Sharing of AoC's ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharing of AoC's ?
I know that a few years ago CASA regulated that there would no longer be any "Sharing of AoC's", but how are they enforcing it ?
Surely as in ALL legalities, there are loopholes. One that springs to mind is:
"XXX got the job....couldn't do it, so offloaded it to YYY, who are doing it for us. Sure the client pays XXX, but that is only to save on paperwork for the client"
Seriously...CAN CASA stop this from happening ?
Another point, that someone pointed out to me, is " can a pilot who works full-time for one company work for another company if his original company loses its AoC, without resigning ?"
Surely as in ALL legalities, there are loopholes. One that springs to mind is:
"XXX got the job....couldn't do it, so offloaded it to YYY, who are doing it for us. Sure the client pays XXX, but that is only to save on paperwork for the client"
Seriously...CAN CASA stop this from happening ?
Another point, that someone pointed out to me, is " can a pilot who works full-time for one company work for another company if his original company loses its AoC, without resigning ?"
Guest
Posts: n/a
No doubt in the past this has been and was an acceptable practise.That is until the likes of a certain norfolk island operator and a sydney seaplane operator happened onto the scene with disarterous results.
These cocmpanies were denied the privledge of an AoC for good reason but were able to continue flying under another companies banner.
It would appear that the practise of assuming someone elses AoC just to get the job done is alive and well in the sydney basin.
A charter operator without a certified chief pilot is flying on a regular basis in turbine aircraft.
how long can we let this continue? how many lives are we willing to put at risk?
No AoC ! No fly ! No further correspondence !
Its the only way.
These cocmpanies were denied the privledge of an AoC for good reason but were able to continue flying under another companies banner.
It would appear that the practise of assuming someone elses AoC just to get the job done is alive and well in the sydney basin.
A charter operator without a certified chief pilot is flying on a regular basis in turbine aircraft.
how long can we let this continue? how many lives are we willing to put at risk?
No AoC ! No fly ! No further correspondence !
Its the only way.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: North son, I say go North..........
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aaaaaa Haaaa,
Dive into the lovely CAO's and you will see that it is actually legal to borrow an AOC. This is subject to approval from CASA.
So if operator A wants to use operator B's AOC to operate his aircraft and staff then CASA can issue an approval.
The main reason I can see that the whole borrowed AOC issue came to life was to stop operator A from operating if he lost his AOC for a legit reason. Sorta takes the mickey out of CASA if operator gets shut down and starts operating the next day under a different umberella........... Quite frankly I support lose and AOC - then as Cornilia would say - You ARE THE WEAKEST LINK GOODBYE.
Dive into the lovely CAO's and you will see that it is actually legal to borrow an AOC. This is subject to approval from CASA.
So if operator A wants to use operator B's AOC to operate his aircraft and staff then CASA can issue an approval.
The main reason I can see that the whole borrowed AOC issue came to life was to stop operator A from operating if he lost his AOC for a legit reason. Sorta takes the mickey out of CASA if operator gets shut down and starts operating the next day under a different umberella........... Quite frankly I support lose and AOC - then as Cornilia would say - You ARE THE WEAKEST LINK GOODBYE.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: North son, I say go North..........
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apache,
As I read it under Borrowed Aoc yes you would have to resign or be sacked. If you worked for X and they lost their AOC, if you were still employed by them and Y wanted to give you a job the Y would need permission from CASA unless you quit.....
HA
As I read it under Borrowed Aoc yes you would have to resign or be sacked. If you worked for X and they lost their AOC, if you were still employed by them and Y wanted to give you a job the Y would need permission from CASA unless you quit.....
HA
Another thought for those thinking of lending their AOC to someone else.
If company A lends their AOC to company B and B then loses an aircraft with loss of life then A could well find themslves in court being sued by family of deceased!
If company A lends their AOC to company B and B then loses an aircraft with loss of life then A could well find themslves in court being sued by family of deceased!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another wrinkle on this dubious practise.
Scenario:
A large company after employing a consultant to advise on their aviation responsibilities and liabilities, tenders for and after an audit contracts with Charter company "A" for the provision of a 19 pax SFAR23 two crew turboprop type aircraft on a regular weekly basis for the transport of staff to and from their site.
Charter company "A" for opportunistic reasons, sends their 19 pax aircraft off on another task and in turn contracts the use of Charter company "B" and Charter company "C"'s single pilot FAR23 turboprop to fulfil their obligations. The pax and possibly the charterer are unaware of the type or operational differences.
One of the sub chartered aircraft crashes with no survivors.
Have been any regulatory transgresions?
What are the liabilities that fall on Charter companies "A, B & C"?
Does the Charterer and the passengers estates either jointly or severally or individually have a case for damage against Charter companies "A, B & C"?
Is it incumbent on Charter Companys "B & C" to enquire behind the request for the job, ie. to reveal under what terms and conditions was the original job undertaken by "A"?
Does the insurer of each of the Charter companies have an action against them or able to refuse to pay and what grounds are possible? If in fact it is not the same insurer.
It goes on.
Complicated? I don't think so, but I'd be interested to now what you think?
Scenario:
A large company after employing a consultant to advise on their aviation responsibilities and liabilities, tenders for and after an audit contracts with Charter company "A" for the provision of a 19 pax SFAR23 two crew turboprop type aircraft on a regular weekly basis for the transport of staff to and from their site.
Charter company "A" for opportunistic reasons, sends their 19 pax aircraft off on another task and in turn contracts the use of Charter company "B" and Charter company "C"'s single pilot FAR23 turboprop to fulfil their obligations. The pax and possibly the charterer are unaware of the type or operational differences.
One of the sub chartered aircraft crashes with no survivors.
Have been any regulatory transgresions?
What are the liabilities that fall on Charter companies "A, B & C"?
Does the Charterer and the passengers estates either jointly or severally or individually have a case for damage against Charter companies "A, B & C"?
Is it incumbent on Charter Companys "B & C" to enquire behind the request for the job, ie. to reveal under what terms and conditions was the original job undertaken by "A"?
Does the insurer of each of the Charter companies have an action against them or able to refuse to pay and what grounds are possible? If in fact it is not the same insurer.
It goes on.
Complicated? I don't think so, but I'd be interested to now what you think?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting points ref the Insurance in case there is an accident. The way I see it, the AIRCRAFT itself (or the CoR holder) has the insurance on loss of life/ damage, and therefore whoever owns the aircraft, would have to make a claim on his / her insurance. IF there was a "borrowed" AoC involved, then I imagine that the comapny who's AoC was being used for the job, would also get sued / hit for damages, and then CASA would have a look at THEIR organisation.
In the case where Comapny "A" got the charter, but has LOST their AoC, and has used Company "B"s AoC in which to do the job, but using "A"s Aircraft, and "A"s pilot, then I would presume that the charter would be illegal, and insurance null and void?
Another quick Question.... Is there an obligation to inform the client / passengers, that although they are PAYING company "A" , that the actual flight is being operated by company "B" ?
I know of some cases where a client absolutley refuses to use company "B" due past experience, then he charters company "A" thinking that he is GETTING company "A", whereas in fact he turns up, and is confronted by a company he is in dispute with/ unhappy with .
With regard to a company that HAS lost its AoC, yet continues to operate and advertise charters, and uses someone elses AoC to do the job.... What view does CASA and the client have on this? and.. IS the insurance still valid ?
All in all, an intersting scenario, I believe, and one which I do not have to worry about... but handy to know should the situation ever arise.
In the case where Comapny "A" got the charter, but has LOST their AoC, and has used Company "B"s AoC in which to do the job, but using "A"s Aircraft, and "A"s pilot, then I would presume that the charter would be illegal, and insurance null and void?
Another quick Question.... Is there an obligation to inform the client / passengers, that although they are PAYING company "A" , that the actual flight is being operated by company "B" ?
I know of some cases where a client absolutley refuses to use company "B" due past experience, then he charters company "A" thinking that he is GETTING company "A", whereas in fact he turns up, and is confronted by a company he is in dispute with/ unhappy with .
With regard to a company that HAS lost its AoC, yet continues to operate and advertise charters, and uses someone elses AoC to do the job.... What view does CASA and the client have on this? and.. IS the insurance still valid ?
All in all, an intersting scenario, I believe, and one which I do not have to worry about... but handy to know should the situation ever arise.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For clarity;
In this case the AOC status of each organisation is not in question.
Each company operated the respective aircraft properly in accordance with their respective Ops Manual and AOC obligations.
The aircraft can not hold the insurance the operating entity does, IT is insured but does not hold 'it'.
It can be expected that the insurer will be obliged to honour their liability obligations provided the company operates in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions.
The question is contractual, who do the charterer and passengers look to for relief and what statutory and civil liability does "A" have and accrue when they "pass it on down the line".
In the context of this scenario, the use of "B + C" by "A" to operate the flight can be resolved into several separate or combination of issues, not confined to the following;
1. a separate or subcontract by "A" with "B + C" each on behalf of the charterer?
2. a separate or subcontract with each without the knowledge/approval of the charterer?
3. What is the effect of there being contractually different classes of operation required other than that they are charter? and is it necessary to advise the charterer?
4. was there an intention for '1' above to be so and if so, can they satisfy '3'.
5. Or were the respective aircraft and pilot belonging to "B + C", hired to operate under "A's" AOC, if so what documentation and approvals are required to legally effect this.
It goes on, I am imterested to hear what the understanding is out there, of this fundamental problem. There are only a couple of landmines here but you only have to step on one.
In this case the AOC status of each organisation is not in question.
Each company operated the respective aircraft properly in accordance with their respective Ops Manual and AOC obligations.
The aircraft can not hold the insurance the operating entity does, IT is insured but does not hold 'it'.
It can be expected that the insurer will be obliged to honour their liability obligations provided the company operates in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions.
The question is contractual, who do the charterer and passengers look to for relief and what statutory and civil liability does "A" have and accrue when they "pass it on down the line".
In the context of this scenario, the use of "B + C" by "A" to operate the flight can be resolved into several separate or combination of issues, not confined to the following;
1. a separate or subcontract by "A" with "B + C" each on behalf of the charterer?
2. a separate or subcontract with each without the knowledge/approval of the charterer?
3. What is the effect of there being contractually different classes of operation required other than that they are charter? and is it necessary to advise the charterer?
4. was there an intention for '1' above to be so and if so, can they satisfy '3'.
5. Or were the respective aircraft and pilot belonging to "B + C", hired to operate under "A's" AOC, if so what documentation and approvals are required to legally effect this.
It goes on, I am imterested to hear what the understanding is out there, of this fundamental problem. There are only a couple of landmines here but you only have to step on one.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Usually Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty,
I would suggest that it really comes back to the operator/carrier as the final stop in the liability process. Book a seat from Sydney to Chicago with Qantas. Change carriers at KLAX and travel on with a non-code share carrier for instance. Any grief along the way will fall to the relevant carrier even though the ticket is issued by Qantas. Any legal action against Qantas for an error by American carriers would simply be passed on. Viz.
http://www.qantas.com.au/flights/essentials/insur.html
Comprehensive passenger liability insurance is in place for passengers on all flights operated by Qantas or flights operated by our codeshare partners which have a QF flight number.
If Qantas or a travel agent on its behalf has issued a ticket for another carrier's flight (ie with a flight number other than QF), Qantas has done so only as agent for that carrier and does not represent or warrant that the carrier has appropriate insurance coverage. Inquiries concerning insurance coverage on these carriers should be directed to the applicable carrier.
Duty of care is the responsibility of the carrier, not the agency responsible for organizing the travel whether that agent be another charter company, a travel agent or some government clerk responsible for booking a fellow employee onto a charter flight. Unless of course, the agent was knowingly aware of an impediment detrimental to the safety of the others operation – then he has a duty of care to report to the authorities accordingly and not use their services. Agents would make the booking in good faith knowing that the carrier was CASA approved and operating in compliance with the regulations.
As for a difference between FAR 23 and SFAR 23, I wouldn’t like my life to be hanging on the improvements of the latter. Surprisingly many aircraft operating in Australia today were certified under CAR 3 (C402, PA31-350, C90). CAR3 was replaced by FAR23 in the mid-sixties and has been progressively amended since. SFAR 23 was an interim stopgap in 1969 foreshadowing commuter operations (ten or more passengers) and survived until FAR 135 Appendix A was ratified in 1970. The DHC6 in 20pax configuration is a SFAR23 aircraft.
Interestingly a SFAR23 aircraft need only demonstrate a first segment climb performance capability to ‘maintain flight at or above V1 in ground effect’. I don’t find that reassuring. At least in a CAR3 aircraft below blue line I can close the throttle and take my chances ahead – just like a single; not drift for another few miles with crossed fingers and indecision until I take out a power line!
Present commuter category aircraft certified to FAR 23 amdt 34 (B350, B1900D) provide more stringent compliance with engine out performance criteria. As I understand CAO 20.7.1b relies upon ICAO Annex 8 to the Chicago Convention. Some aircraft certified under FAR 23 + FAR 135 Appendix A + SFAR 41 do not comply with ICAO Annex 8 when operated above 5700 kg hence the limitation endorsed on the CofA. But I digress.
The issue of duty of care really comes back to the person with the influence to alter or improve a particular situation. If such a decision was tested in a civil court then one may expect that the onus of proof would be on the ‘balance of probabilities’. Since common law would prevail arguments would be based upon precedence and not any statutory rule. The liability of the carrier goes back to early maritime law and old case histories could lead anywhere.
(Edited to correct reference to FAR 135)
[ 03 December 2001: Message edited by: dragchute ]
I would suggest that it really comes back to the operator/carrier as the final stop in the liability process. Book a seat from Sydney to Chicago with Qantas. Change carriers at KLAX and travel on with a non-code share carrier for instance. Any grief along the way will fall to the relevant carrier even though the ticket is issued by Qantas. Any legal action against Qantas for an error by American carriers would simply be passed on. Viz.
http://www.qantas.com.au/flights/essentials/insur.html
Comprehensive passenger liability insurance is in place for passengers on all flights operated by Qantas or flights operated by our codeshare partners which have a QF flight number.
If Qantas or a travel agent on its behalf has issued a ticket for another carrier's flight (ie with a flight number other than QF), Qantas has done so only as agent for that carrier and does not represent or warrant that the carrier has appropriate insurance coverage. Inquiries concerning insurance coverage on these carriers should be directed to the applicable carrier.
Duty of care is the responsibility of the carrier, not the agency responsible for organizing the travel whether that agent be another charter company, a travel agent or some government clerk responsible for booking a fellow employee onto a charter flight. Unless of course, the agent was knowingly aware of an impediment detrimental to the safety of the others operation – then he has a duty of care to report to the authorities accordingly and not use their services. Agents would make the booking in good faith knowing that the carrier was CASA approved and operating in compliance with the regulations.
As for a difference between FAR 23 and SFAR 23, I wouldn’t like my life to be hanging on the improvements of the latter. Surprisingly many aircraft operating in Australia today were certified under CAR 3 (C402, PA31-350, C90). CAR3 was replaced by FAR23 in the mid-sixties and has been progressively amended since. SFAR 23 was an interim stopgap in 1969 foreshadowing commuter operations (ten or more passengers) and survived until FAR 135 Appendix A was ratified in 1970. The DHC6 in 20pax configuration is a SFAR23 aircraft.
Interestingly a SFAR23 aircraft need only demonstrate a first segment climb performance capability to ‘maintain flight at or above V1 in ground effect’. I don’t find that reassuring. At least in a CAR3 aircraft below blue line I can close the throttle and take my chances ahead – just like a single; not drift for another few miles with crossed fingers and indecision until I take out a power line!
Present commuter category aircraft certified to FAR 23 amdt 34 (B350, B1900D) provide more stringent compliance with engine out performance criteria. As I understand CAO 20.7.1b relies upon ICAO Annex 8 to the Chicago Convention. Some aircraft certified under FAR 23 + FAR 135 Appendix A + SFAR 41 do not comply with ICAO Annex 8 when operated above 5700 kg hence the limitation endorsed on the CofA. But I digress.
The issue of duty of care really comes back to the person with the influence to alter or improve a particular situation. If such a decision was tested in a civil court then one may expect that the onus of proof would be on the ‘balance of probabilities’. Since common law would prevail arguments would be based upon precedence and not any statutory rule. The liability of the carrier goes back to early maritime law and old case histories could lead anywhere.
(Edited to correct reference to FAR 135)
[ 03 December 2001: Message edited by: dragchute ]
Gaunty,
Don't you know about the Air Carrier Liability Act. That renders this whole discussion re: insurance moot.
Pray tell, what is the regulation that prevenys a pilot from working for as many AOC holders as he wants to ( Chief Pilots excepted).
Tooltle pip,chaps.
Don't you know about the Air Carrier Liability Act. That renders this whole discussion re: insurance moot.
Pray tell, what is the regulation that prevenys a pilot from working for as many AOC holders as he wants to ( Chief Pilots excepted).
Tooltle pip,chaps.
