Biggin Air Crash
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggin Air Crash
I am curious about the Biggin Air Crash. How does a Bermuda(?) registered aircraft not owned by any of the passengers come to be doing what seems to be a charter flight?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you could continue the on-going converstaion on the Biz-Jet forum - although it does make you sound grand here in Private Flying...
Are you sure that:
a) None of the passengers had any ownership of the aircraft?
b) Doing charter work (if it was) on a Bermudan registered aircraft in the UK is illegal? I've seen lots of foreign registered aircraft at airports taking non-owner passengers for a trip.
Just curious....
Are you sure that:
a) None of the passengers had any ownership of the aircraft?
b) Doing charter work (if it was) on a Bermudan registered aircraft in the UK is illegal? I've seen lots of foreign registered aircraft at airports taking non-owner passengers for a trip.
Just curious....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry you have misunderstood me, I am asking a genuine question based on what I have read from various sources which is why I am confused.
Nothing to do with sounding grand. I am asking this as a Private flyer 'just curious' about how this seems to have worked.
Nothing to do with sounding grand. I am asking this as a Private flyer 'just curious' about how this seems to have worked.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its called a sub-lease, fractional ownership, block hours call it what you like - one of the passengers should of had an agreement with the legal entity that owned the aircraft and that agreement would have stated the vested interest that person had.. be it a shareholding or a private utilisation agreement, either way if the paperwork was correct then it would be a private flight and not PT
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Warwick
Age: 42
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a similar debate running in the Rotorheads forum about the future of AOC operations for the rotary world.
Seems a lot of people are pretty hacked off with the extra red tape involved in running a PT operation (and thus needing an AOC)... and wondering what, if anything, the CAA/EASA plans to do about the amount of leasing / sub leasing / fractional stuff thats going on!
Watch this space over the next year or so - I would imagine they shall have to do something.
Seems a lot of people are pretty hacked off with the extra red tape involved in running a PT operation (and thus needing an AOC)... and wondering what, if anything, the CAA/EASA plans to do about the amount of leasing / sub leasing / fractional stuff thats going on!
Watch this space over the next year or so - I would imagine they shall have to do something.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair I think there is quite a difference between someone who owns a 'share' (be it an actual share, a beneficial interest, or a use interest) and just some punter who has chartered an aircraft. The later certainly has no understanding of this difference between a public and a private flight and rightly should expect that the service is provided to public transport standards, whereas the former (like most of us) should understand the difference.
I believe you can't do a fractional ownership programme (i.e. Netjets) under a typical JAR country's regulations and that NetJets registers the Euro aircraft in Portugal because the Portuguese have specific regs copied from the FAR that enable this.
I believe you can't do a fractional ownership programme (i.e. Netjets) under a typical JAR country's regulations and that NetJets registers the Euro aircraft in Portugal because the Portuguese have specific regs copied from the FAR that enable this.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, but if one (or more) of the passengers have arranged and paid for the supply of the plane, and the pilots were just a hired crew to fly it, the flight is legal and that's the end of it.
A lot of people (AOC holders
) don't like this but that's the way it works here, and more importantly that's the way it works under FAA rules which is what the vast majority of the world's aviation runs under, and bizjets do fly internationally.
A lot of people don't like this mode of operation because they have had to spend a load of money getting an AOC so they can carry four golfers with their gear from A to B in a clapped out old Seneca, making £300 on the flight, whereas a whole parallel universe of multi-million bizjets, hired crews incl cabin staff in nice short skirts, high net worth customers, etc, exists alongside, and they don't need an AOC because somebody on board supplied the plane for the pilots to fly.
Like with N-reg (for/against) one can spot the axe grinders from 1nm away
Fractional ownerships are legal in an N-reg.
Why Netjets went to Euro reg I don't know. Perhaps somebody told them they would be hit with some under the table sanctions if they used N-reg planes. Or maybe some aspect of their operation would be prohibited under the likes of article 140.
The precise expectation of safety on the part of the passengers is a separate matter, and will always be open to opinion. IMHO only a mug would expect a 747 safety level. It gets even more interesting when one extends the passenger safety argument to GA - one quickly arrives at a total ban on PPLs carrying passengers.
Only an industry expert will know that the actual safely level is in fact pretty close to a large transport jet, but the issue is clouded by the varying routes flown at short notice. If you picked the average BA ATP and got him to fly his 747 to a different place every night, any opinions on whether the operation would be as safe?
A lot of people (AOC holders
) don't like this but that's the way it works here, and more importantly that's the way it works under FAA rules which is what the vast majority of the world's aviation runs under, and bizjets do fly internationally.A lot of people don't like this mode of operation because they have had to spend a load of money getting an AOC so they can carry four golfers with their gear from A to B in a clapped out old Seneca, making £300 on the flight, whereas a whole parallel universe of multi-million bizjets, hired crews incl cabin staff in nice short skirts, high net worth customers, etc, exists alongside, and they don't need an AOC because somebody on board supplied the plane for the pilots to fly.
Like with N-reg (for/against) one can spot the axe grinders from 1nm away
Fractional ownerships are legal in an N-reg.
Why Netjets went to Euro reg I don't know. Perhaps somebody told them they would be hit with some under the table sanctions if they used N-reg planes. Or maybe some aspect of their operation would be prohibited under the likes of article 140.
The precise expectation of safety on the part of the passengers is a separate matter, and will always be open to opinion. IMHO only a mug would expect a 747 safety level. It gets even more interesting when one extends the passenger safety argument to GA - one quickly arrives at a total ban on PPLs carrying passengers.
Only an industry expert will know that the actual safely level is in fact pretty close to a large transport jet, but the issue is clouded by the varying routes flown at short notice. If you picked the average BA ATP and got him to fly his 747 to a different place every night, any opinions on whether the operation would be as safe?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
Why Netjets went to Euro reg I don't know. Perhaps somebody told them they would be hit with some under the table sanctions if they used N-reg planes. Or maybe some aspect of their operation would be prohibited under the likes of article 140.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, but if one (or more) of the passengers have arranged and paid for the supply of the plane, and the pilots were just a hired crew to fly it, the flight is legal and that's the end of it.
You can not fly a C172 (or Citation) from A to B and have the sole passenger pay all the costs of the flight to the club (company) it is hired from while claiming that it is not public transport. It simply flies in the face of all the rules regarding public transport, cost sharing etc.
Never forget that in the case of a Private flight then Pilot is the operator and has all the responsibilities that go with that.
Hiring an aircraft from an organisation or individual does not confer ownership rights. Agreeing to pay for a certain number of hours on the aircraft does not confer ownership.
In order to claim that one is the "owner" of the aircraft then one must have title to the aircraft......it could be for a limited time but it must be legally completed...........not just a hire agreement - eg you do not own a hire car when you hire it.
Many aircraft assets are owned by companies or trusts. Thus no physical person owns the aircraft. The ownership rests in the company - a separate legal entity.
All of these "schemes" are rubbish. They are simply ways to justify to people how the operation is carried out and to try an claim that it is legal.
The CAA issue very clear explanations of Public Transport. Those explanations are not limited to certain aircraft classs or types not to certain licence holders.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From previous debate, FAA law and European practice say, if the punter legitimately sources an aircraft (buys, leases, rents, borrows) and then has his hired help fly the plane this isn't public transport.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll take you up on that , back in a few weeks. 'bout time you came to LA to hang out with Rock Stars with guns and dodgey women with me and the other one isn't it
, back in a few weeks. 'bout time you came to LA to hang out with Rock Stars with guns and dodgey women with me and the other one isn't it
