The War on our Profession: Continued.
05-02-2018, 05:43 AM
#1
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 5
The War on our Profession: Continued.
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Flight-Sharing-Back-In-Play-230636-1.html
Another attack on our profession coming. I would suggest calling your states constituents to garner their support in putting this to bed. If air commerce is so important that we can’t strike at whim, it should be so important that we won’t allow “barnstormers” to carry passengers without appropriate certification.
Another attack on our profession coming. I would suggest calling your states constituents to garner their support in putting this to bed. If air commerce is so important that we can’t strike at whim, it should be so important that we won’t allow “barnstormers” to carry passengers without appropriate certification.
05-02-2018, 07:06 AM
#2
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,185
Not worried. Would it be abused? Yes, people will try. But no way you could break even on this, much less get an ROI on PPL training.
After some get-there-itis fatalities, either congress will kill it or the media will do an expose. I'm starting to think the flying public needs to be given a little more rope... end result will be they'll appreciate us professionals more.
After some get-there-itis fatalities, either congress will kill it or the media will do an expose. I'm starting to think the flying public needs to be given a little more rope... end result will be they'll appreciate us professionals more.
05-02-2018, 07:41 AM
#3
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,445
Originally Posted by MCOpilot
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Flight-Sharing-Back-In-Play-230636-1.html
Another attack on our profession coming. I would suggest calling your states constituents to garner their support in putting this to bed. If air commerce is so important that we can’t strike at whim, it should be so important that we won’t allow “barnstormers” to carry passengers without appropriate certification.
Another attack on our profession coming. I would suggest calling your states constituents to garner their support in putting this to bed. If air commerce is so important that we can’t strike at whim, it should be so important that we won’t allow “barnstormers” to carry passengers without appropriate certification.
05-02-2018, 08:07 AM
#4
Get me outta here...
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Boeing right seat
Posts: 1,541
The sky is falling!!
That's a good way to put it.
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I'm starting to think the flying public needs to be given a little more rope... end result will be they'll appreciate us professionals more.
05-03-2018, 03:28 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Fastest Hunk of Junk in the Galaxy
Posts: 1,657
Originally Posted by MCOpilot
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Flight-Sharing-Back-In-Play-230636-1.html
Another attack on our profession coming. I would suggest calling your states constituents to garner their support in putting this to bed. If air commerce is so important that we can’t strike at whim, it should be so important that we won’t allow “barnstormers” to carry passengers without appropriate certification.
Another attack on our profession coming. I would suggest calling your states constituents to garner their support in putting this to bed. If air commerce is so important that we can’t strike at whim, it should be so important that we won’t allow “barnstormers” to carry passengers without appropriate certification.
05-03-2018, 09:06 AM
#9
Number Last
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Position: Boeing voice activated systems and ACARS commander
Posts: 442
Far 134.99
FAR 134.99 charters have been around for years.
Diligently reading accident reports I run across one or two a year that fall into this category. Some of the subtle giveaways are reading flight logs when they are included. Another clue is when the FAA categorizes the operating certificate as 'None' as opposed to FAR 91 or FAR 135.
One of the most blatant examples I ever personally witnessed was at an operator in Sunny Florida where I flew part time for a few months. The primary operation was a flight school and much of it catered to students from France. The owner also had a 135 certificate with one airplane on the certificate and me and one or two others listed as pilots. I flew both primary instruction and some charter in the plane that was on the certificate.
Because of the one plane on a real certificate the owner could advertise charter service.
If the plane on the certificate was not available the owner would put the customer/s in another plane. If I was approached to fly it I would refuse. Others did not. If none of the pilots on the certicicate were available or willing, he would let a student fly the charter (provided they had at least a private certificate).
One of the most marginal students i ever flew with at the school ... she was French, private certificate or maybe a wet commercial ... Low time either way ... Took a Cherokee 6 charter. I would not fly the plane due to known airworthiness issues and not on the certificate ... One other guy refused to fly it as well.
Of course she is at a major now ... Very senior 767 f/o in EWR ... permanent f/o from what I have heard.
We had two 134.99 operators at my current field. Both twin Cessnas. The 421 finally had a gear collapse so now just one operator in a 340.
This stuff goes on by word of mouth. With flight sharing it will still be FAR 134.99 but they will be able to advertise.
Diligently reading accident reports I run across one or two a year that fall into this category. Some of the subtle giveaways are reading flight logs when they are included. Another clue is when the FAA categorizes the operating certificate as 'None' as opposed to FAR 91 or FAR 135.
One of the most blatant examples I ever personally witnessed was at an operator in Sunny Florida where I flew part time for a few months. The primary operation was a flight school and much of it catered to students from France. The owner also had a 135 certificate with one airplane on the certificate and me and one or two others listed as pilots. I flew both primary instruction and some charter in the plane that was on the certificate.
Because of the one plane on a real certificate the owner could advertise charter service.
If the plane on the certificate was not available the owner would put the customer/s in another plane. If I was approached to fly it I would refuse. Others did not. If none of the pilots on the certicicate were available or willing, he would let a student fly the charter (provided they had at least a private certificate).
One of the most marginal students i ever flew with at the school ... she was French, private certificate or maybe a wet commercial ... Low time either way ... Took a Cherokee 6 charter. I would not fly the plane due to known airworthiness issues and not on the certificate ... One other guy refused to fly it as well.
Of course she is at a major now ... Very senior 767 f/o in EWR ... permanent f/o from what I have heard.
We had two 134.99 operators at my current field. Both twin Cessnas. The 421 finally had a gear collapse so now just one operator in a 340.
This stuff goes on by word of mouth. With flight sharing it will still be FAR 134.99 but they will be able to advertise.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
WhiteH2O
Flight Schools and Training
2
06-10-2006 03:41 PM
