Illegal charter

[avbug]

I didn't realize you were asking a question, as what you did state appeared to be rhetorical in nature, and was not understandable.

You didn't specify operations specifications...but then how would you know what operations specifications are issued a given operator? Those will be found in the operator's handbook, and won't be available to you. Do you intend to move from operator to operator, demanding (fruitlessly) for a copy of the operations manual and the OpSpecs, and then policing them yourself? Or would you rather let the dedicated and assigned FAA official, the Principal Operations Inspector who oversees that company, do that like he's paid to do?

You state that the question was never answered. It was, so far as it could be given the limitations of your question.

Do you understand 135 operations, and do you know what OpSpecs are?

An operator who has been assigned an operating certificate and operations specifications has a dedicated FAA employee who reviews the maintenance and paperwork, audits and inspects, who ensures compliance with the regulation, and who's primary function in life is to make sure the company does just what it's authorized to do. An illegal charter operator has no such coverage, no operations specifications, and attempts to operate under Part 91...bypassing the restrictive nature of part 135...which is designed for the safety of the traveling public, and whether you know it or not...is written in blood.

 

[AC560]

if he accepts money to transport persons or property from A to B, he's conducting an illegal charter.............
Holding out isn't a necessary component to perform the illegal charter. Accepting compensation or working for hire when conducting the flight from A to B is an illegal charter if Al doesn't hold at a minimum a single operator certificate.

I think you are painting with a very broad brush. One of the 4 elements of common carriage is holding out (1) a holding out of a willingness to (2) transport persons or property (3) from place to place (4) for compensation.

Specifically carriage which does not involve holding out is private carriage. AC120-12A which I know you are probably more familiar with then I am does a reasonable job of differentiating between common and private carriage.

Al isn't necessarily operating an illegal charter nor does everyone who takes money for flying somebody doing the same. I will agree though that is a very fine line and the best advice is the last paragraph of the circular Persons who have questions concerning intended operation of their aircraft are encouraged to discuss their proposed operation with the Regional Counsel of the FAA region in which it intends to establish its principal
business office. Such early interviews will materially assist the applicant in avoiding many of the "pitfalls" which could result in illegal common carriage operations.

 

[hawkerjet]

In Kuala Lumpur, there are N registered aircraft that don't match the FAA records, flying charters all over SE Asia. I looked up a G III, and a Lear 60 "N "registration only to find out that the registration number for the GIII was to a C 172, and the Lear 60 registration belonged to a Maule.

 

[ackattacker]

It's about time (for the hotline).

There are a lot of illegal charter operations going. Most will try to justify their existence with some tortuous (incorrect) interpretation of the rules. It can be tricky as a pilot to weed through all the bull. And it's very frustrating for legit charter operations, who are subject to intense FAA scrutiny while the 134.5 guy across the street does whatever he wants. In the past it has seemed the FAA almost willfully looked the other way. Too much work I suppose. If you don't have an operating certificate you are under the FAA radar unless you crack one up. That needs to change.

 

[Daveman]

The FAA is serious enough about it, they've opened an illegal charter hotline. From the AIN Online email newsletter...

So, the FAA is now just getting around to this problem? Wow, how long did it take for them to figure this one out? And I'm talking about the "hotline". I bet some guy got an "at-a-boy" :beer:when this was published.

Thanks for the good laugh!

 

[avbug]

What exactly is it that you're laughing about?

No, the FAA isn't just getting around to this...the FAA has actively been prosecuting illegal charters for a very long time. However, the FAA has also provided additional means to report such events, and has provided additional funding and a fresh mandate to actively pursue the offenders.

It's not a laughing matter.

 

[doog]

When Mr. Smith pays his buddy Al to take him to Yazoo City in his Bonanza, he knows he's not chartering from a legitimate service. He's paying his buddy Al. Whether he knows it's legal or not is really irrelevant. Whether someone else does, and uses the hotline or other venue to report this illegal operation, is very much relevant, as well as proper.

It's Mr. Smith's Bonanza? If so it sounds like a legit part 91 op, no?

 

[avbug]

If it's Mr. Smith's Bonanza, then obviously the situation would be irrelevant to the discussion. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an illegal charter.

 

[doog]

If it's Mr. Smith's Bonanza, then obviously the situation would be irrelevant to the discussion. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an illegal charter.

Got it... you used the subject pronoun as the direct object, indicating it was Mr. Smith's Bonanza... now what if Mr. Smith rents the aircraft from a third party?

 

[NuGuy]

What exactly is it that you're laughing about?

No, the FAA isn't just getting around to this...the FAA has actively been prosecuting illegal charters for a very long time. However, the FAA has also provided additional means to report such events, and has provided additional funding and a fresh mandate to actively pursue the offenders.

It's not a laughing matter.

Hiya Avbug,

I agree %100. Been doing this for almost 20 years now. FAA "hot button" issues wax and wane, but the one constant over the years has been the issue of illegal charters.

Woe betide ANYONE who gets close to this with the FAA. If they even get a sniff of something, they will come after you with a powerful will.

Nu

 

[Daveman]

Avbug, no laughing matter at all, hence the purple upside-down smile.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]One review of South Florida’s Yellow Pages and FAA records indicated that 14 of the companies listed were operating a charter business illegally.”

Now that's a laughing matter!
[/FONT]

 

[avbug]

now what if Mr. Smith rents the aircraft from a third party?

That really depends, as insufficient information is provided. The FAAwill ultimately make the determination. If Mr. Smith is attempting to get around the requirements of Parts 119 and 135, he may be up the creek. Or he may be okay.

Individuals have attempted unsuccessfully to circumvent the requirements of Part 135 by calling the flight a training flight or "flight instruction," as well as all other manner of loophole and sideways logic. It seldom holds water.

The FAA takes this seriously.

 

[gret]

Here is a link to a great overview of the matter-

http://www.aviatorservices.com/aircraft_usage_reimbursements.htm

The fact is, flying Part 91 with a corporate aircraft is almost impossible today with corporate allocations of the aircraft expenses, tax rules, personal use by executives, etc.

One company, I don't remember the name, had a product that they were pitching. It was called 91+ or 91plus?

 

[Daveman]

Here is a link to a great overview of the matter-

http://www.aviatorservices.com/aircraft_usage_reimbursements.htm

The fact is, flying Part 91 with a corporate aircraft is almost impossible today with corporate allocations of the aircraft expenses, tax rules, personal use by executives, etc.

One company, I don't remember the name, had a product that they were pitching. It was called 91+ or 91plus?

David M. Hernandez, Esq......

is not the FAA. The FAR/AIM are the rules we have to follow.

 

[outtahere]

So Mr. Smith being the pax could not rent an airplane and then hire his own pilot (Al)? That would seem to be legal, at least I hope it is since I owned a business offering pilot services, and did this quite frequently. What say you avbug (Mr. FAA)?