Air taxi vs. Charter or Part 135

[Dan[_1_]]

All,

What's the difference between "Air Taxi" and Charter or Part 135
operations? While tracking some flights via FlightAware, I notice that
some planes fly under their tail numbers most of the time, but at times
there is a "T" prefixed to the tail number in the system. I read that
this signifies an "air taxi" operation.

How is this different from charter or 135? If they are the same, they
why are all 135 ops not prefixed with the "T" identifier?

Thanks,
Dan

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Dan wrote:
> How is this different from charter or 135? If they are the same, they
> why are all 135 ops not prefixed with the "T" identifier?


As far as I know, they're all the same. It's been a while since I was a charter
pilot but it was all done under part 135. I have no idea why the identifier is
different. Maybe the operator has canned flight plans that spit out the
identifier?

When I was flying charter, my flight plans didn't indicate that I was doing
anything different than any part 91 operation. I was flying for a FBO, so it
wasn't like we were running a mini airline.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Bob Gardner]

Read this. It contains good operating procedures but is not regulatory in
any sense. My experience with Part 135 is the same as Mortimer's.

http://www.911dispatch.com/info/radio_term.html

Bob Gardner

"Dan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> All,
>
> What's the difference between "Air Taxi" and Charter or Part 135
> operations? While tracking some flights via FlightAware, I notice that
> some planes fly under their tail numbers most of the time, but at times
> there is a "T" prefixed to the tail number in the system. I read that
> this signifies an "air taxi" operation.
>
> How is this different from charter or 135? If they are the same, they
> why are all 135 ops not prefixed with the "T" identifier?
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>

[Capt.Doug]

>"Dan" wrote in message > What's the difference between "Air Taxi" and
Charter or Part 135
> operations? While tracking some flights via FlightAware, I notice that
> some planes fly under their tail numbers most of the time, but at times
> there is a "T" prefixed to the tail number in the system. I read that
> this signifies an "air taxi" operation.
> How is this different from charter or 135? If they are the same, they
> why are all 135 ops not prefixed with the "T" identifier?

The 'T' signifies that the flight is a commercial operator. Prior to Sept.
11, few pilots bothered to read the AIM to know this. Immediately following
Sept. 11, it was mandatory. Now it is optional, but ATC will handle the
commercial operator with confidence knowing the flight is flown by
professionals.

D.

[Peter R.]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote:

> Now it is optional, but ATC will handle the
> commercial operator with confidence knowing the flight is flown by
> professionals.

What does that mean? Does ATC treat non-professional pilots differently?

--
Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> Dan wrote:
>> How is this different from charter or 135? If they are the same, they
>> why are all 135 ops not prefixed with the "T" identifier?
>
>
> As far as I know, they're all the same. It's been a while since I was a
> charter pilot but it was all done under part 135. I have no idea why the
> identifier is different. Maybe the operator has canned flight plans that
> spit out the identifier?
>
> When I was flying charter, my flight plans didn't indicate that I was
> doing anything different than any part 91 operation. I was flying for a
> FBO, so it wasn't like we were running a mini airline.
>
>
>


According to the AIM...

Pilots operating under provisions of 14 CFR Part 135 and not having an FAA
assigned 3-letter designator, are urged to prefix the normal registration
(N) number with the letter "T" on flight plan filing; e.g., TN1234B.

But lots of folks never do it.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Peter R. wrote:
> "Capt.Doug" > wrote:
>
>> Now it is optional, but ATC will handle the
>> commercial operator with confidence knowing the flight is flown by
>> professionals.
>
> What does that mean? Does ATC treat non-professional pilots differently?


I don't think so. I flew for a check courier outfit that had our flights
identified as "WrapAir Flight 700" or whatever the flight number was. They KNEW
we were flying commercially.... the FSS was right there on the company's home
field at Raleigh-Durham (NC). I would stop in every afternoon to check out the
radar returns for my evening flight to my home in Charlotte.

I've also flown for a freight outfit that identified all their flights as "Saber
Flight So and So". We actually had an interline agreement and could deadhead
for free on part 121 airlines. I would assume the FAA knew we were a commercial
operation as well.

Then there was the charter operation, where I flew "Twin Cessna 32Q". The
flight was listed under my name and contact numbers. I don't see how they could
have known whether I was a commercial or private flight.

As best as I could tell, the FAA treated my flights all the same. And to think
about it, they always treated me well, except the one time I went into JFK in a
C-414 and asked the clearance guy to repeat himself four times. I finally told
him we could play this game all afternoon or he could repeat it once slow enough
for me to get it. Sheesh...never had that problem at any other airport.

But I am a Southerner. <G>



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[karl gruber[_1_]]

YES!............................................No question about that.


Karl

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> "Capt.Doug" > wrote:
>
>> Now it is optional, but ATC will handle the
>> commercial operator with confidence knowing the flight is flown by
>> professionals.
>
> What does that mean? Does ATC treat non-professional pilots differently?
>
> --
> Peter

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:

> "Capt.Doug" > wrote:
>
>
>> Now it is optional, but ATC will handle the
>>commercial operator with confidence knowing the flight is flown by
>>professionals.
>
>
> What does that mean? Does ATC treat non-professional pilots differently?

ATC treats pilots differently based on what ATC knows. For example here
at KBIL we have a locally based air taxi operator hauling passengers and
several hauling cargo. The cargo pilots, I can get them to give me base
turns at the approach end of the runway, climbing turns at 50 feet agl
and a report of traffic in sight when we both know there's no way
because they know I need it. Immediate takeoffs with none of that
futzing around crap on the runway setting DG's, etc. Lots of local GA
pilots are the same, especially here because most of us like to go play
bush pilot in our spare time. The operators flying passengers can't
give me any of that. A transient pilot I have to go by the way you
respond to me. Give me some ahh's and uhh's and you wait.

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> A transient pilot I have to go by the way you
> respond to me. Give me some ahh's and uhh's and you wait.

That's been my observation, which is why I asked. I have heard amateur
pilots who sound and respond like seasoned professionals, and I have heard
professionals who sound and respond like amateurs.


--
Peter

[Chad Speer]

Capt.Doug wrote:

*****
The 'T' signifies that the flight is a commercial operator. Prior to
Sept. 11, few pilots bothered to read the AIM to know this. Immediately
following Sept. 11, it was mandatory. Now it is optional, but ATC will
handle the commercial operator with confidence knowing the flight is
flown by professionals.
*****


Capt. D is exactly right on the resurrection of the Tango prefix post
9-11. We still see it regularly, but I'd estimate that fewer than 5%
of qualifying flights use it.

In my experience, a pilot using the Tango prefix doesn't warrant any
special consideration or presumption of a higher level of skill. Most
of my colleagues are vaguely familiar with the use of the prefix, at
best. Many pilots filing it don't even use it when identifying
themselves on the radio. It is generally irrelevant to ATC.


Chad Speer
PP-ASEL, IA
ATCS, Kansas City ARTCC

[Jim Macklin]

When the controllers went of strike 25 years ago, the Tango
November go you an IFR clearance. But Lifeguard is even
better.



"Chad Speer" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| Capt.Doug wrote:
|
| *****
| The 'T' signifies that the flight is a commercial
operator. Prior to
| Sept. 11, few pilots bothered to read the AIM to know
this. Immediately
| following Sept. 11, it was mandatory. Now it is optional,
but ATC will
| handle the commercial operator with confidence knowing the
flight is
| flown by professionals.
| *****
|
|
| Capt. D is exactly right on the resurrection of the Tango
prefix post
| 9-11. We still see it regularly, but I'd estimate that
fewer than 5%
| of qualifying flights use it.
|
| In my experience, a pilot using the Tango prefix doesn't
warrant any
| special consideration or presumption of a higher level of
skill. Most
| of my colleagues are vaguely familiar with the use of the
prefix, at
| best. Many pilots filing it don't even use it when
identifying
| themselves on the radio. It is generally irrelevant to
ATC.
|
|
| Chad Speer
| PP-ASEL, IA
| ATCS, Kansas City ARTCC
|

[Newps]

>
>
> "Chad Speer" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> | Capt.Doug wrote:
> |
> | *****
> | The 'T' signifies that the flight is a commercial
> operator.


It signifies the flight is not Part 91. It says nothing about the operator.




Prior to
> | Sept. 11, few pilots bothered to read the AIM to know
> this. Immediately
> | following Sept. 11, it was mandatory. Now it is optional,
> but ATC will
> | handle the commercial operator with confidence knowing the
> flight is
> | flown by professionals.

Using the T indicates no such thing with ATC. Any kid with a couple
hundred hours could be the pilot. He would be a professional in name only.

[Ron Natalie]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> According to the AIM...
>
> Pilots operating under provisions of 14 CFR Part 135 and not having an FAA
> assigned 3-letter designator, are urged to prefix the normal registration
> (N) number with the letter "T" on flight plan filing; e.g., TN1234B.
>
> But lots of folks never do it.
>
>
>
There was a time right after the controller strike that the FAA
gave preference to airlines and 135 operators. People heavily
used TANGO-NOVEMBER to make sure they got their precedence.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> According to the AIM...
>>
>> Pilots operating under provisions of 14 CFR Part 135 and not having an
>> FAA assigned 3-letter designator, are urged to prefix the normal
>> registration (N) number with the letter "T" on flight plan filing; e.g.,
>> TN1234B.
>>
>> But lots of folks never do it.
>>
>>
>>
> There was a time right after the controller strike that the FAA
> gave preference to airlines and 135 operators. People heavily
> used TANGO-NOVEMBER to make sure they got their precedence.

We don't call out the NOVEMBER when we call out on the radio. So I have a
question. Is Tango-November said when using the prefix or is it just a
flight plan thing?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>> Pilots operating under provisions of 14 CFR Part 135 and not having an FAA
>> assigned 3-letter designator, are urged to prefix the normal registration
>> (N) number with the letter "T" on flight plan filing; e.g., TN1234B.
>>
>> But lots of folks never do it.
>>
> There was a time right after the controller strike that the FAA
> gave preference to airlines and 135 operators. People heavily
> used TANGO-NOVEMBER to make sure they got their precedence.


I must not have gotten the memo. What I do remember about the period was while
the controllers could be sarcastic and surly shortly before the strike, they
sure became friendly and cooperative afterwards.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Newps]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
> We don't call out the NOVEMBER when we call out on the radio. So I have a
> question. Is Tango-November said when using the prefix or is it just a
> flight plan thing?

In any situation where you would use November you add the Tango in front
of it. If you don't then you don't.

[Peter Dohm]

>
>
> I must not have gotten the memo. What I do remember about the period was
while
> the controllers could be sarcastic and surly shortly before the strike,
they
> sure became friendly and cooperative afterwards.
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
>
>
I was flying as a student pilot during that period, and what I remember most
was that all of the controllers who were inpatient and abrasive suddenly
vanished and that all of the controllers who were friendly and helpfull were
still present.

Peter

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> I was flying as a student pilot during that period, and what I remember most
> was that all of the controllers who were inpatient and abrasive suddenly
> vanished and that all of the controllers who were friendly and helpfull were
> still present.



Reagan broke the controller union's back.... he fired the strikers and never
rehired them. They're gone. Frankly, I don't miss them. The replacements were
much better.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Jim Macklin]

yes, much nicer flying after the strike.



"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
| >
| >
| > I must not have gotten the memo. What I do remember
about the period was
| while
| > the controllers could be sarcastic and surly shortly
before the strike,
| they
| > sure became friendly and cooperative afterwards.
| >
| >
| >
| > --
| > Mortimer Schnerd, RN
| > mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
| >
| >
| I was flying as a student pilot during that period, and
what I remember most
| was that all of the controllers who were inpatient and
abrasive suddenly
| vanished and that all of the controllers who were friendly
and helpfull were
| still present.
|
| Peter
|
|

[Ron Natalie]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Ron Natalie wrote:

>
> I must not have gotten the memo. What I do remember about the period was while
> the controllers could be sarcastic and surly shortly before the strike, they
> sure became friendly and cooperative afterwards.
>
>
>
It was surly or sarcastic...it was unable to accept people into
certain terminal airspace.

[Ron Natalie]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>> I was flying as a student pilot during that period, and what I remember most
>> was that all of the controllers who were inpatient and abrasive suddenly
>> vanished and that all of the controllers who were friendly and helpfull were
>> still present.
>
>
>
> Reagan broke the controller union's back.... he fired the strikers and never
> rehired them. They're gone. Frankly, I don't miss them. The replacements were
> much better.
>
>
>
PATCO screwed the controllers by lying about the strike vote.
As with most labor battles, there's plenty of fault to be found
on both sides.

Don't get me started on Eastern.

[Jim Macklin]

Actually, terminal control was mostly unaffected, you
couldn't get a clearance from center. You needed a
reservation to file a flight plan and no pop-ups were
allowed. However, TRACON did accept pop-ups and you could
get short range IFR departures to VFR on top and then cancel
and go VFR over the top.

Flew many pilot service trip Wichita to Brownsville with
stops at OKC, FTW, Waco, etc, with no delays. Taxied the
Bonanza around many airplanes sitting and waiting for their
slot to open up. You just had to know how to work within
the system.

On the other hand, one of the replacement controllers had
not fully learned the job, I was IFR on a charter in a Baron
going into Forbes at Topeka and approach was being handled
by center. I was given the weather as "600 overcast,
visibility 1 mile, expect the visual to..." to which I
replied, "If is really 600 and 1, can I have the ILS?"

It had been Kansas sever clear for weeks and he just said
what he'd been saying every day on the job.


"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
| > Ron Natalie wrote:
|
| >
| > I must not have gotten the memo. What I do remember
about the period was while
| > the controllers could be sarcastic and surly shortly
before the strike, they
| > sure became friendly and cooperative afterwards.
| >
| >
| >
| It was surly or sarcastic...it was unable to accept people
into
| certain terminal airspace.

[Jim Macklin]

Reagan gave the controllers several options to go back to
work, PATCO really did screw their members.



"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
| > Peter Dohm wrote:
| >> I was flying as a student pilot during that period, and
what I remember most
| >> was that all of the controllers who were inpatient and
abrasive suddenly
| >> vanished and that all of the controllers who were
friendly and helpfull were
| >> still present.
| >
| >
| >
| > Reagan broke the controller union's back.... he fired
the strikers and never
| > rehired them. They're gone. Frankly, I don't miss
them. The replacements were
| > much better.
| >
| >
| >
| PATCO screwed the controllers by lying about the strike
vote.
| As with most labor battles, there's plenty of fault to be
found
| on both sides.
|
| Don't get me started on Eastern.

[Matt Barrow]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>> I was flying as a student pilot during that period, and what I remember
>> most
>> was that all of the controllers who were inpatient and abrasive suddenly
>> vanished and that all of the controllers who were friendly and helpfull
>> were
>> still present.
>
>
>
> Reagan broke the controller union's back.... he fired the strikers and
> never rehired them. They're gone. Frankly, I don't miss them. The
> replacements were much better.
>
Place I was working at in the early 80's had one of the fired controllers
working as a Robert Half temp clerk. He was all about bragging how he was
going to be re-hired due to some legal loophole. Well, guess what!?

He didn't last at our place, either; he was making some snide comments about
some manager that walked funny. Turns out, that manager had half his leg
blown off in Vietnam, and the comments got back to his boss. GONE in five
minutes.

If it weren't for bad luck, he'd have no luck at all....

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
>> Peter Dohm wrote:
>>> I was flying as a student pilot during that period, and what I remember
>>> most
>>> was that all of the controllers who were inpatient and abrasive suddenly
>>> vanished and that all of the controllers who were friendly and helpfull
>>> were
>>> still present.
>>
>>
>>
>> Reagan broke the controller union's back.... he fired the strikers and
>> never rehired them. They're gone. Frankly, I don't miss them. The
>> replacements were much better.
>>
>>
>>
> PATCO screwed the controllers by lying about the strike vote.
> As with most labor battles, there's plenty of fault to be found
> on both sides.
>
> Don't get me started on Eastern.

Tell us, Ron...tell us about Eastern!!!

[Peter Dohm]

> >> I was flying as a student pilot during that period, and what I remember
most
> >> was that all of the controllers who were inpatient and abrasive
suddenly
> >> vanished and that all of the controllers who were friendly and helpfull
were
> >> still present.
> >
> >
> >
> > Reagan broke the controller union's back.... he fired the strikers and
never
> > rehired them. They're gone. Frankly, I don't miss them. The
replacements were
> > much better.
> >
> >
> >
> PATCO screwed the controllers by lying about the strike vote.
> As with most labor battles, there's plenty of fault to be found
> on both sides.
>
> Don't get me started on Eastern.

I don't remember hearing about the vote, although I certainly suspected it.
The rest, regrettably, is much too true.

Peter

[Jose[_1_]]

> Taxied the
> Bonanza around many airplanes sitting and waiting for their
> slot to open up. You just had to know how to work within
> the system.

So how did you "work within the system" to get that?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

They were all trying to go on their reservation with an IFR
all the way, take-off to landing. I was part 91 doing pilot
service for the owner, who liked to vacation at Padre
Island. They were also pilots.
I departed ICT IFR to VFR and flew above and along the edge
of the lower deck of clouds to FTW. Nearing Regional
Approach, got an IFR into FTW. Departed FTW IFR and did the
same. Brownsville was and southern Texas were clear.
Picked up the owners and the whole route was clear for the
return.

That was the system post-strike. If you had to be IFR, the
first few weeks the Tango exception for 135 was not in
place. Scheduled operators were excepted. Part 91 had to
make a reservation, for the slot in the hour block. Miss
the block and you had to wait until after 2100 local time.
Until 135 got the Tango exception, that often meant you
couldn't come back until the next day because of duty time
limitations.

As a side benefit, we could tell our passengers to tell us
what time they wanted to come home and that they'd better be
on time or have to wait until the next day, if we could get
a reservation. Even after the Tango exception, it was nice
to have passengers that didn't show up 5 hours late.



"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
|> Taxied the
| > Bonanza around many airplanes sitting and waiting for
their
| > slot to open up. You just had to know how to work
within
| > the system.
|
| So how did you "work within the system" to get that?
|
| Jose
| --
| "There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing.
Unfortunately, nobody knows
| what they are." - (mike).
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> Peter Dohm wrote:
>
>>I was flying as a student pilot during that period, and what I remember most
>>was that all of the controllers who were inpatient and abrasive suddenly
>>vanished and that all of the controllers who were friendly and helpfull were
>>still present.
>
>
>
>
> Reagan broke the controller union's back


They broke their own back. Stupid idiots thought they could strike and
not get fired. Reagan gave them two days to return, two more than he
had to. Some came back, most didn't.

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Reagan gave the controllers several options to go back to
> work, PATCO really did screw their members.

He gave them one option. Get your ass back to work.

[Jim Macklin]

Yes, but more than one chance as I remember.



"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Reagan gave the controllers several options to go back
to
| > work, PATCO really did screw their members.
|
| He gave them one option. Get your ass back to work.

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Yes, but more than one chance as I remember.

Nope, he got on TV and said you got two days. That was it. And in two
days they were all fired.

[Jim Macklin]

The ones who stayed out were fired.



"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Yes, but more than one chance as I remember.
|
| Nope, he got on TV and said you got two days. That was
it. And in two
| days they were all fired.

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> Reagan gave the controllers several options to go back to work, PATCO
>> really did screw their members.
>
>
> He gave them one option. Get your ass back to work.

Clean, simple and easy to understand. What part of "get back to work"
did they not understand?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> Yes, but more than one chance as I remember.
>
>
> Nope, he got on TV and said you got two days. That was it. And in two
> days they were all fired.

I guess they never expected a politician to actually keep his word.

Matt

[601XL Builder]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The ones who stayed out were fired.
>
>
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
> |
> |
> | Jim Macklin wrote:
> |
> | > Yes, but more than one chance as I remember.
> |
> | Nope, he got on TV and said you got two days. That was
> it. And in two
> | days they were all fired.
>
>

If anyone is interested here is the text of Ronald Reagan's ultimatum.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan%27s_ultimatum_to_striking_air_traffi c_controllers