quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
One of my customers self pilots his own jet. Currently an Embraer 300. But everytime he trades to a different type he has to fly somewhere and take around 3-4 weeks of class with a simulator and IDK what else to get his type rating. He had a beechjet Premier before and a TBM 850 prior to that.

AEverything that you mentioned does require a type rating, except for the TBM, which has a max weight somewhere around 7,400 lbs, so type rating is not required for this airplane. The training that should be done is fairly intensive, but believe it or not, a freshly minted private pilot is legal to fly this airplane as pilot in command, as long as s/he has logbook endorsements by an instructor for both high performance and complex airplanes.

Also need a high altitude endorsement to fly an aircraft with a service ceiling of FL250 or higher. I don't believe there is an exception for VFR only pilots who can't fly in the class A airspace above 18000 feet.

Bottom line: Neither pilot was qualified to act in the capacity that they were operating under in that airplane. It is criminal, and they paid with their lives. I am just glad that the presumably uninformed passengers survived.

That is the reason Part 135 came to be. Any person should be able to board a charter airplane and feel assured that the crew is thoroughly qualified, trained and current and the equipment is maintained to a high level.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
You might think they're irrelevant, I might agree with you about some of it, but try telling that to the FAA when they want to pull your pilot certificate for infraction of irrelevant minutia.

True.

Tell the passengers on the flight in the Falcon 50 that it's minutia, too.

The requirements set forward by the FAA are often described as being written in blood, because the changes in the regulation are pushed through on the heels of fatal aircraft mishaps. Many of the finer points of the regulation, including the requirement for a type rating, exist precisely because people died. Decidedly NOT minutia.

quote:

Originally posted by Top Gun Supply:
Bottom line: Neither pilot was qualified to act in the capacity that they were operating under in that airplane. It is criminal, and they paid with their lives. I am just glad that the presumably uninformed passengers survived.

The passengers survived, barely, and this because the operator didn't want to fix the brakes, the pilot refused to fly it, and the unqualified owner/operator flew it along with an unqualified guy grabbed on short notice...someone they could get to take the flight, when others wouldn't.

The owner had a long history of making unqualified charter flights, and bad maintenance practices like this don't happen in a vacuum either; this was not the first.

quote:

Originally posted by Top Gun Supply:
That is the reason Part 135 came to be. Any person should be able to board a charter airplane and feel assured that the crew is thoroughly qualified, trained and current and the equipment is maintained to a high level.

These pilots weren't qualified under Part 135, but the operation wouldn't have been legal under Part 91, either.

That said, 135 operations are notorious for less than stellar training, observance of rest and duty regulations, and often, maintenance. Even those that claim ARGUS and other ratings often can be found lacking, and it's quite common for 135 operations to keep pilots on a 24 hour leash, violating rest regulations while inspectors look the other way.

In this case, many of the "charters" that the operator was doing were illegal charters flown by pilots without 135 qualifications, checkrides, or necessarily experience; this wasn't the only aircraft and these weren't the only pilots doing that for this operator. I suspect that will come to a grinding halt now.

quote:

Originally posted by Sock Eating Golden:
Also need a high altitude endorsement to fly an aircraft with a service ceiling of FL250 or higher. I don't believe there is an exception for VFR only pilots who can't fly in the class A airspace above 18000 feet.

Kind of. The high altitude endorsement began in 1991, and those who had PIC experience in pressurized aircraft capable of flight above 25,0000' prior to that, didn't need the endorsement.

The high altitude endorsement is required for pressurized aircraft capable of flight above 25,000, whether they ever fly there or not, and regardless of the regulations under which the flight is operated.

As with the other endorsements, if one had time in the relevant aircraft before the endorsement regulations were created, one didn't need the endorsement in the logbook. I didn't get endorsements for the various operations, tailwheel, high altitude, etc, for that reason.

Even if a type certificate is not required, insurance imposes certain requirements, minimum PIC time, instrument rating, completion of factory approved school, annual completion of factory approved school, even for private pilots flying themselves. Sometimes it is just a check out in type by CFI.

Meeting only the bare minimums might be exciting.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:


In this case, many of the "charters" that the operator was doing were illegal charters flown by pilots without 135 qualifications, checkrides, or necessarily experience; this wasn't the only aircraft and these weren't the only pilots doing that for this operator. I suspect that will come to a grinding halt now.

IOW, expediency, “corner cutting” for marginally educated.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
One of my customers self pilots his own jet. Currently an Embraer 300. But everytime he trades to a different type he has to fly somewhere and take around 3-4 weeks of class with a simulator and IDK what else to get his type rating. He had a beechjet Premier before and a TBM 850 prior to that.

Everything that you mentioned does require a type rating, except for the TBM, which has a max weight somewhere around 7,400 lbs, so type rating is not required for this airplane. The training that should be done is fairly intensive, but believe it or not, a freshly minted private pilot is legal to fly this airplane as pilot in command, as long as s/he has logbook endorsements by an instructor for both high performance and complex airplanes. Per the regs, there is no specific training required for an airplane like this. Of course, common sense, safety, and insurance requirements would dictate thorough training, but if the airplane is operated strictly for personal use there is absolutely no regulatory requirement for training of any kind, nor even insurance.

I know they are/were owned by an "aviation company" that he owns to limit liability. He cruised the TBM at 28,000' in the beginning, then at 32,000' after some electronics upgrades. He doesn't do any charters. But traded up each time. Prior to the TBM had a king air, something lesser the time before that. Not sure if he did the training thing for the TBM, but know he had to get the type rating and went off for 3-4 weeks of training for the Premier and the Embraer. He'd mention it in passing or regular conversation. His brother is a 30 year commercial pilot and flies an airbus for one of the commercial carriers.

A lot of corner cutting, unfortunately.

I was just sitting in a crew room a couple of nights ago talking with someone who had come from air ambulance. I flew for four air ambulance operators, myself. The public might think that these operate to a higher standard, though the helicopter medevac track record is abysmal, and the fixed wing very often has crew on cal 24 hours a day.

Then again, the paying public has long thought that the airlines, including the regional airlines, should be safe (and they should be)...but for many decades, the regionals hired 250 pilots (fresh commercial, don't know shoes from dirt, etc), and sub-poverty wages. Even today, the qualifications up front and the experience, especially at regionals, isn't much.

When we see incidents like the Valuejet crash (doe into a swamp, killing everyone), and Alaska 261 with it's falsified maintenance records and unlubricated trim jack screw (dove into the ocean, killing everyone), it should give some pause.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:
I love these threads. They always end up with the pilots arguing about irrelevant minutia.

Hah! You might think they're irrelevant, I might agree with you about some of it, but try telling that to the FAA when they want to pull your pilot certificate for infraction of irrelevant minutia.

A lot of this detailed regulation stuff is encountered on the FAA exams that must be passed in order to obtain a pilot certificate or rating.

It drove me nuts, studying, but my "swan song" -- the last FAA exam that I took, was the last one that I ever expect to take in my life, as I am approaching the end. I wanted this one to be a perfect score, and because I messed up with the mouse on a computer exam (in the Good Old Days we used to fill in the little circles with a # 2 pencil), I missed a question that I knew, solid, and I wrote a 98 instead of the coveted 100 on the ATP exam. Passing grade is 70, but I wanted to make a perfect score on my last text.

At the risk of "buying in" and doing basically what I'm talking about, but I only meant irrelevant in the context of the conversation. The original question was pretty pointed and the technical nature of the industry takes is into the weeds so to speak. I actually mean it when I say I enjoy them because I find it interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by Top Gun Supply:

That is the reason Part 135 came to be. Any person should be able to board a charter airplane and feel assured that the crew is thoroughly qualified, trained and current and the equipment is maintained to a high level.

Back in The Good Old Days (Bad Old Days?) before Part 135, the basic requirements for charter / air taxi were

• Airplane with 100 hour inspection, and
  
  
• Pilot who held a Commercial (or ATP) certificate with appropriate ratings, etc.

Preceding is sort of hand-waving generalization, but the point is that nowadays, there are a LOT of hoops to jump through in order to get a Part 135 operating certificate, as implied by Top Gun Supply.

I was living / working in Puerto Rico before Part 135. I based my airplane with an FBO at Isla Grande airport, downtown San Juan, and I moonlighted, evenings and weekends, for a flight school and for two aviation services that did what would now be Part 135. Much to the disappointment of tourists and the aggravation of the charter operators, I aborted more than one trip, refused to fly, because of maintenance discrepancies that I found on pre-flight inspection.

One of these refused flights resulted in angry words, approaching a threat, from the charter outfit owner. I told him, "one more word out of you, and I'm going to have a conversation with the GADO (FAA's General Aviation District Office, predecessor to the FSDO) and you're going to have inspectors going over every aspect of your operation with a fine tooth comb. Is that what you really want?" The combination of my English and his Spanish finally sunk in and he backed off. From that point on, he followed my suggestion of having every pilot do a POST-flight inspection, so that discrepancies could be caught and attended to on a timely basis, rather than have them caught on the next PRE-flight inspection, when maintenance might not be able to deal with the situation in time for a scheduled flight.

The Preliminary Report is out.

https://bloximages.newyork1.vi...bb7cb108bc11.pdf.pdf

To follow on previous questions; the flight was operated under IFR, the copilot had no instrument rating and only a private pilot certificate, and the flight was conducted as an illegal Part 135 charter.

The airplane had been grounded the day before with brakes reported to be "shot," and the pilot refused to fly it for this trip. The operator acted as copilot and got some unqualified schmuck willing to do an under-the-table illegal trip, to sit in the left seat.

Note that the anti-skid was also inoperative. THe owner had a long history of off-the-books, illegal "charter." This one caught up with him. When his regular pilot refused to fly the airplane, he took it anyway, and this was the result.

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:
I love these threads. They always end up with the pilots arguing about irrelevant minutia.

It's what we love to do... it's called "Hangar Flying".

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
To follow on previous questions; the flight was operated under IFR, the copilot had no instrument rating and only a private pilot certificate, and the flight was conducted as an illegal Part 135 charter.

The airplane had been grounded the day before with brakes reported to be "shot," and the pilot refused to fly it for this trip. The operator acted as copilot and got some unqualified schmuck willing to do an under-the-table illegal trip, to sit in the left seat.

Note that the anti-skid was also inoperative. THe owner had a long history of off-the-books, illegal "charter." This one caught up with him. When his regular pilot refused to fly the airplane, he took it anyway, and this was the result.

What was he supposed to do? Refund the charter price and send them to a competitor? Probably did not have the cash flow for that.

Hence, my guess of expediency on the first page.

A great many things are motivated and guided by expediency, and many times, you get away with it, just enough to override whatever common sense, good judgment and fear you might still have.

A little strange. We are in the hangar next door
to this operation and nobody from the FAA,FBI,
NTSP has showed up as of yesterday.

Just another Florida 134 and a half operation. They truly are the scum of the industry. There are dozens of them.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
To follow on previous questions; the flight was operated under IFR, the copilot had no instrument rating and only a private pilot certificate, and the flight was conducted as an illegal Part 135 charter.

The airplane had been grounded the day before with brakes reported to be "shot," and the pilot refused to fly it for this trip. The operator acted as copilot and got some unqualified schmuck willing to do an under-the-table illegal trip, to sit in the left seat.

Note that the anti-skid was also inoperative. THe owner had a long history of off-the-books, illegal "charter." This one caught up with him. When his regular pilot refused to fly the airplane, he took it anyway, and this was the result.

Interestingly, this flight is reported as a Part 91 fight in the header and narrative.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
What was he supposed to do? Refund the charter price and send them to a competitor?

Yes, absolutely, and twice tomorrow. I have pissed off many customers canceling a flight due to a grounded aircraft. But their still alive to be angry at me.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
To follow on previous questions; the flight was operated under IFR, the copilot had no instrument rating and only a private pilot certificate, and the flight was conducted as an illegal Part 135 charter.

The airplane had been grounded the day before with brakes reported to be "shot," and the pilot refused to fly it for this trip. The operator acted as copilot and got some unqualified schmuck willing to do an under-the-table illegal trip, to sit in the left seat.

Note that the anti-skid was also inoperative. THe owner had a long history of off-the-books, illegal "charter." This one caught up with him. When his regular pilot refused to fly the airplane, he took it anyway, and this was the result.

What was he supposed to do? Refund the charter price and send them to a competitor? Probably did not have the cash flow for that.

Absolutely, safety should always comes first. Either cancel the flight and refund their money, OR if he's been in business as long as he supposedly has, he should have competitor friends that he could book their plane in his planes place. But if he had cash, he probably would've had the brakes fixed prior to them getting that bad and his full time Captain grounding the plane and refusing to fly it.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
What was he supposed to do? Refund the charter price and send them to a competitor?

Yes. Without question.

It's standard for operators to charter another operator or broker the flight, if unable to conduct it due to maintenance or other reasons. This happens every day. Profit is still made, but someone else takes the trip.

That didn't happen here. Without question, this operator should not have taken the trip.

Of course he was, but that’s not expedient.

I suppose none if you has ever heard of sarcasm, either,

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Of course he was, but that’s not expedient.

I suppose none if you has ever heard of sarcasm, either,

Oh no, I understood the sarcasm. However 135 has a rough reputation because of operators like this. It's not going to get any better after this incident. The NTSB is about to rake the FAA over the coals for their lack of oversight. There will be ramifications for years to come

This will only hurt operations like where I work. There are plenty of 'legal' things that we simply won't do because it isn't safe. There's plenty of times we could have kept customers happy and made money, and no one would be the wiser. Until an accident happens. Unfortunately doing the right thing and following the rules doesn't make headlines. Ultimately my industry just received a very public black eye. I'm very saddened for the loss of trust from our customers and pilots.