Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Difference Between an Air Charter and a Transporter

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Good points Chris. I'm guilty. Im confident the state has any legal standing to pass regulations saying who I can and cannot transport.
    "federal premacy" I think is the term. However it'll take long court battles....
    So do I need to go to a Sierra club meeting if they wanna regulate air taxis too? Kidding of course but what about mining regulators etc... Hence why the Feds are only ones supposed to regulate air carriers. Every time you cross a state line you'd be subject to this kind of random law. None the same.

    Sorry for the tangent but I too thought it didn't pass as well but opened the regs this am. It's there. I'll pm you page # when I get home. Problem is the parts about "incidental to normal business" are still there later on too. I hope I'm wrong. Let me know.
    I'm not grasping the part about not being law unless a legislator takes it up either. Do the troopers feel the same way......?

    Comment


    • #17
      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.

      Also, the BGCSB has almost a 1-million dollar debt that they are trying to deal with and pay off, but the only way to do that was to raise licensing fees for guides and transporters. Which is what the Board just did. I spoke with Kelly Vrem on this a week or so ago; he is the Chair of the BGCSB. What the Board did was institute a new fee to transporters (and guides) of $50 for every activity hunt report they are mandated to turn in. Transporters can put 6 trips on one report whereas guides can only put one client on each report. This brand new fee for processing hunt activity reports is the largest funding increase of all the other fee increases the Board recently instituted and most every "transporter" I've spoken with has told me it's simply too much and they will drop their transporter license because of it. (Some are really ticked that they already renewed their "transporter" license prior to knowing about these new fees.) And here's what others have told me; if they stay on as "transporters" they will have to jack up their charter fees to cover this additional cost.

      And this is the rub when I hear from some of our AK BHA membership and others; why is the "guide board" doing things that will cause resident hunters to pay more? Why essentially are resident hunters paying to keep the guide board running? Should we just drop the whole "transporter" thing as part of the guide board? I mean, could this force those air-taxis that chose to be "transporters" to drop their license and actually decrease revenues to the BGCSB instead of increasing them?

      No air-taxi has to become a "transporter." I've spent umpteen hours talking to wildlife troopers about this too, both in the field and at meetings and in private. Because AWT has also been forced to try to enforce these new "transporter" regulations. But the law surrounding "transporters" is not really all that clear it turns out. An "air-taxi" is not supposed to do anything other than fly "hunters" from point A to point B, according to Troopers ... thus if an "air-taxi," say, has clients coming in and they ask, "Where are the caribou? We want you to take us to where the caribou are," the air taxi that does not choose to become a "transporter" is ostensibly supposed to tell that client, "We can't tell you where the caribou are, we can only fly you from here to wherever you want to go. YOU MUST TELL US WHERE YOU WANT TO GO FIRST!"

      I went round and round with Trooper Dave Bump on this and how ridiculous it was. In fact, some air-taxis have told Dave and the Troopers, take us to court then if this is the "law." Cuz it is flatly ridiculous. The troopers have yet to take any air-taxi to court that I know of for telling hunters where a herd may be located or for flying hunters until, say, the hunter-clients say to the pilot, okay drop us here I like the way this area looks, or for example, you charter an air-taxi to fly you to the slope and you pay an hourly rate until you spot where a bunch of WAH caribou are located and then you tell the pilot to drop you near that bunch.

      I would love to see the Troopers take a case like that to court in order to see what the outcome would be. So Paul, or Dave ... with all due respect take a case like that to court or just let it go. Having troopers land on hunters and then interrogate them to the point it seems the "air-taxi" was really acting as a "transporter" ... don't we have better things to look for?

      The bottom line in all this is what the Dept of Law has already told the state; you can't force a federally regulated Part 135 air-taxi into a system whereby the state decides what types of clients and how many and where they can bring them. If/when things are bad enough, the Board of Game already has the authority to regulate all air-taxis and all private aircraft use during hunting seasons via the creation of Controlled Use Areas. Also the feds have their own system whereby they can regulate commercial activity like raft trips and guiding as far as what #s of clients can be brought in etc.

      In closing, just to reiterate, all air transporters MUST BE federally licensed Part 135 air-taxis. Not all Part 135 air-taxis must be transporters. I haven't even gone into the Part 91 regs that so many guides fly under. Or the entire boat-based "Transporter" system that is just as screwed up as the aircraft side.

      I do think the BGCSB truly had good intentions behind all this. The way they look at is that they believe that air-taxis that fly hunters are making money off a state wildlife resource just like guides are, and so those air-taxis should pay some kind of a fee and be regulated like the guide industry.

      Lately I think I'm leaning toward doing away with the whole "Transporter" system altogether under the BGCSB. Let the proper boards (BOG) and agencies (Feds) do what they will according to their rulemaking authority if they believe air-taxis are flying out too many hunters or whatever it is they are concerned with. Feds already (strictly!) regulate the air-taxis we all fly with. We also don't need duplicate paperwork when all hunters already are required to turn in harvest reports to F&G ... it is crazy asking "transporters" to turn in the same paperwork for their clients ... and even crazier to now ask them to pay 50 bucks to do so.

      My .02,
      Mark Richards
      www.residenthuntersofalaska.org

      Comment


      • #18
        This is the current definition regarding transporters:

        AS 08.54.790 (10) "transportation services" means the carriage for compensation of big game hunters, their equipment, or big game animals harvested by hunters to, from, or in the field; "transportation services" does not include the carriage by aircraft of big game hunters, their equipment, or big game animals harvested by hunters

        (A)
        on nonstop flights between airports listed in the Alaska supplement to the Airmen's Guide published by the Federal Aviation Administration; or

        (B)
        by an air taxi operator or air carrier for which the carriage of big game hunters, their equipment, or big game animals harvested by hunters is only an incidental portion of its business; in this subparagraph, "incidental" means transportation provided to a big game hunter by an air taxi operator or air carrier who does not

        (i)
        charge more than the usual tariff or charter rate for the carriage of big game hunters, their equipment, or big game animals harvested by hunters; or

        (ii) advertise transportation services or big game hunting services to the public; in this sub-subparagraph, "advertise" means soliciting big game hunters to be customers of an air taxi operator or air carrier for the purpose of providing air transportation to, from, or in the field through the use of print or electronic media, including advertising at trade shows, or the use of hunt broker services or other promotional services.
        Last edited by double tap; 12-30-2015, 12:15. Reason: make it easier to read...

        Comment


        • #19
          Deleted.
          I'll pm you my email

          Comment


          • #20
            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...
            Www.blackriverhunting.com
            Master guide 212

            Comment


            • #21
              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

              Comment


              • #22
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  ya true, i just sat on a bankroll sitting down to type...
                  Www.blackriverhunting.com
                  Master guide 212

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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" .

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X