FAA outlaws sharing of charter licenses

[heywatchthis]

Federal aviation officials are cracking down on charter jet operators who lease their certificates to other companies so those companies can operate as air carriers.

The action comes in the aftermath of a Feb. 2 crash at Teterboro Airport in which a chartered Bombardier Challenger 600 failed to take off and barreled across Route 46 before slamming into a clothing warehouse.

​

The Federal Aviation Administration has said that the flight's operator, Platinum Jet of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., did not have a certificate to run charter flights and, therefore, didn't comply with a lengthy list of FAA training, maintenance and drug-screening requirements.

Instead, Platinum Jet paid a company that was certified for charter flights, Alabama-based Darby Aviation, $2,000 a month to use that company's certificate.

The FAA said in a memo dated last week that such practices appear to be more widespread than the Darby-Platinum deal. The agency has instructed its flight operations inspectors to make sure charter jet and air taxi companies are following the rules.

"This tells them very specifically - a [charter flight] operator cannot lend out its license for a fee," FAA spokesman Jim Peters said.

An attorney for Platinum Jet, however, said the FAA is simply rewriting rules that for years have allowed charter jet companies to bring non-certified jet owners and other companies under their certificates.

As long as companies like Darby Aviation could show that they ultimately gave the green light on charter flights by other companies, FAA inspectors have given clearance for those companies to operate such flights, said Michael Moulis, Platinum Jet's attorney and a former FAA prosecutor.

FAA inspectors in Birmingham, Ala., have testified that they were aware of the arrangement between Platinum Jet and Darby Aviation, court records show.

"They just changed the law because of this accident," Moulis said.

Shortly after the Feb. 2 crash, the FAA grounded Platinum Jet and revoked Darby Aviation's charter certificate. Platinum Jet has since agreed not to operate charter fights or other on-demand service, Moulis said. The National Transportation Safety Board upheld the FAA's revocation of Darby's charter certificate, overturning an administrative judge's opinion that Darby was not at fault in the Feb. 2 crash and, therefore, did not act unlawfully.

In the memo sent late last week to FAA operations inspectors, the agency said that charter jet companies must have "operational control" over any flights that take off under their certificates.

In the Darby-Platinum case, for example, FAA officials have testified before the safety board that Platinum maintained pilot training records, drug-testing records and aircraft maintenance records. Darby, on the other hand, could produce only scant records, the FAA has said.

The agency also found no evidence that Darby had reviewed training and qualifications of Platinum employees who were maintaining the aircraft.

It's unclear how many charter companies the FAA's policy clarification will affect. The memo did not address the scope of the problem.

But Moulis said arrangements like the one between Platinum and Darby are common.

"Everybody's doing this," he said. "Just because we had a crash, they get into this frenzy."

The NTSB has not ruled on what caused the Feb. 2 crash at Teterboro, which injured 20 people, including two people in a car struck by the jet.

The safety board, however, has said that the 40,000-pound jet was carrying too much weight in front, possibly limiting its ability to take off.

 

[Duderino]

To much weight in front my a$$. What a crock. This is a problem that Bombardier has known about and has covered up us much as possible. That particular airplane did have a forward CG, but as much as 370 flew, it would have had similiar problems prior. I have heard all kinds of excuses falling in the lap of the pilots and Platinum, from a freaking headset jack falling into the crack between the yoke and the floor, to frost on the wings. BS, Bull $hit. There have been several incidents similiar to this not involved with frost or ice, and have been kept quite. I would like to see Bombardier start to take some credit here.

I actually do find this new law to be some what of a relief. It always seemed like a loop whole that people were taking advantage of to much, with the FAA knowing about it.

So how will this affect the Part 91 companies that want to be on a charter companies certificate to pick up a revenue trip here or there?

 

[Capt1124]

This will be earth shaking for the charter industry. Assuming the lawyers aren't able to get around it- which I think they will. That's what people like Moulis do, keep the scumbags flying.

Duderino, what's the deal with the Challenger? It's one of my boss's fantasy airplanes, and who knows someday he might actually come up with the money for one. I know his girlfriend wants a bigger plane

 

[AerroMatt]

Back in 2002, Sen Paul Wellstone of MN died in a KA200 while on approach to a small airport in northern NM. The operator (Executive Beech) did NOT have their own certificate... they leased their 135 from Raytheon. I wonder if they have their own now, or will they be put out of business also?

 

[CorpLearDriver]

So how will this affect the Part 91 companies that want to be on a charter companies certificate to pick up a revenue trip here or there?

My guess is it will work alright as long as the certificate holder actually does maintain operational control and all the crew members and mechanics meet the training, drug testing and other requirements and of course, they have the records to prove it.

 

[Spooky 1]

This is a BIG DEAL

Spoke with a good friend this morning about this very subject. He says that the FSDO's at Teterboro and Calsbad, Calif. have decided to interpert this language in such a way that it in fact does not allow for certificate riders on a master 135 certificate. i.e., The Air Group, TAG Aviation, and Jet Aviation to name but a few would not be able to have privately owned aircraft use their Part 135 certificates for charter ops. Jet Aviation in Teterboro is on the tip of this sword and will feel the loss of lift almost immedeately if this is not over turned. Both the NATA and NBAA are, or have filed law suits to stop this ruling.

I suppose you could look at the NetJets debacle and say that in all likelyhood they would never have access to the required lift that they would need to overcome a strike by their pilots. On the other hand existing owners may wish to put their aircraft in a management firms hands in total, so as to accomplish the financial gains (taxes, depreciation etc.) that would come with operating on a certificate.

Lots of potential disruptions in the norm are just around the corner if the NBAA and NTAA cannot prevail in court.

 

[CorpLearDriver]

Spoke with a good friend this morning about this very subject. He says that the FSDO's at Teterboro and Calsbad, Calif. have decided to interpert this language in such a way that it in fact does not allow for certificate riders on a master 135 certificate. i.e., The Air Group, TAG Aviation, and Jet Aviation to name but a few would not be able to have privately owned aircraft use their Part 135 certificates for charter ops. Jet Aviation in Teterboro is on the tip of this sword and will feel the loss of lift almost immedeately if this is not over turned. Both the NATA and NBAA are, or have filed law suits to stop this ruling.

Lots of potential disruptions in the norm are just around the corner if the NBAA and NTAA cannot prevail in court.

Are you saying is these two FSDOs (BTW, unless it has changed in the last few years, I believe the San Diego FSDO is at KMYF not KCRQ) would not allow someone who owns and airplane to put it on an operator's 135 certificate with that operator (not the owner) having operational control, oversight of pilot training, etc?

The problem I see was that the certificate holder was leasing out their authorization to the certificate leasees of the aircraft and then did not exercise positive operational control after that. The operator, not the certificate leasee, needs to know where the airplane is, who's flying it, what their duty/rest time is and so forth. They are the ones who are ultimately responsible.

If I were an owner and had an agreement or lease my airplane to the certificate holder and then had my crew trained under their training program and I followed protocol of telling the operator when I wanted to use my airplane, then they schedule it and take care of flight following and all the other details, then this should satisfy the rule.

I may have read your statement wrong and this may be what you are saying that owner are planning on doing already. You're correct though, either way there will be a lot of disruptions. Personally, I myself would not put my airplane on an operators certificate unless he is THE certificate holder. Of course, that is just my own preference.

 

[iflyabeech]

I work for a large company that has many DBA's. I heard that they are not allowing any new DBA's at this time. . .My company takes care of training, operational controls, pilot records and just about everything else 135, just like any other company. And they do a good job.

 

[Buckeye]

I wonder if this will affect EJM?

 

[aeronautic1]

LifeGuard

Hopefully a few of the air ambulance shills will be forced to hire someone to write their own certificate? Provide better maintenance? Adhere to the 14/10 rule? I know for a fact that the certificate holder of the company I used to work for had NO IDEA what our DBA was doing when we launched.

I think this a GOOD THING. Just look at American Air Network and the MULTITUDE of DBAs listed on that certificate. However, the practice has been so pervasive that the Feds may not be able to put the genie back into the bottle with the limited manpower it has.

No, the certificate holder needs to go back to basics. Operational control. Proper flight planning. Weight and balance. Crew duty times. Maintaining squawks and maintenace records. You know, do the job that the regs say they must do.

And pilots need to be aware of the limitations of the aircraft they fly... and themselves.