Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 65

Thread: Difference Between an Air Charter and a Transporter

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SE Alaska
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    The entire State-of-Alaska "Transporter" certification and licensing system was borne out of the newly reconstituted guide Board, now the Big Game Commercial Services Board, with the intention of regulating all (federally regulated and certified) air-taxis that fly hunters and their meat and trophies into some kind of concession program similar to the Guide Concession Program. This was even added to the Guide Concession Program bill that failed in the legislature. The Good Intentions behind this push and the rationale was to stem some of the bad apples in the air-taxi biz who were thought to be flying in too many hunters and/or dropping too many hunters on top of other hunters, or otherwise promising things that weren't just unrealistic, but unsafe.

    But our own Dept of Law has already said that the State cannot regulate the federally regulated air-taxi industry as it wants to do. So the last push by the BGCSB to again force this issue in the legislature did not pass and will not pass.

    bushrat,

    To be fair, although the current transporter licensing and certification system, as you put it, may have been supported by the board, the entirety of transporter licensing requirements, definition of "transportation services," authorization to create transporter use areas, and delineation of unlawful acts for transporters is all in statute. Therefore, it is the state legislature who created this, not the BGCSB.

    Just to clarify.

    Chris

  2. #22
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    so now i'm confused...am i gonna take it in the shorts from my pilots this year now too? already had my guide fees doubled and my guide use area registeration fees instated and my 50 per hunt report fees added. man...clients wonder why its spendy to hunt in alaska! keep doing this and canada is gonna be alot more popular and alaskas gonna loose out on alot of revenue...but residents will love it. less sheep hunters...but flying to get there will costs four times what it does now...
    No
    I got fixated on another section of the regs (that I thought was new after I was told they changed) that don't really apply to air taxi.
    So- I'm happy to say I read the statutes wrong.

    I'm glad I could add to an already confusing situation tho.
    Hey you guides are all getting rich anyway. Its like giving to charity.

  3. #23
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,119

    Default

    ya true, i just sat on a bankroll sitting down to type...
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  4. #24
    Member oakman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    1,142

    Default

    I think charter implies that the flight is not available for booking with other passengers. Like I'm chartering a plane for my group, the service can't sell seats on it to other people. I've heard this distinction used for TSA rules on the larger planes (jets). Charters in that sense don't have the same security screenings as normal passenger flights.

    Another thought is that a charter may not be a big game transporter. Don't those guys have to meet certain requirements to transport hunters and game to and from?

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AK-HUNT View Post
    No
    I got fixated on another section of the regs (that I thought was new after I was told they changed) that don't really apply to air taxi.
    So- I'm happy to say I read the statutes wrong.

    I'm glad I could add to an already confusing situation tho.
    Hey you guides are all getting rich anyway. Its like giving to charity.
    It got confusing when a handful of FAA part 135 operator's voluntarily surrendered their rights to conduct air operation's under Federal law to the Guide Board (state law) as if they already didn't have enough oversight and regulation

  6. #26
    Member Birdstrike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,144

    Default

    The Air Taxis have enough regulation as it is trying to comply with all of the DOT regulations (FAA, HazMat), insurance, etc. The BOG, BGCSB, etc need to regulate hunting by regulating the hunters and not meddling with the federally regulated Part 135 operators. However, the FAA should close the loophole allowing some guides to fly under the much less onerous Part 91. Whether someone is paying an Air Taxi, or a guide who is actually doing the flying, the level of safety should be the same for the paying passenger/client. All of the aircraft and pilots operating under CFR 135 will accomplish that.

    i know my opinion will be unpopular with the hunting/fishing guides and lodges that get around 135 certification. Most clients do not know the difference between part 135 or part 91 and what they are paying for, or possibly subjecting themselves to.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Birdstrike View Post
    "...Most clients do not know the difference between part 135 or part 91 and what they are paying for, or possibly subjecting themselves to.
    Agreed with all but especially with the concept that most clients don't understand that all airplane rides are not equal.

    I'm surprised NPS/USFW land managers continue the practice of regularly authorizing guides to use aircraft on federal lands without requiring all aircraft operations related to commercial use of federal lands to also abide by the commercial (part 135) regulations.

    Federal land managers could (maybe should?) enlighten 'clients' about who's been issued a commercial use permit and whether the operator is or is not conducting it's aircraft operations under Federal commercial flying standards?

  8. #28
    Member AK-HUNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Valley
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by birdstrike View Post
    the air taxis have enough regulation as it is trying to comply with all of the dot regulations (faa, hazmat), insurance, etc. The bog, bgcsb, etc need to regulate hunting by regulating the hunters and not meddling with the federally regulated part 135 operators. However, the faa should close the loophole allowing some guides to fly under the much less onerous part 91. Whether someone is paying an air taxi, or a guide who is actually doing the flying, the level of safety should be the same for the paying passenger/client. All of the aircraft and pilots operating under cfr 135 will accomplish that.

    I know my opinion will be unpopular with the hunting/fishing guides and lodges that get around 135 certification. Most clients do not know the difference between part 135 or part 91 and what they are paying for, or possibly subjecting themselves to.
    "like" .

  9. #29

    Default

    The proposal to make all " air taxis who put hunters in the field", become transporters was voted on and passed by the BGCS Board last year but has never gone forward to the Legislature. So nothing has changed except the Division of Occupational licensing imposed a new requirement on Transporters that requires a $50 fee for each Transporter Activity Report submitted to the State. These reports give information such as license number, names and addresses and species hunted and if successful, how much meat was salvaged and the location of the hunt. This new fee was also added to the Hunt record that is required for guides. Transporters are also required to pay a $850 fee to maintain their license, these fee and license increases will make flying more expensive for everyone.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Birdstrike View Post
    The Air Taxis have enough regulation as it is trying to comply with all of the DOT regulations (FAA, HazMat), insurance, etc. The BOG, BGCSB, etc need to regulate hunting by regulating the hunters and not meddling with the federally regulated Part 135 operators. However, the FAA should close the loophole allowing some guides to fly under the much less onerous Part 91. Whether someone is paying an Air Taxi, or a guide who is actually doing the flying, the level of safety should be the same for the paying passenger/client. All of the aircraft and pilots operating under CFR 135 will accomplish that.

    i know my opinion will be unpopular with the hunting/fishing guides and lodges that get around 135 certification. Most clients do not know the difference between part 135 or part 91 and what they are paying for, or possibly subjecting themselves to.
    The FAA has rules restricting guides flying clients, but I think budget woes and political pressure prevent them from enforcing these issues. A guide can fly his own clients and assistant guides in his guide use area, a guide may not hire an assistant or others to bring their own plane and fly his clients, which is common practice. Part 135 operators are required to have annual inspection on their aircraft, take an annual check ride with an FAA inspector as well as passing a more restrictive medical exam by a FAA medical doctor each year. Hiring a friend with a super cub to fly clients is an accepted practice but is not legal according to the FAA. Who knows what will happen when someone is killed and the insurance companies start looking for a way out.

  11. #31
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,119

    Default

    airguide, with an extra 1200+/- dollars in annual paperwork fees now, how much do ou anticipate the cost of flying going up for everyone?my costs went up around 1500 a year for my paperwork. not sure how or if i'm gonna compensate for that.
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  12. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BRWNBR View Post
    airguide, with an extra 1200+/- dollars in annual paperwork fees now, how much do ou anticipate the cost of flying going up for everyone?my costs went up around 1500 a year for my paperwork. not sure how or if i'm gonna compensate for that.
    You are a registered guide so other than the costs they have already put on you with new fees and the $850 to renew your license, you shouldn't see a significant increase, as no Transporter Activity Report is required when flying for a guide operation. However flying costs will be spread around and you will see an increase, the next move is to establish Transporter use areas and that will require a Transporter to register for areas perhaps ninety days ahead of the season. This will severely limit the way Transporters do business, and the registration would effect my ability to fly into a Transporter use area that I have not paid in advance to fly into. This is still in the works by the BGCS board and will hopefully die on the vine, just remember the division is looking for revenue! In all fairness, I am considered an Air Taxi and don't have to register to fly you into your camps, this will certainly drive up the cost for residents. I think in their efforts to get more funding they will actually lose funding, many guides who are not active will not renew and Transporters will just operate as Air Taxis. "stay tuned"

  13. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airguide View Post
    You are a registered guide so other than the costs they have already put on you with new fees and the $850 to renew your license, you shouldn't see a significant increase, as no Transporter Activity Report is required when flying for a guide operation. However flying costs will be spread around and you will see an increase, the next move is to establish Transporter use areas and that will require a Transporter to register for areas perhaps ninety days ahead of the season. This will severely limit the way Transporters do business, and the registration would effect my ability to fly into a Transporter use area that I have not paid in advance to fly into. This is still in the works by the BGCS board and will hopefully die on the vine, just remember the division is looking for revenue! In all fairness, I am considered an Air Taxi and don't have to register to fly you into your camps, this will certainly drive up the cost for residents. I think in their efforts to get more funding they will actually lose funding, many guides who are not active will not renew and Transporters will just operate as Air Taxis. "stay tuned"
    Just to clarify my last statement, I am a licensed Transporter and a Part 135 Air Taxi, as confusing as it is there are times when my flight is considered as either a Transporter or an Air Taxi. It is getting where we can get in more trouble over the paperwork than what we do in the field.

  14. #34
    Member BRWNBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Big Lake
    Posts
    8,119

    Default

    "Transporters are also required to pay a $850 fee to maintain their license, these fee and license increases will make flying more expensive for everyone. "

    i was going off this statemen, wondering how much more exspensive it was gonna make it for u to operate
    Www.blackriverhunting.com
    Master guide 212

  15. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    907
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airguide View Post
    Just to clarify my last statement, I am a licensed Transporter and a Part 135 Air Taxi, as confusing as it is there are times when my flight is considered as either a Transporter or an Air Taxi. It is getting where we can get in more trouble over the paperwork than what we do in the field.
    Can you provide an example of a flight operation that falls under transporter licensing and does not apply to 135 rules?

  16. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    1,884

    Default

    I believe he means that all transporters have to operate under part 135, but not all operators that operate under part 135 are transporters so some times he simply wears his part 135 hat, & sometimes he puts his transporter hat on over the top of the 135 hat...
    Vance in AK.

    Matthew 6:33
    "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."

  17. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Birdstrike View Post
    The Air Taxis have enough regulation as it is trying to comply with all of the DOT regulations (FAA, HazMat), insurance, etc. The BOG, BGCSB, etc need to regulate hunting by regulating the hunters and not meddling with the federally regulated Part 135 operators. However, the FAA should close the loophole allowing some guides to fly under the much less onerous Part 91. Whether someone is paying an Air Taxi, or a guide who is actually doing the flying, the level of safety should be the same for the paying passenger/client. All of the aircraft and pilots operating under CFR 135 will accomplish that.

    i know my opinion will be unpopular with the hunting/fishing guides and lodges that get around 135 certification. Most clients do not know the difference between part 135 or part 91 and what they are paying for, or possibly subjecting themselves to.
    All due respect, but I have flown aboard a far, far greater number of clapped - out, pencil-whipped 135 aircraft than 91, with "professional" pilots much more concerned with filling out trip sheets and BS'ing on the radio than looking out the windshield. Not to generalize of course as this is not always the case.

    You seem to have a good grasp of the system, and with that understanding you must also know there are a million ways for 135 operators to cheat, and as such many feel financially forced to do so.

    At any rate, the FAA tried to force part 91 incidental into 135 back in the late-90's I believe it was. Obviously it was not successful.

  18. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tsunami View Post
    Can you provide an example of a flight operation that falls under transporter licensing and does not apply to 135 rules?
    NO!I am always Part 135. However registered guides and their assistants can fly under Part 91 when flying the guides clients according to Alaska statute AS 08.54. 610,(c). which states that a registered guide may provide transportation services, personally or through an assistant.
    Some in the FAA will tell you the same, that flying for a guide is under Part 135.

  19. #39

    Default

    Correction : Some in the FAA will tell you the same, that flying for a guide is under Part 91.

  20. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vance in AK View Post
    I believe he means that all transporters have to operate under part 135, but not all operators that operate under part 135 are transporters so some times he simply wears his part 135 hat, & sometimes he puts his transporter hat on over the top of the 135 hat...
    Thanks Vance

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •