Are illegal charters less safe?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are illegal charters less safe?
The FAA is revising Advisory Circular AC 91-37A according to an article I read recently. The article stated that the FAA has not enforced its regs on this subject as strongly as it could have.
The article also stated, "The FAA has struggled for decades to explain why illegal charter is unsafe and illegal. And the irony about the revised AC is that the agency is still pulling its punches. To that point: “You may forego the protection of certain safety standards . . .” Why does the FAA hold back? Perhaps because the accident statistics persist in making Part 91 operations in turbine aircraft look safer than the charter alternatives. This is a sensitive subject within the FAA and the industry. So perhaps the agency can be forgiven for watering down that safety warning."
I guess I am just posting this to see if anyone with more info has an opinion on this statement.
Illegal Charters Can Pose Problems For All Involved | Business Aviation content from Aviation Week
The article also stated, "The FAA has struggled for decades to explain why illegal charter is unsafe and illegal. And the irony about the revised AC is that the agency is still pulling its punches. To that point: “You may forego the protection of certain safety standards . . .” Why does the FAA hold back? Perhaps because the accident statistics persist in making Part 91 operations in turbine aircraft look safer than the charter alternatives. This is a sensitive subject within the FAA and the industry. So perhaps the agency can be forgiven for watering down that safety warning."
I guess I am just posting this to see if anyone with more info has an opinion on this statement.
Illegal Charters Can Pose Problems For All Involved | Business Aviation content from Aviation Week
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: California
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part 91 ops can be every bit as safe as 135, even safer, if you look at corporate jet operations.
But it there is no oversight of 135 ops and every "Fred's Flying Circus" can offer charter flights imagine the chaos. Cutting corners to undercut the competition is the business model of illegal charter operators. Under or unqualified pilots, maint. staff, skimping on repairs and flying outside of wx, fuel, rest requirements would be the norm...and sometimes it is already.
The best example that comes to mind is the KTEB CL-600 crash in the early 2000s. Illegal charter operated in every conceivable illegal manner got away with it for years but finally got bit. Now the principals are in prison.
But it there is no oversight of 135 ops and every "Fred's Flying Circus" can offer charter flights imagine the chaos. Cutting corners to undercut the competition is the business model of illegal charter operators. Under or unqualified pilots, maint. staff, skimping on repairs and flying outside of wx, fuel, rest requirements would be the norm...and sometimes it is already.
The best example that comes to mind is the KTEB CL-600 crash in the early 2000s. Illegal charter operated in every conceivable illegal manner got away with it for years but finally got bit. Now the principals are in prison.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Illegal conjures up the fact there is something more dangerous in the flight
A private flight operated by a professional crew is as safe as one flown by the same crew illegally and remember the crew may be unaware although the statement illegal charter conjures up the image of cowboy pilots cowboy operation
The problem comes with insurance where the insurance would be deemed invalid if the flight was an illegal charter
Private jets flown by professional crew have a better safety record than AOC operations worldwide the fact that one is legal the other not doesn't make a jot of difference to safety but the insurance would be a problem if anything happened
A private flight operated by a professional crew is as safe as one flown by the same crew illegally and remember the crew may be unaware although the statement illegal charter conjures up the image of cowboy pilots cowboy operation
The problem comes with insurance where the insurance would be deemed invalid if the flight was an illegal charter
Private jets flown by professional crew have a better safety record than AOC operations worldwide the fact that one is legal the other not doesn't make a jot of difference to safety but the insurance would be a problem if anything happened
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Age: 38
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully agree that any private operation can be every bit as safe as any charter operation. However if a private operation is cutting corners in order to operate charters without the proper approvals then as a charterer I’d be worried about what other corners are being cut in relation to the aircraft operation.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However if a private operation is cutting corners in order to operate charters without the proper approvals then as a charterer I’d be worried about what other corners are being cut in relation to the aircraft operation.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a huge difference in operators and I have not seen the specific figures on Private ops vs commercial but I know that they are not even close. For all the people who keep shouting that their operation is as safe as scheduled airlines have a look below... The reason I used US figures is because they have the largest amount of data that Cocklin used.
Definitions from the FAA
Accident: An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards an aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all persons are disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury as a result of being in or upon the aircraft or by direct contact with the aircraft or anything attached thereto, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.
Accident Rate: The number of accidents per 100,000 flight hours.
Accident rate / fatal accident rate
Scheduled airlines 0.25 / 0.00
Fractional operators 0.25 / 0.03
Scheduled commuters 1.43 / 0.30
Charter operators* 3.11 / 0.83
* Charter operators includes single and multi-engine, helicopters, turboprops, and jets
Source: Fractional Provider Aircraft Accident Update; Compiled by Robert E. Breiling Associates, Inc for the NBAA, manufacturers, and aviation underwriters. The report only includes US operated aircraft.
Definitions from the FAA
Accident: An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards an aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all persons are disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury as a result of being in or upon the aircraft or by direct contact with the aircraft or anything attached thereto, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.
Accident Rate: The number of accidents per 100,000 flight hours.
Accident rate / fatal accident rate
Scheduled airlines 0.25 / 0.00
Fractional operators 0.25 / 0.03
Scheduled commuters 1.43 / 0.30
Charter operators* 3.11 / 0.83
* Charter operators includes single and multi-engine, helicopters, turboprops, and jets
Source: Fractional Provider Aircraft Accident Update; Compiled by Robert E. Breiling Associates, Inc for the NBAA, manufacturers, and aviation underwriters. The report only includes US operated aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: California
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...yes, but the data includes single engined and helicopter charters...which presumably includes Alaskan ops too. A wildly different world than corporate jet ops. Too bad they lump it all together. I thought we were comparing jet operators?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you go to the CAA website you can download their study on bizjet only safety stats.
Business jet safety review | UK Civil Aviation Authority
It shows that private ops have a comparable safety record to airlines, while charter operators have 10 times the accident rate. I'll leave the discussion of why to others.
Business jet safety review | UK Civil Aviation Authority
It shows that private ops have a comparable safety record to airlines, while charter operators have 10 times the accident rate. I'll leave the discussion of why to others.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If you go to the CAA website you can download their study on bizjet only safety stats.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA does not hold data that allows the fatal accident rate for business jets to be broken down into individual operation types. However, data supplied by the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC) (Reference 1) 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).
1.5 Adoption of industry best practice, such as IBAC’s ‘International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations’ (IS-BAO) (Reference 2), was felt to be a significant factor behind the good safety record achieved by corporate operators.
1.6 The higher overall fatal accident rate for air taxi operations may justify further analysis. European operators are subject to direct regulatory oversight under EU-OPS, the same as for regular public transport, whereas in the USA air taxi operations are overseen by the less demanding Part 135 regulations. It is believed that EU-OPS regulated air taxi operations may demonstrate a far better safety record than the overall figure would suggest. This is a recommended area for further study.
1.5 Adoption of industry best practice, such as IBAC’s ‘International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations’ (IS-BAO) (Reference 2), was felt to be a significant factor behind the good safety record achieved by corporate operators.
1.6 The higher overall fatal accident rate for air taxi operations may justify further analysis. European operators are subject to direct regulatory oversight under EU-OPS, the same as for regular public transport, whereas in the USA air taxi operations are overseen by the less demanding Part 135 regulations. It is believed that EU-OPS regulated air taxi operations may demonstrate a far better safety record than the overall figure would suggest. This is a recommended area for further study.
Maybe more to do with the fact that the particular aircraft is flown by the same crew and like a beloved privately owned car better looked after and loved
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The above is the relevant bit note how the CAA are trying to imply that the EASA REGS are far more demanding than the equivalent FAA and as such MAY be far safer?? what a load of unsubstantiated bull / more regulations equals better safety? Maybe for the longevity of the EASA regulators jobs
NCC is a AOC on the JAR-OPS level from a efforts point of view. As it was the case with JAR-OPS, nothing is safer afterwards, and the money that is required to cut all those trees will be saved, where it was saved in the JAR/EASA/EU-operations: crews - cause thats the ONLY place the operators can go ahead and cut costs. So we will see some 1500hrs jockeys in LHS on Globals etc , flying basically for food.
Brave new world.
Last edited by His dudeness; 6th Aug 2016 at 07:54.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD, spot on, but when you look at the teams creating these laws within EASA it's no wonder you end up with something so ridiculous as part NCC. Let alone the third country licence bile that was approved by a team consisting of previous total aviation experience = plate layer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but when you look at the teams creating these laws within EASA it's no wonder you end up with something so ridiculous as part NCC. Let alone the third country licence bile that was approved by a team consisting of previous total aviation experience = plate layer
I´m also pretty sure, ISBAO likes its business model being put into legislation.
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are illegal charters less safe? Well - answer is, "we don't know".
As pointed out previously, an illegal charter flown by a well-trained, well rested and disciplined crew can be extremely safe, and a commercial charter flown by a bunch of undisciplined muppets not safe at all.
Comes down to probability. We all know the commercial operators that we cannot understand are still flying - but sooner or later, their number is up, and they will be forced to reform or shut up shop. The regulatory oversight gives you an increased probability that your flight is being operated in a safe manner. If you seek out the larger operators, your chances improve - size draws scrutiny, and you are not sailing close to the financial margins all the time. A 3-aircraft outfit with KAs and Citations - less so, margins are tighter, and the incentive to cut corners greater - if it works, you make money, if it doesn't, you 'only' lose the AOC of a small operator and can rebuild elsewhere.
Not tarring everyone with the same brush - I am talking probability here. Both when it comes to choosing the cheap illegal over the more expensive AOC charter, and choosing a larger operator over a smaller operator. There are no guarantees - but if in doubt, use audited operators - Wyvern/ARGUS - then at least you know someone independent has had a look.
The idea that auditing and procedures only generate paper and puts the crews under pressure.... well, if you take it as a paperwork exercise, that's what you get. If you take it as a genuine chance to improve (and get your CEO onboard that wagon) - guess what, that's what you get. It's what you make of it, and it sure as hell ain't going away, so moaning about it says more about the operator than it says about the system.
As pointed out previously, an illegal charter flown by a well-trained, well rested and disciplined crew can be extremely safe, and a commercial charter flown by a bunch of undisciplined muppets not safe at all.
Comes down to probability. We all know the commercial operators that we cannot understand are still flying - but sooner or later, their number is up, and they will be forced to reform or shut up shop. The regulatory oversight gives you an increased probability that your flight is being operated in a safe manner. If you seek out the larger operators, your chances improve - size draws scrutiny, and you are not sailing close to the financial margins all the time. A 3-aircraft outfit with KAs and Citations - less so, margins are tighter, and the incentive to cut corners greater - if it works, you make money, if it doesn't, you 'only' lose the AOC of a small operator and can rebuild elsewhere.
Not tarring everyone with the same brush - I am talking probability here. Both when it comes to choosing the cheap illegal over the more expensive AOC charter, and choosing a larger operator over a smaller operator. There are no guarantees - but if in doubt, use audited operators - Wyvern/ARGUS - then at least you know someone independent has had a look.
The idea that auditing and procedures only generate paper and puts the crews under pressure.... well, if you take it as a paperwork exercise, that's what you get. If you take it as a genuine chance to improve (and get your CEO onboard that wagon) - guess what, that's what you get. It's what you make of it, and it sure as hell ain't going away, so moaning about it says more about the operator than it says about the system.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HD, in my opinion it doesn't really make much difference as there was plenty of opinion expressed when these laws were made, none of it listened to. Big business rules the legislators it would seem, the hard working pilots like yourself reduced to legal challenges if they stand any chance of changing things
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part NCC is only a licence to print money for management firms. It has no bearing on safety. The small guys and one man bands will just fiddle duty hours, as will private owners.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for the record:
we try hard to adhere to the duty times set forth in German air law in our PRIVATE ops. That is self protection - and I have to say, the last 9 years I´m with my current employer I have NEVER had any pressure on me at all. When we say "No" they will ask why and thus far, always have accepted what we explained to them. And they have asked others on their opinion on our view, so they are not just believing what we say. Still, no pressure yet.
What will be an issue is all the paperwork that needs to be done NOW. Where do I find the time to do that ?
we try hard to adhere to the duty times set forth in German air law in our PRIVATE ops. That is self protection - and I have to say, the last 9 years I´m with my current employer I have NEVER had any pressure on me at all. When we say "No" they will ask why and thus far, always have accepted what we explained to them. And they have asked others on their opinion on our view, so they are not just believing what we say. Still, no pressure yet.
What will be an issue is all the paperwork that needs to be done NOW. Where do I find the time to do that ?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea that auditing and procedures only generate paper and puts the crews under pressure.... well, if you take it as a paperwork exercise, that's what you get. If you take it as a genuine chance to improve (and get your CEO onboard that wagon) - guess what, that's what you get. It's what you make of it, and it sure as hell ain't going away, so moaning about it says more about the operator than it says about the system.
The largest ops I ever worked for was a 16 pilots outfit. The SMS did nothing good there IMHO.
However, starting on Aug 26th I´ll find out about the wonders of NCC. I guess, as it was when I transited from German Air Law to JAR-OPS in 2000, not much will change, but more paper will be written on.
Last from me on the subject: WHERE are the accidents, especially above 5,7 tons / multiengine tons / private ops ? Where ?
We have a fight with the lower German Air Authority about our airport, where an airline operates 4 daily flights with Do328 and about 12 Jets above 5,7 are stationed. The only accident we had was an overrun by a COMMERCIALLY operated Do328, yet the authority uses THIS EXMPLE to make US train more and the access to the airport generally harder.
No bloody sense in that.
