Yes, I’ve known of a few, but I’ve never heard it called a grey charter. It was named “part 134 and a half” in the US (the charter regs are part 135).
alioth wrote:
It was named “part 134 and a half” in the US (the charter regs are part 135).
Part91.5 is more appropriate no?
RobertL18C wrote:
What effect this might have on ‘grey charters’? I had not come across this term before, and did not think it was that prevalent to get its own term.
Never heard that term as well – and it’s as adequate as calling drug trafficing the “grey pharma market” ;-)
Grey charters are done everywhere, at a low level. Every country.
It is easily done. In a bizjet, the typical usage scenario means one has to be pretty careful to avoid this risk. Lots of previous threads, including stuff further back in this one.
In this PA46 case, I don’t know, and one should not speculate in detail due to risk of litigation (leave that to the newspapers, who can afford the defence 
) but if the CAA is going after David Henderson who we know wasn’t anywhere near the plane at the time, they must be doing it over some specific operator-related things.
Peter wrote:
Interesting. local copy.This has always gone on, at some low level. Very hard to stop especially if no payment is made in respect of any particular flight.
I think the term comes from AOC holders, who obviously don’t like it
Interesting read. I don’t think anything will come of it legally for the guy.
Unlicensed charter flight operations – known as grey charters – generally incur lower operating costs.
While that is the case, a more accurate description would be
“the absence of applicable legal regulations promote grey charter”.
I am not saying it’s ok, law is law. But, if it’s possible to operate a similar plane under commercial standards in the US safely, why is a full AOC (tailored to complex organisations) required in Europe? The latter is unrealistic and commercially unviable, which creates a gap that is filled completely aside any regulation, which at last promotes such accidents (from a systemic point of view).
Snoopy wrote:
But, if it’s possible to operate a similar plane under commercial standards in the US safely, why is a full AOC (tailored to complex organisations) required in Europe?
Just look 5 posts above! Such things are also done in the US.
Even in the weakest possible regulatory environment there will always be people that make a business out of saving the cost of compliance to generate a price advantage.
Yes, that may be so. I still think there is something missing between NCO and AOC.
Things can always be improved.
Snoopy wrote:
I think the term comes from AOC holders, who obviously don’t like it
In essence I feel that this a large part of the problem. it actually covers all areas, maintenance, instruction, flights, gray charter, AOC operators.
Obviously for liability and litigation purposes rules are there to form the base structure. However, if you pick up a spanner, to tighten a nut within the engine bay, then I would suggest that you will be in contravention of a rule. A Part M would not like it….
If you give a friend a lift from one airport to another in your aircraft.
If you give a friend a quick trip round the circuit as a pleasure gift.
If you fly a mate from France to UK.
I was told that Flight Instructors hate CRI holders. Rubbish I thought, until guess what……
Also what about the commercial operators running under an umbrella AOC. Plenty of examples that ended pear shaped..
In fact my recent Ryanair experience the flight was operated by Buzz crew. Cabin and flight. My ticket clearly said Ryanair. The aeroplane was a Ryanair 737. Where does the punter stand if it goes wrong?
BeechBaby wrote:
if you pick up a spanner, to tighten a nut within the engine bay, then I would suggest that you will be in contravention of a rule. A Part M would not like it….
Exactly! And that is not by accident but to prevent accidents!
The whole idea of commercial opps is, that amateurs – who don’t even know enough to assess their risk – are flown by professionals – who do everything to optimize their profit. Therefore the regulator has to apply the safety rules that the customer would probably do if they only knew what to ask for. And yes: The regulator is in many cases overshooting the target.
But let’s take your example. Assume that you would be flying with me and just before you jump aboard I tell you, that I quickly have to tighten a nut that came loose on the engine. What would you ask me? Most probably: Why did it come loose? Can this happen again on our next flight? And perhaps you would – half jokingly – tel me something like “And don’t forget this spanner under the cowling” … and that is exactly what regulation does in this case for you.
BeechBaby wrote:
Also what about the commercial operators running under an umbrella AOC. Plenty of examples that ended pear shaped..
Providing an AOC is big business.
Company A owns one private jet. They want to charter it out to offset costs. For this they need an AOC. The cost of acquiring and running an AOC for one aircraft is deemed not feasible.
Company B owns no private jets, but set up an AOC and for 5000€/month, they will act as the “operator” of the jet, thereby dividing the cost of the AOC by as many jets as possible they “operate”. Technically, on paper there is oversight, but in practice there is not.
Lots of shady business going on. NCC flights when the jet owner is on board and still refueling without paying taxes by presenting the AOC, for instance.
There are other issues, that while fine for NCC flights, aren’t good for AOC charter ops, such as crewing/standardization (“if you don’t use my crew, we will seek another AOC provider”).
Not saying all operate that way, but it happens.
But back to topic, I do think that it is possible to establish a suitable framework for light aircraft commercial ops.
Example: For many years, it was perfectly fine to run a MEP on an AOC, while the same was not possible on a SET such as TBM or PC12. In which plane would you rather see your family in?
For maintenance, Part-M would apply, and e.g. it could be mandatory to issue passengers a waiver they must sign, outlining difference between e.g. commercial ops/risks in a Piston Malibu vs. an Airbus 320. Or offer an AOC light for daytime VFR ops, etc.. etc.. just thinking freely here.
