Name & Shame - Operating Commercial Flights on Private Aircraft!!!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A NBAA report from 2004 showed that there is a 11 times higher change that you will have an issue when flying unregulated charter vs the 91K/135 and scheduled operators..... go figure... If even the industries own trade organisation in the US comes up with these figures guess what the regulators will do
The Americans have got this figured out and have what appears to be a perhaps more relevant regulatory framework for small Commercial Operators and a different one for Air Carriers (the big boys).
I should be surprised if there was a difference in the safety record of US REGULATED Commercial Operators and a JAA AOC Air Taxi outfit.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so clear
With respect to commercial aviation it is imperative to remember why legislation is there in the first place. As a private operator your sole responsibility is to yourself and those who choose to make the choice to accompany you. You have not sold the service or charged anyone therefore responsibility lies individually.
Once you enter into a commercial situation of anysort (irrespective of the industry) then the issue of liability and the cost of insuring that risk becomes the issue as you now supplying the service commercially.
Just because someone has only one aircraft, why is the liability any less than it is with someone who has 150. Any single flight (just like any car journey, train ride etc...) has the ability to be catastrophic.
A big problem in Europe is that there are too many small operators (2500 a/c, v's 900+ operstors) which means that the legislative cost is too high across the board. What we as an industry require is consolidation (not uncommon in industries where regulation is hefty but necessary).
Business Aviation is more akin to Nuclear Power than a "corner shop" and you wouldnt want any tom dick or harry opening up a nuclear power plant without significant regulation?? or would you??
Once you enter into a commercial situation of anysort (irrespective of the industry) then the issue of liability and the cost of insuring that risk becomes the issue as you now supplying the service commercially.
Just because someone has only one aircraft, why is the liability any less than it is with someone who has 150. Any single flight (just like any car journey, train ride etc...) has the ability to be catastrophic.
A big problem in Europe is that there are too many small operators (2500 a/c, v's 900+ operstors) which means that the legislative cost is too high across the board. What we as an industry require is consolidation (not uncommon in industries where regulation is hefty but necessary).
Business Aviation is more akin to Nuclear Power than a "corner shop" and you wouldnt want any tom dick or harry opening up a nuclear power plant without significant regulation?? or would you??
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 79
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
deskjockey101
Simply and straight forwardly put
I suggest those PVT/Corp operators check International Business Aviation Council (IBAC) and have a look at IS-BAO. Also enlist your associations, BBGA (UK), EBAA, NBAA etc., etc. Bucking the system will be found out eventually
I suggest those PVT/Corp operators check International Business Aviation Council (IBAC) and have a look at IS-BAO. Also enlist your associations, BBGA (UK), EBAA, NBAA etc., etc. Bucking the system will be found out eventually
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a private operator your sole responsibility is to yourself and those who choose to make the choice to accompany you.
I understand and agree with a lot that you are saying so maybe I am talking more on the moral differences.
While I agree that the passenger who accepts a free flight with his mate on a scenic tour of the area in a PA28 knows and accepts the risk I see very little difference other than through insurance requirements of many passengers who travel on business aircraft.
Especially regarding larger business jets the private owner may carry his family and friends but may also carry emplyees or unknown people from other companies ie the business people taking a free flight are no different to the same people buying a scheduled flight other than the exchange of money for that flight.
They know no more than the scheduled paying passenger about aviation or the different risks and are probably directed by their company to the private flight as they would be to a commercial flight.
So I question the assumption that that is their choice or the assumption that they accept the increased assumed risk of flying private.
Ie it is rather double standards by the regulating authorities to allow these people in substandard private operations compared to the more regulated and presumed safer AOC operated aircraft.
Pace
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 14 days away 14 at home
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Americans have got this figured out
They dont have it right in the US just as we dont have it right in Europe. The one thing we have in common: both keep raising the bar!
In all there will be less space for the one or two aircraft operators which is a good thing for the general public as it generally increase the quality of the operation. It is better for us in the industry as it gets rid of the "fly buy shooter"operator who has no money, no experience and are messing up the change to make a normal margin by undercutting everybody before going bust.
Rant over, do i detect thread drift.....
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 79
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No RYR
Not a thread drift at all, in fact what is happening (has happened) in the US ref 135 tickets is getting a move on. Various items on National Business Aviation Association, Inc. for most all to see (some not in the members enclave). Check EBAA | European Business Aviation Association as well.
There is a very interesting brief for US operators getting 'ramp jumped' in Europe by inspectors for a full ramp audit. I understand this is going to elevated to all Euro operators as well, better have your ducks in a row folks, otherwise you're going to be intercoursed
There is a very interesting brief for US operators getting 'ramp jumped' in Europe by inspectors for a full ramp audit. I understand this is going to elevated to all Euro operators as well, better have your ducks in a row folks, otherwise you're going to be intercoursed
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riga
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None of this addresses the fact that there is NO business case for regulating our Senneca driver to the same level as BA!!! The cost and administrative burden are not fit for purpose!
When you have a regulatory system that is not fit for purpose then you will get people finding ways to circumvent the rules - simple.
As in my previous post, you simply cant put the weight of burden of the current AOC requirements on many business aircraft operators and expect them to continue operating profitably.
By legislating to the hilt in this area you are effectively ousting this part of the market.
I would much rather be in a Seneca or Navajo that is regulated, but to (lower) standard that is fit for purpose, than the same aircraft that is being operated outside any regulatory framework.
RIX
When you have a regulatory system that is not fit for purpose then you will get people finding ways to circumvent the rules - simple.
As in my previous post, you simply cant put the weight of burden of the current AOC requirements on many business aircraft operators and expect them to continue operating profitably.
By legislating to the hilt in this area you are effectively ousting this part of the market.
I would much rather be in a Seneca or Navajo that is regulated, but to (lower) standard that is fit for purpose, than the same aircraft that is being operated outside any regulatory framework.
RIX
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London
Age: 52
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would much rather be in a Seneca or Navajo that is regulated, but to (lower) standard that is fit for purpose, than the same aircraft that is being operated outside any regulatory framework.
The only thing which I disagree on is the the suggestion that 'fit for purpose' regulation of a small air taxi operator would necessarily be to a LOWER standard.
I'm fairly sure that it could be regulated to exactly the same standard, but in a way which placed a lower administrative burden on the operator - in much the same way that the American system does.
Last edited by julian_storey; 30th Nov 2008 at 18:48.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I just being an old romantic, but is their anybody else missing the old organic growth of a carrier. You know one aircraft outfit Chieftain/C421/C90/B200 built on a safe operation and regular clientele
It seems to me that the only way a carrier can get underway at the moment is to make a huge announcement in EBAN that the manufacturer milks for weeks thereafter and have a revolutionary business model that one trawls around the city for some tax dodge cash.
Its madness the level of regulation for small carriers, the amount of regulation will always end up matching the investment in the kit hence no provision for a small outfit doing a good job. I do not agree that having less operators using more aircraft will improve safety. Easier to administrate and satisfy the oversight requirements and driving out other capacity will justify the paperwork..... but safer.....I'm not sure
It seems to me that the only way a carrier can get underway at the moment is to make a huge announcement in EBAN that the manufacturer milks for weeks thereafter and have a revolutionary business model that one trawls around the city for some tax dodge cash.
Its madness the level of regulation for small carriers, the amount of regulation will always end up matching the investment in the kit hence no provision for a small outfit doing a good job. I do not agree that having less operators using more aircraft will improve safety. Easier to administrate and satisfy the oversight requirements and driving out other capacity will justify the paperwork..... but safer.....I'm not sure
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Julian
This presumes that more regulations means more safety but that is not always the case.
The motivating factor should be identify a safety threat and close it.
Not regulate for jobs for the regulators, protectionism, burocracy and a whole host of hidden agendas which a lot of this is made up of and someone has to pay.
Pace
This presumes that more regulations means more safety but that is not always the case.
The motivating factor should be identify a safety threat and close it.
Not regulate for jobs for the regulators, protectionism, burocracy and a whole host of hidden agendas which a lot of this is made up of and someone has to pay.
Pace
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 79
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RIX
Maybe you would care to look back at how Air London (Air Partner) was started by Tony Mack, hey have a gander at how Interflight started, I'm sure that Simon could give you the griff
Anyone remember a chap who had "Steam Chicken Line" on his little twin ay LGW, that was until he got sorted, this was many moons ago, you folks prob do not go back that far. Still he ho, it all comes around ain't nothing new, you may think it is, but it ain't
Just stop whinging at get on and sort this situ out, if you can't even agree, join an association and fight from a firmer base
Otherwise just carry on whinging and get no bloody where
Anyone remember a chap who had "Steam Chicken Line" on his little twin ay LGW, that was until he got sorted, this was many moons ago, you folks prob do not go back that far. Still he ho, it all comes around
ain't nothing new, you may think it is, but it ain'tJust stop whinging at get on and sort this situ out, if you can't even agree, join an association and fight from a firmer base
Otherwise just carry on whinging and get no bloody where
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace,
I know not on which register your aircraft fly, but from previous posts suspect that they (or it) wear an N prefix.
I assume therefore that you are familiar with the term "Truth in Leasing" and the requirements one must fulfill prior to, and after, entering into the kind of lease arrangements that you previously mentioned.
It involves quite a bit more than drafting a simple lease agreement, and I suspect that such formalities are put in place to prevent abuse of the system - not that I am in any way suggesting that you might consider so doing.
Hope my grammar and spilling are up to scratch!
I know not on which register your aircraft fly, but from previous posts suspect that they (or it) wear an N prefix.
I assume therefore that you are familiar with the term "Truth in Leasing" and the requirements one must fulfill prior to, and after, entering into the kind of lease arrangements that you previously mentioned.
It involves quite a bit more than drafting a simple lease agreement, and I suspect that such formalities are put in place to prevent abuse of the system - not that I am in any way suggesting that you might consider so doing.
Hope my grammar and spilling are up to scratch!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely this whole debate comes down to what expectation of safety a passenger flying in a 1970s clapped out Seneca (flown under a UK CAA AOC of course 
) has, compared to flying in a BA 747.
I would say the expectations are, or should be, very different. But one could argue this one for ever. There are no limits to human stupidity and the modern trend is to use regulation to protect stupid people from their own stupidity.
The UK regulation is based on them being more or less identical, and the Seneca operator is regulated as far as he can be without being completely pushed out of business.
There is no way that a Seneca charter will be as safe as a 737 etc - there is a vast difference in component/engine reliability and systems redundancy, not to mention mission capability w.r.t. weather, and the severely limited operating ceiling in the absence of pressurisation and no oxygen available to passengers.
There are also double standards. A PPL student going up in some piece of clapped out wreckage (like those I trained in) does have a reasonable expectation of safety; arguably the same expectation as the above mentioned Seneca charter passenger. He knows nothing about aviation at that point, and unless he becomes an aircraft owner (which only a very tiny % ever do) he will remain forever ignorant of the safety issues and tradeoffs in maintenance. But flight training is exempted from the AOC regs - rightly so of course otherwise the whole lot would go to the wall.
To me, the whole AOC stuff is little more than a protectionist scheme, to keep the airlines in business and to prevent their business being chipped away around the edges by low cost operations.
) has, compared to flying in a BA 747.I would say the expectations are, or should be, very different. But one could argue this one for ever. There are no limits to human stupidity and the modern trend is to use regulation to protect stupid people from their own stupidity.
The UK regulation is based on them being more or less identical, and the Seneca operator is regulated as far as he can be without being completely pushed out of business.
There is no way that a Seneca charter will be as safe as a 737 etc - there is a vast difference in component/engine reliability and systems redundancy, not to mention mission capability w.r.t. weather, and the severely limited operating ceiling in the absence of pressurisation and no oxygen available to passengers.
There are also double standards. A PPL student going up in some piece of clapped out wreckage (like those I trained in) does have a reasonable expectation of safety; arguably the same expectation as the above mentioned Seneca charter passenger. He knows nothing about aviation at that point, and unless he becomes an aircraft owner (which only a very tiny % ever do) he will remain forever ignorant of the safety issues and tradeoffs in maintenance. But flight training is exempted from the AOC regs - rightly so of course otherwise the whole lot would go to the wall.
To me, the whole AOC stuff is little more than a protectionist scheme, to keep the airlines in business and to prevent their business being chipped away around the edges by low cost operations.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: all over the place
Age: 63
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exactly!
If the rules are simpler and yes maybe less stringent then people will follow them. NO one will follow rules and regulations that they don't deem are necessary or apply to them. That is the nature of the Human. How many of you whingy, moaning self righteous do gooders have NEVER, that is NEVER broken the speed limit because it was SAFE in your opinion, or driven while under the influence because you felt OK, or for that matter added a few extra minutes in your logbook......NONE of you
(or me )
If the rules are simpler and yes maybe less stringent then people will follow them. NO one will follow rules and regulations that they don't deem are necessary or apply to them. That is the nature of the Human. How many of you whingy, moaning self righteous do gooders have NEVER, that is NEVER broken the speed limit because it was SAFE in your opinion, or driven while under the influence because you felt OK, or for that matter added a few extra minutes in your logbook......NONE of you
(or me )
Last edited by pilotbear; 15th Dec 2008 at 11:07.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
That post is quit ... er ... staggering.
This is half right. Of course the half that is right is the bit that makes the first half completely wrong.
Yes the idea is to prevent low-cost operations chipping away at our business, which would leave only those low-cost operations. So the next thing to consider is how you make a low-cost operation. There are many easy ways to do so:
That post is quit ... er ... staggering.
To me, the whole AOC stuff is little more than a protectionist scheme, to keep the airlines in business and to prevent their business being chipped away around the edges by low cost operations.
Yes the idea is to prevent low-cost operations chipping away at our business, which would leave only those low-cost operations. So the next thing to consider is how you make a low-cost operation. There are many easy ways to do so:
- Don't train the pilots. They have licences and ratings already don't they?
- Hire pilots on minimum hours, desperate for work. Only pay them when they fly, so they will fly whatever the weather, aircraft state and their fatigue level/illness. In fact, don't pay them, they need the hours. The stress will help them fly well, eh?
- Don't check your pilots' flying regularly
- Minimise pre-flight planning and after-flight paperwork, after all there's no-one checking
- Work the pilots the hours the customer wants, regardless of FTLs, after all there's no-one checking
- Carry major snags, after all there's no-one checking
- Minimum maintenance, carried out by whoever is available with 145 or without, after all there's no-one checking
- None of this A-check nonsense, after all there's no-one checking
- Have the pilots fly whichever aircraft they can, no need to train for each type or stick to no more than two. After all, they have type ratings don't they?
- No need to track maintenance in a well-maintained tech log and with a company CAME, after all there's no-one checking
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LMS there you go again, self hypnotised by AOC standards of safety. There is nothing to say that your dodgy corporate/fly by night outfit doesn't do all the "good" stuff you profess to.
Fact is their is more commercial pressure on AOC holders to fly than others as flying is their reason d'etre. Others are going to be there anyway.
Having done public transport can you honestly say that you've never fudged figures, sloped on the extra pax or been glad when a crew member has used his initiative and done it late at night down route to get a "friend" home for a newish client. If so then please stop throwing stones cos you are no better than the dodgy operators you slate on here.
if a part on an aircraft is going to let go, or the thing is going to break down then its fair to say that that particular part or the aircraft in general does not know that there is a CAME probably asleep somewhere 1000's of miles away increasing safety and reliability through proper maintenance. Ironically if the aircraft did know that some clown was happy to pay £600 quid a month for CAME cover then it would probably behave better out of pity.....
Certificates on walls do not a safe operation make regardless of how much shafting you are prepared bend over and take in oversight or regulation.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO REALISE THEY JUST MAKE YOU LEGAL NOT SAFER PER SE
Fact is their is more commercial pressure on AOC holders to fly than others as flying is their reason d'etre. Others are going to be there anyway.
Having done public transport can you honestly say that you've never fudged figures, sloped on the extra pax or been glad when a crew member has used his initiative and done it late at night down route to get a "friend" home for a newish client. If so then please stop throwing stones cos you are no better than the dodgy operators you slate on here.
if a part on an aircraft is going to let go, or the thing is going to break down then its fair to say that that particular part or the aircraft in general does not know that there is a CAME probably asleep somewhere 1000's of miles away increasing safety and reliability through proper maintenance. Ironically if the aircraft did know that some clown was happy to pay £600 quid a month for CAME cover then it would probably behave better out of pity.....
Certificates on walls do not a safe operation make regardless of how much shafting you are prepared bend over and take in oversight or regulation.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO REALISE THEY JUST MAKE YOU LEGAL NOT SAFER PER SE
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tween Hurn&Filton
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone else out there think of any smart ideas for saving money?
Sure....bring your own toilet paper,
print your own boarding cards,
take the minimum possible fuel,
buy uniforms from Woolworths,
enough!enough!
It has been a most entertaining thread with plenty of drama and histrionics so far. About the only commonly agreed point so far is that the current EU Ops AOCs are hideously overbearing in terms of both expense and complexity for operators of corporate aircraft, rather than the airlines for whom the regulations were designed.
Perhaps, if it ever comes to fruition, EU Ops 2 will prove to be more relevant to smaller operators, and thus remove the temptation to avoid the regs. in order to perform illegal charters.
print your own boarding cards,
take the minimum possible fuel,
buy uniforms from Woolworths,
enough!enough!
It has been a most entertaining thread with plenty of drama and histrionics so far. About the only commonly agreed point so far is that the current EU Ops AOCs are hideously overbearing in terms of both expense and complexity for operators of corporate aircraft, rather than the airlines for whom the regulations were designed.
Perhaps, if it ever comes to fruition, EU Ops 2 will prove to be more relevant to smaller operators, and thus remove the temptation to avoid the regs. in order to perform illegal charters.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which very succinctly brings this pointless thread to a close - Again
Please also note that the original post was the OP's second post and he's not posted since.
When will we learn not to feed the Trolls.....
Please also note that the original post was the OP's second post and he's not posted since.
When will we learn not to feed the Trolls.....
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Socialist Republic of Europe
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And there you go, G-SPOT, answering a post that was in your head, rather than the one I wrote!
I never said that a corporate operator couldn't do those things. The commercial pressure on the putative legal charter operation without AOC requirements IO540 implied should be allowed would be the same as on an AOC operator. I never said that no AOC operator ever fudged figures. I didn't say that an AOC is necessarily safer per se. I never said that the parts know about the CAME. Not sure how a CAME sleeps though, our documents just sit there on a shelf. I never said a certificate made a safe operator.
When are you going to address the points I actually make, rather than the ones you think people of my opinion must be trying to make, despite what I actually say?
See, doesn't even need to be written in all capitals when it actually has relevance to the post to which it responds!
I never said that a corporate operator couldn't do those things. The commercial pressure on the putative legal charter operation without AOC requirements IO540 implied should be allowed would be the same as on an AOC operator. I never said that no AOC operator ever fudged figures. I didn't say that an AOC is necessarily safer per se. I never said that the parts know about the CAME. Not sure how a CAME sleeps though, our documents just sit there on a shelf. I never said a certificate made a safe operator.
When are you going to address the points I actually make, rather than the ones you think people of my opinion must be trying to make, despite what I actually say?
See, doesn't even need to be written in all capitals when it actually has relevance to the post to which it responds!