FAA Issues Emergency Order of Revocation Against TapJets
There is no safety concern here, it&#x27;s purely bureaucratic and political. Many GA planes are 100% legal and safe to be flown with one pilot. The question here is whether or not this was a commercial (part 91) operation or a charter (part 135) operation. If passengers (friends and family) were not paying, it seems sensible to treat this like any other general aviation (private) flight, but the FAA is notorious for not being particularly sensible. If there&#x27;s even a remote opportunity to pursue legal action, the FAA will do so.<p>What&#x27;s problematic here (and with many FAA cases) is the total lack of due process. The TapJets case hasn&#x27;t even gone to court and the FAA has already punished them and issued a public statement before TapJets was even able to argue their case. They are guilty until proven innocent.<p>The &quot;emergency order&quot; used here is intended for actual emergencies, such as if a carrier was flying planes that weren&#x27;t physically safe. A dispute over whether compensation occurred over a year ago is not an emergency and the use of such an order seems like an abuse of power.<p>Note: for all flights with paying customers (not friends and family) TapJets states that they operate according to the rules of any other air charter under part 135.