View Single Post
Old 10-07-2018, 02:35 PM   #13  
JohnBurke
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skruts View Post
Even though this flight may have been operated under Part 91 (still unsure on this), I have no reason to believe the company was not willing to send the same illegal crew on a 135 charter.
This "crew" wasn't a crew, and wasn't able to operate under 135, because neither one was legal to do so. There was no possibility of operating under the certificate, because to do so would have been a violation. The "captain" had no type rating and wasn't qualified to act as PIC under Part 91 or 135. The "first officer" had no type rating and no instrument rating, and was only a private pilot (with those privileges granted on the basis of his Canadian license). Regardless of the operating rule, the flight was illegal.

It was conducted as as a revenue charter, off the books, like many of the flights. The "first officer," and owner/operator of the certificate, had been making illegal charter flights in other aircraft such as the King Air for a long time, and involving others in taking charter flights off the books, too.

It was an illegal 135 flight. Not done under the certificate because nobody was qualified (neither was the aircraft airworthy), yet none the less a charter. The company routinely did that off the books with pilots who had no 135 training and no 135 certificate, but were willing to take flights.

It's ironic that the owner/operator was killed on this particular flight that crashed.
JohnBurke is offline