Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation A-06-043
Details
Synopsis: On November 28, 2004, a Canadair, Ltd., CL-600-2A12, operated by Air Castle Corporation doing business as Global Aviation Glo-Air flight 73, crashed into the ground during attempted takeoff in snowing col~ditions at Montrose Regional Airport (MTJ), Montrose, Colorado. Before the accident flight, the airplane had arrived at MTJ from Van Nuys, California. The airplane remained parked at MTJ for about 45 minutes while wet snow fell in subfreezing temperatures, and the airplane was not deiced before takeoff. The captain, the flight attendant, and one passenger were killed; the first officer and two passengers received serious injuries; and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire. The on-demand charter flight was operated under the provisions of 14 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Part 135.
Recommendation: TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Require that, for 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 on-demand air taxi flights, the following information be provided to customers and passengers at the time the flight is contracted and at any point there is a subsequent change: the name of the company with operational control of the flight, including any doing business as names contained in the operations specifications; the name of the aircraft owner; and the name(s) of any brokers involved in arranging the flight.
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Closed - Acceptable Alternate Action
Mode: Aviation
Location: Montrose, CO, United States
Is Reiterated: No
Is Hazmat: No
Is NPRM: No
Accident #: DEN05MA029
Accident Reports: Crash During Takeoff in Icing Conditions, Canadair, Ltd., CL-600-2A12, N873G
Report #: AAB-06-03
Accident Date: 11/28/2004
Issue Date: 8/4/2006
Date Closed: 3/18/2019
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: DOT (Closed - Acceptable Alternate Action)
Keyword(s): Part 135

Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB
To: DOT
Date: 3/18/2019
Response: We note that, on September 17, 2018, you published a final rule, “Increasing Charter Air Transportation Options,” which requires air taxis and commuter air carriers that sell charter air transportation, but that rely on others to perform that air transportation, to disclose the name of the entity in operational control of the aircraft and any associated “doing business as” names. In addition, the final rule creates a new class of indirect air carriers, called “air charter brokers,” who provide, as principals, single-entity charter air transportation of passengers aboard large and small aircraft. You reported, however, that the final rule does not require the owner of an aircraft involved in a charter flight to disclose its identity. In our February 10, 2014, letter, we agreed with your determination that disclosing the names of the aircraft owners and of brokers involved in arranging the flight, if different from the entity in operational control of the aircraft, would not substantially affect flight safety. We told you that the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that was published on September 30, 2013, represented an acceptable alternate approach for satisfying this recommendation. Therefore, because the final rule is consistent with the NPRM, Safety Recommendation A-06-43, is classified CLOSED--ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE ACTION. Thank you for taking this action to improve the safety of Part 135 on-demand air taxi flights.

From: DOT
To: NTSB
Date: 11/6/2018
Response: -From Steven G. Bradbury, General Counsel: On September 17, 2018, the Department published a final rule titled, "Increasing Charter Air Transportation Options," which imposes disclosure requirements on air taxis, commuter air carriers, and air charter brokers, in response to the NTSB recommendation. The rule requires that air charter brokers, before entering a contract for a specific flight or series of flights, disclose to the charterer "(1) The corporate name of the direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier in operational control of the aircraft on which the air transportation is to be performed and any other names in which that direct carrier holds itself out to the public," and "(2) The capacity in which the air charter broker is acting in contracting for the air transportation, i.e., as an indirect air carrier, indirect foreign air carrier, as an agent of the charterer, or as an agent of the direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier that will be in operational control of the flight." Identical disclosure requirements are applicable to air taxi operators and commuter air carriers selling air transportation to be performed by another direct air carrier or direct foreign air carrier. As a result of the rule, customers and passengers will be informed of the name(s) of the company in operational control of on-demand flights operated under 14 CFR Part 135, and the names of any brokers involved in arranging the flight. Prior to the final rule, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) wherein the Department chose not to require disclosure of the identity of the owner of an aircraft involved in a charter flight. The Department agreed with public comments that the disclosure of the identity of the aircraft owner was not useful to consumers. In its February 10, 2014 letter, the NTSB noted that the Department's NPRM proposed an acceptable alternative approach for satisfying the recommendation and classified the Safety Recommendation as OPEN-ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE RESPONSE, pending issuance of a final rule. The final rule discussed above codifies the proposed requirements that the NTSB found acceptable in the NPRM. In light of the foregoing, the Department requests that the NTSB close Safety Recommendation A-06-43.

From: NTSB
To: DOT
Date: 10/24/2017
Response: On September 30, 2013, you published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), “Enhanced Consumer Protections for Charter Air Transportation,” which proposed requirements responding to this recommendation. The NPRM proposed that air taxis and commuter air carriers that sell charter air transportation, but that rely on others to perform that air transportation, be required to disclose the name of the entity in operational control of the aircraft and any associated “doing business as” names. In addition, the NPRM proposed creating a new class of indirect air carriers, to be called “air charter brokers,” who provide, as principals, single-entity charter air transportation of passengers aboard large and small aircraft. The NPRM, however, did not propose requiring that air taxis disclose the name of the aircraft owner or the names of brokers involved in arranging the flight, if different from the entity in operational control of the aircraft. In our February 10, 2014, letter, about this recommendation, we said that, although not directly related to the subject of Safety Recommendation A-06-43, the NPRM also proposed clarifying and codifying that certain air services performed under contract with the federal government are in common carriage. We welcomed your clarifying that these flights are not public-use operations. There is considerable confusion on this issue within the aviation industry, which we discovered in our accident investigations (such as our investigation of the October 8, 1997, loss of control and collision with terrain of a Scenic Airlines Cessna 208B in Montrose, which had been chartered by the US Department of the Interior [DOI]) and in our 2011 forum on public aircraft operations oversight. Consequently, we strongly supported the NPRM’s clarification. We also agreed that disclosing the names of the aircraft owners and of brokers involved in arranging the flight, if different from the entity in operational control of the aircraft, did not substantially affect flight safety. Therefore, we said that the NPRM proposed an acceptable alternative approach to satisfying the recommendation. We note that the final rule based on the NPRM was delayed because of additional coordination and cost–benefit analysis. We further note that DOT rulemakings are being evaluated in accordance with recently issued Executive Orders 13771 and 13777, and until this evaluation is completed, you are unable to issue the final rule. Pending issuance of a final rule based on the September 30, 2013, NPRM, Safety Recommendation A 06 43 remains classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE RESPONSE.

From: DOT
To: NTSB
Date: 3/13/2017
Response: -From Judith S. Kaleta, United States Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation: Deputy General Counsel: On September 30, 2013, the Department of Transportation published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), titled "Enhanced Consumer Protections for Charter Air Transportation," which proposed requirements in response to this recommendation. The NPRM proposed to require air taxis and commuter air carriers that sell charter air transportation, but rely on others to perform that air transportation, to disclose the name of the entity in operational control of the aircraft during flight and any associated "doing business as" names. In addition, the NPRM proposed the creation of a new class of indirect air carriers to be called "air charter brokers" to provide as principals single entity charter air transportation of passengers aboard large and small aircraft. In its February 10, 2014 letter to DOT, NTSB indicates that the NPRM proposes an acceptable alternative approach for satisfying the recommendation and pending issuance of a final rule, and classified the Safety Recommendation as OPEN-ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE RESPONSE. The draft final rule was delayed due to additional coordination and review of cost benefit analysis. In addition, as DOT rulemakings are being evaluated in accordance with recently issued Executive Orders 13771 and 13777, the path forward for DOT's ongoing rulemaking to address this recommendation is yet to be determined. The Department takes all NTSB recommendations seriously and is focused on appropriately addressing the recommendation consistent with the Administration's regulatory policies.

From: NTSB
To: DOT
Date: 2/10/2014
Response: On September 30, 2013, you published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), titled “Enhanced Consumer Protections for Charter Air Transportation,” which proposed requirements in response to this recommendation. Unfortunately, that was the day before the prolonged federal government shutdown at the start of October 2013. As a result of the disruptions associated with the shutdown, we were not aware of the publication of the NPRM until December 17, 2013, when we received Ms. Thomson’s letter. Accordingly, we had missed our opportunity to submit comments on the NPRM before the comment period closed on November 29, 2013. Our recent review of the NPRM found that, as recommended, it proposes to require air taxis and commuter air carriers that sell charter air transportation, but rely on others to perform that air transportation, to disclose the name of the entity in operational control of the aircraft during flight and any associated “doing business as” names. In addition, the NPRM proposes the creation of a new class of indirect air carriers to be called “air charter brokers” to provide as principals single entity charter air transportation of passengers aboard large and small aircraft. The NPRM, however, does not propose requirements that air taxis disclose the name of the aircraft owner or the names of brokers involved in arranging the flight, if different from the entity in operational control of the aircraft. Although not directly related to the subject of Safety Recommendation A-06-43, the NPRM also proposes codifying the exemption authority granted to indirect air carriers to engage in the sale of air transportation related to air ambulance services, and it proposes clarifying and codifying that certain air services performed under contract with the federal government are in common carriage. We welcome the clarification that certain services provided under contract to the federal government are not public use operations. We have found considerable confusion on this issue within the aviation industry, both in our accident investigations (such as our investigation of the October 8, 1997, loss of control and collision with terrain of a Scenic Airlines Cessna 208B, that had been chartered by the US Department of the Interior [DOI] to transport DOI employees from Montrose, Colorado to Page, Arizona) and in our November 30?December 1, 2011 forum on the oversight of public aircraft operations. We therefore strongly support the clarification proposed in the NPRM. We also agree with you?and with comments submitted in response to the DOT’s 2007 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on the same subject as the September 30, 2013, NPRM?that requiring the disclosure of the name of the aircraft owner and the names of brokers involved in arranging the flight, if different from the entity in operational control of the aircraft, does not substantially affect the safety of the flight. Therefore, we believe that the NPRM proposes an acceptable alternative approach for satisfying the recommendation. Pending issuance of a final rule based on the September 30, 2013, NPRM, Safety Recommendation A 06 43 is classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE RESPONSE.

From: DOT
To: NTSB
Date: 11/15/2013
Response: Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx asked me to provide you a status update on the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) Recommendation A-06-43 that certain information be provided to passengers at the time they contract for air service using an ondemand air taxi operator. I am pleased to advise you that the Department of Transportation recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to address this recommendation. This NPRM, a copy of which is enclosed, is an important step toward improving transparency in the on-demand charter industry. The NTSB recommended that the Department require the following information be disclosed to customers and passengers at the time an air charter contract is arranged and anytime thereafter if such information changes: (1) the name of the company in operational control of the aircraft during flight; (2) any other "doing business as" names contained in the operations specifications of the carrier in operational control during flight; (3) the name of the aircraft owner; and (4) the names of all brokers involved in arranging the flight. As the NTSB recommended, the NPRM proposes to require air taxis and commuter air carriers that sell charter air transportation, but rely on others to perform that air transportation, to disclose the name of the entity in operational control of the aircraft during flight and any associated "doing business as" names. In addition, the NPRM would enhance airline passenger rights in other ways. For example, it would create a new class of indirect air carriers to be called "air charter brokers" to provide as principals single entity charter air transportation of passengers aboard large and small aircraft. The NPRM would also codify the exemption authority granted to indirect air carriers to engage in the sale of air transportation related to air ambulance services, and it would make clear and codify that certain air services performed under contract with the Federal Government are in common carriage. The NPRM, however, does not contain the NTSB recommendation that the Department require air taxis to disclose the name of the aircraft owner and the names of all brokers involved in arranging the flight. We solicited comment on all four of NTSB's recommendations, including the recommendation to disclose the name of the aircraft owner and the name of all the brokers involved in arranging the flight, in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in 2007. Commenters supported requiring disclosure of the name of the entity in operational control of the aircraft during flight and any associated "doing business as" names, but opposed the disclosure of the name of the aircraft owner and the brokers involved in arranging the flight, if different than the entity in operational control of the aircraft, primarily on the basis that these entities do not affect the safety of the flight. As such, DOT's recent NPRM does not propose to require the disclosure of the name of the aircraft owner and the name of all the brokers involved in arranging the flight. The comment period on the NPRM ends on November 29, 2013.

From: NTSB
To: DOT
Date: 9/30/2013
Response: This letter concerns 22 open safety recommendations that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued to the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) between 1997 and 2013. Enclosure 1 is a list of these recommendations; Enclosure 2 is a copy of the correspondence history regarding them. The NTSB is currently reviewing a July 24, 2013, update from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regarding Safety Recommendations I-02-1 and -2, which will be addressed in separate correspondence. We recently corresponded with the Federal Aviation Administration regarding Safety Recommendation A-06-43; Enclosure 3 provides a more detailed history of correspondence regarding this recommendation. The NTSB is interested in knowing whether and how our recommendations are implemented, both to ensure that the traveling public is provided the highest level of safety and to identify creative solutions that might be shared with others. We are concerned because we have not received updates regarding action either taken or planned to address the remaining 19 open recommendations for some time—in some cases, over 10 years. We would like to point out that, when we issue a safety recommendation directly to the USDOT rather than to an individual modal agency, we do so because the scope of the recommendation falls outside the authority of the modal agency, or for some other specific reason. Failure to address these important safety issues places the public at risk.

From: NTSB
To: DOT
Date: 7/16/2013
Response: In the 6 years since it published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking requesting public comments, the DOT has made little progress to implement the actions specified in Safety Recommendation A-06-43. Although the DOT anticipates it will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) related to this recommendation soon, we are concerned with the delays. Accordingly, pending the timely issuance of both the NPRM and, subsequently, a final rule implementing the recommended revisions, Safety Recommendation A-06-43 is classified OPEN—UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: DOT
To: NTSB
Date: 4/17/2013
Response: -From Robert S. Rivkin, General Counsel: Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood asked me to provide you a status update on the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) Recommendation A-06-43 recommending that certain information be provided to passengers at the time they contract for air service using an on-demand air taxi operator. I have outlined below the actions that the Department has taken to date and the steps we anticipate taking in response to the NTSB recommendation. The NTSB recommended that the Department require the following information be disclosed to customers and passengers at the time an air charter contract is arranged and anytime thereafter if such information changes: (1) the name of the company in operational control of the aircraft during flight; (2) any other "doing business as" names contained in the operations specifications of the carrier in operational control during flight; (3) the name of the aircraft owner; and (4) the names of all brokers involved in arranging the flight. In making this recommendation, the NTSB recognized that ''transparency of operations ... will inform air taxi and charter consumers about who is actually providing the service they hired, as well as afford them an opportunity to make necessary inquiries about the operator." On January 26, 2007, the Department issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comment on the actions the NTSB recommended. We received 23 comments. Many of the commenters support requiring disclosure of the name of the entity in operational control of the aircraft during flight and any associated "doing business as" names. However, most commenters oppose the disclosure of the name of the aircraft owner and the brokers involved in arranging the flight, if different than the entity in operational control of the aircraft, primarily on the basis that these entities do not affect the safety of the flight. This rulemaking has been delayed due to priority rulemakings that increase the access afforded to air travelers with disabilities and rulemakings that significantly strengthen protections afforded to consumers including the establishment of a hard time limit after which airlines must allow passengers to deplane from flights experiencing lengthy tarmac delays. We are working on completing an NPRM and regulatory evaluation that will address NTSB Recommendation A-06-43 and we expect to issue that NPRM next month.

From: NTSB
To: DOT
Date: 5/2/2007
Response: The Safety Board notes the DOT’s agreement that information is essential if airline consumers are to make informed choices, including those related to safety. The DOT indicates that it already has some rules in place regarding notice to passengers who travel with on-demand air carriers, and that it has been reviewing the need for changes in these rules, including consumer notice issues. In its September 20, 2006, letter, the DOT reviewed existing rules and gave examples of recent relevant enforcement actions that it has taken. The Safety Board issued Safety Recommendation A-06-43 because we believe the existing rules are ineffective as written and enforced. In its September 20, 2006, letter, the DOT stated that it intended to undertake a review of economic regulatory matters, including notice issues such as those in the safety recommendation, following the FAA’s completion of its review of operational control issues. On December 28, 2006, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued Notice N8000.347, Operational Control: Revised Operations Specifications A008 and A002. Although the Safety Board did not believe it was necessary for the DOT to wait for the FAA to complete its action, issuance of Notice N8000.347 obviates that concern. Further, the Board is aware that on January 26, 2007, the DOT published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking requesting public comments on the actions recommended by the Board. Pending completion of the DOT’s review, and the development and issuance of the recommended regulations, Safety Recommendation A-06-43 is classified OPEN -- ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE. The Safety Board would appreciate receiving information from the DOT regarding the expected timeframe for completion of these efforts.

From: DOT
To: NTSB
Date: 9/20/2006
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 10/10/2006 8:48:08 AM MC# 2060486: - From Rosalind A. Knapp, Acting General Counsel: Acting Secretary Cino has asked me to respond to the above referenced Safety Recommendation of the National Transportation Safety Board (Safety Board), transmitted to the Department on August 4, 2006, recommending that certain information be provided passengers at the time they contract for air service using an on-demand air taxi operator. The Department agrees with the Safety Board that information is essential if airline consumers are to make informed choices, including those related to safety. We already have some rules in place regarding notice to airline passengers, including certain rules applicable to passengers who may travel with on-demand air carriers and we have not hesitated to take enforcement action to enforce those rules, where necessary. We also have implemented outreach efforts to assist the industry’s understanding of our requirements and our understanding of changes taking place in the industry. In recognition that improvements might be possible, our staff has for some time been reviewing the need for certain changes in our rules applicable to the on-demand air charter industry, some of which involve consumer notice issues. Accordingly, I am pleased to report to the Safety Board that we intend to undertake a review of the specific notice issues encompassed in its recommendation in the near future. The Safety Board’s recommendation was prompted by its investigation of the November 28, 2004, crash of a Canadair, Ltd., CL-600-2A12, operated by Air Castle Corporation, doing business as Global Aviation. During its investigation, the Safety Board noted what 11 describes as a general lack of transparency between the customer who is seeking air charter services of an on-demand air taxi and the entities that may be providing services in connection with the charter air transportation. The Safety Board expressed its concern that this situation can impede the customer’s ability to know which carrier actually will be providing the promised air transportation and to make choices based on safety. Accordingly, the Safety Board recommends that the Department adopt rules applicable to on-demand air taxi flights conducted pursuant to 14 CFR Part 135 (Part 135)’ that would require the following information be provided to customers and passengers: 1.the name of the company in operational control of the aircraft during flight; 2. any other doing business as names contained in the Operations Specifications of the carrier in operational control during the flight; 3. the name of the aircraft owner; and 4.the names of all brokers involved in arranging the flight. The Safety Board recommends that this information be provided at the time the customer contracts for the flight and any time thereafter that a change in such information might occur. The Safety Board also urges the Department to encourage carriers to provide this information to customers voluntarily, pending implementation of its recommendation. The Department has always believed that adequate information is essential in order that consumers be afforded the opportunity to make informed decisions about their flight choices. Thus, as pointed out in the Safety Board’s letter, we already have in effect a regulation covering the majority of air travel in the U.S. that requires notice regarding the name of the airline operating a flight that is similar to the notice the Safety Board recommends be required of on-demand air taxi operators authorized under Part 135. As the Safety Board is aware, those rules are found at 14 CFR Part 257 and cover information provided the public by carriers or ticket agents involving scheduled flights by U.S. and foreign airlines engaged in code share or long-term wet lease operations, as defined in that rule. We also have longstand.ing rules applicable to air charter brokers and other ticket agents that prohibit them from, among other things: (1) misleading the public into believing they are airlines; (2) misleading the public about the qualifications of pilots or the safety record or certification of air carriers, aircraft, or crew; and (3) misleading the public about the quality or kind of service, including the size or type of aircraft and route to be flown. In addition, it would be a deceptive practice prohibited by 49 U.S.C. 5 41712 for an air taxi to misidentify to a customer the carrier actually operating a flight. Where warranted, we have acted through our Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) to enforce these requirements. For example, that office’s investigation following the February 2005 crash of Canadiar CL- 600-N370V at Teterboro resulted in enforcement action against all three entities involved -the aircraft lessee/operator, the air carrier and the air charter broker-for violations of the Department’s economic regulations described above. We recognize the increasing role in the U.S. air transportation system being played by air carriers that operate on-demand air taxi service under Part 135 of the FAA’s safety regulations and Part 298 of the Department’s economic regulations, as well as by air charter brokers who bring together air taxis and customers. Therefore, we have not limited our work in this area to after-the-fact enforcement actions; rather, we have been active in air charter industry outreach efforts. Through our Enforcement Office, the Department has been reemphasizing its existing requirements to the air charter industry through informal notices and participation in conferences and meetings with the major associations representing all facets of the air charter industry. For example, in October 2004 the Enforcement Office issued a notice to the industry regarding the responsibilities of air charter brokers. Representatives of the Enforcement Office also regularly give talks and participate in panel discussions involving air charter broker and on-demand carrier issues at the national conferences of both the National Business Aviation Association and the National Air Transportation Association. During those sessions, the need to provide complete and accurate notice of the carrier that is operating the flight has in fact been urged on the participants. That office also maintains an open line of communication with those organizations throughout the year to discuss matters of concern to the on-demand air charter industry. Importantly, these outreach efforts serve not only to advise the industry about our existing requirements, but also to keep us informed about changes in the industry, which will assist us in our economic regulatory efforts as we seek to maintain the proper balance between consumer protections and our charge to permit market forces to govern the air transportation industry to the maximum extent possible. As is evident from the work described above, the Department already is involved in issues regarding notice to the public about on-demand air taxi operations. There are, of course, many factors to take into account in determining whether and, if so, how and to what extent to implement the Safety Board’s recommendations. As the Safety Board may be aware, the FAA is well along in its own review of operational control issues involving Part 135 carriers, which encompasses safety-related matters involving the use of “doing business as” names. It is our intention to undertake a review of economic regulatory matters, including notice issues such as those encompassed in the Safety Board’s recommendations, following the FAA’s completion of its review. To assist us in our review of these issues and to ensure full and complete consideration of the Safety Board’s recommendations, we will publish the recommendations in the Federal Register and ask for comment. In the meantime, we will continue to work with the on-demand air charter industry, directly and through its representative organizations, and where necessary take enforcement action, to ensure that complete and accurate information is available to the public about such operations. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Safety Board’s recommendations.