Dot Com call sign??

[GuppyWN]

Happy thanksgiving Gup.

Now, try to imagine another world where you need to actually file a real flight plan, not a company PDC product, out there in the real world you need to provide tail numbers.

Geesh....

No need to bust my balls! It's all good. I never filed flights plans back in the unit.

Gup

 

[hou757]

I heard from a friend of a friend of a friend that it is some company that corporate uses to keep their tail numbers out of public view, or public ear in this case. They file your flight plan under a dot com call sign for a fee. They make money and the corporation is on the down low.

This is correct!

 

[blesko]

Uh...... when's the last time you saw a tail number on one of our PDC's or flight plans?

Gup

Its always in the remarks section of the flight plan. It's used for the data block for ATC. Fltplan runs a subscription service that blocks the tail number from websites such as flightaware and flightdata, etc in response to BARR. This was recently upheld, thank God, and we'll be able to keep the aircraft tail numbers confidential within the corporate community.

 

[RogerMOSA]

Who's "Redstripe?". Every time I hear them my inner monologue is saying
"Hooray Beer."

 

[BoilerUP]

Who's "Redstripe?".

http://jetsuite.com/

Look at the livery and you'll see where they get their name from.

 

[BOX OFFICE]

Some-one asked that the other day on ATC, the pilot said they were a charter op mainly used by some hot-shot realtor outfit in the south.

I saw a Pilatus with a dot.com callsign land at a major Northeastern airport recently.

 

[pair_of_pratts]

The "Dot Com" solution is a good one to get around the whole BARR thing. However, now the problem is at least one FSDO dude is going after part 91 flights that are using call signs instead of the tail number and threatening huge fines.

 

[BoilerUP]

However, now the problem is at least one FSDO dude is going after part 91 flights that are using call signs instead of the tail number and threatening huge fines.

Which FSDO?

There's always (at least) one clueless ASI on a pointless crusade.

Such a stupid violation would never stand at appeal.

 

[dustrpilot]

The FAA has hired so many people in the last couple of years, and changed from the " kinder, gentler" FAA, to an enforcement agency, that the percentage of tools working there has had to increase. Thanks Babbitt.

 

[Nevets]

The "Dot Com" solution is a good one to get around the whole BARR thing. However, now the problem is at least one FSDO dude is going after part 91 flights that are using call signs instead of the tail number and threatening huge fines.

Why? You don't need to be part 121/125/135 to be approved to use an ATC call sign.