Illegal charter may be rare in the context of the thousands of legitimate flights taking off every day, but its consequences can be devastating. The death of soccer player Emiliano Sala in 2019, killed when an illegally chartered aircraft crashed in the English Channel, remains one of the starkest reminders of what is at stake when operators cut corners and passengers are left unprotected.
Seven years on from that tragedy, the fight against rogue operators continues to evolve. From sham leases in the USA to cost-sharing loopholes in Europe, the methods used to circumvent regulations are becoming more sophisticated, and the industry is pushing back.
The clueless, the careless and the criminal
Glenn Hogben, CEO of the Air Charter Association (ACA), breaks illegal charter activity into three categories: “Firstly, the clueless travelers do not use a broker or advisor and do not have knowledge of the regulations and inadvertently end up booking a flight that does not comply with the regulations.
“Secondly, the careless traveler will book a flight on a private basis which does not comply with the higher safety standards of a commercial charter flight and then by paying a contribution or tip to the pilot cross the line into a flight for a reward which the operation is not licensed to do.
“Lastly, there are the criminals, where individuals deliberately and knowingly offer a private aircraft to operate a commercial (for reward) charter flight and the passengers are deliberately put at risk. Fortunately, the latter is very rare.”
It is difficult to gauge the true scale of the problem. The ACA operates a reporting mechanism on its website where companies and individuals can submit details of suspected illegal charter flights, but Hogben notes that the number of reports remains small and many do not ultimately involve regulatory breaches. Nevertheless, the association takes every submission seriously, passing all information to the relevant civil aviation authorities for investigation.
Online activity
In the USA, the picture is shaped heavily by the rise of digital platforms. According to NATA (the National Air Transportation Association), consumers are most likely to encounter illegal charter activity through social media or by entering into a sham lease. Jacqueline Rosser, NATA senior advisor, says online marketplaces are creating more opportunities for illegal activity “as it is easy to misrepresent what is being bought and sold.”
She adds that consumers can misunderstand what is permissible, such as individual seat sales, without fully grasping the extensive regulatory requirements that underpin legitimate air charter operations.
Sham leases are a particular focus of FAA enforcement efforts, especially involving larger aircraft weighing over 12,500 lb.
In these schemes, a customer is asked to sign a lease that designates them as the operator on paper, when in reality the leasing company is servicing and flying the aircraft. The aim is to make the flight appear private, sidestepping the safety, security and liability requirements that govern legitimate charter operations.
Spotting the red flags
For passengers, the warning signs are not always obvious. However, Rosser highlights several red flags: the absence of Federal Excise Tax on flights involving aircraft over 6,000 lb, no safety briefing or briefing cards, reluctance from the operator to answer questions and perhaps most troubling, crew or operators coaching passengers on what to say if questioned by federal officials. “Ultimately both the crew and the passengers should be able to easily identify who is in control of the aircraft and who is responsible for the trip,” she says. “If those roles are unclear or inconsistent, that is a significant warning sign.”
Hogben points out that certain operations are inherently more susceptible to illegal activity due to operational restrictions. Commercial flights are subject to longer minimum runway length requirements as a safety measure, meaning a privately operated aircraft can land at short mountainous runways near ski resorts where a commercially licensed aircraft could not. While this applies to only a small number of airports, it illustrates the kind of operational gap that can be exploited.
On the enforcement side, progress is being made but challenges remain. In the USA, the FAA has increased its guidance, surveillance and enforcement activity in recent years. Over the past five years, more than US$18million in penalties has been levied against rogue operators. NATA has been actively engaging with Congressional appropriators, and as a result the Senate Appropriations Committee has directed the FAA to pursue enforcement actions against illegal charters and maintain a single public-facing portal for reporting suspected activity.
“More regulations will not address operators who have already demonstrated a willingness to operate illegally,” says Rosser. “NATA continues to advocate for the FAA to dedicate additional resources to detecting and eradicating illegal operations.”
In the UK and Europe, the ACA has been pushing for tighter regulation around cost-sharing flights. Cost sharing allows private pilots building their hours to share the direct costs of a flight with passengers — a legitimate mechanism that can, however, be exploited as cover for illegal charter. A 2021 UK CAA working group review found there was scope for misunderstanding and abuse under existing rules, and enhanced regulations, paperwork and processes were implemented from October 2025 to address this.
Despite the enforcement challenges, the ACA points to tangible results from its reporting mechanism. “In 2025 there were two incidents where suspected illegal charter flights were stopped in advance of the flight taking off, due to information supplied to aviation authorities by the ACA via its reporting mechanism,” says Hogben. He adds that the main priority is encouraging more reporting when people suspect illegal activity, helping authorities focus limited resources where they can achieve results.
Hogben also calls for authorities to be given greater legal powers to investigate and prosecute suspected cases, with clear and punitive penalties for those who choose to break the regulations. Without those powers, he argues, enforcement will continue to be hampered regardless of the quality of intelligence being reported.
Counting the cost
The consequences for operators caught running illegal charters are severe on both sides of the Atlantic. In the USA, enforcement actions can include significant civil penalties, certificate revocations and, in serious cases, criminal charges. Insurance policies typically include prohibitions on operations contrary to regulations, meaning coverage may be denied or voided entirely if a flight is conducted outside the scope of the policy. This leaves the operator or owner personally liable for any damages or losses. The FAA has also issued formal letters to pilots warning that accepting compensation for flights conducted outside the regulatory framework can jeopardize their certificates and careers.
Hogben is equally blunt in his warning to aircraft owners considering illegal operations. “Don’t do it! You are putting your asset and potentially lives in jeopardy, risking prosecution and will be held criminally liable for any incidents which may occur related to your aircraft,” he says. He notes that insurance policies are typically invalidated by illegal activity, meaning even a minor incident could leave an owner facing uncovered costs, while life and travel insurance for passengers could also be affected.
For owners looking to offset the high costs of aircraft ownership, both organizations recommend working within the system. Hogben suggests contracting an aircraft to a professional management company or operator to fly it under their Air Operator Certificate, ensuring legality and proper safety management. On the US side, NATA advises owners to consult with reputable aviation counsel to ensure their intended operation meets all requirements. Rosser acknowledges that the high costs of ownership drive some operators to seek revenue in ways that may not be permissible, noting that some “may mistakenly believe certain flights are permissible when they are not, or they may knowingly take the risk in hopes they are not caught.”
The impact on legitimate operators is significant. Operating outside the certification framework allows bad actors to avoid the costs associated with compliance, training, maintenance programs, insurance and ongoing FAA oversight, creating an unfair price advantage. NATA says the industry has lost legitimate air charter operators who were unable to compete with illegal operations undercutting them on price. Legitimate operators are encouraged to clearly communicate to passengers how they operate legally, what safety standards they meet and why those protections matter.
The role of online platforms remains a point of divergence between the two organizations. While NATA sees digital marketplaces as creating increasing legal and operational risk, with unauthorized seat sales exposing Part 135 operators to regulatory enforcement, civil liability and insurance gaps, the ACA takes a more measured view. “Online marketplaces and digital platforms don’t really impact on enforcement in any way,” says Hogben.
“They simplify the process of travelers connecting with brokers and operators to locate charter solutions.” He adds that many platforms support professional brokers and operators by carrying out due diligence checks and providing documentation for aircraft advertised.
Knowledge is power
Regardless of perspective, both organizations agree that education is the most powerful tool available. NATA’s Avoid Illegal Charter initiative provides fact sheets and guidance for both consumers and operators, while the ACA promotes its three-point system: use an accredited broker, check operator documentation, and report anything suspicious.
The ACA’s annual Fly Legal Day, held on January 21 to commemorate Sala’s death, saw more than 100 companies sharing the campaign on social media in 2026, alongside prominent bodies including the FAA and the National Business Aviation Association.
Passengers who find themselves on an illegal charter are generally not the focus of enforcement action. Both NATA and the ACA stress that unless passengers were active participants in any fraud, they are unlikely to face consequences, though they may be asked to assist with investigations. This underscores why awareness matters — understanding how to verify that a charter is legitimate protects passengers from unknowingly becoming involved in illegal activity.
Verifying a charter’s legitimacy starts with checking the operator’s credentials. In the USA, passengers can search the FAA’s list of certificated air charter operators by name or aircraft registration number and should ask for copies of the air carrier certificate and insurance documentation. Through the ACA, travelers can look for accredited brokers and operators who have passed due diligence and documentation checks.
The message from both sides of the Atlantic is clear — if a deal looks too good to be true, it probably is.
And in an industry where the margin between legal and illegal can have life-or-death consequences, vigilance is not optional — it is essential.
