FAA coming after JSX
FAA coming after JSX
09-01-2023, 04:40 PM
#3
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,026
The FAA is not coming after JSX. This is a lie.
Once again, the original poster uses the orange thumb emoji coupled with nothing whatsoever to offer but false politics, couched in a link. No comments. Nothing to say, nothing to contribute to the world. Not a single word to utter or type. Just a link to a lie.
The FAA is not coming after JSX at all. The FAA has proposed updating a regulation, applicable to all affected operators, rather than just one.
The original poster has a political need to post anything she thinks supports her incorrect view of the "1500 hour rule," despite not being a pilot herself, and despite not understanding the requirement for the ATP. This false story on the non-existent assault on JSX is laced with the real intent of posting this garbage: stirring the pot about pilots who are required to hold an ATP. Nothing more.
Once again, the original poster uses the orange thumb emoji coupled with nothing whatsoever to offer but false politics, couched in a link. No comments. Nothing to say, nothing to contribute to the world. Not a single word to utter or type. Just a link to a lie.
The FAA is not coming after JSX at all. The FAA has proposed updating a regulation, applicable to all affected operators, rather than just one.
The original poster has a political need to post anything she thinks supports her incorrect view of the "1500 hour rule," despite not being a pilot herself, and despite not understanding the requirement for the ATP. This false story on the non-existent assault on JSX is laced with the real intent of posting this garbage: stirring the pot about pilots who are required to hold an ATP. Nothing more.
09-01-2023, 07:30 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,595
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
The FAA is not coming after JSX. This is a lie.
Once again, the original poster uses the orange thumb emoji coupled with nothing whatsoever to offer but false politics, couched in a link. No comments. Nothing to say, nothing to contribute to the world. Not a single word to utter or type. Just a link to a lie.
The FAA is not coming after JSX at all. The FAA has proposed updating a regulation, applicable to all affected operators, rather than just one.
The original poster has a political need to post anything she thinks supports her incorrect view of the "1500 hour rule," despite not being a pilot herself, and despite not understanding the requirement for the ATP. This false story on the non-existent assault on JSX is laced with the real intent of posting this garbage: stirring the pot about pilots who are required to hold an ATP. Nothing more.
Once again, the original poster uses the orange thumb emoji coupled with nothing whatsoever to offer but false politics, couched in a link. No comments. Nothing to say, nothing to contribute to the world. Not a single word to utter or type. Just a link to a lie.
The FAA is not coming after JSX at all. The FAA has proposed updating a regulation, applicable to all affected operators, rather than just one.
The original poster has a political need to post anything she thinks supports her incorrect view of the "1500 hour rule," despite not being a pilot herself, and despite not understanding the requirement for the ATP. This false story on the non-existent assault on JSX is laced with the real intent of posting this garbage: stirring the pot about pilots who are required to hold an ATP. Nothing more.
09-01-2023, 09:20 PM
#5
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,503
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
So if they eliminate DOT 380, JSX won't have any damages?
collateral damagea) when non-military people are hurt or killed, or non-military property is damaged, as a result of actions in a war – used especially by the army, navy etcHitting any non-military targets would risk ‘collateral damage’.b) unintended harm that happens to people as a result of something that is done
09-01-2023, 10:02 PM
#6
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,026
The FAA is not targeting JSX: assertion otherwise is a lie.
What the FAA is doing, is spelled out quite clearly in their proposed rule: Regulatory Definitions of On-Demand Operation, Supplemental Operation, and Scheduled Operation. What they're doing is taking public comments.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2023-1857-0001
In excerpt, and highlighted:
The FAA intends to initiate a rulemaking to amend title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 110 to address these public charter operations that, in light of recent high-volume operations, appear to be offered to the public as essentially indistinguishable from flights conducted by air carriers as supplemental or domestic operations under 14 CFR part 121. Specifically, the size, scope, frequency, and complexity of charter operations conducted as “on-demand” operations under the part 135 operating rules has grown significantly over the past 10 years. While the FAA has adjusted its oversight of these increased operations, the FAA is considering whether a regulatory change may be appropriate to ensure the management of the level of safety necessary for those operations.
The FAA is considering issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking that will seek comment on removing the exceptions for part 380 public charter operators from the definitions in 14 CFR 110.2 and delink FAA's safety regulations from DOT's economic regulations. If the FAA were to remove the exceptions, operators would then conduct public charter flights under the operating part applicable to their operation based on the same criteria that apply to all other non-part 380 operators, including the size and complexity of aircraft they operate and the frequency of flights.
Were FAA to amend its regulatory framework, some operators conducting public charter operations would need to transition from operating under part 135 to part 121. This transition may require affected operators to adjust their service models. As such, this document solicits comment, data, and other information regarding: the effects of any removal of the part 380 exception (including any effect on service to small and underserved communities); potential impacts on competition, innovation, and emerging technologies; alternative regulatory structures that could apply to the provision of commercial passenger services under a regime other than part 121 or part 135; if FAA were to adopt a rule, the reasonable period of time needed to allow affected operators to obtain appropriate certificates and authorizations to transition their operations to the applicable operating parts of 14 CFR; and any additional topics interested parties believe should be considered.
The FAA isn't making exceptions and taking pot shots at individual operators; the FAA is looking at removing the exceptions to the regulation and putting these operators under the same regulation as everyone else. If one calls applying the regulation equally (the same as every other operator) out to be "going after" one specific operator, then one is either very ignorant of the facts, or hasn't bothered to actually read the proposed regulation, or is merely a liar.
You may read about it in the Federal Register (https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...-and-scheduled)
https://downloads.regulations.gov/FA...01/content.pdf
For those commenters to the FAA that it's an issue of fairness to low-time pilots, the argument is idiotic on it's face and bears no logic. The FAA has a duty, on authority of an Act of Congress, to regulate aviation, and the CFR is a living compendium of documents. It is not static, and it changes and evolves, just as operators such as JSX or Skywests offshoot do and will. When they become indistinguishable in operation from their counterpart operations (eg, supplemental, etc), then they should be treated accordingly, and be found under the same regulation. Thus far, operators such as JSX have lived under an exemption. As they grow and expand in size and operation, they no longer fit the purpose or scope of the exemption, and rightfully they must, sooner or later, fall under the 121 umbrella.
There are 41 days left to comment. If you think you have something to say, make it count.
What the FAA is doing, is spelled out quite clearly in their proposed rule: Regulatory Definitions of On-Demand Operation, Supplemental Operation, and Scheduled Operation. What they're doing is taking public comments.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2023-1857-0001
In excerpt, and highlighted:
Summary
This document alerts the public that the FAA intends to initiate a rulemaking to address the exception from FAA's domestic, flag, and supplemental operations regulations for public charter operators. To inform this effort, the FAA seeks public comment, data, and other information regarding current and planned public charter flights operated under on-demand rules that appear indistinguishable from flights conducted by air carriers as supplemental or domestic operations. The FAA will review comments received in response to this document to evaluate the need for and, if necessary, scope of any rulemaking.Dates
Send comments on or before October 13, 2023.Background
Title 14 CFR part 380 is an economic regulation administered by the Department of Transportation. Currently, under 14 CFR 110.2 of FAA's safety regulations, public charters operated under the terms of 14 CFR part 380 may be conducted as “on-demand operations” if the aircraft operator is using airplanes, including turbo-jet powered airplanes, with 30 or fewer passenger seats. On-demand operations must be conducted under the operating rules in 14 CFR part 135. See, 14 CFR 119.21(a)(5) and 135.1(a)(1). Similarly, public charter operations are excepted from the § 110.2 definition of “scheduled operation” and are included in the definition of “supplemental operation” regardless of whether such operator offers in advance to the public the departure location, departure time, and arrival location of the flight. But for the part 380 exceptions in § 110.2, public charter operators would be required to comply with the operating rules applicable to their operations based on the same criteria as all other air carriers and commercial operators, i.e., 14 CFR part 121.The FAA intends to initiate a rulemaking to amend title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 110 to address these public charter operations that, in light of recent high-volume operations, appear to be offered to the public as essentially indistinguishable from flights conducted by air carriers as supplemental or domestic operations under 14 CFR part 121. Specifically, the size, scope, frequency, and complexity of charter operations conducted as “on-demand” operations under the part 135 operating rules has grown significantly over the past 10 years. While the FAA has adjusted its oversight of these increased operations, the FAA is considering whether a regulatory change may be appropriate to ensure the management of the level of safety necessary for those operations.
The FAA is considering issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking that will seek comment on removing the exceptions for part 380 public charter operators from the definitions in 14 CFR 110.2 and delink FAA's safety regulations from DOT's economic regulations. If the FAA were to remove the exceptions, operators would then conduct public charter flights under the operating part applicable to their operation based on the same criteria that apply to all other non-part 380 operators, including the size and complexity of aircraft they operate and the frequency of flights.
Were FAA to amend its regulatory framework, some operators conducting public charter operations would need to transition from operating under part 135 to part 121. This transition may require affected operators to adjust their service models. As such, this document solicits comment, data, and other information regarding: the effects of any removal of the part 380 exception (including any effect on service to small and underserved communities); potential impacts on competition, innovation, and emerging technologies; alternative regulatory structures that could apply to the provision of commercial passenger services under a regime other than part 121 or part 135; if FAA were to adopt a rule, the reasonable period of time needed to allow affected operators to obtain appropriate certificates and authorizations to transition their operations to the applicable operating parts of 14 CFR; and any additional topics interested parties believe should be considered.
You may read about it in the Federal Register (https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...-and-scheduled)
https://downloads.regulations.gov/FA...01/content.pdf
For those commenters to the FAA that it's an issue of fairness to low-time pilots, the argument is idiotic on it's face and bears no logic. The FAA has a duty, on authority of an Act of Congress, to regulate aviation, and the CFR is a living compendium of documents. It is not static, and it changes and evolves, just as operators such as JSX or Skywests offshoot do and will. When they become indistinguishable in operation from their counterpart operations (eg, supplemental, etc), then they should be treated accordingly, and be found under the same regulation. Thus far, operators such as JSX have lived under an exemption. As they grow and expand in size and operation, they no longer fit the purpose or scope of the exemption, and rightfully they must, sooner or later, fall under the 121 umbrella.
There are 41 days left to comment. If you think you have something to say, make it count.
09-02-2023, 07:01 AM
#7
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2023
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
The account has been told multiple times to copy and paste the article into the post and never does
Skywest got the attention of the FAA and then ALPA helped a bit when it comes to how exemption 380 is being used to circumvent what should be 121 flying.
JSX is collateral damage.
09-02-2023, 06:53 PM
#9
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,026
There was nothing gray about this. The FAA created an exemption to the existing regulations to accommodate certain public charters that were smaller operations that fit the exemption. As those operators have outgrown the exemption and the purpose of the exemption, the FAA is proposing that the various operators move into their appropriate 121 category. These were actors operating under 135 rules with an exemption, who are proposed to be placed under 121 with their peers. Those who are non-scheduled charter operations will continue as supplementals, etc.
This wasn't a gray area. It was simply an exemption which the affected operators have outgrown.
This wasn't a gray area. It was simply an exemption which the affected operators have outgrown.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
