Illegal charter

[avbug]

That sounds good from an FAA public-relations standpoint, but in fact they haven't been "prosecuting" this at all. It goes on blatantly today, perpetrated by aircraft operators the FAA has known about for years. I can recall no major prosecutions or civil penalties levied against non-certificate holding private aircraft owners for flying pseudo-charters.

Apparently you missed Platinum Jet and that minor little ten million dollar TAG operational control debacle.

 

[CitationUltra]

Apparently you missed Platinum Jet and that minor little ten million dollar TAG operational control debacle.

Those were cases of involving operational control issues in FAR 135 carriers--a different issue entirely.

 

[gret]

Both TAG and Platinum were found to be operating as uncertificated air carriers by the FAA and fined accordingly. They were operating charters illegally.

 

[CitationUltra]

Both TAG and Platinum were found to be operating as uncertificated air carriers by the FAA and fined accordingly. They were operating charters illegally.

I know, but what I am referring to is aircraft owners who are not even pretending to be charter companies, but are conducting flights for their country-club friends and fraternity brothers, basically for hire, but without making any pretense whatsoever of conforming to commercial air carrier regulations. This is an even more pervasive problem than the TAG and Platinum cases, where the entities were actually holding out as commercial carriers.

 

[gret]

Not sure what the difference is, but you are probably right in that the number of violations is much greater.

Some very big dollars though are with large publicly held companies that pay millions to the CEO for the use of te CEO's a/c when on business and the a/c isn't on a certificate. This information is easily obtained through their annual reports and SEC filings.

 

[McNugget]

Apparently you missed Platinum Jet and that minor little ten million dollar TAG operational control debacle.

Sure, but we didn't miss your company's pilots destroying TWO airplanes. Maybe you should be studying: V1= GO!.....Land on farmhouse= BAD!

 

[avbug]

The intelligence must have run from your ears one morning and never come back...this is a thread about illegal charter, you see.

Work on the comprehension skills, and get back to us.

As for mishaps under investigation, perhaps you're unprofessional enough to make unfounded, idiotic statements regarding what happened, but fortunately for those involved, most of us have the respect and fortitude to wait for official findings.

That said, the individuals who elected to put the airplane down when it clearly would not fly did so by avoiding populated areas and seeking the darkest, clearly least populated area they could find. Word is that the government of that country is considering awarding the crew medals for what they did...so you might try treading lightly in your ignorance.

 

[McNugget]

I would rather ride on an "illegal charter", than on one of your company's airplanes.

 

[CitationUltra]

Not sure what the difference is, but you are probably right in that the number of violations is much greater.

Some very big dollars though are with large publicly held companies that pay millions to the CEO for the use of te CEO's a/c when on business and the a/c isn't on a certificate. This information is easily obtained through their annual reports and SEC filings.

I agree, and whereas it may seem like a minor or negligible difference, the TAG and Platinum cases involved charter companies that were holding out to the public as such, whereas the customer would not necessarily know that these companies were not properly certificate. The even more egregious phenomenon is the "134" operator that is below the radar and flying people who might (nay, probably) would otherwise be customers for legitimately-certificated air carriers.

 

[avbug]

I would rather ride on an "illegal charter", than on one of your company's airplanes.

Quite alright. You'll never get the chance.

You'll apparently never have anything to contribute to this thread, either......no surprises there.

--Out of curiosity, I checked back ten pages of mcnugget's posts, and didn't find a single meaningful contribution to any thread, before getting too bored to go on. Just one of the mindless trolls for which (unfortunately) flightinfo is well known. Now seems like a good time to put him on the "Ignore" list.

 

[McNugget]

Thanks for the background check, avbug. I bet, if I looked back at every one of your 6528 useless, droning posts, I wouldn't fine one shred of evidence that you are qualified to back-up any of your statements. Anybody can use Google and wikipedia.

You're right, I won't get the chance, because you can't take passengers with you on Microsoft Flight Simulator. I can just see you there, in front of your homemade simulator, with your crash helmet on.

Go ahead and ignore me, chicken$hit. You just can't stand that once again, someone calls you out for being a fraud.

 

[puddlejumper]

Well, that's a first for me. Seems to work well though...

McNugget This message is hidden because McNugget is on your ignore list.

 

[McNugget]

Score!

 

[gret]

FAA Subpoena Seeks Info from Sentient Leaders[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The FAA on August 12 issued subpoenas seeking documents from Sentient Jet Holdings and executives at the charter/management, jet card and business aviation services company. Sentient Jet announced on Wednesday that it is splitting into two companies, along the same basic lines as it was before Sentient and JetDirect merged last April. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No information was available by press time as to the content of the subpoenas, although AIN has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FAA. The FAA would not comment on whether the subpoenas have anything to do with Sentient’s purchase late last year of the assets of TAG Aviation USA (including assets belonging to AMI Jet Charter). At about the same time, TAG Aviation Holding agreed to pay the FAA a record (and case-closing) $10 million civil penalty, the reason for which has never been adequately explained by the FAA. A Sentient official told AIN that “we intend to comply fully” with the FAA subpoenas. TAG Holding has no equity position in Sentient Jet Holdings. “It’s FAA policy neither to confirm nor deny we’re conducting any investigation,” an agency spokesman told AIN. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Quick question:

Let's say I were to take a hooker up in a 150 and were "holding out" my member for some servicing. After we land, she decides that the airplane ride was so enjoyable that the hummer is a freebie.

Does this constitute illegal charter?

 

[TransMach]

Thanks for the background check, avbug. I bet, if I looked back at every one of your 6528 useless, droning posts, I wouldn't fine one shred of evidence that you are qualified to back-up any of your statements. Anybody can use Google and wikipedia.

You're right, I won't get the chance, because you can't take passengers with you on Microsoft Flight Simulator. I can just see you there, in front of your homemade simulator, with your crash helmet on.

Go ahead and ignore me, chicken$hit. You just can't stand that once again, someone calls you out for being a fraud.

You blew that one, buddy. Mike, aka Avbug is the real deal. Flys firefighting stuff , hase done a lot of other things and while I almost never agree with his regulatory diatribes ... he's the real deal and I have his resume on my desk. You, sir are way off base.

TransMach

 

[avbug]

Ah, but are you hiring?

 

[Amish RakeFight]

"....as long as they get the name right."

 

[avbug]

Does this constitute illegal charter?

Did you exceed 25 nautical miles, or land at a point other than the point of departure?

 

[JAFI]

Let's say I were to take a hooker up in a 150

Is the hooker paying for the flight or are you paying for the hooker?

were "holding out" my member for some servicing.

Not sure I even want to go there. But no FAR addresses "holding your member". I'm laughing too hard to type here....

After we land, she decides that the airplane ride was so enjoyable that the hummer is a freebie.

My first thought was "in your dreams"... But your post was more intellegent than the name calling and other childish behavior.


Does this constitute illegal charter?

As Avbug pointed out, it is not a charter if you land at the point of departure with in 25 miles. I think we could call your flight a "Discovery Flight".......

I would really like to use your example in a discussion. I'm just not sure how I can really do that........

JAFI - and I'm still laughing.....

 

[JediNein]

As Avbug pointed out, it is not a charter if you land at the point of departure with in 25 miles. I think we could call your flight a "Discovery Flight".......

There may have been some instruction going on, but probably not flight-related. It sounds more like a "scenic" flight as the hooker was most certainly looking out the window; one "member" tends to look a lot like another no matter who is holding it. Thus the pilot would be subject to a DOT-approved drug testing program and would need a letter of authorization from the local FSDO.

 

[Abernathy]

Everyone, including the local FSDO in the area where I used to teach, knows about a particular 134.5 operator. Used to be out of an airport where half the pilots flew with revoked licenses or had been violated in the past. The FSDO knows, but doesn't have the balls to do anything because...well, I don't exactly know why. They're a useless FSDO but I won't name it here. They're useless because I've had friends who were student pilots get killed from flying out of that airport because of the antics of the local pilots there, including the rentals with forged documents. FSDO still won't look into it, although they obviously know. Everyone else knows.

So I don't believe that they're taking it THAT seriously.

 

[CitationUltra]

Everyone, including the local FSDO in the area where I used to teach, knows about a particular 134.5 operator. Used to be out of an airport where half the pilots flew with revoked licenses or had been violated in the past. The FSDO knows, but doesn't have the balls to do anything because...well, I don't exactly know why. They're a useless FSDO but I won't name it here. They're useless because I've had friends who were student pilots get killed from flying out of that airport because of the antics of the local pilots there, including the rentals with forged documents. FSDO still won't look into it, although they obviously know. Everyone else knows.

So I don't believe that they're taking it THAT seriously.

Each FSDO is individually owned and operated. I know several areas with the same problem, and no action after many years and many incidents. It just depends on which geographic area you are in.

 

[JAFI]

Everyone has to answer to someone. If you have proof of what you say and are getting no satisfaction:

A link to customer feedback that is addressed and recorded continuously:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/qms/


Any of these you’re repetitive? Give them your information. This is a hot topic right now.

http://transportation.house.gov/about.aspx

Or you can just sit back and bitch like the masses……

 

[Princedietrich]

The perception that the FAA knows about these 134-and-a-half operators and refuses to do anything about is a misconception that comes from two sources.

First, despite their jack-booted reputation, the FAA can't just kick the door down and turn the place inside out. They're not cops, so therefore they can't enforce no-knock warrants and shoot the mayor's dog in the process. The system they have to follow, which is a system that is so mired in beaurocratic nonsense that it's nigh impossible to follow and completely impossible to change, dictates that in order to bust an illegal charter operator they have to quite literally catch them in the act. This means they have to be there at the airport and at the FBO when the plane lands, and they have to ramp it right there and then to find the fingers in the cookie jar. They can't do a thing without concrete indisputable proof, otherwise it won't stick and the bandit operator goes right back to doing what it was doing and laughing all the way to the bank. If the US government wasn't the quagmire of beaurocracy that it is, things would happen much faster and much more efficiently. Too bad the system has been built up over the years to prevent just that.

The other source is the one that gets more "airtime" and more recognition, because it damn near proves the myth. There are certain FSDOs out there, and certain inspectors within those FSDOs, who literally just don't care. Their only purpose in life is to show up every day, metabolize oxygen for 8 and a half hours, collect a ridiculous GS14 salary, and count the days until retirement. A plane crash could happen right in front of their faces and they wouldn't bat an eye, maybe at most they'd muster the energy to yawn. I've had to deal with a couple inspectors who fit this description, and believe me when I say the agency will be much better off when these guys are gone.

 

[JAFI]

Everyone has to answer to someone. If you have proof of what you say and are getting no satisfaction:

A link to customer feedback that is addressed and recorded continuously:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/qms/


Any of these you’re repetitive? Give them your information. This is a hot topic right now.

http://transportation.house.gov/about.aspx

Or you can just sit back and bitch like the masses……

Sorry - Representative.... Spell check is only so good....

 

[Way2Broke]

Let's say I were to take a hooker up in a 150

Is the hooker paying for the flight or are you paying for the hooker?

were "holding out" my member for some servicing.

Not sure I even want to go there. But no FAR addresses "holding your member". I'm laughing too hard to type here....

After we land, she decides that the airplane ride was so enjoyable that the hummer is a freebie.

My first thought was "in your dreams"... But your post was more intellegent than the name calling and other childish behavior.


Does this constitute illegal charter?

As Avbug pointed out, it is not a charter if you land at the point of departure with in 25 miles. I think we could call your flight a "Discovery Flight".......

I would really like to use your example in a discussion. I'm just not sure how I can really do that........

JAFI - and I'm still laughing.....

That makes two of us. Great funny post.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

I'll take a little bow, if it was welcomed flame.

 

[Snakum]

It sounds more like a "scenic" flight as the hooker was most certainly looking out the window

Yeah ... the rear window. I ain't paying good money to have someone do something I can do much better. She'll have to play 'pounce da poney' if she wants me to anty-up with the green back on the ground.

 

[Snakum]

I forgot how to spell "pony". Geez.