FAA Continues Emergency Revocations of Air Carrier Certificates
For over a year, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been conducting on-going investigations of Part 135 operational control systems, aircraft leases between air charter operators and aircraft owners, and the use of alternate business names. The investigations continue even as the agency has worked with industry to revise Operations Specification (OpSpec) A008 to improve operator’s understanding of and compliance with FAA expectations with regard to operational control.
Although the issue date of the OpSpec has been delayed to October 31, 2006, Part 135 certificate holders are encouraged to review a draft version of the OpSpec and make necessary changes to their operation immediately. The NATA Part 135 Operational Control Web page provides background information and a draft version of the OpSpec, but this guidance should not be considered exclusively. Certificate holders should seek legal counsel to determine what, if any, changes are necessary to ensure compliance.
There has been no guarantee or promise by the FAA of immunity for operators not in compliance while the OpSpec is being drafted. In fact, the FAA has established a special enforcement team that investigates potential operational control violations in Part 135 operations. Several air carrier certificates have been retracted without notice through Emergency Orders of Revocation. Air carriers that receive these Orders are shut down immediately. Aircraft on the affected certificate are often subject to additional scrutiny when and if the aircraft move to another certificate.
Once again, NATA strongly recommends that all Part 135 certificate holders review a draft version of the OpSpec and a take a serious look at the operational control system in place at their operation.
Operators may find it helpful to review FAA Orders issued against Part 135 certificate holders. These Orders specifically outline what the FAA perceived as lapses in operational control during their investigation of the operator. While NATA takes no position on the legitimacy of the FAA’s claims, the Orders are nonetheless indicative of how the FAA might evaluate operational control procedures at other air carriers.
For example, in an Emergency Revocation Order issued in November 2005 to a Part 135 certificate holder, the FAA asserted the operator charged clients a monthly fee to use their certificate. According to the Order, the air carrier also allowed clients to prepare trip itineraries and flight manifests and dispatch and schedule crew. The air carrier then relied on fax transmissions from its clients prior to each of the client’s flight to inform the air carrier of the proposed arrival and departure time. In addition, the air carrier relied on its clients to report flight time of crews and did not keep required records of non-flight duty time. The FAA concluded that the air carrier did not maintain control of operations conducted under its certificate authority.