M registered Commercial Ops
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Poland
Age: 69
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawker 750,
I fully appreciate where you are coming from, and exactly what it is that is pi
ing you off. It is an age old problem, but I fear that any mission you may have to correct the situation is doomed to fail unless you move the starting point of any argument you wish to promote.
You are making a banner of something that is plainly not true - it is a rumour that has no basis in fact. If you took the time to read the links I provided you will have substantiated that for yourself...M reg owners may not sell blocks of hours to the fare paying public under the guise of a lease! The foundation of your argument is therefore not sound, and what follows from it will not have credibility.
Secondly, what possible argument can you promote to demonstrate that the IOMAR (M reg) has in anyway exacerbated the situation?
Illegal Commercial Air Transport was invented the day after Commercial Air Transport was legalised. It is not confined to any particular registration letter, and to stamp it out will take more than a few beers at Biggin. Bashing M registered operators will not help either. What you need to do is catch the guilty in the act - and prove it with FACTS - not rumours.
I fully appreciate where you are coming from, and exactly what it is that is pi
ing you off. It is an age old problem, but I fear that any mission you may have to correct the situation is doomed to fail unless you move the starting point of any argument you wish to promote.You are making a banner of something that is plainly not true - it is a rumour that has no basis in fact. If you took the time to read the links I provided you will have substantiated that for yourself...M reg owners may not sell blocks of hours to the fare paying public under the guise of a lease! The foundation of your argument is therefore not sound, and what follows from it will not have credibility.
Secondly, what possible argument can you promote to demonstrate that the IOMAR (M reg) has in anyway exacerbated the situation?
Illegal Commercial Air Transport was invented the day after Commercial Air Transport was legalised. It is not confined to any particular registration letter, and to stamp it out will take more than a few beers at Biggin. Bashing M registered operators will not help either. What you need to do is catch the guilty in the act - and prove it with FACTS - not rumours.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DA50 Driver
Check my posts, I have never refered to anyone as cowboys, I think that most of the pilots who are operating illegally are probably very professional in their approach to the flying aspect of their jobs, but not so professional in their regard to the law. They know that the law is unlikely to catch up with them unless they have an accident inwhich case the underwriters are becoming more and more likely not to payout. In that case the crew will be paying for a long long time when the widows sue. I suggest that anyone who is considering paying for a "lease" gets a written confirmation from all the insurance underwriters (and there may be up to a dozen underwriters in a policy) that the passengers are fully covered in the event of death or injury and that there is not a breach of warranty exclusion. I strongly suggest the crews do likewise.
Check my posts, I have never refered to anyone as cowboys, I think that most of the pilots who are operating illegally are probably very professional in their approach to the flying aspect of their jobs, but not so professional in their regard to the law. They know that the law is unlikely to catch up with them unless they have an accident inwhich case the underwriters are becoming more and more likely not to payout. In that case the crew will be paying for a long long time when the widows sue. I suggest that anyone who is considering paying for a "lease" gets a written confirmation from all the insurance underwriters (and there may be up to a dozen underwriters in a policy) that the passengers are fully covered in the event of death or injury and that there is not a breach of warranty exclusion. I strongly suggest the crews do likewise.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also know of an EASA spec aircraft which was M Registered being leased to a Polish AOC who needed some capacity completely legally it was short term, the aircraft/ongoing maintenance was inspected as EASA compliant and could legally have been doing commercial ops for 12 months before being re-registered in EASA Land.
Probably the same as the 747-400 above - Jumbos are hard to hide
Looking at CFMU does not tell the full story and those who have a vested interest will no doubt jump to the biggest conclusions as in life..
But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good old fashioned witch hunt!
Probably the same as the 747-400 above - Jumbos are hard to hide
Looking at CFMU does not tell the full story and those who have a vested interest will no doubt jump to the biggest conclusions as in life..
But lets not let the facts get in the way of a good old fashioned witch hunt!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me, its easy:
if I borrow someones airplane and pay a sum that does not allow for a profit, its fine. If I pay close to an average market price with commercials, there is profit, hence it requires an AOC.If there is any sort of advertising, one needs an AOC.
If one suspects such a case, report it, if nothing is done, report the authority for negliance.
if I borrow someones airplane and pay a sum that does not allow for a profit, its fine. If I pay close to an average market price with commercials, there is profit, hence it requires an AOC.If there is any sort of advertising, one needs an AOC.
If one suspects such a case, report it, if nothing is done, report the authority for negliance.
Probably more to do with under utilisation and a contribution to costs rather than a profit.Hawker750 what do you do if a truck runs into your wing and your mode of transport vanishes for several months?
You lease in another? which you and your crew fly. I am sure that is ok in your books.
There lies your problem in proving legal/illegal charter! To be fair your gripe has nothing to do with a huge concern for safety in aviation but purely to protect your business from "others" undercutting you by legal leasing. the fact is that they are not stifled with the huge costs of operating an AOC.
Your real problem is reducing those costs and the huge and expensive European burocratic machine thus making aviation more attractive to all.
Legislate for safety only! not to keep millions in created government jobs which sadly is the case now across all activities
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
You and many others are missing the point. If a truck bends my wing I can lease in another aircraft as long as that type is on my AOC. This aircraft can be on any register as long as it is EASA compliant It would be difficult to use an N registered aircraft as few 125's have FDR's except the latest, but if it was compliant then no problem I submit the details to the CAA for inclusion on my AOC, together with amendments to my Maintenance Schedule, CAME and Operations Manual. I would have to publish any differences this aircraft has to my current fleet. Unfortunately a truck busting my wing takes about 1 second. Doing all the above including sourcing an aircraft, doing all the paperwork, performing differences training for the sub variant, applying for RVSM certification would probably take longer than fixing my plane; luckily I have 3 aircraft and unluckily it is rare to have 3 all flying at the same time!
I can also wet lease in any other type as long as it is operated on an AOC and remains operated by that AOC holder
What I cannot do is "lease in" a type that is not on my AOC and is not operated on an AOC. ie I cannot contact a private owner and say "could you do a couple of flights for me"? It would be bloody lovely if I could but I do not want to break the law.
You and many others are missing the point. If a truck bends my wing I can lease in another aircraft as long as that type is on my AOC. This aircraft can be on any register as long as it is EASA compliant It would be difficult to use an N registered aircraft as few 125's have FDR's except the latest, but if it was compliant then no problem I submit the details to the CAA for inclusion on my AOC, together with amendments to my Maintenance Schedule, CAME and Operations Manual. I would have to publish any differences this aircraft has to my current fleet. Unfortunately a truck busting my wing takes about 1 second. Doing all the above including sourcing an aircraft, doing all the paperwork, performing differences training for the sub variant, applying for RVSM certification would probably take longer than fixing my plane; luckily I have 3 aircraft and unluckily it is rare to have 3 all flying at the same time!
I can also wet lease in any other type as long as it is operated on an AOC and remains operated by that AOC holder
What I cannot do is "lease in" a type that is not on my AOC and is not operated on an AOC. ie I cannot contact a private owner and say "could you do a couple of flights for me"? It would be bloody lovely if I could but I do not want to break the law.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
You and many others are missing the point. If a truck bends my wing I can lease in another aircraft as long as that type is on my AOC.
You and many others are missing the point. If a truck bends my wing I can lease in another aircraft as long as that type is on my AOC.
I am not missing the point because i am not talking about AOC ops but private and explaining that you as a private are within your legal rights to lease or dry lease an aircraft for business or pleasure.
If you dont fly you are within your rights to hire a pilot/pilots to fly it for you. that is all called dry leasing. That is not illegal charter and hence why there are so few illegal charter prosecutions.
As for reward I very much doubt that any revenue does any more than cover some of the costs to the private owner of operating a private jet.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 3rd Sep 2010 at 00:14.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all professional pilots
The plain fact is that just like any other professional body (doctors, solicitors etc...) pilots know the rules well (despite some discussion about interpretation) they are tested and retested, but they have to maintain personal integrity on a day to day basis in order to uphold the professional standards of their industry, becasue there is never an inspector on every flight. This means that the ONLY way to make a significant change to the status quo is STOP FLYING ILLEGALLY!!!!!!!
You have, quite correctly, the power and should have the personal and professional integrity to apply this, as you have to do when big wig passenger says take off, when you know you can't, there is NO difference, it's all professional integrity.
And before I hear the cries of we need the work, it's not our fault, consider this:
As captain, you have the go, no go over every flight, that's the power you get when you qaulify!!!!!!(and quite rightly after all the hours and expense that you have been through)
If your company cant afford to follow the rules, leave, because they are not a real business anyway just a chop shop....
The only difference between selling stolen/copied/illegal goods and flying illegally is that pirate dvd's don't kill people without insurance...
and before the cries of were a good operator, not cowboys, but we still do it becasue it's no problem......that's called denial and it's bull****!!!! Fortunately or not the world has rules, rightly or wrongly, and when you accept the job you accept the rules, just like the police, the ambulance and every other regulated body who has interaction with the public.....
Grow up, grow a pair and stop being bossed about by criminals!!
DJ
You have, quite correctly, the power and should have the personal and professional integrity to apply this, as you have to do when big wig passenger says take off, when you know you can't, there is NO difference, it's all professional integrity.
And before I hear the cries of we need the work, it's not our fault, consider this:
As captain, you have the go, no go over every flight, that's the power you get when you qaulify!!!!!!(and quite rightly after all the hours and expense that you have been through)
If your company cant afford to follow the rules, leave, because they are not a real business anyway just a chop shop....
The only difference between selling stolen/copied/illegal goods and flying illegally is that pirate dvd's don't kill people without insurance...
and before the cries of were a good operator, not cowboys, but we still do it becasue it's no problem......that's called denial and it's bull****!!!! Fortunately or not the world has rules, rightly or wrongly, and when you accept the job you accept the rules, just like the police, the ambulance and every other regulated body who has interaction with the public.....
Grow up, grow a pair and stop being bossed about by criminals!!
DJ
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strong words DJ ! - Wow.
But of course......you're totally right.
I'm not licenced to fly a king air, but I know I could fly one, and be safe. Thats only my opinion, and not that of any authority. Who the fek do these people think they are by "self assessing" their own operation and declaring it safe and to an equal or better standard than AOC?. Only ever so slightly subjective.
The licence, be it a pilots licence, an operating licence, an engineers licence is there as a means to assess that any given person or organisation has been deemed fit and suitable to exercise the privilages of that licence by an authority and a way of protecting the general public or user, who knows fek all about aviation (apart from what they've been told).
If you're that good at operating, get a licence to do so, if not....stop breaking the law.
But of course......you're totally right.
I'm not licenced to fly a king air, but I know I could fly one, and be safe. Thats only my opinion, and not that of any authority. Who the fek do these people think they are by "self assessing" their own operation and declaring it safe and to an equal or better standard than AOC?. Only ever so slightly subjective.
The licence, be it a pilots licence, an operating licence, an engineers licence is there as a means to assess that any given person or organisation has been deemed fit and suitable to exercise the privilages of that licence by an authority and a way of protecting the general public or user, who knows fek all about aviation (apart from what they've been told).
If you're that good at operating, get a licence to do so, if not....stop breaking the law.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DJ and flynowpaylater.
Firstly in law it is not the Captains responsability to be a party to discussions or agreements made by an owner and someone leasing his aircraft (check that if you dont believe me)
Yes if he has due reason to suspect an illegal charter then it is his duty to declare his concerns get it clarified with the owner and as you put it walk if he is not happy. I totally support that course of action.
I stress its not his legal responsability to check agreements or legal documents between parties he is not an expert in law! only to conduct his flight in a safe manner.
I take exception to the implication that a private flight and its occupants are "unsafe" while an AOC op is "safe"! If so why on earth are private ops allowed? We have all heard horror stories in AOC OPS as well.
Are the same family flying in a private op jet not entitled to the same safety as if they fly in an AOC OP the next day?
In every walk of life there are grey areas in law. I am sure you run to your accountants or lawyers to exploit those areas "legally" to reduce your tax bills? and dont blink an eye if they save you money.
That is not the fault of the accountants or lawyers but of the law itself and often only clarified if tested in the courts.
The same goes for all walks of aviation? I am sure RyanAir will exploit every nook and cranny to save money. If there are grey areas then the law needs to make them black or white and not point fingers at the pilots or operators who believe they are operating legally within those areas which are themselves not clear.
Done properly leasing is perfectly correct and legal and offers users a much cheaper option than going through AOC ops but there lies the problem! and its not some commendable concern for safety! that is a whitewash.
Pace
Firstly in law it is not the Captains responsability to be a party to discussions or agreements made by an owner and someone leasing his aircraft (check that if you dont believe me)
Yes if he has due reason to suspect an illegal charter then it is his duty to declare his concerns get it clarified with the owner and as you put it walk if he is not happy. I totally support that course of action.
I stress its not his legal responsability to check agreements or legal documents between parties he is not an expert in law! only to conduct his flight in a safe manner.
I take exception to the implication that a private flight and its occupants are "unsafe" while an AOC op is "safe"! If so why on earth are private ops allowed? We have all heard horror stories in AOC OPS as well.
Are the same family flying in a private op jet not entitled to the same safety as if they fly in an AOC OP the next day?
In every walk of life there are grey areas in law. I am sure you run to your accountants or lawyers to exploit those areas "legally" to reduce your tax bills? and dont blink an eye if they save you money.
That is not the fault of the accountants or lawyers but of the law itself and often only clarified if tested in the courts.
The same goes for all walks of aviation? I am sure RyanAir will exploit every nook and cranny to save money. If there are grey areas then the law needs to make them black or white and not point fingers at the pilots or operators who believe they are operating legally within those areas which are themselves not clear.
Done properly leasing is perfectly correct and legal and offers users a much cheaper option than going through AOC ops but there lies the problem! and its not some commendable concern for safety! that is a whitewash.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 3rd Sep 2010 at 18:55.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
"I take exception to the implication that a private flight and its occupants are "unsafe" while an AOC op is "safe"! If so why on earth are private ops allowed? We have all heard horror stories in AOC OPS as well.
Are the same family flying in a private op jet not entitled to the same safety as if they fly in an AOC OP the next day?"
This has nothing AT ALL to do with the argument of legal or not legal.....I totally agree with you there are good and bad/better or worse in every area of operation. the key difference is one is LEGAL and the other is NOT LEGAL......irrespective of quality or standards.
Pussy footing around this issue is why we are where we are.......
Focus on the actual probelm and let's not get sidelined.........
If you are operating under commercial rules to make a commercial living and another operator is making a commercial living without adhering to the commercial rules they are breaking the law.......help to stop it......and stop flying illegally.........(not you pace, comment in general!!)
DJ
Are the same family flying in a private op jet not entitled to the same safety as if they fly in an AOC OP the next day?"
This has nothing AT ALL to do with the argument of legal or not legal.....I totally agree with you there are good and bad/better or worse in every area of operation. the key difference is one is LEGAL and the other is NOT LEGAL......irrespective of quality or standards.
Pussy footing around this issue is why we are where we are.......
Focus on the actual probelm and let's not get sidelined.........
If you are operating under commercial rules to make a commercial living and another operator is making a commercial living without adhering to the commercial rules they are breaking the law.......help to stop it......and stop flying illegally.........(not you pace, comment in general!!)
DJ
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are operating under commercial rules to make a commercial living and another operator is making a commercial living without adhering to the commercial rules they are breaking the law.......help to stop it......and stop flying illegally.........(not you pace, comment in general!!)
No dispute with the above but being involved in both operating and flying a private jet I seriously question the "making a commercial living" on a typical private jet.
We all are aware of the massive bills such a jet accumulates just sitting in the hangar and the fairly low hours a typical private owner flies.
To make a commercial living from such a jet would involve a large amount of rental hours.
In reality such an owner would at best get a small contribution to the overall costs unless that jet was being rented for hundreds of hours PA.
I personally dont know any private jets which are being worked in such a way that they could be classified as making a commercial living.
My point is that Leasing done correctly is legal but there are elements who oppose anything legal or otherwise which they see as reducing their target market or who they would see as potential markets for their own AOC ops had they not gone the cheaper leasing way.
I can fully understand their opposition even to private owners who would be potential users of AOC aircraft if they didnt own their own jets.
"We are loaded with costs from the regulators and expect the regulators in return to protect our markets which doesnt appear to happen". This must be their call!
Addendum
Let me ask a question! what is wrong with someone who is using AOC aircraft at high cost on a regular basis being advised to dramatically cut his costs by block buying a chunk of hours on an under utilised private jet, arranging his own crew and operating this jet to save himself a lot of money? Is he illegal doing so subject of course to insurance approval?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 4th Sep 2010 at 08:36.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
Let me ask a question! what is wrong with someone who is using AOC aircraft at high cost on a regular basis being advised to dramatically cut his costs by block buying a chunk of hours on an under utilised private jet, arranging his own crew and operating this jet to save himself a lot of money? Is he illegal doing so subject of course to insurance approval?
The above scenario can probably be structured to be legal. The lessee provides his own crew, insurance etc and has operational control of the aircraft,. But that is not how it happens. What happens is the"lessee" asks the owner if he can use his plane, crew, operations, the lot and pays the owner accordingly. Now that sounds a lot like charter to me.
Let me ask a question! what is wrong with someone who is using AOC aircraft at high cost on a regular basis being advised to dramatically cut his costs by block buying a chunk of hours on an under utilised private jet, arranging his own crew and operating this jet to save himself a lot of money? Is he illegal doing so subject of course to insurance approval?
The above scenario can probably be structured to be legal. The lessee provides his own crew, insurance etc and has operational control of the aircraft,. But that is not how it happens. What happens is the"lessee" asks the owner if he can use his plane, crew, operations, the lot and pays the owner accordingly. Now that sounds a lot like charter to me.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Age: 43
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
You need to be very careful - whatever you do, whatever position you may hold within the company, please do not ditch your approved AOC to save some money and charter an aircraft which is not certifed by the authorities...to many people have done this in the passed and still even today people are doing this. Its unsafe and dangerous....
You need to be very careful - whatever you do, whatever position you may hold within the company, please do not ditch your approved AOC to save some money and charter an aircraft which is not certifed by the authorities...to many people have done this in the passed and still even today people are doing this. Its unsafe and dangerous....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The above scenario can probably be structured to be legal. The lessee provides his own crew, insurance etc and has operational control of the aircraft,. But that is not how it happens. What happens is the"lessee" asks the owner if he can use his plane, crew, operations, the lot and pays the owner accordingly. Now that sounds a lot like charter to me.
I know this as much as you do and have posted it to highlight how fine the difference between legal charter and illegal charter is.
What I do say is dont blame the operators or owners for exploiting grey areas as that happens in all walks of life. Blame the law for allowing grey areas to exist.
Make it in law that charter has to be for a minimum period of time to stop day trips made to look like legal charter etc.
Its unsafe and dangerous....
to clarify Its not unsafe or dangerous just illegal
Pace
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Poland
Age: 69
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PB and Hawker 750, you have both been around the block a few times. You probably know all the usual suspects. Why bleat here about something that has been going on for YEARS, and dress it up as an argument that has fk all to do with IOM registered aircraft?
If you believe that someone is operating illegally, simply report them, and substatiate it with facts. End of story....end of rant.
k all to do with IOM registered aircraft?If you believe that someone is operating illegally, simply report them, and substatiate it with facts. End of story....end of rant.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its unsafe and dangerous....
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - Who decides whether the corporate operation is "safe"? Its not just about the engineering or ability of the crew. To self assess and make statements about the quality and safety of an operation is totally unfounded and goes against the whole principle of aviation safety. Really, its a joke to think that these people think they are above the law and are so arrogant that they believe they don't need to follow protocol. If they are as good as they say, then it won't be a problem to do it properly will it?
The net will close in, and I predict some high profile prosecutions. The UK CAA are very aware and duly concerned.
Hmmmm.....M reg aircraft, operating dodgy charter disguised as "lease"....not tax evasion then?
The net will close in, and I predict some high profile prosecutions. The UK CAA are very aware and duly concerned.
I am sure you run to your accountants or lawyers to exploit those areas "legally" to reduce your tax bills?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - Who decides whether the corporate operation is "safe"?
Who does decides whether a corporate operation is safe anyway? Please do remember that these aircraft are used for business and pleasure and could carry business personel and their families.
Those same families (if they had the money) could run to an AOC the next day for a personal trip somewhere.
Why is their safety more important in the AOC op rather than the private op?
I am all for safety! Ie if there is a demonstrable safety hole plug it but not percieved undemonstrable safety which exists in peoples minds only or is used to add unjustifiable costs as an excuse.
Most private ops fly less hours are better maintained and looked after and are flown by professional crews.
If you have evidence that they are dangerous other than in your mind point us to the facts! I am sure private flights would soon be curtailed if there was a demonstrable safety hole apparent.
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
let me give you an example - today there is a private flight leaving Bristol, going to Bembridge with 2 pax and then flying on to Cologne -
bembridge is 750 metres.
Must be a Seneca I hear you say.....no, it's a Mustang -
Don't try and tell me that Corp dept's are safer etc etc,
PB
bembridge is 750 metres.
Must be a Seneca I hear you say.....no, it's a Mustang -
Don't try and tell me that Corp dept's are safer etc etc,
PB