“This valuable exemption allows operators of piston-powered airplanes, small airplanes and rotorcraft to realize the cost-sharing benefits outlined in Part 91 Subpart F, making more effective use of their aircraft,” said Doug Carr, NBAA’s senior vice president of safety, security, sustainability, and international affairs.

Subpart F of Part 91 was written into the regulations to accommodate the fractional-ownership business model pioneered by NetJets. NBAA said its members who operate small aircraft for business can “take advantage of the flexibility usually offered to operators of larger, turbine-powered aircraft.”

NBAA members must submit a letter of intent (LOI) to the public docket to use Exemption 7897M. The letter must include detailed information on the business entity and an attestation that the operator will adhere to the terms of the exemption.

Previously only available for aircraft of more than 12,500 pounds gross weight, the benefits of Subpart F include “alternative maintenance programs” and limited cost-reimbursement from passengers for certain flights.

“The cost-reimbursement options of Part 91 Subpart F are useful regarding transportation of a guest on a company aircraft, the use of the aircraft by employees of a subsidiary company and other common scenarios,” NBAA wrote. “Time-sharing, interchange, and joint-ownership agreements are also permitted under Part 91 Subpart F.”

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.

The post NBAA Extends Part 91 Subpart F Benefits for Smaller Aircraft appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

How do you know if someone is a pilot?

They will tell you.

As aviators we like to let everyone know, not only our own ability but that of our airplanes. We are proud of our dispatch reliability rate, the utility they afford, the ease of travel, and the time saved not standing in a TSA line. And we would love to tell you all about it in great detail.

And yet, for all that talk, we don’t always communicate very well with our passengers when describing risk. We don’t want to scare the deer. Or show our airplane’s shortcomings. Or our own.

But, yes, our little airplanes really do offer up all that utility. Add a Garmin suite of avionics to the already reliable powerplant/airframe in my highly updated Bonanza, and I can get in and out of places that no commercial airliner could ever attempt.

Part 91 takes away whatever remaining restrictions the majors have in getting off the ground. Technically, we GA pilots can take off in any conditions we like. Sure, we don’t necessarily do it, but we all know that we could if we wanted to badly enough. And that’s simply not a helpful framework for our self-deluding primate brains.

• READ MORE: Misses, Near and Far…

I remember once getting a call some years ago on a Saturday morning from my buddy, Dave. He and a friend had to make a wedding in California’s Bay Area that night. Their commercial flight into KSFO was canceled because of fog. He asked me if I could get them to a nearby airport in the next few hours. A part of my brain lit up at the thought of saving the day. It’s fun being the hero. I tried to remain calm and even had the wherewithal to tell him I had to check the weather first. But my mind was already 87 percent made up. I was getting them to that wedding.

Turns out it wasn’t just fog. There was a well-developed low making a ton of rain along with 70 knot winds at 10,000 feet. We flew right through that storm. While there was no convection, and I wasn’t exactly in over my head, it was not a flight that needed to happen. I had just received my instrument rating a few months earlier and was determined to leverage it to its full potential.

I remember this one moment up at altitude when I realized the weather at our destination was not going to lift above minimums. I told the guys we would not make San Jose and would have to land at Monterey. They were concerned with rental cars and ground transportation, blissfully unaware I had not studied our alternate’s instrument approaches—there are six of them at KMRY. Runway 28 was active, and it required a descent toward mountainous terrain and an approach that takes you right past peaks higher than the aircraft’s path. The surrounding terrain there is the real deal, having taken the life of a well-known CFI who had a CFIT accident in 2021 while departing into IMC.

Our flight ended with a successful landing, but I will always remember walking away from the airplane toward the FBO when Dave asked me if I always sweated this much when flying. “Yes,” I replied. “I’m a ‘schvitzer.’” Better that than explain to him that I exposed them both to a much higher risk without ever giving them the option to make a choice for themselves. Had I called Dave back earlier that morning and explained that our desired destination was at minimums and our alternate had mountainous terrain surrounding it on three sides, he might very well have decided making the wedding wasn’t that important after all. More than 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, anyway. But I never gave him that option. I wanted to make it work—for me, as much as for him. And that’s a problem.

In the end, I didn’t even achieve the hero status that was fueling my decision-making process. The guys were scrambling to find a rental car as they tossed a thank-you over their shoulders as they walked to the FBO. I slowly made my way back to the airplane and just sat there in the left seat for a bit and breathed before filing and heading back to LA.

The best example of this noncommunication was also the worst day of my life: that fateful morning in Telluride, Colorado, where I encountered wind shear on takeoff and almost entered a stall/spin, ending with a gear-up landing. My passenger and I could have left later that day or the next morning. That’s when all the “reasons” start flooding in:

• The hotel room in Santa Fe, New Mexico, is booked.
• The restaurant reservation is made.
• The girl is new to me, and I want to impress her.
• My airplane is perfectly suited to the mission.
• I am a pilot of exceptional, bordering superhuman ability.

In hindsight, those seem patently absurd (the last, also being patently false) with the reality I was then served: a totaled airplane, a scarred pilot and his dog, and a woman who ended up being subjected to a terrifying, near-death experience.

Had I just asked her if she was willing to risk the flight at one of the most notoriously dangerous airports in North America because of mountain wind shear and a climbing density altitude, I can almost guarantee she would have declined. But that dialogue never occurred, because I never opened it.

There are times where we really don’t see the danger coming and, as such, a conversation cannot be had. For that, there is no remedy. But I find the vast majority of the time there is that tingling feeling that originates in your brain then migrates south to the back of your neck, where it surfaces, becoming almost topical—like an itch.

We almost always know. We just don’t always listen, and we often don’t speak.

This column first appeared in the September 2023/Issue 941 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Pilots Don’t Always Communicate Well When Describing Risk appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Business jet traffic rose by 9 percent from the last week of 2023 to the first week of 2024, however, the recent results were 3 percent lower than in the same period a year ago. Turboprop traffic in the first week was slightly lower than a year earlier—about 0.1 percent. Combined Part 135 and Part 91 operations were 2 percent lower than a year ago. Meanwhile, scheduled airline traffic rose 12 percent from the first week of 2023, while cargo traffic decreased by 9 percent.

• READ MORE: WingX Reports Bizjet Activity Continues To Decline

“Global business aviation activity has started the new year slightly behind comparable 2023, which itself was a rebound on locked-down January 2022. The U.S. leisure market appears to be relatively weaker during the recent holiday period,” said Richard Koe, managing director at WingX. “In Europe, the U.K. and France markets were well back on last year, but this was offset overall by strong activity in Turkey and Spain.”

In North America, business jet traffic rose by 7 percent compared with the final week of 2023 but declined by 5 percent year on year. Over the last four weeks, business jet activity is trending 3 percent lower than a year ago. Among the jet categories, super midsize and ultralong-range jets began the year 2 percent ahead year on year while super light and very light jets declined more than 10 percent, WingX said.

Looking at the U.S. business jet market reveals a clear spike in demand on January 2 due to travelers returning from holiday destinations. Traffic at the top airports reflected this notable increase with second-ranked Palm Beach (KPBI) in Florida handling just seven fewer flights than top-ranked Teterboro (KTEB) in Jersey. Miami-Opa Locka (KOPF) and Naples (KPAF) in Florida, and Van Nuys (KVNY) in California round out the top five U.S. business jet airports.

WingX said Florida is “easily the busiest U.S. bizjet state so far this month,” and New York is the top destination for those flying from Florida airports. The Embraer Phenom 300 logged the most flights out of Florida airports, while the Challenger 300 and 350 series flew the most hours.

In Europe, business jet activity increased 3 percent year on year. France surpassed 1,000 business jet flights in the first week of 2024, making it the top market, though activity was 3 percent below last year. The second-ranked U.K.’s activity fell 6 percent year on year, while business jet activity in Spain rose 26 percent.

In Asia, business jet activity declined 2 percent from a year ago, while activity rose 2 percent in the Middle East year on year. Demand for business jets has been strong in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar at the start of the year, with an increase in traffic from a year ago, while activity in Israel in the first quarter is down 32 percent year on year.

The post Global Business Aviation Starts 2024 with Year-on-Year Drop in Activity appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Volato, which offers fractional ownership, aircraft management, jet card, deposit, and charter programs, announced its plans to become a publicly traded company last August. PACI shareholders approved the move at a special shareholders meeting on November 28. Volato’s common stock and warrants are set to begin trading on the New York Stock Exchange on December 4.

“We believe that this transaction provides not only the capital to accelerate our fleet growth and strategy, but also a level of transparency and institutional support that should make our product even more attractive to new fractional owners and private fliers,” said Volato CEO and co-founder Matt Liotta. “After founding the company in 2021 and quickly ramping to nearly $100 million of revenue in 2022, we are now positioned to build on this momentum as a public company.”

PACI also announced the closing of $12 million in private investments. Combined with funding from an earlier Series A funding round and the conversion of Volato convertible debt, the company reports that it has raised over $60 million in capital. The money is expected to be used to fund business operations and grow Volato’s fleet, which is made up primarily of HondaJets.

• READ MORE: Volato Closes Deal for 25 HondaJets

“This transaction and recent new investments come at an ideal time for Volato, as we see strong demand for our product in the market,” said Volato chief commercial officer and co-founder Nicholas Cooper. “The private aviation industry has undergone a secular expansion in recent years due to changes in customer behavior along with greater customer awareness of the options and solutions available for private travel.”

The post Volato Completes PACI Merger, Prepares to Go Public appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

On Thursday, the FAA published the requests of the four companies—Phoenix Air Unmanned, uAvionix, UPS Flight Forward, and Zipline—and is seeking comments from the public. Stakeholders have until June 14 to share their suggestions or concerns with the requests. 

Considering the agency’s reliance on granting exemptions to gather information as it works toward a final BVLOS rule, the FAA will likely approve the four requests, even if they require the inclusion of special conditions or restrictions.

But if granted, what exactly would these permissions do? Let’s break down what the requested exemptions mean for each of the four companies.

Describing itself as an aerial data acquisition services provider, Phoenix Air Unmanned is looking to operate BVLOS as well as over people and roads. To do so, it’s requesting relief from several sections of FAA Part 61 and Part 91.

The firm wants to use its SVO 50 V2 aircraft from SwissDrones to perform aerial work, photography, surveying, patrols, and inspections of any powerline infrastructure owned or operated by a Department of Energy-recognized electric utility. The turbine-powered drone is capable of flying up to two hours with a 30-pound payload.

“Our petition for exemption process has included a safety risk management review alongside the FAA, demonstration of the aircraft, and on-site evaluation of BVLOS inspection operations within the proposed concept of operations,” Phoenix told FLYING. “The exemption request is in the interest of the public, and we welcome public comment as a next step of the authorization process.”

The exemption, if approved, would build on Phoenix’s Part 107 waiver, issued in March, that permits BVLOS operations for aircraft under 55 pounds. The approval did not cover the SVO 50 V2, which weighs 190 pounds.

Autonomous flight services provider—and avionics developer—uAvionix is also seeking exemptions from Parts 61 and 91…but not for its own operations.

• READ MORE: uAvionix Introduces Combo Tailbeacon ADS-B

Rather, the firm wants to conduct research and development on BVLOS operations for others—using an electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft—as part of the Vantis unmanned aerial systems (UAS) project at the FAA’s North Dakota UAS test site.

“Our application is unique in that we are not seeking this exemption as a means to further our own BVLOS flight objectives….instead we are trying to unlock that capability for the rest of industry, and this is one way to achieve those goals,” Christian Ramsey, managing director at uAvionix, told FLYING.

The aircraft, called Rapace, was granted a special airworthiness certificate—experimental class (SAC-EC) from the FAA and has a maximum takeoff weight of 26.5 pounds. It’s custom built, with uAvionix-designed internal avionics, command and control radios, autopilot, and positioning sensors. Through Vantis, the firm is working with partners such as Thales and the state of North Dakota to provide additional infrastructure for the program.

“The concept here is that the program team works out the ‘recipe’ for BVLOS exemptions, which are repeatable by other operators in the future,” Ramsey said. “In the end, this exemption isn’t about our operations… it’s about trailblazing and developing an infrastructure that others can use to achieve their own operational and business goals.”

UPS Flight Forward, the first FAA-approved Part 135 drone operator, is requesting slightly different permissions, including exemptions from Part 135.

The exemptions, if approved, would incorporate remote operations centers across the company’s network and enable “flights in outlying locations from (an) ROC in a different location” —essentially BVLOS flights.

But the request goes further. Flight Forward also wants to fly its M2 drone from Matternet with a ground-based surveillance system coupled to a suite of situational awareness tools that would replace the visual observer in BVLOS operations. That means the company will be able to fly farther than it would have had it opted for a simple section 107.31 waiver.

And then there’s Zipline. Its request is simple: The company wants to revise its previous exemption in order to replace visual observers with its patented acoustic detect-and-avoid system (DAA). DAA was a key factor in securing the company’s Part 135 certification, the most permissive the FAA has awarded so far and enables BVLOS operations.

Flight Forward and Zipline did not immediately respond to FLYING’s request for comment.

Each of the four exemption requests has its own petition for public comment, and they can be found within the Federal Register. Anyone can comment, but take that with a grain of salt—the FAA may make some modifications but will most likely approve all four requests.

However, there may be a better way to make your voice heard. Concurrently with the four requests, the FAA released a petition for comment on a proposed rule for BVLOS, asking industry stakeholders to provide input on the agency’s potential approaches.

The document outlines several areas of proposed rulemaking—such as detect-and-avoid performance standards, well-clear boundaries, and a new class of “shielded” operations—each with a few questions for the public to answer. The comment period for that petition also expires June 14.

The post FAA Releases BVLOS Waiver Requests for Public Comment appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The published report follows collective efforts between the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), and the FAA’s Flight Technologies and Procedures divisions. 

According to the FAA, the process now “streamlines the review of aircraft capabilities, training compliance and procedures compliance, and bundles a request for multiple common LOAs in a single application.”

“This should make what has been an extremely frustrating process for owners of new, technologically advanced aircraft significantly less burdensome, with much greater clarity on the requirements for aircraft, crews, and operational procedures,” said Brian Koester, NBAA’s director of flight operations and regulations. “We expect these standardized procedures to greatly enhance the efficiency of the LOA application process due to more consistent review and presentation of information.”

The guidance covers Part 91 operators who purchase new aircraft directly from OEMs, but Koester believes this is just the beginning. 

“Basically, we needed to start somewhere,” he said. “As both operators and the FAA gain experience with this new guidance, we should see similar procedures extended to other LOA application scenarios as well.”

Background

In 2009, a joint industry and government task force identified five “areas of concern” that they foresaw as NextGen technology began to enter the flight deck and require operators to gain approval for use of the new systems. In September 2018, the FAA established the LOA Process Improvement working group, which convened to focus specifically on NextGen technologies, including communications (data comm, ADS-C); navigation (performance-based navigation, or PBN); and surveillance (ADS-B Out utilization outside the U.S.) authorizations, as well as other aircraft capabilities such as enhanced flight vision systems (EFVS).

A report was released in January 2020 offering the working group’s recommendations for modernizing the policy mechanism and information that the FAA, aircraft OEMs, training providers, and operators use to allow Part 91 operators to conduct certain operations that require authorization for communications, navigation, and surveillance.

The most commonly requested LOAs include:

• enhanced vision systems
• equipment necessary to fly in North Atlantic High Level Airspace and certain other oceanic regions
• area navigation and required navigation performance terminal operations.

The post FAA Releases LOA Guidance for Part 91 Operators appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Your instructor will appreciate it if you take ownership of your training by insisting on and following a syllabus. The first part of the syllabus will consist of tasks listed under FAR Part 61.87—the aeronautical knowledge and skills required for solo flight. 

Your instructor needs you to understand that learning to fly an airplane is not like learning to drive a forklift or a stick shift—it takes more than an afternoon to learn the maneuvers and procedures required for solo flight, and even more time to become suitably proficient in them.

Solo flight also requires aeronautical knowledge that is demonstrated on a test created and administered by the instructor, and the test addresses the student’s knowledge of the application sections of Parts 61 and 91, airspace rules and procedures where the solo flight will be performed, flight characteristics, and operational limitations for the make and model of aircraft to be flown. The FAR explains the test must be administered by the student’s authorized instructor, who at the conclusion of the test reviews all incorrect answers with the student before authorizing the student to conduct a solo flight.

Learners who have not become familiar with 61.87 often get frustrated, wondering why they aren’t allowed to solo, and they may jump from instructor to instructor, trying to pressure someone into soloing them. For the student, this can be expensive and time consuming, because often the new CFI will begin training from scratch, as they do not know what has already been covered. Or they simply want to be sure the learner understands the procedures and required knowledge, because the learner is flying under the CFI’s certificate. If something goes wrong and there is an accident or incident, the CFI who signed off the learner for solo will likely be having a discussion with the FAA, because under Part 61, the CFI is responsible for the learner’s actions. 

To my fellow CFIs, do not be surprised if your parent’s voice comes out of your mouth when and if you have to talk to a learner about a transgression. 

Please understand that the pre-solo knowledge test is geographically specific—remember this if you soloed in one area and are now training in another. Expect another test and another signoff. Your instructor will want to know where you obtained your answers. “Because my instructor told me,” and “Google” are not recommended responses. One of the most interesting pre-solo knowledge tests I had to grade included information about towered airport operation in Miami. The learner was in a hurry to solo so he Googled “pre-solo knowledge test” and copied the answers word for word. However, his solo was to take place at a non-towered airport outside of Seattle so the responses were, at the very least, inappropriate. 

Pushy learners may try to take advantage of inexperienced instructors. But it’s not just the newly minted CFIs who are unfamiliar with Part 61.87. 

Not too long ago, my local airport was abuzz when a recently retired Boeing 777 captain who returned to flight instructing part-time, and signed off a learner for solo after one flight in the pattern. The CFI was trying to be a nice guy. The learner, who had trouble with multiple aspects of 61.87, had burned through all the other CFIs at the school and was positively giddy when he got the solo endorsement “from the new guy.” 

This came back to bite the recommending instructor a week later when the learner had a bit of a meltdown in the practice area because there were so many other airplanes out there and no control tower. The learner was not familiar with the use of the air-to-air frequency used to self-announce maneuvers in the practice area, and had been trying to talk to other airplanes on the tower frequency for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (KSEA). 

• LEARN MORE: Previous editions of “What a CFI Wants You to Know”

Another misconception is that you have 90 days after your first solo to finish the private pilot training requirements or else you have to repeat all the pre-solo training. This is not accurate. If you do not finish the requirements for private pilot certification within 90 days, your instructor can readily give you another 90-day endorsement. 

There are some learners who try to milk this system—one aircraft owner had been working on his private pilot certificate for more than a year and had multiple solo endorsements. This was in “The Before Time,” when check rides were easy to schedule. Finally, his instructor told him, “No more endorsements—it was time to put on his big boy pants and take the check ride.” He passed on the first try.

The post The Things You Need to Know Before You Solo appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

First of all, pilots should be aware of the different types of corporate flying scenarios. On a broad scale, they include:

• Part 91 for a department or private owner (e.g., Netflix flight department or Kim Kardashian’s new Gulfstream G650)
• Part 135 on-demand charter operators. (e.g., NetJets, but also management companies like Clay Lacy Aviation)
• Part 91K for fractional operators (e.g., Planesense, Flexjet, etc.)

They each have their own sets of pros and cons. 

There are some caveats. In some cases, there are overlaps. For instance, some Part 135 operators also offer fractional shares to potential customers to cater to market demand. Another consideration is that pilots can be either outside contractors or not directly on the internal payroll, depending on company policy.

Once you outline the pieces on the board, it’s easier to begin thinking about the right fit. I would recommend putting together a comprehensive list of your priorities. 

Some points for consideration are:

• Company, sector, industry profile
• Expected flying time per year
• Compensation and benefits
• Department location and cost of living
• Fleet mix
• Department size
• Company size
• Owner, company, or department culture
• Company flying priorities, schedule, and trip profiles
• Publicly traded versus privately-owned companies
• Training policy and career progression opportunities

The list could go on. Pilots looking to transition into the workforce often take the first job because they need flight time and that first type rating in order to progress to bigger things. Still, sometimes it’s a miserable mix for the company and the incoming pilot. Some pilots might realize that though they gained a new type rating to enhance their professional profile, the lifestyle that comes along with it was not as expected. 

Also, the new pilot didn’t do their homework to the company’s chagrin. Unfortunately, this leads to the recurring scenario where pilots leave earlier than expected, costing the company a lot of money. In other cases, pilots have to fulfill the terms of their contract and struggle to integrate into the department. Suddenly, they wished they had paid attention to all the factors.  

It Is Important to Know Your Business

When I wrote recently that picking a job was like picking stocks, I connected it to “the company, sector, and industry profile” point and implied the others. Like financial investors, pilots ought to consider the finances of a particular company, then work outward to also factor in the sector and industry they exist in. 

For instance, an entertainment company could be doing well, but if their whole business model is Western movies, that could fade, and their business could implode. Or, the entire entertainment industry could experience volatility, and in most cases, the airplanes are the first assets to go. 

Imagine this across other sectors such as finance, medicine, utilities, and others. In the stock market, investors that weather a topsy-turvy stock market tend to have diversified portfolios and own stocks across multiple sectors. As a direct correlation, one measure of job security a corporate pilot should consider then is how diversified a company’s business is. If they have multiple streams of income necessary to keep up with the ongoing costs of a flight department,  they may be able to withstand a downturn if there is a disruption in one of their business sectors. This one-way corporate flying is very different from the airlines.

Flying for a Private Owner 

What if you fly for an individual owner or private company? This also relates to the difference between publicly traded or privately owned companies in many cases. 

Most public companies, whose mission is to maximize shareholder value, tend to be restricted in their flight operations so that there is no indication of impropriety. A pilot for a public company might find their flying to be standard and almost entirely business-related. Plus, since the requirement of ADS-B on all airplanes makes it possible to track a department’s flight, public companies try to be visibly responsible. If company officials want to keep their dealings private, they might choose to charter instead. For a privately owned company, though, most bets are off.

In some cases, the company doesn’t have to worry about the public eye and can afford to focus on convenience. In this case, the company’s flying could be a mix between direct business and catering to a majority stakeholder,  like the family that owns the company. As a pilot, this could mean then that there are those trips that people anecdotally talk about when they refer to corporate flying, i.e., the idea of an impulsive owner. Sure, it might be true in some cases, but some departments understand the need to keep their pilots comfortable and aim to be considerate. 

Though, as a pilot, being at the mercy of your boss can be unnerving. One pilot who wrote to me recently said, “I’ve always highly prioritized the lifestyle and personality of the principal I’m flying for. If they are a hard pushing, take-no-prisoners type, it means I will be living that same lifestyle. If they have a reputation for being disrespectful and rude, it’s a fair assumption I will be on the receiving end of that at some point.”

On-Demand Charter

For final consideration, pilots who want the mix of an airline-like schedule and corporate flying might consider on-demand charters or fractional flying as their best options. In these cases, companies tend to have enough qualified pilots to cover the fleet and afford to offer pilots predictable schedules. 

What should you expect? Another pilot wrote to explain the new appeal charter flying has over the airlines because of things like home base instead of commuting and other improvements in terms of scheduling and compensation. In other words, it is almost like an airline, but on a corporate level. 

However, as an airline depends on customer demand for business, charter operations could ebb and flow in the same way, as we’re seeing during the pandemic. In this case, charter operations have only grown, which means job security for pilots, but if well-off passengers had to scale back owing to their own volatile finances, demand and charter flying could wane. So, even in this case, there are pros and cons. There is much to consider if you choose to become a corporate pilot. Pilots might have to be more hands-on in their due diligence to find the right job because of the nature of the business aviation industry compared to the airlines. To some, this type of search or lifestyle might turn them off, but if you can afford to be patient in your search and consider all your options, you could carve out a rewarding career.

The post How to Find the Right Corporate Flying Job for You appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Everyone knows the winners, the unicorn departments that they’d like to fly for. But just like expensive stocks they are out of reach—for the most part. Instead, pilots must perform due diligence to find the diamonds in the rough, in the not-so-obvious companies. This searching turns some people away, but those who do it right can string together a remarkable flying career. 

As a flight instructor, I regularly urge my students to consider all their options instead of limiting their selection to the airlines, even if the corporate-pilot lifestyle didn’t appear to fit them. Many times, I can see that they are open to the idea but struggle with the playbook. 

What should freshly qualified pilots consider if they’re looking to go corporate? 

Why Don’t More Pilots Fly Corporate?

For more pilots than not, becoming a corporate pilot has seemed more obscure than getting a job with the airlines. For one, there are fewer corporate jets flying around, and thus, fewer pilot positions. Though corporate flying will be more eclectic than structured airline flying, the airline pilot’s normal career progression—as compared to that often found in Part 91 or 135 corporate aviation—has appealed to more people than not. 

The job search takes a nonstandard approach as well, and that’s another reason I believe more pilots don’t readily become corporate pilots. In times of increased commercial passenger travel, airline recruitment tactics have outshined those of corporate flight departments. Airline recruiters will set up shop in flight schools and training departments, offering pilots conditional job offers on the spot if they meet the requirements. 

Even if the lifestyle of an airline pilot doesn’t fit a person, it is hard to turn down an open door, especially for an opportunity you’ve long waited for. Yet, pilots mostly have to go to the source on the other side of the fence and actually knock on that hangar door. However, plenty of corporate job boards exist. Still, traditionally, the best jobs come from whisperings about who knows who, which means pilots who want to become corporate pilots have to be more intentional—and catch those whispers.

Corporate Flying vs. Airline Flying

There are caveats. Airlines are usually prone to be disturbed by significant world events that compromise their lines of revenue, such as oil crises or terrorism, or things that affect passenger sentiments. This explains why airline pilot jobs ebb and flow.

Corporate flying operates under different rules, as job security directly relates to the underlying business that supports the flight department. The volatility is almost tied directly to the stock market’s sentiment, and pilots flying for publicly traded companies could find themselves having to pay keener attention to the company’s business and sector. There could be more wiggle room for private entities, sole operators, and even charter flying, but the experiences range widely. All this to say, given the flexibility pilots have to choose the proper corporate flying, many factors lay behind the scenes that pilots ought to consider.

Investing in Your Career

To me, the ways to navigate to your chosen career fit the practice of trying to pick the “right stock.” That comes with limits, however, as people with investing experience will counter by saying that it’s better to have a diversified portfolio of stocks to hedge your risks. 

• READ MORE: Previous editions of “What a CFI Wants You to Know”

Pilots who want enduring corporate flying careers will need to look beyond just the equipment they directly operate to the business, sector, and industry they’re in. It’s a whole other ball game. 

What about charter pilots, or those flying for private aircraft owners? The investing principles in this job-picking playbook leave enough room for us to consider those options. We’ll go into much more detail in next week’s column, but if you exercise due diligence, discipline, and patience, you could be the Warren Buffett—known as the Oracle of Omaha for his long-term investing savvy—of your career.

In the meantime, I want to hear from you. Are you a corporate pilot? What were the best job searching principles you leveraged to get to where you are today? What advice would you offer to students looking for a job? If you understand the world of investing, what principles do you think carry over? Send me an email at michael@flying.media, and I’d love to include some of your feedback in my next feature.

The post Looking to Be a Corporate Pilot? The Playbook Starts Here appeared first on FLYING Magazine.