| by |
Phillip J. Kolczynski, Valerie Dunbar Jones |
 |
|
|
| About the Author ... |
|
Phillip J. Kolczynski
manages his own law firm in Irvine, California. He has a national practice,
concentrating in aviation, product liability and business litigation in federal
and state courts. Phil teaches evidence, product liability and aviation law at
the Aviation Safety Program, School of Engineering, University Of Southern
California. He chaired the 1990 ABA National Institute on Aviation Litigation in
Washington, D.C., and has spoken nationally at numerous aviation litigation
symposia.
Prior to moving to California in 1983, he was a trial attorney in the
Aviation Unit, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., and the Litigation
Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C. Phil graduated from Case Western Reserve School of Law,
Cleveland, Ohio, in December, 1976, and attended college at Marquette
University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1969 where he held a Navy ROTC Full
Scholarship. Before entering law school, he was a Marine Corps Captain and F-4
Phantom Pilot. He is a Commercial Pilot with instrument and multiengine
ratings.
|
|
| AviationLaw@AVweb.com |
|
| AviationLawCorp.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A new FAA rule, set for implementation
in late 2002, will have a major impact on business aviation. Part 91 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) will be amended to add the new "Subpart K."
Subpart K will distinguish fractional ownership programs from other
traditional business aircraft ownership arrangements. The new rule will not
affect the pre-existing requirements under FAR §91.501 et seq. regarding
traditional corporate flight departments, flying clubs and various forms of
Section 91.501 ownership.
A key element of the new rule for fractional ownership programs is that
fractional owners (frac-owners) will be in operational control of any program
flight requested by the frac-owner. Of course, the frac-owner will be able to
depend on the program manager for aviation expertise. But the frac-owner will
be required to sign an agreement promising not only to accept operational
control responsibility for the FAA, but also acknowledging that "The owner may
be exposed to significant liability risk in the event of a flight-related
occurrence that causes personal injury or property damage." FAR
91.1013(a)(1)(iii).
Management, ownership and interchange agreements have customarily contained
clauses suggesting some level of operational control on the part of a
fractional owner. The new FAA rule clarifies the broad-based responsibilities
of frac-owners. The new responsibilities and resultant exposure are
significant when compared to traditional forms of aircraft ownership.
Normally, passive owners who were not actually piloting the aircraft or
performing maintenance on it would have little or no liability exposure
compared to the operator or owner-pilot.
This article will explain aircraft-owner liability under state laws. Then,
we will compare the new obligations and liability exposure of fractional
ownership. We will also discuss the various types of exposure of frac-owners
after the new rule, including air crash liability, FAA sanctions, employment
issues and insurance. Throughout, we examine ways in which frac-owners and
program managers can protect their interests in frac-ownership. Note: federal
and state tax considerations associated with fractional ownership are
significant and extensive, and we have elected not to address them within the
scope of this article. Expert tax advice, in addition to the other counsel we
recommend in this paper, should definitely be sought prior to entering into
any aircraft ownership obligation.
Traditionally, there has been an important distinction in
liability law between an "owner-operator" and a "non-operator owner." If an
owner-operator (owner who pilots his aircraft) is negligent and that
negligence causes damage or injury, that owner-operator is liable. This is
also true when the owner is the pilot's employer. An employer is normally
vicariously liable for the acts of an employee who negligently operates or
maintains airworthiness of the aircraft for the owner.
Where aircraft ownership is purely passive — that is, the entity that
holds title to the aircraft is not involved in piloting, maintenance or any
form of operational control — there should be no liability. Under the modern
laws of most jurisdictions, non-operator owners are not held liable for pilot
negligence, or enjoy very limited liability. However, a warning is in order:
some states have enacted specific aircraft-owner liability statutes or have
old case law on the books purporting to make such passive owners liable for
aircraft accidents. These old-fashioned laws are based on the notion that
aircraft are hazardous flying contraptions. Some legislatures simply desire to
make the owners pay when their aircraft cause damages regardless of control
over the wrongdoing.
One example of such a provision is New York's General Business Law § 251,
which renders owners vicariously liable for the negligence of an operator
where the aircraft is being used or operated for more than 30 days, with the
express or implied permission of the owner. Liability attaches even if the
operating pilot is not an employee of the owner and the owner has no control
over the flight. Other states have limitations of liability, so that a passive
owner with no actual control over the pilot or aircraft at the time of the
accident will have limited liability exposure. In California, a passive owner
can be held liable for the permitted use of its aircraft but damages are
limited to $15,000.00 per injury or death, with a maximum of $30,000.00, and
punitive damages are barred entirely.
Nevertheless, in the majority of jurisdictions and in the absence of a
special statute imposing liability on aircraft owners, a passive owner who
simply lends, rents or leases an aircraft to another party is usually not held
liable for the negligence of that party. Most laws do not usually impute
liability to aircraft owners unless they have been personally negligent or are
the employers of parties who were personally negligent.
Those folks who spend their Saturday evenings curled up with the FAR may
point to a provision in the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S. Code §44112, which
seems to suggest that passive owners can be held liable even when they are not
operating the aircraft. However, this statute has been interpreted by many
courts as not creating a cause of action for vicarious liability on the part
of the aircraft owner for air crashes. e.g., Malone v. Capital Correctional
Resources, Inc. (Supreme Court of Mississippi, 2001).
In many jurisdictions, "non-operator" aircraft owners may usually avoid
liability for aircraft accidents as long as:
- The owner had no knowledge of any dangerous condition or defect in
the aircraft when it is transferred to the control of another;
- The owner is not the employer of the operator of the
aircraft;
- The owner was not the employer of the maintenance professional who
signed off on the airworthiness of the aircraft;
- The owner was not in control of the maintenance or operation of the
aircraft at the relevant times when the problem developed which lead to
the accident;
- The owner did not negligently entrust the aircraft to an
incompetent operator;
- The applicable state law does not impose vicarious liability on
owners who grant permission to others to operate the aircraft;
- The owner does not assume liability for the operation of the
aircraft by signing a contract accepting joint responsibility for
operational control or airworthiness.
The last item on the list is an issue under the new Subpart K of Part 91.
The new rule require frac-owners to sign a contract acknowledging operational
control for their flights and accepting responsibility for airworthiness on
their flights.
In simplest terms, fractional ownership can be thought of as
the aviation industry's answer to time-share condominiums. It is the fastest
growing and at the moment, quite possibly the only growing area of general
aviation. Although the attack on America through the hijacking of aircraft on
September 11 has damaged many sectors of the aviation industry, the fractional
ownership programs have prospered. For well under $1 million, depending on the
type of aircraft, a business or person can purchase as little as a 1/16th
share of a business class jet aircraft or a 1/32nd share of a personal
transport helicopter. The fractional owner can send its employees, clients,
and guests for trips on its fractionally owned aircraft or any aircraft in the
fractional ownership program. This can be done for a small portion of what it
would cost to own the same size corporate aircraft outright. A frac-owner's
passengers may avoid many travel delays that are now endemic with airline
trips. They enjoy expedited (though still thorough) security checks, and have
much greater flexibility with regard to schedule control, itinerary, choice of
destination airports, and in-flight amenities.
Fractional flying is conducted under FAR Part 91, the same rule applicable
to private and corporate aircraft operations. The safety standards imposed by
Part 91 are high, but not as stringent as those of FAR Parts 135 (air taxi and
commuters) and 121 (larger scheduled air carriers). Some critics have voiced
concern that fractional flying was insufficiently regulated. In reality, most
fractional programs have been well run. Proponents of fractional programs can
point to excellent safety records, which even some of the airlines may envy.
The FAA has simply been trying to catch up with the explosion of business
flying in this area, and address its policy mandate to protect the flying
public. The new FAA rule will restrict fractional programs above and beyond
the existing Part 91 standards to some degree, by introducing management,
flight control, training, and operational restrictions. However, the new rule
will also amend Part 135 to permit on-demand charter flights to operate under
the same airport landing criteria, weather reporting requirements and
departure standards as fractional program flights, updating the 1940s-vintage
provisions of Part 135 to reflect the improved technological capability of
modern business aircraft.
In July 2001, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rule
Making (NPRM) proposing to add a new Subpart K to Part 91 to regulate
fractional aircraft ownership programs. The comment period was extended to
November 16, 2001, and is now closed. FAA sources report that the final rule
should be implemented in late 2002. The rule likely would have been finalized
earlier but for security priorities taxing the FAA since September 11. The
following sections will discuss some key areas of exposure for fractional
owners under the new rule, and provide suggestions of how these issues can be
resolved.
Under the new FAA rule, frac-owners without aviation expertise will have
operational control and safety responsibilities that may create liability
exposure of which they were not previously aware.
Frac-owners' duties will include:
- Operational control whenever the frac-owner has requested that any
program aircraft (not necessarily the one in which the share is owned)
carry passengers or property designated by the owner, regardless of
whether the owner is on board. FAR 91.1009.
- Operational control whenever the frac-owner's designated passengers
are carried aboard an affiliated program aircraft, even though it is
neither owned nor part of the same fractional ownership program. Thus, a
fractional owner can be in operational control of a non-program aircraft.
The FAA must be satisfied there is a sufficient relationship between the
owner's program manager and the affiliated program manager. 91.1001(a)(2),
91.1001(e)(8), 91.1001(e)(9). Examples of affiliate programs may include
fractional ownership operations created under the regulations of foreign
countries.
- Responsibility for compliance with the FAA-approved management
specifications of the fractional program for any flight carrying the
fractional owner's passengers. This duty exists even though the fractional
owner clearly depends on the project manager for compliance with the
management specifications. NPRM Preamble.
- The right/duty to inspect and audit the practices of the program
manager concerning the operational safety, record keeping and maintenance
of the program aircraft. Arguably, with responsibilities for operational
control and airworthiness, and given the wording of the regulation, the
right to audit may be considered a duty. 91.1009(a)(1);
91.1003(b).
- A non-delegable obligation to comply with every regulation in the
new Subpart K for every flight carrying their passengers. 91.1001. Thus,
fractional owners are responsible even if they delegate the authority to
the program manager to carry out various tasks in the program.
Under Subpart K, frac-owners will soon be
responsible for complying with safety rules imposed on them by the FAA. This
is unusual, because the FAA normally only imposes operational safety and
airworthiness rules on FAA certificate holders who have aviation expertise.
Will violations of these safety rules create liability on the part of the
fractional owner?
Typically, in an air crash, a plaintiff must prove that a defendant had a
safety duty, breached that duty and that the breach caused the accident,
resulting in damages. Most crashes involve pilot errors while under
operational control, or airworthiness problems. The new Subpart K rules appear
to create federal duties on frac-owners in these areas. The new regulations
may create a bountiful fishing ground for plaintiffs' attorneys after a
fractional aircraft crash.
Attorneys may look to state laws to find a legal claim, on the basis that
the frac-owners violated federal safety rules. If defense lawyers suggest that
the rules were for regulatory purposes only, the plaintiffs can show that the
frac-owner assumed liability risks for any accident when its representatives
signed agreements prepared by the program manager. The new FAA rule requires
not only that the frac-owner sign agreements to acknowledge that it has
operational control, but further requires that frac-owners acknowledge that
"[t]he owner may be exposed to significant liability risk in the event of a
flight-related occurrence that causes personal injury or property damage."
91.1013(a)(1)(iii).
If a major air crash occurs involving a fractional ownership aircraft after
the new rules are implemented, one can expect that the program manager will be
sued. The fractional owner in operational control, who has directed that his
employees, guests or clients are carried on the flight, will also be sued. But
what about the other fractional owners who were not using the aircraft on the
ill-fated trip?
Some plaintiffs' attorneys use the shotgun approach to litigation by suing
all relevant deep pockets after a disaster. The newspapers usually emphasize
the deep pocket part — they forget to explain that the parties who had no
safety duties related to the cause of the accident are soon dismissed from the
lawsuits by lawyer's motions. The FAA rule only places responsibility for
operational control and fractional program regulations on the fractional owner
for its flight. But, once the fractional owner's flight has ended, has its
liability exposure for a subsequent crash abated?
What if a subsequent crash occurs involving a fractional program aircraft
that is not due to contemporaneous operational pilot error? For example, what
if the subsequent crash results from prior maintenance malpractice, or an
airworthiness deficiency? If that deficiency arose at the time when the
previous frac-owner was in operational control and had the duty for compliance
with all applicable regulations — would it be liable? There is an expression
in the naval service that if it happens on your "watch," you may be
responsible for the consequences. This may become the template for frac-owner
liability exposure.
The new rule clarifies that fractional owners are not simply enjoying a
cheap alternative to airline transportation or charter travel. Some advocates
who facilitate the sale of fractional shares have recommended that, after
owners sign on the dotted line, they should take a hands-off approach and "let
the program manager do the managing." While it is never wise to interfere with
expert management, frac-owners can no longer, in light of the new rules, be
passive investors and business travelers. With the benefits, convenience,
economy and flexibility of fractional flying come the burdens of operational
control and safety rule compliance. These burdens can be carried by exercising
the right — arguably, the duty — of inspecting and auditing the program.
To date, program managers have an enviable record of safety
in the aviation industry. The FAA has recognized that many program managers in
the fractional ownership field have been conducting their operations according
to the industry's "best practices." The new FAA rule imposes joint compliance
and operational control responsibility on both program managers and
frac-owners. It is incumbent upon frac-owners to ensure that the best
practices are being followed.
Before signing the agreements, upon renewal, and on a spot-check basis,
owners may wish to inspect and audit the safety aspects of the program. Owners
may use technical consultants, if necessary, to audit the operational and
airworthiness matters, but the results may be discoverable in litigation.
Attorneys with sufficient aviation experience can do such audits and
inspections with confidentiality under the attorney-client privilege.
Knowledgeable aviation attorneys should also be able to audit the various
clauses in the operating contracts (purchase, management, ownership and
interchange agreements) under the governing state law. They can also evaluate
the critical insurance coverage upon which frac-owners must rely to protect
against liability exposure. Notwithstanding large coverage limits in the fleet
policies to cover foreseeable accidents, the risks to the frac-owner include
the denial of coverage or the application of an exclusion to the occurrence,
particularly where regulations may have been violated.
Even if insurance coverage is provided, there are questions of corporate
accountability and adverse business consequences to frac-owners which can
result from FAA sanctions, liability litigation, disclosure of court records
and adverse publicity that may result if a fractional owner is accused of
violating safety rules after a major air crash or even a survivable
accident.
When fractional owners audit and inspect their programs, they must focus on
flight crew qualifications, staffing, drug education, the initial and
recurrent training of pilots and maintenance personnel, aircraft scheduling,
passenger briefings, record keeping, vendor standards, and a host of other
factors. The FAA stipulates that the new rules do not require any undue
invasion of the manager's financial records or those records pertaining to the
confidential movements of other owners.
A frac-owner has exposure any time it is using its own shared aircraft,
whenever it is using another aircraft in its program, and even when it is
using an aircraft from some other program that is affiliated with the owner's
program. That additional insurance is needed to protect against all
foreseeable risks for all these flights is even more evident because of the
new rule.
Frac-owners should carefully analyze the terms of their operating
agreements and verify that their insurance coverage is consistent with the
agreements. While a major accident clearly could create substantial liability
exposure, a minor accident or incident could result in diminution in value,
loss of use, and other damages not covered by insurance. Under many
agreements, program managers may use the aircraft for Part 135 charter
operations, significantly increasing the utilization, exposure to damage, and
ordinary wear and tear. Will the value of the investment be protected?
Management agreements may contain provisions whereby the manager will
procure "combined single-limit liability" coverage in amounts up to $200
million. Such insurance may be sufficient to cover air crashes unless there is
another catastrophe of the magnitude of September 11. The protection from such
coverage limits is reassuring — as long as the insurance carrier actually
provides the expected coverage.
A duly diligent frac-owner will audit the specific requirements for
insurance coverage by comparison to the use of aircraft by the other
frac-owners and the program manager. Even if there is no violation of the FAA
regulations, unauthorized usage, invalidating acts or excluded occurrences
could result in a denial of coverage.
Some issues that should be examined when evaluating the strength of
coverage include:
- Does the insurance policy obtained by the program manager provide
coverage for "war risk, hijacking and other perils [terrorism]?" Is there
a force majeure clause in the agreement or insurance policy? Insurers are
concerned about their exposure from a catastrophic occurrence like
September 11. The wording of any exclusion for such events must be
carefully analyzed. It must be clear that the coverage provided is for
both "hull" and "liability" and for all aircraft used for frac-owner
flights.
- Most frac-owners have previously relied on the program managers to
make sure that the fractional program functioned under the umbrella of the
insurance. It is critical that the frac-owner is not deprived of coverage
if the program manager is negligent and does something that might
invalidate coverage. The management agreement might contain a clause that
requires the insurance company to designate the manager as a "first named
insured." The insurer should promise that the "named insured" coverage or
"additional named insured" coverage for the frac-owners will not be
invalidated by the negligence of the first named insured. Further, the
program manager or its agents (crews, mechanics, etc.) may impair
subrogation rights by signing vendors' hold harmless agreements, thereby
voiding the coverage; again, the prudent frac-owner should take steps to
prevent this eventuality.
- Improper use of a fractional program aircraft by one of the
frac-owners could result in the denial of coverage by the insurance
company. The resulting exposure would be substantial, and the applicable
agreements among the owners may be unenforceable due to bankruptcy or
other factors. Thus, each frac-owner must insure against breach of the
owner agreements to the extent possible, and audit the non-confidential
use of program and affiliate aircraft to ensure compliance with the terms
of the insurance contract.
Commercial aircraft operators are forbidden by
the Department of Transportation to carry less than the minimum required
coverage under Federal regulations. Thus, exclusions or warranties providing
limitations cannot be implemented for commercial flights without approval by
the Department of Transportation. 14 CFR §205. A fractional ownership program
is a general aviation operation controlled by Part 91. Federal regulations do
not prohibit the use of exclusions in general aviation policies. Exclusions
can be invoked to deny coverage (indemnification money) and allow the insurer
to avoid its duty to defend (pay for defense lawyers). Depending on the
policy, there can be exclusions for not having a valid airworthiness
certificate, carrying excessive passengers, intentional misuse of the
aircraft, etc. Here are some exclusions to watch out for:
Many policies exclude coverage for certain regulation violations that
create enormous risk that the insurance company did not underwrite. If such
FAR violations are clear, specific and unambiguous, insurers may deny
coverage. Examples may include the failure of any of the pilots to have valid
and current medical certificates, or the use of the aircraft outside the
specifications required for an airworthiness certificate.
Another exclusion common to aviation insurance policies involves the pilot
warranty clause. Pilots are required to have certain certificates, ratings,
experience and currency and need to have logged specific types of flight time.
Insurers necessarily have strict requirements for the qualifications of the
pilots because they are underwriting risks of flight that are largely
controlled by pilots. If a pilot has an accident in circumstances in which the
pilot was not qualified under the pilot warranty clause, the fractional owners
may face a denial of coverage.
Policies usually contain limitations or exclusions regarding the
geographical limitations on the use of the aircraft. Does the service area in
the operating agreements coincide with the territorial limits? Are the program
and affiliate aircraft being used outside of insured territorial limits such
that an accident in the wrong place will invoke a denial of coverage?
While there may be a sufficient amount of indemnity coverage, the duty to
defend each of the various participants can be an insurance issue. Although
each party has a right to hire independent counsel, will the insurance company
pay for up to16 frac-owners in an airplane crash, or up to 32 frac-owners in a
helicopter crash? Insurance companies usually have the contractual right to
choose their insured's defense counsel. There may not be a need for separate
counsel for each owner in every crash; but if their interests are in conflict
or potential conflict, disputes can arise as to the duty of the insurance
company to pay for independent counsel for each owner. The program manager and
frac-owner using the aircraft will usually have more exposure, as may
frac-owners who had the "watch" when the problem began. The larger share
owners may not be similarly situated to the smaller share owners. Sometimes
program managers are also share owners. Some frac-owners provide their own
pilots; others use pilots from the program manager. There may also be issues
arising from affiliated program aircraft and pilots.
If a fractional program air crash occurs, the damages are likely to be
enormous, especially considering the affluence of the typical passengers. The
indemnification costs of multi-defendant, multiple-victim litigation can be
staggering. Add in demands for defense counsel for each frac-owner, where a
conflict or potential conflict exists, and even the most stalwart insurer will
be tempted to have its coverage lawyers weighing its duty to indemnify and
duty to defend. Certainly, coverage dollars may be consumed by multiple
defenses, and frac-owners would be liable for damages in excess of the
coverage limits.
Even though a fractional owner does not hold a license or certificate
from the FAA, the new rules allow enforcement actions seeking monetary
sanctions against fractional owners.91.1001; 91.1013(1)(iii). Fractional
ownership programs are general aviation operations and not commercial aircraft
operations.
The FAA's monetary clout against frac-owners is limited; in most cases it
is $1,000.00 per violation up to a limit of $50,000.00. Thus, notwithstanding
corporate or reputation problems in the event of a sanction by the FAA, the
monetary stake is not that great.
The real threat to the fractional owner is that the FAA will take action
against the program manager. The FAA can suspend or revoke the program
manager's certificates. The FAA can revoke the management specifications for
the fractional program. Either action would have the effect of grounding the
aircraft in the program. The FAA has promulgated an amendment to Part 13 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations, which states that the administrator of the
FAA may revoke all or part of the management specifications issued to the
program manager under Subpart K of Part 91. If the FAA grounded the program,
who would compensate the fractional owners for the loss of use of their
aircraft? Arguably, owners would have to charter aircraft at substantial
expense and could suffer various consequential damages. Often, management
agreements have a limitation of liability clause, disclaiming responsibility
for loss of use, etc. It is unlikely that the program manager's insurance
would cover such damages?
The new FAA rules do not address the employment relationship between the
pilots and the program manager or the fractional owners. This is a matter of
state contract law. Typically, the program manager employs the pilots, but
independent contractors are also used. Frac-owners may also provide their own
pilots for their flights. What if a flight crewmember does something other
than cause a crash, such as commit a crime or some form of discrimination?
Will the program manager be the only defendant? Will the fractional owner, in
operational control of its flight, be exposed to liability for the misdeeds
the air crew who are arguably the owner's agents on its trip? Will the program
manager's insurance policy provide coverage for such an occurrence?
The escalation of wrongful discharge or discrimination lawsuits has been a
plague for many businesses. Normally, the program manager is the employer of
the crew and provides crew services for the flight. The new Subpart K rules
require that whenever the fractional owner has directed the program manager to
carry its passengers, the fractional owner is in operational control. In fact,
the FAA has recognized in its Notice of Proposed Rule Making that a fractional
owners "can initiate, conduct, redirect and terminate a flight." In order to
do any of these things, a fractional owner must necessarily be able to direct
the pilot to initiate, conduct, redirect or terminate a flight. If the
frac-owner is dissatisfied with the crew on its flight can the frac-owner
cause them to be terminated?
If the fractional owner has such power, does he have the "right to control"
the crew sufficiently to be adjudicated an "employer" under the liberal
employee protection laws of some states? In many jurisdictions, the employer
is determined by the "right to control," not necessarily the party who issues
the paycheck and W-2 form. There are some management agreements that contain
pilot-selection clauses purporting to give the owner the right to select the
pilots for his flights — a potential minefield for employer liability. We
doubt that this issue has been tested in the courts because the control
imposed on frac-owners by the FAA is unique. If a frac-owner in operational
control gets sued for wrongful discharge or discrimination from an occurrence
on a frac-owner's flight, will the program manager's insurance cover the
lawsuit?
The FAA proclaims that the new Subpart K embodies the "best practices" in
the industry. Yet the FAA does not require random drug testing for fractional
programs. Drug testing is required for Part 135 and Part 121 operations. The
new rule only requires that program managers provide drug education. The owner
is entitled to disclosure as to the nature of the education, be it of the
"just say no" variety or better. The FAA allows drug testing in fractional
programs and some programs use it. If the "best practices" are to be employed,
then perhaps proper random drug testing should be the standard of care for all
programs, even if not required by the FAA.
There may be something inherently illogical about imposing operational
control responsibilities on time-share owners who do not have aviation
expertise. Program rules designed to impose aviation duties on parties who are
not in a position to really do anything to improve aviation safety may give
rise to unintended consequences. However, from a business perspective,
frac-ownership may be an efficient way to own a piece of a business' air
travel requirements and may be good for some. Others may be better off with
co-ownership arrangements under Part 91.501 et seq. Traditional corporate
flight departments may be the answer for some high-volume users; the use of
management companies with aviation expertise may suffice for others. Some
businesspersons may prefer to simply pay a charter operator and take a trip
without the burdens of ownership and now, FAA regulation. In any case,
careful, professional evaluation of the options and their attendant benefits
and risks is essential.
NOTE: The issues discussed in this article do not constitute
legal advice. My objective is to alert you to some common issues so that you
can avoid or minimize legal trouble. Anyone with an aviation law problem
should be guided by the advice of his or her lawyer, under applicable
federal and state laws, after a full and confidential disclosure of all
relevant facts.
Email this article
