M registered Commercial Ops

[His dudeness]

Dear Mr.Brockwell,

I do operate out of 3323ft LDA field, where a commercial Airline also operates with Do328īs.
At said Airfield are several coorperate flight departments. Aircraft operated there are: Lear 31/35/45, CJ,CJ2,CJ3,XLS,Sovereign,Challi 300, Falcon 900, Falcon 2000.

Now take a guess who had the only runway overrun/accidentduring the last 10 or 20 years in Jets or Turboprops?

Exactly: it was the Airline, that operates with a factor of 1,43.

Even today its about skills and mindset.

Donīt try and tell me commercial ops are safer.

[flynowpaylater]

Dudeness - Obviously corporate is much safer....I have looked into it all, and after a lot of exhaustive research I have come to the conclusion that it must be safer.......coz you say so....The CAA have got it wrong all these years, and the model of regulatory oversight clearly isn't working.

[flynowpaylater]

Pace, sorry, but with respect I think you miss my point.

I agree Corporate should be to at least the same standards......and subjected to the same sort of regulatory oversight to ensure those standards are met and maintained. Whats wrong with that? Crew hours, crew training, engineering, general management oversight, runway performance etc...
Surely Mr and Mrs Millionare deserve the same safety standards and Mr and Mrs Joe Public?

If an AOC operator drops its standards, the regulator forces them to get back to standard, or closes them down. If a corporate operator does the same, then there is no regulatory safety net to halt the decline, and then you get dodgy charters, and crashes.

On the legal side, why should a corporate operator be able to offer a charter, diguised as a "short term lease" without the appropriate licenses? (an operating license is different to an AOC for those that weren't sure).

[His dudeness]

The CAA have got it wrong all these years, and the model of regulatory oversight clearly isn't working.

Exactly. IF regulatory oversight would work, then there would be no accidents in comm ops. (if we follow YOUR reasoning)

How high or low the standards in a comm ops are is up to the individuals at the key positions there. the paper trail is in order, otherwise shutdown. THAT is what CAA/LBA/DGAC/any other authority are interested in. NOTHING else. it keeps them out of trouble if something happens and makes them more important and creates new jobs for air policing people. The real issues are same like 20 years ago or 30. If you donīt see that then youīre either blind or...

IF Accident numbers in Coorperate would be higher, weīd require regulation. They arenīt. Hence no need for regs....other than the ones already set forth in aviation legislation.


Charter without AOC is illegal. Period. If my boss leases his airplane to a friend (does not happen) without making a profit, for self costs, then its legal. (according to the german LBA)
If you suspect someone of acting against the law, report him/her/it. If your suspicions are based on solid evidence there is no problem to prosecute. If the Authority in charge fails to do its job, then take it a step higher and report them.

Crew hours

We operate to the FDR of the german Law, because we are a crew that gets paid for flying. That is what the LBA requires us to do. We keep records and are happy to let them be checked.

crew training

done at FlightSafety Farnborough (and Wichita and Orlando), used a fullservice contract and had 5 "Events" in 2 years and are now on once a year. More than I had in any AOC ops I flew in.
We take CRM,Firefighting, first aid, security, DGR courses as any AOC operator

BTW, one AOC operator used my name 5 months after I had left the company in order to satisfy the requirement for a sim trained crew this particular client (a coorperate flight department) had. They had none, so my name was falsely used. Safe people these AOC operators....

engineering

We are contractually under a CAMO, just as most AOC operators are as well if they are not their own CAMO -which is a degration of safety IMO.

general management oversight

we have clear rules of how the flight department is managed and who can take influence at which things. Laid down in a manual and signed by CEO and CFO.

No such things as the usual call by the manager of the AOC types I flew for:"mhh,arrrm, the clients wants to go an hour early" "but what about minimu rest?" "like I said, one hour earlier"

runway performance

we operate with FAR 25 for T/O and 1,25 for landing or 1.44 for wet rwy. So in landing performance we are worse than the AOC operators (if donīt have the occasional 25 kts headwind....if you get my drift), I grant you that. But as my example of our homebase shows, having commecial factoring does not keep you from going over the end.

OTOH we do not employ 250hrs guys and pair them with 500hr captains and then print a broshure in which we brag about how incredible safe we fly because of regulatory oversight and the required checkrides. (lowtimers please note: I was young and not particularly experienced myself. What Iīm on about is the tendency of quite a few operators, mostly AOC operators, that think low time and low time together is a good mix - so nothing wrong with newbies as long if they fly with an experienced captain)

When setting up this flight department I made it clear to my peers what the issues are (e.g.ldg dist), so THEY had the choice:

either drive by car to an airfield with a bigger runway or set up your own FD with the risk of the short runway. Its their choice. And the reason why we have the airplane: short drive, no check in.

Wether you do your clients good in regard to safety by forcing them to drive to an airfield further away and hence by being exposed to regular road traffic which is far worse and more dangerous then flying (even with the bad, bad coorperate guys) - I donīt know.

[BizJetJock]

Dudeness - Obviously corporate is much safer....I have looked into it all, and after a lot of exhaustive research I have come to the conclusion that it must be safer.......coz you say so....The CAA have got it wrong all these years, and the model of regulatory oversight clearly isn't working.

Errr, no. Because the CAA say so.

DeskJockey101 -

basic maths please!!!!!
number of flights v's number of accidents............

o'level and below!!!!!!!

From the CAA report summary - Corporate operations achieved a fatal accident rate of 0.2 per million hours flown, which is comparable to large western built airliner operations. Air Taxi had a far higher rate of 3.5. Which is safe?????

[flynowpaylater]

BJJ - For the avoidance of doubt are you saying that regulatory oversight has an adverse effect on safety then?

I presume your stat regarding air taxi includes piston twin and turbo props, but probably the corporate operations doesn't? - Lets compare apples with apples shall we.

All the Seneca's and Aztecs that operate for the Horse Racing fraternity are under the corporate umbrella. Can you include these too please, together with traffic spotting, parachute dropping etc...Mind you, they probaby all come under air taxi I guess. So if we can re-allocate these operations correctly, it will perhaps be slightly closer to the truth.

Lets do this one - A to B AOC operations vs Corporate.....ALL a/c types, say under 10t MTOW, with the above mentioned operations being put in the right column.

Did you work for Alsitair Campbell?

[Pace]

There we go then Aoc ops should be scrapped on safety grounds and their work handed to the far cheaper Corporate ops / intact scrap EASA embrace the FAA system worldwide and think how much cheaper and easier everything would be for all of us ; )

[G-SPOTs Lost]

You know its all laughable this, you AOC operators / Brokers harp on about AOC safety and how its so regulated and measured yet in the 24/7 thread you go and moan about "fly by night" and "cowboy" and "unsafe" 24/7 which has its own EASA AOC and have done for some considerable time certainly long enough to have had a couple of Audits under your own extraordinary safety standards

So which one is it?

You people need to make your mind up!

Within reason (common sense) I dont have ANY serious commercial pressures upon me WHATSOEVER - so consider the demise of EBJ amongst other operators - whilst I'm sorry to see any operator go under for the sake of its employees - did you consider that operation to be safe both with the tremendous lack of funds and also the personal pressure of the crews, they obviously had a lot of things on their minds other than flying when they were paying for fuel on their personal credit cards simply to get home.

Who was safer that week?

[His dudeness]

There we go then Aoc ops should be scrapped on safety grounds and their work handed to the far cheaper Corporate ops / intact scrap EASA embrace the FAA system worldwide and think how much cheaper and easier everything would be for all of us ; )

Pace, you know it, I know it, there have to be regulations. Even more so when you charter out on a certificate. Like I said for umpteen times now, if you get to know something fishy, report it.

Now seriously, I doubt our FD is cheaper than flying with an AOC holder. If you look at the current regulation and the facts of life in Europe, you grant me that the switch to JAROPS was total overkill for small operators. I bet my car that would the Authorities for instance had:
1. REQUIRED a type/classrating on a sim
2. FORBID selffunding of C/Rīs / T/Rīs
3. Taken the pressure off the crews by issuing - as the Mericans do - an ATPL that lasts a lifetime and just requires a check and a medical

we would have a safer situation than we have now, and more equal grounds on which to compete. All the other things are nice, granted, but they can and will and actually are circiumnavigated by those who have the will to do so.
What I mean by that is regulation alone will not make something safer. Put less regs on and make sure they are adhered to, is better than have everybody write an epic manual nobody really follows...(and half of the stuff for airlines anyhow)

That is of course only just my opinion.

[BizJetJock]

FlyNowPayLater - if you actually read the report, available from the CAA website, you would see that it only deals with civil operated Biz Jets. But one shouldn't let facts get in the way of your prejudices now, should we?

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/200903.pdf

[flynowpaylater]

BJJ - Sincerely - Thanks for the link - Will read it when I've finished my five point closure on why I spilt my coffee, and do a safety case on the switch to tea drinking

On a serious note - I guess what we want is EASA to leave their ivory tower once in while and experience the real world, and legislate accordingly....then implement and control it, rather than writing all these rules and regs, but only audit and punish those of us stupid enough to put ourselves in their view. Ho hum, same old arguments, same old responses, different day, different flight number.

[Pace]

What I mean by that is regulation alone will not make something safer.

I totally agree with this comment. Without going into political realms Europe has been too dominated by burocracy, quangos, regulators and state intervention which all costs masses of money.

I am all for the simplicity of plugging known safety holes which are apparent in the stats.

If there is a demonstrated increase in accidents from pilots landing or taking off from too short a runway, then stop them from doing so, but most of us know our aircraft, have a self preservation wish and dont need an office boy telling us how to fly our aircraft.

You can regulate as much as you wish, form fill as much as you wish but in the sky your on your own.

Foreign reg pilots who are as good as any get fed up with all the continuous attacks and false accusations against them.

Ilegal charter is just that! not a safety thing. As in any law breaking if you have suspicions that someone is illegally nibbling away at the AOC market then report them but dont call the majority of us cowboys,criminals lesser pilots or whatever and above all dont cry safety to justify the reality which is that you are trying to protect your markets.

Pace

[deskjockey101]

agree, but!!!

Pace

I am not sure how this thread got onto the topic of cowboys/bad pilots/safety etc..because that has nothing to do with legal or illegal.
Personally I think that there should an AOC Lite or some sort of appropriate regulation which levels the playing field cost wise for biz jet operators and doesnt apply the financial burden which was designed for large airlines BUT the plain facts are that doesn't exist....yet...

In the air pilots have to make split second decisions which pull on experience/training/instinct skill etc... and we put our faith in you everytime we go on holiday/work BUT making a decision ON THE GROUND with no pressure other than that of your employer to fly an aircraft illegally should be easy, require no decision making capability and you shouldn't be commended for doing it, it is EXPECTED!!

Of course, if you are truly not aware, then there is nothing you can do about it, but lets not kid ourselves, flying an M reg/N reg whatever etc... private aircraft with passengers youve never seen, who say they've "rented" the aircraft..........now that really does require a blind eye.....

I have heard every possible ecuse for it, but as previousley stated with one addition "if you KNOW it's illegal, dont do it"

I know its simplistic, but it's a practical start instead of waiting forever for the CAA......lets see who's got REAL balls and stick to the rules and keep heir principles.......

DJ

[deefer dog]

Pace,

Ilegal charter is just that! not a safety thing.

Any read of your previous posts demonstrates that this is a hobby horse of yours. To support your argument you often mention "surveys" or "statistics" (usually FAA v CAA, or AOC v General Aviation) but you never manage to quote the actual reference source of any such data.

The above statement does not ring true to me; if you carry fare paying pax and do not have an AOC you have not demonstrated to the authorities your ability to conduct the flight safely. Neither have you demonstrated to your paying passengers that you have attained an acceptable standard.

You clearly believe that you are safe, but that does not make the practice safe.

[NuName]

On my last OPC, JAROps, it was conducted in the SIM by the same instructor that does the recurrent, to the same exacting reqirements as the recurrent, the only difference being that the CAA decided to sit in on it. So where exactly is the bit that made me safer?

[flynowpaylater]

On my last OPC, JAROps, it was conducted in the SIM by the same instructor that does the recurrent, to the same exacting reqirements as the recurrent, the only difference being that the CAA decided to sit in on it. So where exactly is the bit that made me safer?

It's sad that you need to ask that question, as you clearly don't have a clue how the system works. The disregard a lot of you show towards any sort of regulation, oversight, or having to demonstrate to the Authority that you are capable of doing the job that YOU say you are leaves me gobsmacked.

The lady does protesteth too much me thinks.

[Pace]

Any read of your previous posts demonstrates that this is a hobby horse of yours.

Deefer

Absolutely it is a hobby horse of mine.

Having said that in over 20 years I have never had a violation in any form on either my FAA licences or European licences.

Have I knowingly been involved in any illegal charter NO! I would walk if I felt such a charter was happening on my aircraft yes!

Do I think there is a mass of burocratic,needless and expensive rubbish involved in our industry YES a whole load of it!

Do I think legal charter should be allowed on foreign YES.

Do I know of private aircraft being run as profitable operations NO. Can I imagine that illegal charter is done on occasion disguised as charter yes.
But then legislate that legal charter has to be for a minimum period of time IE 21 days to avoid these one off day trips.

Do I think there is a lot of protectionism involved in our legislative system under the pretence of safety A VERY BIG YES.

Having said that I can understand why pilots involved in AOC work dislike foreign reg as they see it as nibbling away at their market.

I can also understand why those of us working N or foreign reg are fedup with continual attempts to eliminate us from Europe with NO solid foundation.
Its our living too.

Especially when we are accused of having inferior licences, bad safety, criminal intent and all the other rubbish that is thrown at us in this forum.
I also understand that your opinion will depend on which camp you live in AOC or corporate foreign reg.
The latest proposals to curtail foreign reg by the powers that be are so blatantly anti European Human rights and discrimination laws that it makes you wonder who is payed to churn out that rubbish and who pushes for it and for what reasons?


Pace

[NuName]

flynowpaylater

I would say you are clearly not a pilot as your reply to my post clearly demonstrates a fundemental lack of knowledge. If this is not true and you actualy do know what goes on in recurrents and OPC's then here is a great opportunity for you point out the error of my comments. You may think it is sad of me to ask the question but it is very much more sad that you can't answer it.

[flynowpaylater]

the only difference being that the CAA decided to sit in on it. So where exactly is the bit that made me safer?

The CAA are not soley there to make you even safer, they are there to test the robustness of the training and test procedure, and to ensure that it is carried out in accordance with approvals given. If the test you passed (in this case OPC, which of course corporate ops don't do) is proven to be robust, then in passing it, you have demonstrated at least the minimum amount of competence required. That's what makes you and the whole system safer.

I would say you clearly ARE a pilot, probably just a line pilot as your lack of appreciation of the background to basic recurrence training, together with you arrogance would proclude you from any sort of mangerial role I would have thought...including training.

[NuName]

flynowpaylater

What is arrogant about what I have said? You seem to have missed the whole point, which is if I may remind you, that when a pilot does his recurrent training he does it to a standard that allows him to command an aircraft to international standards agreed upon by the respective aviation authorities, a OPC is required every 6 months to ensure those standards are maintained, no extra skills required. And you have assumed wrong, I am not "just" a line pilot, I no longer operate for an AOC holder, although I have done in the past for over 9 years, quite successfuly I might add. I was management and enjoyed the role. What your experiences are I do not know but I think its very arrogant to cast aspersions on people you don't know or have never met in some kind of crusade in the name of aviation safty. Do you yourself visit the sim to be checked?