How many business jets < 10 seats?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Dusseldorf
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many business jets < 10 seats?
Dear all,
I'm doing some background research and would greatly appreciate your help. If I'm not mistaken, in the US only turbine aircraft with more than 9 seats have to be equipped with Flight Data Recorders, independently of how they are operated.
1) Is that correct?
2) Is there any census that gives the number of aircraft with less than 10 seats vs. more than 9 seats?
Thank you very much for your help.
Nicolaus
I'm doing some background research and would greatly appreciate your help. If I'm not mistaken, in the US only turbine aircraft with more than 9 seats have to be equipped with Flight Data Recorders, independently of how they are operated.
1) Is that correct?
2) Is there any census that gives the number of aircraft with less than 10 seats vs. more than 9 seats?
Thank you very much for your help.
Nicolaus
Join Date: May 2006
Location: On the right of the clowns and to the left of the jokers
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly more complicated than that:
If you're talking about a commercial operation 14 CFR 135.152 is what you're looking for:
14 CFR 135.152 - Flight data recorders. - Code of Federal Regulations - Title 14: Aeronautics and Space - Subpart C: Aircraft and Equipment - Id 19561437 - vLex
For private operations, you need 14 CFR 91.609
14 CFR 91.609 - Flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders. | Title 14 - Aeronautics and Space | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute
Sorry thats not consistent on the websites but they were the links I could find the quickest!
If you're talking about a commercial operation 14 CFR 135.152 is what you're looking for:
14 CFR 135.152 - Flight data recorders. - Code of Federal Regulations - Title 14: Aeronautics and Space - Subpart C: Aircraft and Equipment - Id 19561437 - vLex
For private operations, you need 14 CFR 91.609
14 CFR 91.609 - Flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders. | Title 14 - Aeronautics and Space | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute
Sorry thats not consistent on the websites but they were the links I could find the quickest!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: On the right of the clowns and to the left of the jokers
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're very welcome, and that is absolutely correct...
Part 135 is basically where someone with no long-term stake in the aircraft pays a sum of money for a one-time flight or ad-hoc flights;
Part 91 relates to the owner or owners of the aircraft facilitating the aircraft for their own use in the same manner you own a private car (weather or not you have a chauffeur for the car or drive it yourself/Have a pilot or fly yourself is immaterial)
There is also Part 125 which relates to the non commercial (like Part 91 of very large aircraft) and I excluded that for (relative) simplicity.
The other regulation is Part 121 which relates to scheduled airlines, AFAIK they always have FDRs in the United States.
The other thing to bear in mind is that these regulations only apply to US registered aircraft, or aircraft that are required to be operated according to US regulations.
Part 135 is basically where someone with no long-term stake in the aircraft pays a sum of money for a one-time flight or ad-hoc flights;
Part 91 relates to the owner or owners of the aircraft facilitating the aircraft for their own use in the same manner you own a private car (weather or not you have a chauffeur for the car or drive it yourself/Have a pilot or fly yourself is immaterial)
There is also Part 125 which relates to the non commercial (like Part 91 of very large aircraft) and I excluded that for (relative) simplicity.
The other regulation is Part 121 which relates to scheduled airlines, AFAIK they always have FDRs in the United States.
The other thing to bear in mind is that these regulations only apply to US registered aircraft, or aircraft that are required to be operated according to US regulations.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SAYE
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicolaus: I'm doing some background research
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: way out west
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha ha avionimc! Yes, it's slightly frustrating that Nicolaus hasn't explained his research more thoroughly 
. Although I gather that it is something to do with the effectiveness of FDM. But even if he did would you believe him? And anyway who gives a monkeys?! We're all learning something from the answers he's getting!
On the other hand, he should remember that this is just a rumour network and we could very well be spinning him some very sophisticated bull$hit!!
the Wings
. Although I gather that it is something to do with the effectiveness of FDM. But even if he did would you believe him? And anyway who gives a monkeys?! We're all learning something from the answers he's getting!On the other hand, he should remember that this is just a rumour network and we could very well be spinning him some very sophisticated bull$hit!!
the Wings
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Dusseldorf
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi avionmc,
No need to worry, I am not affiliated with any news organization, I promise. In fact, I'm a fellow airman.
I am currently working on a final project for an undergraduate degree at an American university. It deals with obstacles to the implementation of FOQA. One of it is the problems of collecting data if no FDAU or FDR is installed. Being used to the European regs, I'm not really conversant regarding the FARs, but I need to know what they say in respect to FDR installation. I did some research, but felt the need for some confirmation. HS125 was so kind to help me there. Nothing sinister about it and hardly the stuff for the front page of any newspaper.
A spin off of this project is the survey I posted here with kind permission of Pprune towers. I couldn't include it in the project as the time available wouldn't have been sufficient. But I really wanted to do it because I have heard claims that pilots and their negative perception of FOQA are one of the main obstacles to widespread its adoption especially among smaller operators, and I wanted to know whether that's true or not. How do pilots in smaller companies feel about FOQA? Does that differ from how pilots in large companies feel about it? These are the main questions.
The welcome page of the survey explains this and also contains my email address.
Please let me know if there are any more doubts or questions.
Thanks,
Nicolaus
No need to worry, I am not affiliated with any news organization, I promise. In fact, I'm a fellow airman.
I am currently working on a final project for an undergraduate degree at an American university. It deals with obstacles to the implementation of FOQA. One of it is the problems of collecting data if no FDAU or FDR is installed. Being used to the European regs, I'm not really conversant regarding the FARs, but I need to know what they say in respect to FDR installation. I did some research, but felt the need for some confirmation. HS125 was so kind to help me there. Nothing sinister about it and hardly the stuff for the front page of any newspaper.
A spin off of this project is the survey I posted here with kind permission of Pprune towers. I couldn't include it in the project as the time available wouldn't have been sufficient. But I really wanted to do it because I have heard claims that pilots and their negative perception of FOQA are one of the main obstacles to widespread its adoption especially among smaller operators, and I wanted to know whether that's true or not. How do pilots in smaller companies feel about FOQA? Does that differ from how pilots in large companies feel about it? These are the main questions.
The welcome page of the survey explains this and also contains my email address.
Please let me know if there are any more doubts or questions.
Thanks,
Nicolaus
Join Date: May 2006
Location: On the right of the clowns and to the left of the jokers
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And anyway who gives a monkeys?!
A little paranoia about media trolls is healthy, but we're the first to get angry and frustrated about un-knowledgeable comment and inaccurate reporting of the facts in the media. I'm therefore generally supportive of someone asking for real facts as long as it doesn't compromise security and/or safety by providing an answer hence my provision of the links to the regs and supporting explanation.
I wish you the best with your project!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SAYE
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your reply Nicolaus, good luck with your project.
If this can shed some light, here are two of many examples I witnessed directly:
a) At a now defunct regional airline in Africa (managed by Canadians) all “independent” safety audits were satisfactorily passed. But this did not mean the airline operation was safe, or that there was a safety culture within the airline. One of the problems I found is that the people conducting the audits have little or no knowledge of aviation, and even less knowledge of aircraft and aircraft operations. They merely appeared to be uninterested bureaucrats, just checking “marks” on paper forms. For instance, I never saw one auditor look inside an aircraft, or even take a flight.
b) In a different developing continent and different company, when the requirement of GPWS and EGPWS was required to pass the “safety audits,” they installed the least expensive system on all aircraft. They even flew-in an avionics technician from overseas to make the installations. "Safety Audit" was passed. The problem was that the “Terrain! Pull-UP!” sounded almost every time when landing at small airports. Then, company management had power disconnected from GPWS/EGPWS on all aircraft.
This is not good for flight safety or OPS safety, but good enough for "safety audits" or FOQA.
I have heard claims that pilots and their negative perception of FOQA are one of the main obstacles to widespread its adoption especially among smaller operators
a) At a now defunct regional airline in Africa (managed by Canadians) all “independent” safety audits were satisfactorily passed. But this did not mean the airline operation was safe, or that there was a safety culture within the airline. One of the problems I found is that the people conducting the audits have little or no knowledge of aviation, and even less knowledge of aircraft and aircraft operations. They merely appeared to be uninterested bureaucrats, just checking “marks” on paper forms. For instance, I never saw one auditor look inside an aircraft, or even take a flight.
b) In a different developing continent and different company, when the requirement of GPWS and EGPWS was required to pass the “safety audits,” they installed the least expensive system on all aircraft. They even flew-in an avionics technician from overseas to make the installations. "Safety Audit" was passed. The problem was that the “Terrain! Pull-UP!” sounded almost every time when landing at small airports. Then, company management had power disconnected from GPWS/EGPWS on all aircraft.
This is not good for flight safety or OPS safety, but good enough for "safety audits" or FOQA.
