Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754

Attorney Michael Rehm represents passengers injured on charter flights operating through Fresno and the Central Valley. Fresno Yosemite International Airport (FAT/KFAT) and Fresno Chandler Executive Airport (FCH/KFCH) support both scheduled commercial service and on-demand charter operations. Charter flights — known in federal aviation regulation as on-demand operations — are governed by a distinct regulatory framework under 14 C.F.R. Part 135 that differs significantly from scheduled airline rules. When a charter flight accident occurs, identifying the correct legal standard and the full range of potentially liable parties requires careful analysis of the operator's certificate, the nature of the operation, and applicable federal regulations.

What Is a Charter Flight?

In federal aviation regulatory terms, a charter flight is an on-demand air transportation operation governed by 14 C.F.R. Part 135. This category includes: air taxis (aircraft with a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less); commuter air carriers (aircraft operating on a scheduled basis over routes with at least five roundtrips per week); and larger aircraft charter operations. Part 135 operators hold an Air Carrier or Operating Certificate issued by the FAA and are subject to more stringent maintenance, pilot qualification, and operational requirements than private general aviation operators flying under Part 91.

Not every flight marketed as a “charter” is actually a Part 135 operation. Some operations use fractional ownership structures, aircraft sharing arrangements, or dry-lease agreements that may place the flight in a different regulatory category. Whether a particular operation was a Part 135 charter or a differently classified operation affects both the duty of care standard and the identity of the responsible parties.

Regulatory Requirements for Part 135 Charter Operators

Charter operators under Part 135 must comply with requirements that go beyond what Part 91 general aviation rules impose. Key requirements relevant to charter accident cases include:

Pilot qualification: Part 135 sets minimum flight time requirements and recent experience requirements for pilots that exceed Part 91 standards. 14 C.F.R. §§ 135.243–135.247. A charter operator who dispatches a pilot who does not meet Part 135 minimums has violated the FARs.

Aircraft maintenance: Part 135 operators must maintain aircraft under specific inspection programs and keep detailed maintenance records. 14 C.F.R. §§ 135.411–135.443. Dispatch of an aircraft with known airworthiness deficiencies is a regulatory violation.

Flight and duty time limitations: Part 135 imposes specific limits on pilot flight time and rest requirements to prevent fatigue. 14 C.F.R. §§ 135.261–135.273.

Weather minimums: Part 135 visual and instrument flight rules minimums are more restrictive than Part 91 minimums in many conditions. 14 C.F.R. §§ 135.203–135.225.

Violation of any of these requirements is negligence per se under California law when the violation caused the harm the regulation was designed to prevent. Federal Aviation Regulations are accessible at ecfr.gov.

Common Carrier Duty of Care

Charter operators providing air transportation for compensation are common carriers under California law. California Civil Code section 2100 requires a carrier of persons for reward to use the utmost care and diligence for the safe carriage of passengers. The full text of Civil Code section 2100 is at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. This is a higher standard than ordinary negligence. A charter operator that knows or should know of a dangerous condition — deteriorating weather, a maintenance problem, an unqualified pilot — and dispatches the flight anyway has breached the utmost care standard.

Identifying the Responsible Parties

Charter accident liability is often more complex than it appears. The entity that sold the charter seats is not always the entity that holds the Part 135 certificate and actually operated the flight. Charter brokers, trip resellers, and fractional ownership programs interpose additional parties between the passenger and the certificate holder. The actual operator — the Part 135 certificate holder responsible for the flight — bears primary regulatory responsibility. Where the broker misrepresented the operation or selected an operator it knew or should have known was unsafe, broker liability may also attach under general negligence principles.

Aircraft manufacturers are potential defendants where a defective aircraft, engine, or component caused the accident. California's strict products liability doctrine under Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57 holds manufacturers strictly liable for injuries caused by products placed in the stream of commerce in a defective condition. The General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) provides an 18-year statute of repose for general aviation manufacturers, with exceptions for commercial operations and newly installed components. Whether GARA applies and whether an exception defeats the defense requires case-specific analysis.

Government Entity Claims

Where ATC error or a federal employee's negligence contributed to the accident, claims may lie under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. section 2671 et seq. FTCA administrative claims must be filed within two years of the incident. The discretionary function exception to the FTCA may shield government conduct involving policy-level judgments; whether it applies is case-specific. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to assess government entity liability in your case.

Damages

Recoverable damages under Civil Code section 3333 include medical expenses, lost wages and earning capacity, pain and suffering, and emotional distress. For fatal charter accidents, wrongful death and survival claims are available under Code of Civil Procedure sections 377.60 and 377.30.

Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two years from the date of injury under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. FTCA claims require an administrative claim within two years. Missing these deadlines can potentially bar a claim. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to assess the specific timeline in your case.

Related Pages

• Fresno Aviation Accident Attorney
• Fresno Helicopter Accident Attorney
• Fresno Wrongful Death Attorney
• California Aviation Accident Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm represents passengers injured on charter flights operating through Fresno and the Central Valley on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery. Call (800) 978-0754 for a free consultation.

The information on this page is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts. The law can change — statutes are amended, cases are decided, and regulations are revised; nothing on this page should be relied upon as a statement of current law without verification. Deadlines and legal bars discussed on this page are general guides — whether a particular deadline applies, has run, or is subject to tolling, and whether a particular doctrine bars or limits recovery in your case, requires individual analysis. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to discuss the specific facts of your situation.