TapJets

[GeorgeC]

WASHINGTON–The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued an Emergency Order of Revocation against TapJets, Inc. of Spring, Texas and Fargo, North Dakota, for allegedly conducting passenger-carrying flights using unqualified pilots and operating unauthorized aircraft.

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=22494

 

[overdrive148]

"On one of those flights, the airman who served as second-in-command only had a student pilot certificate, when a commercial pilot certificate was required, the FAA alleges."

Oh boy.

 

[flyingron]

Tapjets asserts that the flights in question were not revenue flights, but test and repositioning things with employees and families aboard and legally operating under part 91.

Of course, I don't have the details other than the press releases from both sides.

Tapjets is both a 135 operator (they have a few of their own planes) as well as a broker for other operators. (They've got an "App" trying to the "uber of jets."). You have to be careful what you are doing there. NetJets, for example, has real fun with this when they have to substitute a jet for one of the "owners." It switches from fractional ownership to 135 in that case.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I don't have a dog in this fight one way or the other, but of the certificate revocations I've personally seen, the FAA has had pretty compelling evidence far beyond just a complaint before taking action.

When the official statements regarding the events in question are so far apart, I find it hard to believe the operator is going to have even limited success in the case.

 

[kayoh190]

I don't know anything about Tapjets, but it always amazed me how sleazy 135 can be. Not that every operator is like this (my 135 company was halfway decent), and of course this case against Tapjets might in fact be BS, but the stuff the FAA is accusing them of isn't exactly unusual. Shiny jets and a shiny website commonly hides a lot of garbage when you peel away the "high-end" veneer.

 

[RyanB]

"On one of those flights, the airman who served as second-in-command only had a student pilot certificate, when a commercial pilot certificate was required, the FAA alleges."

Oh boy.

If that’s true, that explains it all.

 

[Paulie]

I don't know anything about Tapjets, but it always amazed me how sleazy 135 can be. Not that every operator is like this (my 135 company was halfway decent), and of course this case against Tapjets might in fact be BS, but the stuff the FAA is accusing them of isn't exactly unusual. Shiny jets and a shiny website commonly hides a lot of garbage when you peel away the "high-end" veneer.

Coming from a 121 environment I was amazed how sleezy general aviation can be. A lot of real dirt bags out there. I wandered into Van Bortels hangar looking for Air Power years ago and never saw so much Bondo on a airplane in my life. The painted ones were very shiney though.

 

[frfly172]

I worked for a 135 operator,everything was by the books,they used to get guide a few inspection,do too a competitor calling the FSDO with false accusations. It is a cut throat business environment.

 

[flyingron]

I don't have a dog in this fight one way or the other, but of the certificate revocations I've personally seen, the FAA has had pretty compelling evidence far beyond just a complaint before taking action.

They may have more than a compaint, but often there's no legal wrongdoing but the certificate holder gets railroaded by the "We're not happy unless you're not happy" attitude in the FAA enforcement process.

 

[Todd82]

"On one of those flights, the airman who served as second-in-command only had a student pilot certificate, when a commercial pilot certificate was required, the FAA alleges."

Oh boy.

Tapjets asserts that the flights in question were not revenue flights, but test and repositioning things with employees and families aboard and legally operating under part 91.

If it was many kinds of jet that requires 2 man crew, it doesn't matter who was in the back 91/135, a student pilot wouldn't be legal for an FO seat, right?

 

[weilke]

If it was many kinds of jet that requires 2 man crew, it doesn't matter who was in the back 91/135, a student pilot wouldn't be legal for an FO seat, right?

Needs to have multi rating and a signoff in that particular jet.

 

[James331]

Coming from a 121 environment I was amazed how sleezy general aviation can be. A lot of real dirt bags out there. I wandered into Van Bortels hangar looking for Air Power years ago and never saw so much Bondo on a airplane in my life. The painted ones were very shiney though.

Almost as sleezy as some regional 121s?

Frankly if I had to choose between flying on a plane with some bondo, or flying on a regional with the cheapest pilots they could find with a pulse, I'll take the bondo.

There is good and bad in about anything.

 

[Paulie]

Never worked regionals, AA was sleezy enough when Crandall was the big shot.

 

[Kritchlow]

Almost as sleezy as some regional 121s?

Frankly if I had to choose between flying on a plane with some bondo, or flying on a regional with the cheapest pilots they could find with a pulse, I'll take the bondo.

There is good and bad in about anything.

Yeah... because the bondo airplane pays huge bucks for two super experienced pilots.

 

[Kritchlow]

Plus the odds of meaningful standardization and training is largely diminished at the bondo place.

 

[weilke]

Losing their operating certificate won't affect their ability to make money as a charter broker.

 

[James331]

Yeah... because the bondo airplane pays huge bucks for two super experienced pilots.

Oh for sure, I'm only saying 121/135/91/141 all can be plenty cheap

 

[flyingron]

Losing their operating certificate won't affect their ability to make money as a charter broker.

Sorry, but I do not agree in this case for a couple of reasons.

First, they had their own planes as well as brokering others.

Second, in this case they appear to have been collecting money from the customer and remitting it to the other 135 operator. THIS REQUIRES A 135 CERTIFICATE. Had they just been referring the customer to an appropriate operator and letting the customer deal with the operator (possibly garnering a commission or fee from the other operator), then they may escape the need.