and hence reduce safety in their quest to maximise profits.
A private operation is not motivated in the same way as their business comes from elsewhere. The aircraft is a tool of that business and not the business and as such not under the pressures to make every last buck from their operation.
Pace
You are about 30 years behind in your thinking on aircraft accident causes. Ever heard of the "Swiss-cheese model"? It's been around a long time. Every accident I have ever heard of was the result of a chain of events, not a single cause
30 years behind in my thinking? There has NEVER been one accident where the cause was quoted as Illegal air taxi. I repeat to you that every accident is due to either Pilot error, aircraft failure or a combination of both.
You speak the obvious when you say that accidents are a result of a chain of events but they are all flying events.
Yes anything that is put in place to increase the flying standards of pilots, or to improve the maintenance of aircraft will reduce the likelyhood of an accident whether it be through an AOC structure or a self imposed structure by a private operation.
An aircraft sitting on the ground has zero chance of an accident unless a truck runs into it. As soon as it taxis out and takes off there is a risk factor.
A risk factor from the pilot making a mistake or a failure in the aircraft.
Regulations and legal requirements are put in place to reduce those risks.
A private operation could be safer than an AOC operation should the private operator self impose more recurrent training than an AOC, more maintainance more restrictions on the weather he will operate in etc.
Finally again I stress that no one here is antI AOC operations. No one here is advocating illegal air taxi.
A company that has an AOC is in the business of making money from aviation and like any company will want to maximise their profits. More reason why they should be regulated from cutting corners and hence reduce safety in their quest to maximise profits.
A private operation is not motivated in the same way as their business comes from elsewhere. The aircraft is a tool of that business and not the business and as such not under the pressures to make every last buck from their operation.
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: london, UK
Age: 57
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead of the swiss chees model we could call it the "VLJ business plan" model. Thats pretty full of holes..
EBJ for short
and if you catch it before the accident actually happens you could call it an Ambeo
gimme a job someone for christs sake - spending far too much time reading this toss....
EBJ for short
and if you catch it before the accident actually happens you could call it an Ambeo
gimme a job someone for christs sake - spending far too much time reading this toss....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can any pilot on here honestly say that if requested by the aircraft owner to fly from A to B he wouldn't, assuming of course that the pilot is happy with the operation technically
Srivenger
It is not the responsability of the commander to determine whether passenegers are legitimate or not. He is not party to discussions or qualified to determine the legality of contracts or legal agreements between the owner or people using his aircraft only a lawyer can determine that.
Yes he is in a position where if he suspects with good cause that a flight is illegal to turn it down.
If he "knowingly" takes on a flight which he suspects is illegal air taxi then he is liable and party to that act.
Pace
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flintstone
"Ultimate" as in basic, highest or greatest cause. I suppose it is slightly ambiguous as ultimate can be used to mean last in a sequence in time, but the context should clear that up. Overarching is the term I prefer to think of, but I was not sure of the quality of Pace's English.
Agree about swiss cheese as a term, but I suspect it is fairly new to Pace and it is simple. I did prefer to use the term error chain, but Kerplunk is even better. Cheers Spunky!
Pace
What thread are you reading? It sure isn't this one!
No-one in this thread said that the cause of an accident has been quoted as illegal air taxi. That does not, of course, mean that there are not many accidents that would have been prevented by the systems in place for an AOC. No-one has said private flights cannot be safe.
You still haven't understood the modern concept is that no accident has a single cause. That is exactly what I mean by you being 30 years out of date
If you don't get that then you'll never understand the safety implications of an AOC.
You have a simple, touching naivity about monetary concerns in corporate flight departments though. I like that, as long as you never work for a tight-fisted company! Nice to see you've repaired your comma button. Any chance you'll get that randomised shift key sorted?
johnriketes
I am dumbfounded. I can't decide whether you are a well-informed troll or an ill-informed aviation worker. To suggest in a thread to which at least three AOC post holders have contributed that paperwork is pointless must, surely, be a windup?
Do you really think that pilots would actually operate more safely if no-one was monitoring them? That operations would not push the boundaries if there was no-one monitoring them? That the postholders reading this would really take legal responsibility for the safe operation by pilots who don't fill out paperwork?
There is something called the real world. In that pilots are not platonic perfect beings always thinking of flight safety first. In that some pilots are rather too relaxed about flight parameters, and some operators are. In that there is a thing called "economics", so that the thorough operator will be outcompeted by the one that cuts corners, which without paperwork will never be spotted until too late for the pasengers who died.
In that "real world" the rest of us inhabit pre-flight paperwork takes about ten minutes, as does after-flight paperwork. The pre-flight includes printing off and reading the weather and NOTAMs, completing a load sheet and checking and filling out the tech log to confirm the serviceability of the aircraft. The only time it takes longer is if there is a problem with any of this, which I personally want to know about before getting airborne. Not sure I want to fly with you if you miss these out even on a private flight!
In fact, now I think about it, I can't think of only one piece of paperwork I do before a public-transport flight I would not do before a private flight. That is a loadsheet that I wouldn't complete if I was well within parameters flying a familiar aircraft. That takes about a minute, maybe two if I have to calculate the departure fuel.
"Ultimate" as in basic, highest or greatest cause. I suppose it is slightly ambiguous as ultimate can be used to mean last in a sequence in time, but the context should clear that up. Overarching is the term I prefer to think of, but I was not sure of the quality of Pace's English.
Agree about swiss cheese as a term, but I suspect it is fairly new to Pace and it is simple. I did prefer to use the term error chain, but Kerplunk is even better. Cheers Spunky!
Pace
What thread are you reading? It sure isn't this one!
No-one in this thread said that the cause of an accident has been quoted as illegal air taxi. That does not, of course, mean that there are not many accidents that would have been prevented by the systems in place for an AOC. No-one has said private flights cannot be safe.
You still haven't understood the modern concept is that no accident has a single cause. That is exactly what I mean by you being 30 years out of date
If you don't get that then you'll never understand the safety implications of an AOC.You have a simple, touching naivity about monetary concerns in corporate flight departments though. I like that, as long as you never work for a tight-fisted company! Nice to see you've repaired your comma button. Any chance you'll get that randomised shift key sorted?
johnriketes
I am dumbfounded. I can't decide whether you are a well-informed troll or an ill-informed aviation worker. To suggest in a thread to which at least three AOC post holders have contributed that paperwork is pointless must, surely, be a windup?
Do you really think that pilots would actually operate more safely if no-one was monitoring them? That operations would not push the boundaries if there was no-one monitoring them? That the postholders reading this would really take legal responsibility for the safe operation by pilots who don't fill out paperwork?
There is something called the real world. In that pilots are not platonic perfect beings always thinking of flight safety first. In that some pilots are rather too relaxed about flight parameters, and some operators are. In that there is a thing called "economics", so that the thorough operator will be outcompeted by the one that cuts corners, which without paperwork will never be spotted until too late for the pasengers who died.
In that "real world" the rest of us inhabit pre-flight paperwork takes about ten minutes, as does after-flight paperwork. The pre-flight includes printing off and reading the weather and NOTAMs, completing a load sheet and checking and filling out the tech log to confirm the serviceability of the aircraft. The only time it takes longer is if there is a problem with any of this, which I personally want to know about before getting airborne. Not sure I want to fly with you if you miss these out even on a private flight!
In fact, now I think about it, I can't think of only one piece of paperwork I do before a public-transport flight I would not do before a private flight. That is a loadsheet that I wouldn't complete if I was well within parameters flying a familiar aircraft. That takes about a minute, maybe two if I have to calculate the departure fuel.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
As for your last post, Flintstone already answered that. To quote his words of wisdom "Faced with doubts I believe that if any pilot showed due diligence and asked the right questions that would serve as a defence. However if a pilot felt they had to ask these questions on a regular basis I'd be wondering why they were still in that job."
I would add that the defence would quickly run out in the case of frequently having to ask.
As for your last post, Flintstone already answered that. To quote his words of wisdom "Faced with doubts I believe that if any pilot showed due diligence and asked the right questions that would serve as a defence. However if a pilot felt they had to ask these questions on a regular basis I'd be wondering why they were still in that job."
I would add that the defence would quickly run out in the case of frequently having to ask.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what I'm talking about :-
ASG Charter
They did this for a Bristol Rugby player earlier in the year and the Pilot was prosecuted and fined.
I can only really comment on this one because it is in the public domain, but it happens all the time, just go to Weston in Dublin, it would be a real eye opener.
Actually running charter companies without a licence, not an owner lending an aircraft to a mate.
ASG Charter
They did this for a Bristol Rugby player earlier in the year and the Pilot was prosecuted and fined.
I can only really comment on this one because it is in the public domain, but it happens all the time, just go to Weston in Dublin, it would be a real eye opener.
Actually running charter companies without a licence, not an owner lending an aircraft to a mate.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace.
'It is not the responsability of the commander to determine whether passenegers are legitimate or not. He is not party to discussions or qualified to determine the legality of contracts or legal agreements between the owner or people using his aircraft only a lawyer can determine that.'
I think you will find that quite the opposite is the case.......
'It is not the responsability of the commander to determine whether passenegers are legitimate or not. He is not party to discussions or qualified to determine the legality of contracts or legal agreements between the owner or people using his aircraft only a lawyer can determine that.'
I think you will find that quite the opposite is the case.......
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You still haven't understood the modern concept is that no accident has a single cause. That is exactly what I mean by you being 30 years out of date If you don't get that then you'll never understand the safety implications of an AOC.
The utter rubbish you churn out is far worse than my lack of grammer on internet forum writing.
Please respond to what I say not to what your little petty mind wants to think I say.
Please paste any bit that I have written here which indicates that I do NOT consider an accident to be a chain of events which lead to that accident?
Spending time on these forums fits in with my other work so my typing is fast and I dont attempt to make it a grammatical masterpiece.
Pace
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good work Phil. Tip of the iceberg though.
G Spot / Pace. I hear what you say, and understand that you are probably involved in a totally legal operation on the corporate side. It is NOT this that I have a problem with.
The problem is that because it is not really regulated from an activities point of view, it is easy for the dodgy ones to "pass off" of a corporate operation. Surely you wouldn't want your sector of the industry to be tarnished because of a few idiots who operate illegally? You have no need to defend legitimate corporate ops as this is not the point.
A number of high profile accidents over the years have been on dodgy ground on the legality of the flight. A certain jockey at Newmarket, a football club owner in a helicopter, another at Denham...the list goes on. These flights were dangerous, and operated at a lower standard than an AOC. They were all commanded by Pilots who had a licence to fly the aircraft concerned, and in aircraft that were within check etc....So, if they were illegal, then someone should be prosecuted, and if they were legit corporate operations, the CAA needs to tighten up on the procedures. It's just not right to have this lack of accountability in our industry.
For the record, I only mention AOC as this is the only yard stick to compare standards of operation to. I am sure that many corporate ops are as safe if not safer than AOC, but on the flip side, many are not. Safety standards should not set at the discretion of the individual owner.
G Spot / Pace. I hear what you say, and understand that you are probably involved in a totally legal operation on the corporate side. It is NOT this that I have a problem with.
The problem is that because it is not really regulated from an activities point of view, it is easy for the dodgy ones to "pass off" of a corporate operation. Surely you wouldn't want your sector of the industry to be tarnished because of a few idiots who operate illegally? You have no need to defend legitimate corporate ops as this is not the point.
A number of high profile accidents over the years have been on dodgy ground on the legality of the flight. A certain jockey at Newmarket, a football club owner in a helicopter, another at Denham...the list goes on. These flights were dangerous, and operated at a lower standard than an AOC. They were all commanded by Pilots who had a licence to fly the aircraft concerned, and in aircraft that were within check etc....So, if they were illegal, then someone should be prosecuted, and if they were legit corporate operations, the CAA needs to tighten up on the procedures. It's just not right to have this lack of accountability in our industry.
For the record, I only mention AOC as this is the only yard stick to compare standards of operation to. I am sure that many corporate ops are as safe if not safer than AOC, but on the flip side, many are not. Safety standards should not set at the discretion of the individual owner.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scrivenger
If you are correct then the legal advice which I recieved from a aviation lawyer on a flight I turned down was incorrect.
Pace
I think you will find that quite the opposite is the case.......
Pace
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by scrivenger
Flintstone, I quite agree, but you're talking about a very dodgy operation about which most pilots may well query that request on operational grounds alone and quite rightly too.
Let's make that clear, I refused work and money because I wasn't convinced. I think that means there are pilots on here who would refuse to fly.
Now the semantics. I can't agree on your definition of ultimate having had a previous life in which both the terms 'ultimate' and 'proximate' were very clear and very, very important with their misinterpretation having the ability to lead all the way up to the High Court.
PS. To keep things lively I'd like to put some questions to those of you thumping the table about this. Firstly, how many aircraft owners do you each know of that are breaking the rules in this fashion?
Secondly. If you have not reported them, why not?