Top Letters And Comments, February 4, 2022

FAA Letter Hits, Again, At Illegal Compensation For Carrying Passengers

As demonstrated by yet ANOTHER FAA “warning” about “Illegal Charter Operations”–this is going to become a larger and larger issue for Private and Business pilots. It’s too bad–it’s bad for the industry in multiple ways. I can’t blame NATA for trying to protect their “slice of the pie”–but as the old saying goes, “why not MAKE THE PIE LARGER?”

This is my 60th year of flying, and 52nd in the FBO business. We’ve owned 587 airplanes over the years, and crewed multiple jets, turboprops, and piston airplanes. We did charter for 22 years–and quite successfully–utilizing the age-old scenario of aircraft sale/leaseback/charter management. Twenty-four years ago, I quit–the income just wasn’t worth the regulatory cost any more. I’m not alone–the number of turbine aircraft charter operators in our northern state has dwindled to a handful–and most of them are large charter operators using jets in the Metro area–very few in the rest of the State.

It’s too bad–how else is a potential charter customer or potential aircraft owner going to be exposed to what corporate aviation can do? Traditionally, we would have one corporate operator in town–they put the aircraft on charter, so other businesses could have access to it–and business boomed–not only for turbine aircraft, but even for the smaller craft. We employed pilots, mechanics, dispatchers, and secretaries. After a while, these same customers started asking themselves “Why don’t WE have an airplane?” They ended up buying one–adding to our business.

Some people couldn’t afford an entire airplane, so we created PARTNERSHIPS. We created INTERCHANGES, where companies that required larger (or smaller) aircraft could get the “right size” airplane for the mission of the day. For everything else, there was charter. It was hard to explain to the charter customers why OTHER airplanes and pilots could make a flight, but not the restrictive charter operations.

We joined NBAA, and took advantage of their Part 91 Subpart K FAA dispensation for interchange, as well as their “double the cost of the fuel” exemption and FAA guidance–it worked OK for “straight-pipe” jets, but not for fanjets or turboprops. As aircrew, we even banded together and took our families on a “busman’s holiday” vacation–SHARING THE DIRECT OPERATING COST.

In short, we used every LEGAL means to make flights. In all of those years–in all of those airplanes–with old pilots and new–WE NEVER HAD AN ACCIDENT, AND NEVER HAD A VIOLATION–a record to be proud of, considering the thousands of hours flown, in Thunderstorm season and snow and ice. When FAA did come down to audit our flights, they would often ask “Is THIS a legal flight?” The Chief Pilot or myself would explain it–“yes, this was for the owner of the aircraft–Part 91–duty time does not apply” or “This flight was an Interchange–2 hours on the King Air traded for 3 hours on the Navajo–here’s the agreement, and here’s the NBAA exemption.” (A word to the wise–in the Army, we used to make fun of “Guardhouse Lawyers”–a guy in military jail that used to proclaim “they can’t do that!) (If that were the case, why was that guy in the guardhouse?) SPEND THE MONEY FOR A GOOD DEDICATED AVIATION ATTORNEY, AND FOLLOW HIS ADVICE. It cost us thousands of dollars, but we had the best in the business craft our operating agreements, and it was money well spent!

The FAA oversight on the charter side wasn’t that big a deal for those of us that knew the rules–but it was a big thing for pilots–after a while, the pilots would simply refuse to fly charter flights any more, because of the spectre of FAA oversight hovering over the same trip that could be made easily and safely if it was Part 91. After a while, we ended up flying very few charter flights, except for aeromedical.

When NATA started pressing FAA to “crack down on illegal charter”–many NBAA members not only quit doing legal charter, but quit utilizing the FAA–approved exemptions–resulting in FEWER hours per year to amortize the considerable cost of a corporate airplane, and FEWER new customers exposed to the benefits of corporate aviation. The advent of “fractional shares” helped restore the utilization somewhat–but one can only wonder how many more airplanes would be sold and operated if charter wasn’t so restrictive. It’s not just corporate jets, either–the FAA rules on single-engine IFR prevent so many users from even TRYING it at an entry level–even though the aircraft are much more reliable than when the rules were written–are much better equipped (sometimes with radar, de-ice, or single-engine turbine)–or even whole-airplane parachutes.

Some people will argue that the restrictions are “for safety”–yet that is inverse thinking. The low profitability of charter ops tends to argue for OLDER airplanes–and YOUNGER and more inexperienced pilots. I haven’t seen the safety records lately–but for many years, corporate aircraft flown by professional crews had a safety record much BETTER than charter operators flying under the much more restrictive rules. (Think about it–do you ever see a corporate pilot leaving a company to fly charter?) SO MUCH FOR THE EFFICACY OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION!

Jim Hanson

Pipistrel Velis Flight Trial: Cool Airplane, Not For U.S. Market

The original reasoning behind the Alpha Electro was just as Paul described: use the electric version as a cheap trainer in the pattern and use the avgas-powered version for all other training tasks. The times quoted back then were 1 hour of useful flying with a 30-minute reserve still left in the batteries. I do not know what changed to shave this down to the useful endurance quoted in the video. With an hour to play with, the aircraft might just be on the useful side of the equation, but having just 24 minutes endurance puts it squarely in the technology demonstrator corner. It’s an interesting first step though.

Jelle Hieminga

The efficiency of the electric motor is impressive. The terrible energy density of the current battery technology is also impressive, but in a different way. As a technology demonstrator and a place to start this is an interesting aircraft. It’s nowhere near a practical aircraft in any other sense though. We need a leap forward in battery tech. When (if) that comes, Pipistrel will be nicely positioned.

Elton

Poll: Do You Think The 5G Threat Was Overblown?

• Well going in to Seattle the other day with heavy fog covering the airport we were forced to use an approach with higher mins because of the 5G restrictions. We almost did not make it in because we were not able to use the approach with the CAT 3 minimums. Having to go to Redmond, OR as our alternate would’ve had a pretty profound effect on our passengers as our flight attendants would have likely run out of duty time while we waited for the fog to lift in KSEA. – Hugh Jorgan
• No. The FCC sold the frequencies with insufficient guard bands given the power and ubiquity of the telephony transmitters. Big bucks for them; let the existing neighbors foot the bill for splatter. Not even your local zoning board would approve the construction of a fraternity house right up to the edge of your property, and then tell you that you’ve got to pay to mitigate the noise. Unfortunately, the FCC is both the zoning board and the property seller. – Chip
• Neither the airlines, the 5G providers, the FCC, nor the FAA actually knows the risks. Everything has been theoretical conjecture. Testing by a volunteer team of engineers has shown potential hazards. Until both the FAA and FCC get their poop in a pile, this will be an accident looking for a place to happen. Money always trumps common sense.
• There seems to be a problem. ATIS in Michigan has been issuing warnings for the last week. And, a couple reports of issues.
• Poorly managed frequency rejection by legacy aviation systems. This train has been coming at aviation for 5 years but I’ve not seen any real attempt to ensure aviation systems can work in only their assigned frequencies and reject adjacent RF.
• The 5G Threat reporting was overblown.
• It IS a real thing, not WAS.
• No, it was the real thing for some commercial jets.
• It’s a little bit difficult to determine from my armchair, but it might be worth considering that the mitigating measures taken are at least part of the reason that no major issues have made the news!
• Why haven’t both sides come together to test/demonstrate whether the threat is real and share the expense of doing so?
• It was mostly political.
• Original reports were about GPS interference. Lately the only talk is about radar interference. That seems like more of an airline than GA problem.
• Real, due to mismanagement.
• It comes down to who didn’t do their homework or who maybe missed this vital item before the roll out for 5G. When it gets to this level of investment, very rarely do the airlines let it slip by without knowing it. So, when it was realized, the big airlines quickly jumped on the safety wagon and balked at returning to category 3 approaches that require the radar altimeter. Who’s going to pay to fix the issue? That my is the rub.
• Politics and science have been so intermingled lately, is hard to know if/when the scientists are telling the truth.
• More NOTAMs to seek, 3 new must-read bulletins, a decision flow matrix of mitigation, Part 121.
• Threat still exists for frequencies conflict.
• Should have done testing a long time ago and only effect older devices with poor discrimination.
• Federal government incompetence…again! Had years to address the issue, to PREVENT the issue, but once again failed…ho hum.
• I’m holding out for 6G.