Yes but aren’t there some limitations e.g. flight over water?
I doubt they’ll be able to hang anything on Henderson. If this crash hadn’t produced a prominent victim, nothing would have happened.
172driver wrote:
I doubt they’ll be able to hang anything on Henderson. If this crash hadn’t produced a prominent victim, nothing would have happened.
If he was asked in writing to arrange a charter and then replied that he did (giving details of pilot, a/c, etc), then they might be able to.
Next question is who is the operator of that PA-46? If it is him, then again he will have some questions to answer regarding CO poisoning, exhaust maintenance, etc.
I don’t think that they’d start all these things without at least some ammunition. Although they might be aiming at some sort of deal, who knows.
Let’s see what’s going to happen in 2 year’s time.
flybymike wrote:
Not sure whether you are talking historically but Single turbine operations now permitted by EASA.
Yes, I meant historically.
The risk management for SET IR CAT OPS isn’t trivial though.
Peter wrote:
Some fun reading on the goode olde days of piston charters.
Is that the correct link you were proposing? All I sees the G-OMAR report…..
Yes, I was taking the p*ss out of dodgy MEP charter operations. That was one of them.
ROTFLMAO!
The charge is based on
ANO 2016
Restriction on carriage, where valuable consideration is given or promised, in aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom
250.—(1) Unless paragraph (2) or (6) applies, an aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom must not take on board or discharge any passengers or cargo in the United Kingdom where valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of such persons or cargo.
(2) This paragraph applies if—
the operator or charterer of the aircraft or the Government of the country in which the aircraft is registered has been granted permission to take on board or discharge any passengers or cargo in the circumstances described in paragraph (1) by—
the Secretary of State; or
the CAA; and
any conditions, to which such permission may be subject, are satisfied.
Since the aircraft did not, in fact, reach the UK, the charge was under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
So what the Sky News reporter should have written was “the count of attempting to discharge a passenger for valuable consideration without permission”
I guess it’s a fancy way of saying he was arranging flights for paying passengers without having the necessary approvals to do so.
I.e. grey (or black?) charter.
The above CAA link local copy:
I guess it’s a fancy way of saying he was arranging flights for paying passengers without having the necessary approvals to do so. I.e. grey (or black?) charter.
To transport paying passengers you need an AOC. CPL or not is irrelevant to this, but obviously the pilot(s) needs one. The AOC can be A-to-A (and can be done in a SEP, subject to various limitations), or A-to-B one (needs an MEP or MET, though IIRC there are now SET options (TBM/PC12 etc) subject to various limitations). From the CAA statement it sounds like this operation didn’t have an AOC.
The perversely amusing aspect is that the charge is for “discharging” the passenger but the footballer was never discharged; he went down with the plane… I wonder why they aren’t going for the opposite option i.e. “taking on board”.
