Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
#1693387
Bob Upanddown wrote:There are probably as many G registered aircraft involved as any other registrations.

If CAA want to tackle the problem, then might I suggest they look at the changes they impose on an AOC (eye-watering). A more reasonable cost for a piston-engined aircraft AOC might encourage people to set up AOCs to fill the gap highlighted in the newspaper story by the head of the channel islands aircraft register.

Stamp, not everyone flying under a “flag of convenience” is doing so to avoid the law and not ever licensed engineer is signing off illegal aircraft. If the CAA were interested in learning why there are so many aircraft on the N register (or 9H, M and 2 registers for that matter), that might be the start of a good thing. There are many N registered aircraft around that are better maintained because the engineer can concentrate on the mechanicals, not on the paperwork the CAA will judge him on.

If the CAA were serious about tackling “grey charters”, they only have to make some poor clerk sit down and plough through Flightradar24 and check for private aircraft making several flights at the same time of day to the same destinations or flights disappearing near horse racing events. The fact they are concentrating on the Channel Islands would have nothing to do with the fact the channel islands aircraft register seems to be doing rather well (now 500 aircraft)? The CAA couldn’t be that cynical could they?


Quite.

Two points:

1. You only have to look at what the fare would be for a properly licensed air taxi operating under an AOC to see that the costs and regulatory requirements for an operator are completely off the scale. Say you want to get yourself from a Cotswolds airport to one of the Channel Islands at short notice. The legit operator fare is going to be so eye-watering that no-one except those who have literally sooooo much money that they don't care what it costs will do it. An illegal operator (PPL, four-seat SEP, no AOC) can do it for a couple of hundred quid plus margin. At that price, there is a market. At the legit price, there is not.

2. Unfortunately I can't see the CAA looking inward for the cause of the problem. It doesn't seem to be in their nature.
#1693401
The link in the original post repeats the assertion that costs must be divided equally at 25% each party,(maximum 4POB), whereas the CAA recently confirmed that costs need not be divided equally.
Personally I have no idea how anyone could hope to prove a profit element in a private flight arranged by two or more willing participants. They are hardly likely to leave traceable evidence.

Ref all the talk about the Sala accident, has there been any proof whatsoever that this was a “bent” charter, or are we still in the realms of unproven speculation?
defcribed liked this
#1693406
Dusty_B wrote:It was a bent charter because Sala believed it was a charter.


Somehow I doubt that's a legal definition. :wink:

The only real fact we know at the moment is that the pilot did not have a commercial license. This is only an issue if someone is able to dig up some evidence that he was being paid.

As flybymike says, anyone who knows it is illegal isn't going to leave a paper trail. Thus we all suspect the same thing, but that's not the same as proving it in court.
#1693407
I know that this has probably been done to death but what are the FAA rules about PPL cost sharing? (And if any offence was committed who would be the prosecuting authority as the flight originated in France in a US aircraft on a US licence?)
#1693409
defcribed wrote:
Dusty_B wrote:It was a bent charter because Sala believed it was a charter.


Somehow I doubt that's a legal definition. :wink:

The only real fact we know at the moment is that the pilot did not have a commercial license. This is only an issue if someone is able to dig up some evidence that he was being paid.


Doesn’t matter whether the pilot was paid or not. Doesn’t matter what license was held. If someone was paid (ie the aircraft owner or broker), and/or the client thought it was legit, then it was a commercial flight operated illegally (ie Bent).
#1693410
flybymike wrote:The link in the original post repeats the assertion that costs must be divided equally at 25% each party,(maximum 4POB), whereas the CAA recently confirmed that costs need not be divided equally.

Under CI air law, costs have to be shared equally, AIUI.
#1693411
GrahamB wrote:
flybymike wrote:The link in the original post repeats the assertion that costs must be divided equally at 25% each party,(maximum 4POB), whereas the CAA recently confirmed that costs need not be divided equally.

Under CI air law, costs have to be shared equally, AIUI.


...
Deleted as I was speaking about the Sala flight but this thread is really about potential grey charters on the CI reg's. apols for confusion
Last edited by PaulB on Tue May 14, 2019 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#1693416
As now pointed out to me, the OP's link is to a news item on the channel island registry.
Their rules say you can cost share if direct costs shared between no more than four.
As with all regulations, it depends which state the aircraft is registered in as well as the state owning the airspace.
But to contradict the news story, they say a "puppy run" could qualify under cost sharing.
Not relevant to Sala's flight.
#1693439
Dusty_B wrote:If someone was paid (ie the aircraft owner or broker), and/or the client thought it was legit, then it was a commercial flight operated illegally (ie Bent).


That's the point. Try proving that someone was paid.

The situation of person X is the pilot, person Y owns the aircraft and person Z is a passenger is not disallowed by the regulations - no matter how much you might want it to be.

What is disallowed is a commercial arrangement along those lines (in the absence of an AOC and appropriately licensed aircraft and crew).

Unless the people involved were very naiive, there will be little or no evidence.
#1693444
Bob Upanddown wrote:As now pointed out to me, the OP's link is to a news item on the channel island registry.
Their rules say you can cost share if direct costs shared between no more than four.
As with all regulations, it depends which state the aircraft is registered in as well as the state owning the airspace.
But to contradict the news story, they say a "puppy run" could qualify under cost sharing.
Not relevant to Sala's flight.


Not just on the 2-reg but also the N and G reg’s...... operating to and from any of the islands.

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to see the same aircraft go to Guernsey/Alderney/Dinard and back 6 times in the morning (out full and back empty) and then 6 times in the evening (out empty and back full) to work it all out.
#1693449
defcribed wrote:
Dusty_B wrote:It was a bent charter because Sala believed it was a charter.


Somehow I doubt that's a legal definition. :wink:

The only real fact we know at the moment is that the pilot did not have a commercial license.


Slow down its a touch more than that.

1. No commercial licence, therefore payment cannot be legally received.

2. No instrument rating therefore flight in IMC/IFR conditions are illegal.

3. No night flying privileges due to a colour vision restriction, but flying was at night.

Lets not start watering down the severity of what occurred on that flight.
AlanM, Dave Phillips, Dusty_B and 2 others liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7