Aviation Today recently conducted a webinar entitled Part 135 Operations: How to Handle the New Pressures. With the recent indictment of five Platinum Jet executives for illegal Part 135 operations, the stakes for operating without a Part 135 certificate just got a lot higher. In addition to the threat of FAA certificate revocations or suspensions and hefty civil penalties (for instance $10 million for TAG Aviation) the specter of significant jail terms looms. Two executives have pled guilty and are likely to see the inside of a prison.

Many aircraft owners don't fully realize that there is an entirely different set of regulations that govern the operation of aircraft for hire. It's called FAR Part 135, and it explains what is required of an air taxi operator, including the qualifications of the pilots who fly charter airplanes, and the level of aircraft maintenance that is required when the airplane is offered to paying passengers.

Each airplane on a Part 135 charter certificate must be approved by the FAA. Every time an airplane is added or removed from such a certificate, the document must be amended and re-approved. The length of time that it takes for the official paperwork to reach the operator will vary among the country's far-flung network of Flight Standards District Offices.

At issue is the status of Part 135 operational control and aircraft owner vulnerability to allegations of illegal Part 135 operations when they put their aircraft on a Part 135 Ops Specs and supply the crew. Is there a better way to protect corporate operators? Is Part 135 certification of corporate flight departments feasible and cost-effective?

The cost of Part 135 compliance is unknown, says John Golia, an independent air safety consultant and former member of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). "I'm in no position to predict the costs, but it certainly seems like Part 135 operators are going to have to, they are going to have to find ways to address those costs because I think the train has already left the station," he stated during the webinar event.

Exactly what is a serious violation that might result in an indictment? According to Joe Del Balzo, head of JDA Aviation Technology Solutions and a former senior FAA official, "one of the most serious violations that can occur is based on loss of operational control, corporate operators routinely putting their Part 91 corporate aircraft on a 135 certificate while at the same time maintaining operational control. Serious violation. And you're looking at heavy fines and again, possible criminal activity. "

How does the FAA define operational control? According to Del Balzo: "Operational control. Who is it that has the authority to dispatch an aircraft? Is it the corporate operator or is it the 135 operator? The person that has authority to dispatch has operational control over that flight. Who is it that knows when a flight is airborne and when it lands? The person that knows has operational control. So if a corporate operator has their aircraft on a 135 certificate and their crew is flying that airplane and the 135 certificate owner is unaware of that flight, who has operational control? The corporate operator, not the 135 operator."

Added Golia: "In the Platinum case, which is the one that started all of this, there were six indictments. In three of them, the director of charter operations, the director of maintenance, and a co-pilot were named. And all six of those indictments were against the aircraft operator, not the charter company or the holder of the Part 135. "

Continued the former Safety Board member: "In all the activities that have occurred since Platinum opened up this can of worms, the operational control issues have really come to light. We have what's called agency agreements, I just call them agreements, where you pull your pilots off your payroll and put them on the 135 payroll. It's been called blue smoke and mirrors or papering over the problem.

"But the bottom line is, if you have an airplane, your own airplane, you have your own crews and you carry passengers, and you get paid for it, that's a 135 certificate that you need. And putting your airplane on and off somebody else's certificate, if you really pay attention to the details, I think you can get away with it. But over time, you think you find a better way of doing it and you start missing some of the steps that these attorneys have told you that you have to take, and then someday someone comes knocking on the door and says, you're in violation.

"So instead of trying to thread the needle every time you do one of these operations, it would be just so much better for your operation if you were 135. Not only for the revenue that you generate, but clearly a 135 certificate, if you are operating to it as a business or a corporate entity, you are going to have a safer operation. And isn't that what it's all about when you're flying your CEO around?"

Del Balzo summarized the overall issue in just a few words: "The FAA has declared that many corporate operators are renting a certificate from a 135 operator in a way that is illegal and in a way that not just could result in, but has resulted in fines, certificate suspensions. Not just of the 135 operator, but the Part 91 corporate operator losing pilot certificates and aircraft registrations and revocations. And the threat of jail time isn't just a threat. It has been found to be a reality."

Both Del Balzo and Goglia believe the $10 million civil penalty for TAG Aviation is a lesson that has yet to be learned by other operators. Stated Del Balzo: "I don't see attitudes changing. What I see is: what happened to AMI/TAG happened to them, it's not going to happen to me. I'm smarter than that. What we are doing is totally legal. And it must be legal, nobody has come after me so far and told me differently."

Goglia weighed in: "I believe that there is way too much complacency and I would add that they probably have gone to their attorneys who have written these agency agreements and the attorneys are saying: oh yes, you're all right, don't worry about it. And they may get a surprise."