Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
zuckie13
Topic Author
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

How JSX operations meet Part 135 Requirements

Sun Sep 13, 2020 5:21 pm

The thread regarding the spat between JSX and SNA got me to look up about Part 135 requirements, and I'm confused how JSX operations actually meet those.

From the FAA site (https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificat ... eral_info/):
Kinds of 14 CFR 135 Certificate Operating Authorities

Another important consideration when starting the certification process is for the applicant to determine the kind of operations that they wish to conduct. 14 CFR 135 certificate holders can conduct On-demand operations, which may include limited scheduled operations, or Scheduled (Commuter) operations, which allow unlimited scheduled operations as well as On-demand operations. Each kind of operation, On-demand or Commuter, has specific limitations associated with them. These include the number of passenger seats that can be installed on the aircraft, maximum payload limits, and whether turbo-jet aircraft can be used in that kind of operation.

On-demand

On-demand operations can be conducted in airplanes that have a passenger seating configuration of 30 seats or less, a maximum payload capacity of 7500 pounds, or in any rotorcraft.

On-demand certificate holders can also conduct limited scheduled operations with the following additional restrictions:
Less than 5 round trips per week on at least one route between two or more points according to published flight schedules,
No turbo-jet airplanes can be used, and
Airplanes are limited to a maximum passenger seating configuration of 9 seats or less.

Commuter

Commuter operations may be conducted in airplanes which have a maximum passenger-seating configuration of 9 seats and a maximum payload capacity of 7500 pounds, or in any rotorcraft. Commuter operations cannot be conducted in any turbo-jet aircraft.

A certificate holder with Commuter authority can also conduct On-demand operations.


The schedule part of an on-demand operator seems to limit that portion to 9 seat or fewer non turbojet aircraft doing less that 5 trips per week. JSX seems to fail all three of those on some routs, and always fails two of them.
The commuter part also requires 9 seat max planes, so again, they don't fit that.

So what am I missing? Are these flight somehow treated as on-demand even though there is a published schedule?

Don't get me wrong, I think their operation is interesting, but since I'm on the wrong coast, I haven't/are not likely to fly them soon, but I'd like to of the opportunity arose. My logical brain just can't reconcile how they meet what I'm reading about Part 135.
 
weaglibrium
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Sun Sep 13, 2020 5:43 pm

JSX’s operations and commercial scheme is enabled by two different companies that share ownership but are functionally separate - think right hand and left hand.

Their flights are operated under what is known as Part 380 or Public Charters. This scheme was originally developed for travel agents and tour operators to bundle chartered flights as part of a more inclusive trip and there are very specific rules regarding release of funds from escrow and other consumer protections. While other trip components are not required, the consumer protections remain.

In the case of JSX, the right hand company operates as a travel agency and “charters” the entire flight. When a part 380 prospectus is approved by the DOT, they can the offer seats to the traveling public. The flight is still considered “on demand” because it the schedule was completely prescribed by the first (commercial) company.

The second company, or left hand, actually operates the flight as prescribed by the first, its charter customer. They operate under Part 135 as you suggest. However, if the operating company acquires commuter authority then the trip frequency limitations are removed. So you have an operator/airline and a different company that is the travel agency making all commercial decisions.

Security is another issue. The TSA does not require chartered aircraft of fewer than 31 seats to be screened traditionally- each carrier is left to implement its own TSA approved vetting protocol.

Finally Part 139 certification is another item. An aircraft with fewer than 31 seats operated as a charter can use any field, with or without certification. Hence you see them in places like Concord and Tahoe, etc.

Classifying these flights as charters AND keeping aircraft at 30 seats is critical to both operating without traditional TSA and non commercial fields. That’s why you see both E135 and E145 configured for just 30 seats.

Other airlines use this method for similar reasons, including Contour at some locations as well as the former DirectAir and even Morris Air, eventually bought by Southwest!
 
zuckie13
Topic Author
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:46 pm

Thanks for that info.
Basically it sounds like they essentially use loophole by smashing some things together in a way that was not anticipated when these various sections of the law were written.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6302
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:00 pm

It’s not a loophole, it’s written into the regulations specifically for scheduled charters.
 
ytib
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:22 am

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:09 pm

From the City of Newport Beach's Q&A on this and other GA matters for changes in leases.
https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/sho ... t?id=64372

How does John Wayne Airport define commercial user?
The John Wayne Airport Access Plan defines commercial user as follows (emphasis added by the City): “… any person conducting aircraft operations at JWA for the purpose of carrying passengers, freight, or cargo where such operations: (i) are operated in support of, advertised, or otherwise made available to members of the public by any means for commercial air transportation purposes, and members of the public may travel or ship Commercial Cargo on the flights; (ii) the flights are scheduled to occur, or are represented as occurring (or available) at specified times and days; and (iii) the person conducts, or proposes to operate, departures at JWA at a frequency greater than two (2) times per week during any consecutive three (3) week period.

Since there’s no “loophole”, why does the City care where JetSuiteX is located at John Wayne Airport?
Some have questioned why the City cares where JetSuiteX operates, particularly since the aircraft it uses are generally smaller and quieter than most of the commercial aircraft in the JWA fleet. The City wants JetSuiteX’s operations moved to the main terminal for reasons related to safety, security and accountability. It is considered a commercial user and as such, it should operate among the airport’s other commercial users, in the main terminal. The City is very concerned about commercial operations “encroaching” into an area of the airport that has traditionally been used by General Aviation. There are gates available in the main terminal. In addition, the City has safety and security concerns related to the screening of commercial passengers at a Fixed Base Operator rather than in the main terminal. While federal regulations allow it, the City believes all commercial passengers should be screened in the main terminal.
318, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 388, 707, 717, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73Q, 735, 73G, 738, 7M8, 739, 752, 753, 742, 74L, 744, 762, 763, 772, 77L, 77W, 789, 142, CN1, CR2, CR7, DC8, DH2, DH8, D8Q, D10, D95, EM2, ER3, ER4, E70, 100, J31, M11, M83, M88, M90, SF3
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:10 pm

I think you guys are missing the point. Has nothing for do with 135 or Part 380.

It comes down to land use regulations for modernization of general aviation facilities which Orange County adopted following extensive California Environmental Quality Act review which now bars such operations as JSX performs at the FBO.
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6302
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:14 pm

What the City of Newport Beach thinks about security screening, it’s not their remit—it’s the TSA’s call.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:37 pm

zuckie13 wrote:
Thanks for that info.
Basically it sounds like they essentially use loophole by smashing some things together in a way that was not anticipated when these various sections of the law were written.


Oh well. They're operating within the law. I can't believe some people are giving them so much grief. JSX should be celebrated. Why wouldn't you avoid TSA and thousands of other passengers if you have the opportunity?
 
TonyClifton
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 3:19 pm

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:55 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
zuckie13 wrote:
Thanks for that info.
Basically it sounds like they essentially use loophole by smashing some things together in a way that was not anticipated when these various sections of the law were written.


Oh well. They're operating within the law. I can't believe some people are giving them so much grief. JSX should be celebrated. Why wouldn't you avoid TSA and thousands of other passengers if you have the opportunity?

NIMBYism, once again.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 5009
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Sun Sep 13, 2020 8:56 pm

janders wrote:
I think you guys are missing the point. Has nothing for do with 135 or Part 380.

It comes down to land use regulations for modernization of general aviation facilities which Orange County adopted following extensive California Environmental Quality Act review which now bars such operations as JSX performs at the FBO.

This thread is about how JSX qualifies to operate under FAR 135
 
zuckie13
Topic Author
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Sun Sep 13, 2020 11:17 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
zuckie13 wrote:
Thanks for that info.
Basically it sounds like they essentially use loophole by smashing some things together in a way that was not anticipated when these various sections of the law were written.


Oh well. They're operating within the law. I can't believe some people are giving them so much grief. JSX should be celebrated. Why wouldn't you avoid TSA and thousands of other passengers if you have the opportunity?


Clearly you did not read the last sentence in my original post so go back and read that first.

I'm not attacking anybody, just wanted to find out how they were able to do what they do based on what I read about the law. That's it. First guy to respond explained it.
The term "loophole" was not meant to be derogatory - just a fact. In fact, "loophole" by definition meas you are operating in the law, just not as it really intended. This kind of operation was not the intent of the laws as written - but as written they allow it to exist.
 
zuckie13
Topic Author
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Sun Sep 13, 2020 11:20 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It’s not a loophole, it’s written into the regulations specifically for scheduled charters.


I'll think I disagree, the law most likely intended that one company - like a travel agency - could charter aircraft flown by another company. Like travel agency booking a daily trip to Disney Land. The fact that the "travel agency" aka JSX itself would essentially make its own subsidiary airline to charter from was probably not the intent, but nothing in the law actually prevents it, hence me calling it a loophole.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6302
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Mon Sep 14, 2020 12:50 am

It doesn’t matter what you or I think the law was meant, it’s what is there in black ink. Prove the regulators, who approved the operation meant different.
 
MO11
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Mon Sep 14, 2020 2:24 am

weaglibrium wrote:

Other airlines use this method for similar reasons, including Contour at some locations as well as the former DirectAir and even Morris Air, eventually bought by Southwest!


Just to avoid confusion, although Direct Air and Morris Air operated Part 380 charters, the flights were operated under FAR 121. An example of a company that owned both the charterer as well as the operating airline was Sun Jet International.
 
ASFlyer
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:25 pm

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:37 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It doesn’t matter what you or I think the law was meant, it’s what is there in black ink. Prove the regulators, who approved the operation meant different.


Does the law require JWA to provide space for them to conduct these operations? I mean, if the people that run JWA decide that all commercial passenger operations have to take place in the main terminal - and there is not a way to circumvent security when operating from the main terminal, then what is JSX to do? Move or leave SNA. Frankly, whether the law is written this way or not, it's a HUGE hole in the security framework meant to deter terrorist acts. It's not as though there haven't been any terrorist acts in the United States.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2637
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:48 am

ASFlyer wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It doesn’t matter what you or I think the law was meant, it’s what is there in black ink. Prove the regulators, who approved the operation meant different.


Does the law require JWA to provide space for them to conduct these operations? I mean, if the people that run JWA decide that all commercial passenger operations have to take place in the main terminal - and there is not a way to circumvent security when operating from the main terminal, then what is JSX to do? Move or leave SNA. Frankly, whether the law is written this way or not, it's a HUGE hole in the security framework meant to deter terrorist acts. It's not as though there haven't been any terrorist acts in the United States.


The terrorists hijacked part 121 passenger planes. Why should part 135 and others suffer? They did nothing wrong. It's the same nonsense with other matters such as forbidding general aviation planes from using DCA. GA had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks yet they're the ones being punished. If the commercial airport is funded by taxpayers then everyone should be allowed to operate there. It really makes me mad that AOPA does nothing to fight for GA like they are supposed to.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7073
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:10 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It doesn’t matter what you or I think the law was meant, it’s what is there in black ink. Prove the regulators, who approved the operation meant different.


I expect that if the intent had been to allow ersatz scheduled operators with multiple daily frequencies on multiple routes, the law wouldn't require an artificial structure with two companies. There's no logical reason to require this -- just explicitly allow the operator to accept bookings and maintain ticket funds in escrow. The fact that there are restrictions on number of seats for commuter operations and number of weekly scheduled operations without the artificial introduction of a travel agency would also point to the original intent of the regulation.

As others have pointed out, someone taking advantage of a loophole isn't doing anything illegal. They just figured out a way to do things which fit within the law but do not necessarily comport with the original intent of the law.

ASFlyer wrote:
Does the law require JWA to provide space for them to conduct these operations? I mean, if the people that run JWA decide that all commercial passenger operations have to take place in the main terminal - and there is not a way to circumvent security when operating from the main terminal, then what is JSX to do? Move or leave SNA.


:checkmark: The law allows the proprietors of airports a fair bit of legal flexibility in determining the use of their facilities as long as they're treating the various users of the airport equitably. Nothing says that the County of Orange must allow all Part 135 users to use FBO facilities. If they choose to require all scheduled operators to use the passenger terminal, that's within the airport operator's purview, whether or not one feels they have valid concerns about security.

TTailedTiger wrote:
The terrorists hijacked part 121 passenger planes. Why should part 135 and others suffer?


You really think terrorists make a distinction between Part 121 and Part 135 operations?
 
bigb
Posts: 1130
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:41 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
ASFlyer wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It doesn’t matter what you or I think the law was meant, it’s what is there in black ink. Prove the regulators, who approved the operation meant different.


Does the law require JWA to provide space for them to conduct these operations? I mean, if the people that run JWA decide that all commercial passenger operations have to take place in the main terminal - and there is not a way to circumvent security when operating from the main terminal, then what is JSX to do? Move or leave SNA. Frankly, whether the law is written this way or not, it's a HUGE hole in the security framework meant to deter terrorist acts. It's not as though there haven't been any terrorist acts in the United States.


The terrorists hijacked part 121 passenger planes. Why should part 135 and others suffer? They did nothing wrong. It's the same nonsense with other matters such as forbidding general aviation planes from using DCA. GA had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks yet they're the ones being punished. If the commercial airport is funded by taxpayers then everyone should be allowed to operate there. It really makes me mad that AOPA does nothing to fight for GA like they are supposed to.


Locking DCA down was more for protecting capital buildings since a DCA is literally right there. GA can operate out of DCA too, it’s just a lot of security hoops to jump through if a GA operator wants to operate there.
 
HII
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:13 pm

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:05 pm

chrisair wrote:
ASFlyer wrote:
Frankly, whether the law is written this way or not, it's a HUGE hole in the security framework meant to deter terrorist acts. It's not as though there haven't been any terrorist acts in the United States.


Oh come on. Better run all NetJets flights through TSA too because they don’t have cockpit doors and that’s a “HUGE hole in the security framework.”


Exactly, there are private jets all over the country that are the same size, if not bigger than the jungle jets that JSX is flying. It would be much easier to overtake one of those, especially without the cockpit door security requirements.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 5009
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:25 pm

bigb wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
ASFlyer wrote:

Does the law require JWA to provide space for them to conduct these operations? I mean, if the people that run JWA decide that all commercial passenger operations have to take place in the main terminal - and there is not a way to circumvent security when operating from the main terminal, then what is JSX to do? Move or leave SNA. Frankly, whether the law is written this way or not, it's a HUGE hole in the security framework meant to deter terrorist acts. It's not as though there haven't been any terrorist acts in the United States.


The terrorists hijacked part 121 passenger planes. Why should part 135 and others suffer? They did nothing wrong. It's the same nonsense with other matters such as forbidding general aviation planes from using DCA. GA had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks yet they're the ones being punished. If the commercial airport is funded by taxpayers then everyone should be allowed to operate there. It really makes me mad that AOPA does nothing to fight for GA like they are supposed to.


Locking DCA down was more for protecting capital buildings since a DCA is literally right there. GA can operate out of DCA too, it’s just a lot of security hoops to jump through if a GA operator wants to operate there.

Makes no sense cus you can just be VFR and just enter the restricted airspace
 
32andBelow
Posts: 5009
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:25 pm

HII wrote:
chrisair wrote:
ASFlyer wrote:
Frankly, whether the law is written this way or not, it's a HUGE hole in the security framework meant to deter terrorist acts. It's not as though there haven't been any terrorist acts in the United States.


Oh come on. Better run all NetJets flights through TSA too because they don’t have cockpit doors and that’s a “HUGE hole in the security framework.”


Exactly, there are private jets all over the country that are the same size, if not bigger than the jungle jets that JSX is flying. It would be much easier to overtake one of those, especially without the cockpit door security requirements.

Hell they could just buy a used jet, even like an md80 and
Fly it.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6302
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:30 pm

HII wrote:
chrisair wrote:
ASFlyer wrote:
Frankly, whether the law is written this way or not, it's a HUGE hole in the security framework meant to deter terrorist acts. It's not as though there haven't been any terrorist acts in the United States.


Oh come on. Better run all NetJets flights through TSA too because they don’t have cockpit doors and that’s a “HUGE hole in the security framework.”


Exactly, there are private jets all over the country that are the same size, if not bigger than the jungle jets that JSX is flying. It would be much easier to overtake one of those, especially without the cockpit door security requirements.


Other than buying a bizjet, how do you see terrorists taking one over? If you don’t know charter operators still have to clear the “no fly” list.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6302
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:34 pm

ScottB wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
It doesn’t matter what you or I think the law was meant, it’s what is there in black ink. Prove the regulators, who approved the operation meant different.


I expect that if the intent had been to allow ersatz scheduled operators with multiple daily frequencies on multiple routes, the law wouldn't require an artificial structure with two companies. There's no logical reason to require this -- just explicitly allow the operator to accept bookings and maintain ticket funds in escrow. The fact that there are restrictions on number of seats for commuter operations and number of weekly scheduled operations without the artificial introduction of a travel agency would also point to the original intent of the regulation.

As others have pointed out, someone taking advantage of a loophole isn't doing anything illegal. They just figured out a way to do things which fit within the law but do not necessarily comport with the original intent of the law.

ASFlyer wrote:
Does the law require JWA to provide space for them to conduct these operations? I mean, if the people that run JWA decide that all commercial passenger operations have to take place in the main terminal - and there is not a way to circumvent security when operating from the main terminal, then what is JSX to do? Move or leave SNA.


:checkmark: The law allows the proprietors of airports a fair bit of legal flexibility in determining the use of their facilities as long as they're treating the various users of the airport equitably. Nothing says that the County of Orange must allow all Part 135 users to use FBO facilities. If they choose to require all scheduled operators to use the passenger terminal, that's within the airport operator's purview, whether or not one feels they have valid concerns about security.

TTailedTiger wrote:
The terrorists hijacked part 121 passenger planes. Why should part 135 and others suffer?


You really think terrorists make a distinction between Part 121 and Part 135 operations?


Have you run a 135 certificate? Do you think the FAA, which watches 135 scams like this would be, like a hawk would approve it, if it didn’t comply with the law. While FAA safety oversight is marginal at times, they’re all over scams, see TEB crash of CL601, ownership of TAG’s 135 certificate years ago which put them out of US business.
 
chrisair
Posts: 2161
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2000 11:32 pm

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:08 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
If you don’t know charter operators still have to clear the “no fly” list.


My comment about NetJets was directed to @ASFlyer and their comment about JSX having "a huge security hole" because they use FBOs.
 
User avatar
eeightning
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:23 am

Re: How JSX operations meet Part 135 Requirements

Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:19 am

They are exploiting a loophole. The FAA is choosing to look the other way for now because they haven’t drilled one in yet. Congress’s mandate to use 1500 hour atps in the right seat made 29 seat 121 ops nonviable. With an approaching shortage of pilots, FAA saw this loophole as one way to make a small bridge across the gap between 9 seat 135, and 50 seat 121. Although there is a whole range of operational and maintenance requirements that add safety and cost to 121 ops, it is the ability to use 250hr trainees in the right seat that is driving this. Contour, JSX et al are in a tenuous situation. If they can be financially successful, and safe perhaps this loophole will be put on a more secure footing and others will enter. Surely CapeAir and the Pilatus/Caravan operators are watching closely.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7073
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:37 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Have you run a 135 certificate? Do you think the FAA, which watches 135 scams like this would be, like a hawk would approve it, if it didn’t comply with the law.


I'm not sure I understand why you think I'm saying that JSX is doing anything illegal. They're not. Using a loophole is pretty much by definition NOT illegal. The point is that it's unlikely that lawmakers intended that a company would operate an ersatz scheduled airline under Part 135 by employing a complicated corporate structure. Why would they require a more complicated structure when it's easier to oversee and regulate a single entity?
 
bigb
Posts: 1130
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: How JSX operationsl meet Part 135 Requirements

Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:45 pm

32andBelow wrote:
bigb wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

The terrorists hijacked part 121 passenger planes. Why should part 135 and others suffer? They did nothing wrong. It's the same nonsense with other matters such as forbidding general aviation planes from using DCA. GA had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks yet they're the ones being punished. If the commercial airport is funded by taxpayers then everyone should be allowed to operate there. It really makes me mad that AOPA does nothing to fight for GA like they are supposed to.


Locking DCA down was more for protecting capital buildings since a DCA is literally right there. GA can operate out of DCA too, it’s just a lot of security hoops to jump through if a GA operator wants to operate there.

Makes no sense cus you can just be VFR and just enter the restricted airspace


Not necessarily, there are hoops that one must go through to enter the DCFRA, especially the inner circle. You can’t just enter VFR under a 1200 squawk code. Break the DCAFRA protocols as an VFR aircraft, you’ll quickly have fighters jets from Andrews meeting you by time your aircraft makes it to the inner part of the airspace.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6302
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: How JSX operations meet Part 135 Requirements

Tue Sep 15, 2020 9:26 pm

Why is everyone still using “loophole”; it’s the way the law and regulations are written. Loophole is a word like “technicality” when someone gets acquitted—insulting and unnecessary.
 
zuckie13
Topic Author
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:23 pm

Re: How JSX operations meet Part 135 Requirements

Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:53 pm

williaminsd wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Why is everyone still using “loophole”; it’s the way the law and regulations are written. Loophole is a word like “technicality” when someone gets acquitted—insulting and unnecessary.


Because they are throwing a tantrum out of ignorance and spite. We obey laws as they are written, not as a.netters claim the "intent" is. It's pretty embarrassing...


No, because this is airliners.net - and should anybody write a post that does not 100% blow smoke up every person in the airline industry's rear end, we get to be insulted for our trouble.

It's a word - that's it.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26574
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

Re: How JSX operations meet Part 135 Requirements

Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:56 pm

This is definitely not a loophole, but how Part 135 scheduled charters are supposed to work. JSX have said they are willing to move to the terminal so long as their model isn't interrupted.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20347
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: How JSX operations meet Part 135 Requirements

Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:50 pm

Discuss on topic and not other users. This us your warning.
Winter is coming.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos