Private Operators and Ops1
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very large part of the problem is individuals seeing something that they THINK may be an illegal AOC operation and spreading the, so far, unfounded rumour. I always wonder why, when I read someones declaration of witnessing illegal activities, they don't take their evidence to the proper authorities insted of pontificating in forums such as this.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NetJets doesn't make a profit at all.
"NetJets turned a profit of slightly higher than the goal of $200 million last year, said David Sokol, CEO of NetJets"?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaymy,
donīt get me wrong, I donīt want a slagging match. OTOH I donīt agree with quite a lot of you reasoning...
Okay. Did you report them? Did your Authority do something after you did? (if you did...)
I donīt know your background, but I can tell you that I was employed directly by 3 AOC holders, held all postholder positions but QM and safety officer and I have flown for at least 4 other AOC operations on a freelance basis. Aircraft were ranging from KA90 to Challenger 300. I fly since 1990, so I have pre and post JAR/EU-OPS experience.
Required experience? Forget it, take a 3 days course and there you go.
Expensive staff? Pilot A, we need an XY Postholder, since you are underworked and overpaid you do it...
If there is one thing that I would say is common in all these ops, then that JAR/EU-OPS has done very little to increase safety from my point of view. The reaction of AOC operations is very typical and very human: they pick on the others instead of the Authorities that imposed schemes/legislation/etc that wonīt work as they hope for. ( a few things are good, no doubt...)
The structure, 'they' want so see is doable. But only for large operators. Any small one - forget it. The shift from small businesses to big ones one can see in all the EU politics, they donīt openly say it but they act so. They want to get rid of small businesses and operations.
At least in our operation (and there are quite a few I know that are the same) we spent a big amount on training each year. We do see FSI for Simtraining and do all the courses an AOC pilot does as well.
Some things have changed, I donīt say everything is wrong. But a lt of things have been deemed unsafe and therefore changed, that did not need any change. Its sort of a self full-filling prophecy. (e.g.: make London City usable only if there is a supplement for steep approaches in the AFM, it does not matter that you have been operating years and years without said AFM supplement safely into LCY - is it safer now or has nothing changed in that respect? - I flew into LCY with our then KingAir 200 and wasnīt allowed to do so anymore...plenty of examples for this)
Iīve said it umpteen times: make sim training mandatory. Make pay for typeratings illegal. Make management pay for pressure put on flight crews to do illegal things. Make common rules that are first of all really common (up to this day every authority and often also varying from individual principal to principal within the authority has different views)
Make a set of rules that is not as big as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, but is small enough human beings can really understand and work them.
Safety is a mindset that naturally collides with economic interest especially when the main figures in that game donīt understand the cost of an accident.
Sorry, that is simply not true. And having been in air taxi for 16+years I do understand that they want to fly my boss. I would want it too.
As regular and bothersome as the flu NetJets knocks at our door... likewise brokers and air taxi companies, so Iīd say there is considerable interest...
We certainly did. Did anyone listen? No, naturally not. Brussels works via lobbying. For whatever reason, most owners keep a low profile and it is really hard to make them join, say, EBAA. Therefore the voice 'we' have is not a very powerful one. First of all, common rules is fine. If they are sane and regulate what has to be regulated.
Now imagine the EU would say: Mr.Flaymy, your personal car will require a manual, an SMS, a fatigue risk management system and a selfdeclearation as well as record keeping so in case we want to prosecute you, you have collected the evidence for us as well, thank you. Would like that? Would you think that is reasonable?
I guess you agree that the amount of road deaths and accidents is WAY higher than the one of aviation, especially NNC aviation above 5,7tons.
So if that system brings safety, we NEED to have it on the road....
Now the costs are higher, the incentive to charter out illegally is higher - the AOC guys prices will move up with their higher costs, so the illegal charter costs could maintain the same margin (if there is substancial illegal chartering that would move to AOC companies at all)
And as we are now all competing in a 'globalized' world, the cost of operation for our companies jet is part of the overall cost. Higher costs will NOT help us if we want to continue to compete with others, namely China, India etc. Iīm sure this is true for a lot of company FDs. Thus a good manager will think about his Jet and FD... I would like to keep my job, very simple. (BTW, we sometimes give flights to AOC operators, when our A/C is tech or busy)
We pay mineral oil tax, we pay ETS, we are threatened by the Italian tax, etcetc. This is simply totally unfair. And EASA ops is just one more step towards the end of corperate aviation. WHO is behind these things? WHO will benefit? Mr.NetJets, Mr.Lufthansa, Mr.Airtaxi.
Our Jet has not one time be used for a leisure flight, its ALWAYS company business we fly to. Yet we are taxed as if we were a C152 on a sunday afternoon cake flight....
donīt get me wrong, I donīt want a slagging match. OTOH I donīt agree with quite a lot of you reasoning...
It ain't just a few rotten apples. I am sure it isn't a majority either, but it is pretty common. As I said, I know of four definite illegal charters, by three different companies, spotted by me or colleagues of mine just by pure chance - one of them was on TV!
Companies have invested large amounts of time and money in AOCs. A proper operation has a lot of overhead in office staff, expensive people due to the experience requirements.
Required experience? Forget it, take a 3 days course and there you go.
Expensive staff? Pilot A, we need an XY Postholder, since you are underworked and overpaid you do it...
If there is one thing that I would say is common in all these ops, then that JAR/EU-OPS has done very little to increase safety from my point of view. The reaction of AOC operations is very typical and very human: they pick on the others instead of the Authorities that imposed schemes/legislation/etc that wonīt work as they hope for. ( a few things are good, no doubt...)
The structure, 'they' want so see is doable. But only for large operators. Any small one - forget it. The shift from small businesses to big ones one can see in all the EU politics, they donīt openly say it but they act so. They want to get rid of small businesses and operations.
At least in our operation (and there are quite a few I know that are the same) we spent a big amount on training each year. We do see FSI for Simtraining and do all the courses an AOC pilot does as well.
That does pay off in safety, even I can see it at the coal face.
Iīve said it umpteen times: make sim training mandatory. Make pay for typeratings illegal. Make management pay for pressure put on flight crews to do illegal things. Make common rules that are first of all really common (up to this day every authority and often also varying from individual principal to principal within the authority has different views)
Make a set of rules that is not as big as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, but is small enough human beings can really understand and work them.
Safety is a mindset that naturally collides with economic interest especially when the main figures in that game donīt understand the cost of an accident.
They don't want your business at all, unless you are involved in illegal charters or unless you want to pay for management.
As regular and bothersome as the flu NetJets knocks at our door... likewise brokers and air taxi companies, so Iīd say there is considerable interest...
Of course the latter will be easier to sell now, but did you guys in private GA put out any better solution to what is, after all, a problem that affects us all, at least in image.
Now imagine the EU would say: Mr.Flaymy, your personal car will require a manual, an SMS, a fatigue risk management system and a selfdeclearation as well as record keeping so in case we want to prosecute you, you have collected the evidence for us as well, thank you. Would like that? Would you think that is reasonable?
I guess you agree that the amount of road deaths and accidents is WAY higher than the one of aviation, especially NNC aviation above 5,7tons.
So if that system brings safety, we NEED to have it on the road....
At the very least the premium for doing so is reduced, and therefore so is the incentive for chartering illegally.
And as we are now all competing in a 'globalized' world, the cost of operation for our companies jet is part of the overall cost. Higher costs will NOT help us if we want to continue to compete with others, namely China, India etc. Iīm sure this is true for a lot of company FDs. Thus a good manager will think about his Jet and FD... I would like to keep my job, very simple. (BTW, we sometimes give flights to AOC operators, when our A/C is tech or busy)
We pay mineral oil tax, we pay ETS, we are threatened by the Italian tax, etcetc. This is simply totally unfair. And EASA ops is just one more step towards the end of corperate aviation. WHO is behind these things? WHO will benefit? Mr.NetJets, Mr.Lufthansa, Mr.Airtaxi.
Our Jet has not one time be used for a leisure flight, its ALWAYS company business we fly to. Yet we are taxed as if we were a C152 on a sunday afternoon cake flight....
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaymy - totally with you.
At the end of the day it's all about accountability, and private ops on the M, N or VP reg have very little of it. They cross the line when selling a "block" of hours.
Finding loop holes in the law is all very clever, but the alarming rise in "private operators" actively selling "blocks of hours" .....or as others call it...."charters" is very much a cause for concern. There are plenty of idiots who write on this forum that think they are OK to continue to do this, and feel they know better than the CAA / EASA / FAA etc...and therefore have no need to be OPC'd, do CRM, first aid, wet drills etc....Quite often their mate does their LPC, and they're off for another 12 months...that's scary.
Unbelievably arrogant. Ironically, the pilots I have looked into that do this have not made in the airline world, i.e. applied, and failed, and in some cases chopped AFTER gaining their type rating...and I guess decided to try their hand in the murky illegal charter game, occassionally flying the owner. If they were any good, they would have a proper job.
Life style choice do I hear? - How about only choice. Convincing an unsuspecting owner who's knowledge of aviation is limited by the crap he his fed......and lured into this by promises of additional income from "leasing" the aircraft out.
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
The net IS closing. The CAA are changing their policy on this. Expect to see licenses getting endorsed, insurance companies being made aware of offending pilots, and finance companies insisting on AOC operation for aircraft over a certain value.
It's up to you corporate boys to weed out the idiots in your sector to avoid getting tarred with the same brush. If you bonefide, you have nothing to worry about.
FNPL.
At the end of the day it's all about accountability, and private ops on the M, N or VP reg have very little of it. They cross the line when selling a "block" of hours.
Finding loop holes in the law is all very clever, but the alarming rise in "private operators" actively selling "blocks of hours" .....or as others call it...."charters" is very much a cause for concern. There are plenty of idiots who write on this forum that think they are OK to continue to do this, and feel they know better than the CAA / EASA / FAA etc...and therefore have no need to be OPC'd, do CRM, first aid, wet drills etc....Quite often their mate does their LPC, and they're off for another 12 months...that's scary.
Unbelievably arrogant. Ironically, the pilots I have looked into that do this have not made in the airline world, i.e. applied, and failed, and in some cases chopped AFTER gaining their type rating...and I guess decided to try their hand in the murky illegal charter game, occassionally flying the owner. If they were any good, they would have a proper job.
Life style choice do I hear? - How about only choice. Convincing an unsuspecting owner who's knowledge of aviation is limited by the crap he his fed......and lured into this by promises of additional income from "leasing" the aircraft out.
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
The net IS closing. The CAA are changing their policy on this. Expect to see licenses getting endorsed, insurance companies being made aware of offending pilots, and finance companies insisting on AOC operation for aircraft over a certain value.
It's up to you corporate boys to weed out the idiots in your sector to avoid getting tarred with the same brush. If you bonefide, you have nothing to worry about.
FNPL.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you bonefide, you have nothing to worry about.
Never mind that no sane individual will ever buy a european privately operated aircraft again, nor will same sane individuals buy airplanes registered in Europe at all.
There is so much hassle added - not to mention cost - that this will in the end be an issue for all of us in the industry.
So a least the unemployed mechanics, pilots, F/As gnd FD employees can join the line at the local jobcentre knowing they lost their job away for a good cause...
Ironically, the pilots I have looked into that do this have not made in the airline world, i.e. applied, and failed, and in some cases chopped AFTER gaining their type rating...and I guess decided to try their hand in the murky illegal charter game, occassionally flying the owner. If they were any good, they would have a proper job.
Life style choice do I hear? - How about only choice. Convincing an unsuspecting owner who's knowledge of aviation is limited by the crap he his fed......and lured into this by promises of additional income from "leasing" the aircraft out.
Life style choice do I hear? - How about only choice. Convincing an unsuspecting owner who's knowledge of aviation is limited by the crap he his fed......and lured into this by promises of additional income from "leasing" the aircraft out.
Unbelievably arrogant.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dudeness, its not a dig at you. From reading your posts, you seem to have nice little operation. Look at Pool Aviation as a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
Why do you support people who cut corners and damage our industry?
Why do you think running aircraft on AOC's is such a bad thing, and why do you think it will destroy the job market, with engineers and pilots being unemployed?? The guy who's worth Ģ100m+ ain't going easyJet is he? He'll still go on a CJ, KA, G5 or whatever he's used to.
Lets all work to bring standards up, and not down to the lowest point available.
Why do you support people who cut corners and damage our industry?
Why do you think running aircraft on AOC's is such a bad thing, and why do you think it will destroy the job market, with engineers and pilots being unemployed?? The guy who's worth Ģ100m+ ain't going easyJet is he? He'll still go on a CJ, KA, G5 or whatever he's used to.
Lets all work to bring standards up, and not down to the lowest point available.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His dudeness
There are some folks out there that see themselves as the "holier than thou" representitives of aviation and no amount of sensible discussion will allow them to accept that anything less than their anal views on how others should live their lives. I guess these folks would ban the ability for us to hire a self drive car and insist we throw ourselves at the mercy of proffessional car services even though we hold legal documentation to drive ourselves. I, and many others I know very well, have chosen to work in corporate aviation as a choice and we very much enjoy it. Arrogant was exactly the right word, as I said before, if these self appointed, self righteous icons of industry see something they think is out of order why don't they do something about it instead of casting aspersions on decent folk doing a decent job and trying to earn a living in a honest and upstanding manner. Have many years of AOC behind me and I'm far, far happier now.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you support people who cut corners and damage our industry?
Why do you think running aircraft on AOC's is such a bad thing, and why do you think it will destroy the job market, with engineers and pilots being unemployed?? The guy who's worth Ģ100m+ ain't going easyJet is he? He'll still go on a CJ, KA, G5 or whatever he's used to.
Why do you think running aircraft on AOC's is such a bad thing, and why do you think it will destroy the job market, with engineers and pilots being unemployed?? The guy who's worth Ģ100m+ ain't going easyJet is he? He'll still go on a CJ, KA, G5 or whatever he's used to.
He was totally fed up with JAROPS etc and other stuff concerning his main business. He held a PPL and a PPL-H as well , owned several helicopters plus 2 aircraft.
Thats the past.
I fly for a big German company these days. The guys there do simple maths. When the airplane is too expensive, they will get rid of it. When operating the airplane will be too much trouble, they will get rid of it. They need this airplane as a tool, not for leisure or anything the like.
Now imagine a company grows to a size or markets or both were they could afford an airplane. The difference between:
yeah, buy the airplane and get 2 pilots and train them
and
buy the airplane, but before you fly write a manual, set up an SMS, do fatique risk managmenet, do ETS, employ a CAMO, train the pilots, train or contract the persons you need further for administration, SMS, etcetc.
is propably the edge were most potential buyers will say: why should I bother? I donīt buy one.
Then there is countries that will stay sane and offer much easier solutions to these 'problems'. So some will leave the socialistic overly regulated Union of Europe - like my old boss. He has a Challenger in the States now and only laughs when we talk on the phone and I tell hi what the lunatics in Brussel come up with next...
Why do you support people who cut corners and damage our industry?
In a very short form:
1) AOC operators need to have regulation as they sell transport. EASA OPS - and JAR/EU OPS already contains a lot things that are too much for small operators.
2) A common basic air law throughout Europe makes a lot of sense.
3) Any operator operating out of his allowed envelope (charter without AOC, or flying outside the apporoved AOC) needs to be punished. Why we would need JAROPS 2 or the Annex 7 (NCC) EASAOPS to do this is beyond me, more as it wonīt change anything.
The Authorities need to come down hard on those who break the law.
Why we (operators not breaking the law) have to suffer - I donīt know.
4) Many of the proposed and soon mandatory things like a SMS is total bollocks for operations such as ours: 2 Pilots, 1 Airplane. I was just on an seminar were a very good CRM trainer (studied guy, former ATP pilot for Lufthansa) explained why SMS in small ops can`t really work. When I started flying in germany we had the LuftVG, the Luft BO and the LuftpersV as basic regulations for private flying, AOC ops and all FCL matters. Every of this regualtions was 80 DIN A5 pages. now we have tons of paper to do the same.
Do you honestly think we humans can master all of that?
5) The european Parliament and the Commisision are on a power trip here and whilst this might be something you like, you will face things from them that you wonīt like at all. For this reason alone we should stand up against this s.h.i.t.e.
6) The higher prices an AOC operation has to take will not benefit them.
Lets all work to bring standards up, and not down to the lowest point available
Most FDs I know operate to high standards that can rival most AOC operations I know. OTOH, when getting a licence & getting a typerating not gives one the standard required to operate a CJ or the like safely, then we should first ask us all what is wrong with our system? Why do we need all the crutches we find in our new air law?
The EASA and other authorities here in Europe belittle the US system and the FAA, I`d say (looking at the numbers) its probably the best system in the world, giving the individual more rights, but also more responsibility and the authority less to do. Why donīt we just copy them?
One last thing to think about: for whazever reason, the powers to be forbid flying commercially when over 65. In Germany they raised the retirement age to 67 when I was 43. Iīm now 45 and there is a probability that they raise the retirement to 70. That would mean 5 years of unemployment, that would mean getting a way lower pension than I would when being able to fly to 67 or 70 respectively. I could ONLY do that in corperate aviation. Have you ever thought about that? I started working with 18, I donīt want to be poor after having worked 45 years.... and if there are no corparate deals any more...?
Last edited by His dudeness; 11th Feb 2012 at 10:13.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference between:
yeah, buy the airplane and get 2 pilots and train them
and
buy the airplane, but before you fly write a manual, set up an SMS, do fatique risk managmenet, do ETS, employ a CAMO, train the pilots, train or contract the persons you need further for administration, SMS, etcetc.
yeah, buy the airplane and get 2 pilots and train them
and
buy the airplane, but before you fly write a manual, set up an SMS, do fatique risk managmenet, do ETS, employ a CAMO, train the pilots, train or contract the persons you need further for administration, SMS, etcetc.
Most FDs I know operate to high standards that can rival most AOC operations I know.
Without SMS, Quality System, fatigue management, pilot training then the operation is not as safe. You might feel that you are sufficiently safe, and you might be right. As an individual crew you might actually be as safe, but you have no way of showing that without a Quality System monitoring SMS, fatigue, training, ground ops support and flight ops. The first you see a problem might be in the middle of the accident.
There was a time (when I worked for a rather shabby operation that did not really have a functioning flight-ops management and should never have been allowed to keep its AOC) I would have thought the same as you, that the management structure of an AOC is pointless, I can be safer than that. Now working for a good AOC operator, with all these things in place and having been trained to them, with a Chief Pilot fiercely protective of the safety systems for his pilots, I see why they make flying safer.
As for an SMS, there are ways of making it work with small operations, especially with those who are not competing who can set up a combined SMS. Some of the FOIs are trying to bring small AOC operators together to pool safety statistics, as SMS does need a critical mass of data.
Remember also that when you talk of the best practices in private operations, those are probably not involved in illegal charters. Breaking the law is not considered best practice. Look into a few GA accidents. You will find in most cases there is a major problem with the paperwork behind the flight not directly related to the cause of the accident (aircraft not registered, pilot licence expired, C of A expired to name just a few on accidents I have read about). This to me suggests strong correlation between carelessness as to the legality of flights and carelessness in safety.
Note I said from the start I think these rules are the wrong response; I think it is obtuse and illiberal, only addressing the problem as a side effect.
So if this is a response to charter operator lobbying (the suggestion I originally responded to), what would have been a better response? I am not convinced the operators lobbied for this specifically, I suspect it was a typical EU response to a problem. What should they have done? Did the private/corporate operators lobby for that?
What about considerations of passengers who are not owners, especially employees of corporate aircraft owners? Are they not entitled to flight safety equivalent to AOC operations? Should they have to be informed as to the level of operational management?
I genuinely don't know the answer to the last, BTW. The libertarian in me says allow private and corporate to set up their own management, with minimal regulation, but then how does the potential passenger make an informed choice, who is used to the highly-regulated safety system of western airlines?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyNowPayLater
I have never read such a load of insulting and arrogant drivel. Please back up your claims with statistics.
Like the attrocious JAA AOC accident statistics compared with almost airline stats of the equivalent FAA Part 135! Flown by in your eyes substandard FAA pilots with far less regulations than the equiavlent JAA OPS!
We all equally know of some terrible JAA OPS occurences which would make us failed airline pilots turn in our graves ( if we were in them
)
The trouble with people like you is that you do not realise who your real enemy is?
Who the real Cancer destroying aviation and our jobs is!
The answer is NOT feeding fat Brussels burocrats to regulate, regulate and regulate for the sake of it!!! just so they can justify their artificially created jobs, expense accounts and gold plated pensions! No wonder Europe is in such a mess!
Then I ask why do you support EASA the biggest damage creator and suffocator of our industry?
Pace
I have never read such a load of insulting and arrogant drivel. Please back up your claims with statistics.
Like the attrocious JAA AOC accident statistics compared with almost airline stats of the equivalent FAA Part 135! Flown by in your eyes substandard FAA pilots with far less regulations than the equiavlent JAA OPS!
We all equally know of some terrible JAA OPS occurences which would make us failed airline pilots turn in our graves ( if we were in them
)The trouble with people like you is that you do not realise who your real enemy is?
Who the real Cancer destroying aviation and our jobs is!
The answer is NOT feeding fat Brussels burocrats to regulate, regulate and regulate for the sake of it!!! just so they can justify their artificially created jobs, expense accounts and gold plated pensions! No wonder Europe is in such a mess!
Why do you support people who cut corners and damage our industry?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 9th Feb 2012 at 23:55.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
I think you got the wrong end of the stick. Reading Flynow's post he implies equivalence of operations under EU-OPS and FARs. He is criticising those who "... feel they know better than the CAA / EASA / FAA..." after all, meaning I think private operations and corporate flight ops, specifically those involved in illegal charters.
Unless you are suggesting that pilots are perfectly happy to fly illegally, it is not unreasonable to assume that these are a last resort for those desperate to fly who cannot get any other job or has not made it through airline training. Considering the possible legal implications, perhaps even for those who feel they are never likely to get a legitimate job. If they don't have more than their share of failed airline pilots I would therefore be very surprised.
Of course not all of them will be. I know of one who was moonlighting from his job at a well-known airline by flying illegal charters, and another who seemed blissfully unaware that what he was doing was not legal, and was probably filling the log book while waiting for his big chance. However they risk far more than the guy who has paid over his Ģ80k, managed to scrape through the course but finds he can't hack it in the airlines.
I think you got the wrong end of the stick. Reading Flynow's post he implies equivalence of operations under EU-OPS and FARs. He is criticising those who "... feel they know better than the CAA / EASA / FAA..." after all, meaning I think private operations and corporate flight ops, specifically those involved in illegal charters.
Unless you are suggesting that pilots are perfectly happy to fly illegally, it is not unreasonable to assume that these are a last resort for those desperate to fly who cannot get any other job or has not made it through airline training. Considering the possible legal implications, perhaps even for those who feel they are never likely to get a legitimate job. If they don't have more than their share of failed airline pilots I would therefore be very surprised.
Of course not all of them will be. I know of one who was moonlighting from his job at a well-known airline by flying illegal charters, and another who seemed blissfully unaware that what he was doing was not legal, and was probably filling the log book while waiting for his big chance. However they risk far more than the guy who has paid over his Ģ80k, managed to scrape through the course but finds he can't hack it in the airlines.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I got the wrong end of the stick then I apologise to FlyNowPaylater but reading his post it came across as an attack on private ops full stop.
This thread seems to be a push by AOC OPS to load us with the same petty and expensive meaningless regs that they are expected to chew on and a desire to stick us all in the same EASA straight jacket.
My point is its not private ops which need to be trodden on but the straight jacket strangling of poor old AOC OPS with (as proven with the accident stats!) an ever growing, expensive and pointless, unneeded regulations to serve regulators not the industry.
There are some who would like for obvious reasons for every private jet to be forced to run under an AOC.
There are those who regard any charter as illegal charter but when a truck runs into the wing of the company aircraft are happy to charter in a replacement aircraft for their crews to fly while theirs is being repaired! follow that through into the grey areas? At what point does grey become black or white?
Pace
This thread seems to be a push by AOC OPS to load us with the same petty and expensive meaningless regs that they are expected to chew on and a desire to stick us all in the same EASA straight jacket.
My point is its not private ops which need to be trodden on but the straight jacket strangling of poor old AOC OPS with (as proven with the accident stats!) an ever growing, expensive and pointless, unneeded regulations to serve regulators not the industry.
There are some who would like for obvious reasons for every private jet to be forced to run under an AOC.
There are those who regard any charter as illegal charter but when a truck runs into the wing of the company aircraft are happy to charter in a replacement aircraft for their crews to fly while theirs is being repaired! follow that through into the grey areas? At what point does grey become black or white?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 10th Feb 2012 at 00:37.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know of any EU-OPS operator that would dry-lease an aircraft not approved on their AOC. It wouldn't be worth the risk - and that is accountability, which is largely the point. If they have an aircraft out for a while they can arrange a dry lease through the correct procedure, approved by the regulator.
Everything in an AOC operation is controlled, and for everything the management can be held accountable. Hiring in a random aircraft would not be controlled (maintenance programme, equipment differences etc.) and so affect safety. Consequences for doing so illegally could be very serious for the company and post holders - much more serious than the pathetic fines for dodgy charters by non-AOC holders. Form 4 is a very definite acceptance of responsibility and accountability - I have signed it, and it does make you stop and think.
Everything in an AOC operation is controlled, and for everything the management can be held accountable. Hiring in a random aircraft would not be controlled (maintenance programme, equipment differences etc.) and so affect safety. Consequences for doing so illegally could be very serious for the company and post holders - much more serious than the pathetic fines for dodgy charters by non-AOC holders. Form 4 is a very definite acceptance of responsibility and accountability - I have signed it, and it does make you stop and think.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was talking about a private jet hit by a truck but again big words without statistical backup regarding safety differences.
The far less regulated and accountable FAA Part 135 having a huge safety advantage over far more regulated and controlled JAA OPS (Fact)
i would take a much loved and cared for private jet flying low hours anytime over some of the overworked beatup AOC aircraft that plough our skies.
We all know of horror stories and aircraft in the AOC world too.
The very in vogue statement which paralysed our airspace with indecision forcing the airlines to act over the volcanic Ash fallouts a year ago to get some sense into the arguement.
Pace
but again big words without statistical backup regarding safety differences.The far less regulated and accountable FAA Part 135 having a huge safety advantage over far more regulated and controlled JAA OPS (Fact)
i would take a much loved and cared for private jet flying low hours anytime over some of the overworked beatup AOC aircraft that plough our skies.
We all know of horror stories and aircraft in the AOC world too.
a very definite acceptance of responsibility and accountability
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 10th Feb 2012 at 06:58.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laws prohibiting non-AOC charters are already there. If they are being flouted it is up to the authorities (paid for by us) to enforce. If they are not producing any enforcement actions there are two possible reasons; one, nothing to prosecute or two, they can't be bothered.
The EU/EASA doesn't care about lives or illegal charter. They care that they (and the politicians that they work for/with) are not held accountable for any deaths and think that inventing tonnes of paperwork and forcing business to pay huge fees will do that. They can either scare people out of business, make it impractical to be in the business or just prevent business from starting in the first place.
As long as they get to stay on their overfed, overpaid behinds in plush offices with large expense accounts they don't care who flies what, when or how. They have proved that, in spades.
The EU/EASA doesn't care about lives or illegal charter. They care that they (and the politicians that they work for/with) are not held accountable for any deaths and think that inventing tonnes of paperwork and forcing business to pay huge fees will do that. They can either scare people out of business, make it impractical to be in the business or just prevent business from starting in the first place.
As long as they get to stay on their overfed, overpaid behinds in plush offices with large expense accounts they don't care who flies what, when or how. They have proved that, in spades.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyingFemme
There is a third reason! They are scared of loosing a major case in a court of law and opening the floodgates to legal charter thus damaging the revenue they get from all the poor downtrodden AOCs.
Pace
If they are not producing any enforcement actions there are two possible reasons; one, nothing to prosecute or two, they can't be bothered
Pace
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without SMS, Quality System, fatigue management, pilot training then the operation is not as safe.
Fatigue management -> FDT regs - if they are sensible, they will take care of that. If a non punitive culture is there, then a pilot not flying cause of fatigue, illness or mental stress wont fly (training again)
As an employed pilot (as I am) in Germany you have to obey the FDT. Is that different in the UK?
SMS/QS does only work when the culture is there. When the culture is there, you donīt need it. (Iīm talking small ops here- a BA, a LH or RYR is different in this respect)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hello!
I agree with everything you wrote so far on this thread, but not here. As I can currently witness, the installation of SMS/QS can indeed create this culture where it has not been present before. Or at least, it plants the seed for it.
And even if it fails to create the culture right away, at least it provides concerned pilots with a tool (leverage!) by which they can express their concern officially and trigger an official reaction from the postholders. I really think this one has the potential to improve things.
These "stats" have been mentioned several times already. I would really like to see them for myself in order to believe (link?). From my experience, and I have flown many years in private and commercial operations, before and after JAR-OPS, the contrary is true. Especially when I look at those PPL holding self-flying businessmen who load six passengers and a dog into their CJ1 and fly single-handedly to within 30NM of the full-tanks maximum range of their aircraft. I have yet so see this in commercial OPS...
His dudeness: SMS/QS does only work when the culture is there.
And even if it fails to create the culture right away, at least it provides concerned pilots with a tool (leverage!) by which they can express their concern officially and trigger an official reaction from the postholders. I really think this one has the potential to improve things.
Pace: My point is its not private ops which need to be trodden on but the straight jacket strangling of poor old AOC OPS with (as proven with the accident stats!)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Pace, my apologies to you if it read that way. It wasn't meant to. I have touched on this in the past on previous threads. Basaically, the way things are at the moment, the dodgy illegal charter boys can conveniently hide amongst the corporate operations, with little fear of of being hounded out.
Without a doubt, the corporate operators and AOC operators could live quite happily together, but there is an underlying responsiblity to self regulate. If these cowboys aren't brought to task, then eventually the cancer will spread. The reason EASA / CAA etc... are bringing in this legislation is partly to solve the problem. This broad brush approach is not palletable to many, but unfortunately, until those on the corporate side can get their head around the fact that these idiots will F*&k it up for everyone, EASA will continue to turn the screw.
There are plenty of organisations (BBGA etc..) that could be the platform for industry induced self regulation which will certainly allow you to govern your own affairs....but you must be clear on the objectives. If you want EASA / CAA and AOC operators to stop bashing you, then get your collective act together and weed out the crooks.
Us AOC boys do the same on our side, so you should all put your heads together. It's in everyones interest.
Without a doubt, the corporate operators and AOC operators could live quite happily together, but there is an underlying responsiblity to self regulate. If these cowboys aren't brought to task, then eventually the cancer will spread. The reason EASA / CAA etc... are bringing in this legislation is partly to solve the problem. This broad brush approach is not palletable to many, but unfortunately, until those on the corporate side can get their head around the fact that these idiots will F*&k it up for everyone, EASA will continue to turn the screw.
There are plenty of organisations (BBGA etc..) that could be the platform for industry induced self regulation which will certainly allow you to govern your own affairs....but you must be clear on the objectives. If you want EASA / CAA and AOC operators to stop bashing you, then get your collective act together and weed out the crooks.
Us AOC boys do the same on our side, so you should all put your heads together. It's in everyones interest.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a non-pilot, non-bizjet passenger, I would prefer to have large powerful chunks of jet powered metal flying above my home and work to be fully audited. Whilst I readily accept that we are only talking about a few bad apples, it is enough for the regulatory authority to trend a pattern of swiss cheese (so to speak).