Private Operators and Ops1
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Southerner
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOC ops are no safer than Private, its been proved time and again. Especially those flights which operate under someone else's AOC.
Accept this and stop the snobbery please.
Accept this and stop the snobbery please.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I understand that you have an opinion - but what stats do you use to come to this conclusion - I can only remember one bizjet flight in the UK that involved a fatality (I'm sure there are more...please remind us) it was on a private Citation 500. Now this is a very small sample, so we have to look at other "safety yardsticks", but given the lack of audit around private Ops it is a bit hard -
I suppose I'm asking what measure you are using to qualify your statement that "it has been proved time and time again?"
You must understand that if your standards are acceptable to you, your owner and your regulator then no-one really cares - the problem is that there are dozens of Private Ops that take money from bona fide public transport operators that have invested in meeting a more comprehensive procedural infrastructure (that apparently is no safer????) if this was not happenning, I don't think the regulator would be so keen to standardise the infrastructure -
If your industry was more inward looking and governing and made an effort to stop these widespread practices, then you may be allowed to continue to self regulate with the freedom you have till now.
And I know you will say - not me guv'nor - but someone is flying grey and ilegal charters with impunity - the regulator cannot catch you, so they just bring everyone UP to the same infrastructural requirement.
I suppose I'm asking what measure you are using to qualify your statement that "it has been proved time and time again?"
You must understand that if your standards are acceptable to you, your owner and your regulator then no-one really cares - the problem is that there are dozens of Private Ops that take money from bona fide public transport operators that have invested in meeting a more comprehensive procedural infrastructure (that apparently is no safer????) if this was not happenning, I don't think the regulator would be so keen to standardise the infrastructure -
If your industry was more inward looking and governing and made an effort to stop these widespread practices, then you may be allowed to continue to self regulate with the freedom you have till now.
And I know you will say - not me guv'nor - but someone is flying grey and ilegal charters with impunity - the regulator cannot catch you, so they just bring everyone UP to the same infrastructural requirement.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Southerner
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mention audit and infrastructure but sadly many a time I have seen a total lack of this in an AOC organisation, especially the ones that operate under the umbrella of someone else's AOC. I'm not going to mention names or companies but they know who they are.
Now, I am sure that we are all grown up enough to know that there are good AOC and Private ops, and bad ones. The accident stats you mention were done to death on another pprune discussion thread. I recall that it was in fact statistically proved that Private was safer than AOC with the stats displayed within the thread, so do a search of pprune if you wish. Hopefully one day we can get away from the willy waving snobbery about AOC ops and maybe work together to improve overall flight safety in all ops. But I get the impression that your views are insular, and that whatever is thrust your way in terms of stats won't matter to you.
Now, I am sure that we are all grown up enough to know that there are good AOC and Private ops, and bad ones. The accident stats you mention were done to death on another pprune discussion thread. I recall that it was in fact statistically proved that Private was safer than AOC with the stats displayed within the thread, so do a search of pprune if you wish. Hopefully one day we can get away from the willy waving snobbery about AOC ops and maybe work together to improve overall flight safety in all ops. But I get the impression that your views are insular, and that whatever is thrust your way in terms of stats won't matter to you.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil
That crash at Biggin is a bit below the belt as there was never a definative conclusion as to what happened ?(I actually flew that aircraft before it changed owners)
But we can all bring up examples like a certain AOC Citation which crash landed at a touch down speed of 200 kts up at a certain City airport in Scotland? I am sure you know the details of that 24 something?
AOC ops are not safe compared to FAA 135 a link was placed to a CAA study about a year ago here on pprune.(I cannot find it maybe someone can better at searching than I ?)
Dont presume AOC is such a perfect example as we equally know of complete high houred wrecks with shady maintenance operated under AOCs.
I am all for identifying known safety holes and plugging them. I am against protectionism under the guise of safety concerns or needless regulations loaded onto our industries costs just to keep fat cats in Brussels in a job on their big expense accounts and paying for their gold plated pensions.
If anyone suspects illegal charter its easy report it and let the CAA follow through to a court conviction.
Strange how rarely that happens but there are plenty of reports put in.
But as I said before you are fighting the wrong enemy.
Pace
That crash at Biggin is a bit below the belt as there was never a definative conclusion as to what happened ?(I actually flew that aircraft before it changed owners)
But we can all bring up examples like a certain AOC Citation which crash landed at a touch down speed of 200 kts up at a certain City airport in Scotland? I am sure you know the details of that 24 something?
AOC ops are not safe compared to FAA 135 a link was placed to a CAA study about a year ago here on pprune.(I cannot find it maybe someone can better at searching than I ?)
Dont presume AOC is such a perfect example as we equally know of complete high houred wrecks with shady maintenance operated under AOCs.
I am all for identifying known safety holes and plugging them. I am against protectionism under the guise of safety concerns or needless regulations loaded onto our industries costs just to keep fat cats in Brussels in a job on their big expense accounts and paying for their gold plated pensions.
If anyone suspects illegal charter its easy report it and let the CAA follow through to a court conviction.
Strange how rarely that happens but there are plenty of reports put in.
But as I said before you are fighting the wrong enemy.
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace,
I don't think you read my email - It was the only fatality I could think of outside bugswatter GA and therefore dismissed it as a statistic. and asked for someone to supply the statistic as opposed to "someone once did a study, it was in favour of my argument, but I can't find it."
My opinion on the relative safety of Private (relatively unregulated) Ops and AOC (over regulated Ops) is not relevant here - it is the regulator who is instilling these regulations because they think it, I bloody well hope it is open to a higher percentage of safety failure, otherwise all the AOC holders have invested heavily into the required level of belt and braces not required for the private Ops.
The reality is that ilegal ops are regularly reported and rarely prosecuted and even then with fines that are not prohibitive - You would be shocked if you knew how few people have been convicted in the UK, despite it being a very widespread problem.
I don't think you read my email - It was the only fatality I could think of outside bugswatter GA and therefore dismissed it as a statistic. and asked for someone to supply the statistic as opposed to "someone once did a study, it was in favour of my argument, but I can't find it."
My opinion on the relative safety of Private (relatively unregulated) Ops and AOC (over regulated Ops) is not relevant here - it is the regulator who is instilling these regulations because they think it, I bloody well hope it is open to a higher percentage of safety failure, otherwise all the AOC holders have invested heavily into the required level of belt and braces not required for the private Ops.
The reality is that ilegal ops are regularly reported and rarely prosecuted and even then with fines that are not prohibitive - You would be shocked if you knew how few people have been convicted in the UK, despite it being a very widespread problem.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To help Phil along, and considering the UK only:
Prior to the Biggin Hill accident, which might be viewed as a private flight or not depending upon your perspective, there was the fatal Challenger 604 accident at Birmingham in 2002 and the UK-registered Learjet 35A at Lyon in 2000...
CAA Paper 2009/03: Business Jet Safety Research: A Statistical Review and Questionnaire Study of Safety Issues gives some helpful analysis, and is available online, here: CAA Paper 2009/03: Business Jet Safety Research: A Statistical Review and Questionnaire Study of Safety Issues | Publications | CAA
One paragraph states (and I had to re-type this because, unhelpfully, the downloadable document is copy protected):
The CAA does not hold data that allows the fatal accident rate for business jets to be broken down into individual operation types.
This might prompt the curious to ask how a regulator hopes to do its work when it cannot even analyse its industry effectively...
That aside, it goes on:
However, data supplied by [IBAC] revealed that there is a large variation for different types of business jet operation. Corporate operations achieved a fatal accident rate of 0.2 (per million hours flown) for the period 2003 to 2007, which is comparable to large western built aeroplanes, whereas air taxi operations, as a whole, had a far higher rate of 3.5 (per million hours flown).
The IBAC report is here: http://www.ibac.org/Files/Safety/Bus...0Issue%207.pdf
The IBAC report breaks the community down like this:
and it goes on to say:
Two interesting tables are presented on page 7, which I can't copy quickly here, after which the data is analysed:
I would agree strongly with Pace's remarks about shabby operators, and significant but non-fatal events. The regulator, and others, seem not to understand that once things are going badly wrong, it is often only good fortune which prevents fatalities; the key to this mysterious 'safety improvement' lies in recognising that the Citation at Birmingham, the other at Edinburgh, and many others, are just as significant in pointing to the causes behind fatal accidents, even if they had happier endings.
I agree even more strongly with Phil's remarks about ineffective enforcement.
Prior to the Biggin Hill accident, which might be viewed as a private flight or not depending upon your perspective, there was the fatal Challenger 604 accident at Birmingham in 2002 and the UK-registered Learjet 35A at Lyon in 2000...
CAA Paper 2009/03: Business Jet Safety Research: A Statistical Review and Questionnaire Study of Safety Issues gives some helpful analysis, and is available online, here: CAA Paper 2009/03: Business Jet Safety Research: A Statistical Review and Questionnaire Study of Safety Issues | Publications | CAA
One paragraph states (and I had to re-type this because, unhelpfully, the downloadable document is copy protected):
The CAA does not hold data that allows the fatal accident rate for business jets to be broken down into individual operation types.
This might prompt the curious to ask how a regulator hopes to do its work when it cannot even analyse its industry effectively...
That aside, it goes on:
However, data supplied by [IBAC] revealed that there is a large variation for different types of business jet operation. Corporate operations achieved a fatal accident rate of 0.2 (per million hours flown) for the period 2003 to 2007, which is comparable to large western built aeroplanes, whereas air taxi operations, as a whole, had a far higher rate of 3.5 (per million hours flown).
The IBAC report is here: http://www.ibac.org/Files/Safety/Bus...0Issue%207.pdf
The IBAC report breaks the community down like this:
2.4 Organization of the Community
Business Aircraft operations are classified into three (3) separate categories:
1. Business Aviation Commercial
Aircraft flown for business purposes by an operator having a commercial operating certificate
(generally on-demand charters).
2. Corporate
Non-commercial operations with professional crews employed to fly the aircraft.
3. Owner Operated
Aircraft flown for business purposes by the owner of the business.Business Aircraft operations are classified into three (3) separate categories:
1. Business Aviation Commercial
Aircraft flown for business purposes by an operator having a commercial operating certificate
(generally on-demand charters).
2. Corporate
Non-commercial operations with professional crews employed to fly the aircraft.
3. Owner Operated
and it goes on to say:
4.2 Accident Rate by Operator Type
Global data for the numbers of aircraft in each of the business aviation operational categories (commercial, corporate and owner-operated) proved difficult to obtain as few States collect this information. Similarly, flight hours by type of operation are not available. Due to the lack of
good exposure data, it was not possible to calculate, without some error, the rate of each category of operation. Additionally, the operational status of a single airframe may legally vary from flight to flight (i.e., an aircraft may be commercial on one flight and private on a flight made later
on the same day or vice versa).
Global data for the numbers of aircraft in each of the business aviation operational categories (commercial, corporate and owner-operated) proved difficult to obtain as few States collect this information. Similarly, flight hours by type of operation are not available. Due to the lack of
good exposure data, it was not possible to calculate, without some error, the rate of each category of operation. Additionally, the operational status of a single airframe may legally vary from flight to flight (i.e., an aircraft may be commercial on one flight and private on a flight made later
on the same day or vice versa).
Nevertheless, by applying US data relevant to the division between categories of operator, and by making the assumption that the division is relatively similar for the rest of the world, an estimate of the rate by operator type can be made. Given that the North American data represents approximately 67% of the global total, it is unlikely that the distortion generated by the assumption will be very large.
The percentage of flight hours based on FAA published statistical data for each of the three categories in the USA is as follows:
Commercial (Air Taxi) 30.4%
Corporate 55.3%
Owner-operated 14.3%Corporate 55.3%
Two interesting tables are presented on page 7, which I can't copy quickly here, after which the data is analysed:
Analysis
The majority of business aircraft accidents occur in the commercial category, where operations are governed by commercial regulations (such as FAA Part 135 and JAR OPS 1). The next most frequent number of accidents occurs with aircraft flown by business persons. Accidents of corporate aircraft remain rare.
The majority of business aircraft accidents occur in the commercial category, where operations are governed by commercial regulations (such as FAA Part 135 and JAR OPS 1). The next most frequent number of accidents occurs with aircraft flown by business persons. Accidents of corporate aircraft remain rare.
I would agree strongly with Pace's remarks about shabby operators, and significant but non-fatal events. The regulator, and others, seem not to understand that once things are going badly wrong, it is often only good fortune which prevents fatalities; the key to this mysterious 'safety improvement' lies in recognising that the Citation at Birmingham, the other at Edinburgh, and many others, are just as significant in pointing to the causes behind fatal accidents, even if they had happier endings.
I agree even more strongly with Phil's remarks about ineffective enforcement.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Poland
Age: 69
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What regulations should be enforced - compliance with AOC regs, or more effort spent on catching those who are carrying out illegal charters?
Illegal charter flights have been going on for donkey's years, and irrespective of the resources any regulator invests they will never be stamped out.
There will always be "checks and balances." Make it simpler and more cost effective to play by the rules, and more will do so. Alternatively, screw every penny out of those who want to go legit, make the hoops smaller and position them higher, and many will choose the alternative.
There is a very good argument for regulation, but over regulation with excessive bureaucracy serves no one - unless of course you happen to be the regulator.
Look up the "Laffer Curve." It applies here just as much as it does to tax evasion.
Illegal charter flights have been going on for donkey's years, and irrespective of the resources any regulator invests they will never be stamped out.
There will always be "checks and balances." Make it simpler and more cost effective to play by the rules, and more will do so. Alternatively, screw every penny out of those who want to go legit, make the hoops smaller and position them higher, and many will choose the alternative.
There is a very good argument for regulation, but over regulation with excessive bureaucracy serves no one - unless of course you happen to be the regulator.
Look up the "Laffer Curve." It applies here just as much as it does to tax evasion.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing - so if less regulation combined with self preservation of pax and crew is safer than AOC compliance, then why are AOC holders disadvantaged?
Ps I think the LR35 flight was private with the owner on, albeit on an aircraft that also flew AOC, but I may be wrong.
Ps I think the LR35 flight was private with the owner on, albeit on an aircraft that also flew AOC, but I may be wrong.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Poland
Age: 69
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PB:
If you are referring to DC, he was not the owner, although I am not sure whether or not it was a Commercial fright.
Just as a matter of interest, why do you find it amazing that private ops might actually be statistically safer than Commercial Ops?
Could it not be the case that many private operators place their priorities elsewhere - perhaps not so much on paperwork, signatures and arse covering - although I'm sure the reasons are not so simplistic.
If you are referring to DC, he was not the owner, although I am not sure whether or not it was a Commercial fright.
Just as a matter of interest, why do you find it amazing that private ops might actually be statistically safer than Commercial Ops?
Could it not be the case that many private operators place their priorities elsewhere - perhaps not so much on paperwork, signatures and arse covering - although I'm sure the reasons are not so simplistic.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The evidence, taken at face value, would seem to suggest that regulators should leave corporate operators very well alone, because they are doing very well indeed, and any interference may simply drag them down towards the public transport numbers.
As to why... Corporate operators obtain maximum flexibility from their aircraft, at maximum cost. I hypothesise that it is market forces, which proscribe that AOC operators must meet at the level of the lowest common denominator, as European point-to-point airlines must (more or less) equal Ryanair to survive, which lead to 'low-but-just-acceptable' standards.
Corporate operators have vested interest in and responsibility for their operations, which charterers and brokers do not.
Of course, regulators could up the ante, but as Clive points out, this would have detrimental effect when the penalties are taken into account.
Summing up:
Q: Why are corporate operators safer than AOC?
A: Economics, and inadequate regulation.
Q: Why are AOC operators as unsafe as they are?
A: They kill an acceptable number of people.
As to why... Corporate operators obtain maximum flexibility from their aircraft, at maximum cost. I hypothesise that it is market forces, which proscribe that AOC operators must meet at the level of the lowest common denominator, as European point-to-point airlines must (more or less) equal Ryanair to survive, which lead to 'low-but-just-acceptable' standards.
Corporate operators have vested interest in and responsibility for their operations, which charterers and brokers do not.
Of course, regulators could up the ante, but as Clive points out, this would have detrimental effect when the penalties are taken into account.
Summing up:
Q: Why are corporate operators safer than AOC?
A: Economics, and inadequate regulation.
Q: Why are AOC operators as unsafe as they are?
A: They kill an acceptable number of people.
Last edited by frontlefthamster; 10th Feb 2012 at 19:00.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish I could find the CAA study from a year ago because that did compare JAA AOC OPS to FAA Equivalent of part 135. The link is in one of the threads from a year ago.
While corporate private ops are much safer on both sides of the pond FAA part 135 were not far behind yet far less regulated. For some reason The highly regulated JAA OPS had attrocious safety stats.
Maybe we should be encouraging illegal charter in corporate jets on safety grounds ? (only a wind up
)
Hence that beggars the question why force something which has excellent safety levels into the same framework as JAA OPS which dont ?
The industry need deregulation and freeing up and that comes back to the question of whos benefit are the regulaltors regulating for? Themselves or the people they are supposed to represent.
EASA cost 100 million plus PA to churn out the rubbish they do when they would have been far better copying the FAA with a few tweeks and saving a fortune.
Remember that is the same EASA which was almost disbanded a while back for trying to reinvent the wheel.
But then they are just a reflection of why Europe is in the mess its in.
Pace
While corporate private ops are much safer on both sides of the pond FAA part 135 were not far behind yet far less regulated. For some reason The highly regulated JAA OPS had attrocious safety stats.
Maybe we should be encouraging illegal charter in corporate jets on safety grounds ? (only a wind up
)Hence that beggars the question why force something which has excellent safety levels into the same framework as JAA OPS which dont ?
The industry need deregulation and freeing up and that comes back to the question of whos benefit are the regulaltors regulating for? Themselves or the people they are supposed to represent.
EASA cost 100 million plus PA to churn out the rubbish they do when they would have been far better copying the FAA with a few tweeks and saving a fortune.
Remember that is the same EASA which was almost disbanded a while back for trying to reinvent the wheel.
But then they are just a reflection of why Europe is in the mess its in.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 10th Feb 2012 at 21:17.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your industry was more inward looking and governing and made an effort to stop these widespread practices, then you may be allowed to continue to self regulate with the freedom you have till now.
The regulation in force is the basic regulation of pilots and aircraft - it's hardly "unregulated".
Companies are free to provide cars to their employees with, or without, drivers in the same way as they may provide aircraft - as long as the vehicles are maintained in compliance with the law and the operators are suitably licenced. The system works very well and safety records are better than good.
Requiring every driver to have a chauffeurs licence or HGV (with periodic checks) and operate to an approved set of rules/manual (over and above the law and Highway Code) would be unacceptable to the general public who drive.
Pilots already comply with way more regulation than drivers (without complaint) because they recognise that it is safer.
The wrong "problem" is being fixed here and it will only costs a lot of money without improving safety........unless all the operators leave the EU for pastures more inviting.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What puzzles me is that if it is true that private corporate jets flown by professional crews have almost airline safety levels on both sides of the pond while the highly regulated AOC ops have poor levels of safety in comparison then what is the real agenda for trying to force private operations into the straight jacket inflicted on AOCs ?
Sadly this is just a discussion forum for venting views and wont do anything to stop the EASA train from taking us all into dark areas for aviation.
To AOC operations who see corporate ops as some sort of threat and have cried to the regulators to save them be careful what you wish for because you have targeted the wrong enemy.
Pace
Sadly this is just a discussion forum for venting views and wont do anything to stop the EASA train from taking us all into dark areas for aviation.
To AOC operations who see corporate ops as some sort of threat and have cried to the regulators to save them be careful what you wish for because you have targeted the wrong enemy.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All aircraft above a certain weight should be operated to the same regulations - whether private or commercial.
I don't want you fatigued, untested, unstandardised, amateurs flying into me, thanks...
I don't want you fatigued, untested, unstandardised, amateurs flying into me, thanks...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want you fatigued, untested, unstandardised, amateurs flying into me, thanks...
I take it from your post that you are an professional?...although your statement does not sound as if you were one...
As an 'amateur' I should probably not post on pprune, I´m so sorry.
As a non native english speaker I probably lack the correct cuss words, so i would to ask you politely take the correct one and fill it in below:
Regulation6, you are a ...........
Thank you very much for your help, dear pro skygod.
Last edited by His dudeness; 11th Feb 2012 at 10:32.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regulation 6
In that case I would keep out of European Airspace because there are loads of aircraft flying into Europe from the states and elsewhere of varying types shapes and sizes who dont fly to your regulations.
My ATP being being FAA is of course not to your Standard either and is purely an amateur rating. There are a whole load of Amateur Airline pilots flying over Europe every day so be very careful up there.
Pace
In that case I would keep out of European Airspace because there are loads of aircraft flying into Europe from the states and elsewhere of varying types shapes and sizes who dont fly to your regulations.
My ATP being being FAA is of course not to your Standard either and is purely an amateur rating. There are a whole load of Amateur Airline pilots flying over Europe every day so be very careful up there.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 11th Feb 2012 at 10:36.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His dudeness: SMS/QS does only work when the culture is there.
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.
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.
Now, the ops you´re involved with is of a considerable size. There might be a case for SMS, but knowing the involved persons I doubt that the will, transparency and approach required for an SMS to work (the culture) is there. Just ask the 3 remaining oldtimers about the seminar "Teambildung" we did in early 2006 and what management really took from that. If they are honest they will report a big round zero.
Should I find out it really improves safety, I´ll be the first to admit it.
Are you going to be in FAB in late July/early August? We will...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Est
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, should Phil :
A) Continue to invest in the infrastructure of his AOC and carry on as is?
B) Tear up the AOC, sell a lease of "block hours" to his clients and pay the £500 fine for the ones actually prosecuted as IPT?
C) as A, but in addition work hard to eradicate this illegal, underhand and unregulated competition that lurks in the grey charter game. Grey my arse...it's the black market gentlemen. No less so than the dodgy plumber that isn't qualified, yet fixes boilers for less.
?????????
By calling it grey, are we all in denial that our wonderful profession is actually not immune from it? WAKE UP!!!!
In fact, should the CAA just give up on all this AOC stuff, and just let everyone fend for themselves? We could all run Waldo Pepper style operations. It would be great fun.....I know I could make money at it. Plenty of wannabes we could get a type rating on a CJ, or LJ, or KA, pay them £10K a year, no extra training costs, no SMS or Quality to run. Easy money. Let's all lobby the CAA to end this madness of AOC's shall we.......
All sit in your ivory towers, doing nothing about it, and let the M reg King Airs fly illegal flights from Biggin and Elstree, and the Pool Aviations of this world make a mockery of the system. Obviously the AOC operators are too weak to fight it, as are the CAA.
Perhaps the big brokers are getting pissed with it too.....Maybe it's in their financial interests to get these cowboys hunted down, they might even invest some significant money into a legal fund to force it through.....now there's a thought.
Trouble is, posters like Pace will claim their innocence, and I have no reason to think that he's not by the way, but if you won't do your bit to stop these parasites that live amongst you in corporate aviation, the broad brush will affect you too.
In the 40's, not every German was a Nazi, but every Nazi was German. Your "colleagues" have effectively invaded Poland now, and we've all sort of had enough of it. Sort them out.....
A) Continue to invest in the infrastructure of his AOC and carry on as is?
B) Tear up the AOC, sell a lease of "block hours" to his clients and pay the £500 fine for the ones actually prosecuted as IPT?
C) as A, but in addition work hard to eradicate this illegal, underhand and unregulated competition that lurks in the grey charter game. Grey my arse...it's the black market gentlemen. No less so than the dodgy plumber that isn't qualified, yet fixes boilers for less.
?????????
By calling it grey, are we all in denial that our wonderful profession is actually not immune from it? WAKE UP!!!!
In fact, should the CAA just give up on all this AOC stuff, and just let everyone fend for themselves? We could all run Waldo Pepper style operations. It would be great fun.....I know I could make money at it. Plenty of wannabes we could get a type rating on a CJ, or LJ, or KA, pay them £10K a year, no extra training costs, no SMS or Quality to run. Easy money. Let's all lobby the CAA to end this madness of AOC's shall we.......
All sit in your ivory towers, doing nothing about it, and let the M reg King Airs fly illegal flights from Biggin and Elstree, and the Pool Aviations of this world make a mockery of the system. Obviously the AOC operators are too weak to fight it, as are the CAA.
Perhaps the big brokers are getting pissed with it too.....Maybe it's in their financial interests to get these cowboys hunted down, they might even invest some significant money into a legal fund to force it through.....now there's a thought.
Trouble is, posters like Pace will claim their innocence, and I have no reason to think that he's not by the way, but if you won't do your bit to stop these parasites that live amongst you in corporate aviation, the broad brush will affect you too.
In the 40's, not every German was a Nazi, but every Nazi was German. Your "colleagues" have effectively invaded Poland now, and we've all sort of had enough of it. Sort them out.....