121 Flight Time Limitation

[honeycomb]

Court Case #1...

You're mixing the rest/duty requirements, and the max flight time requirements. The "legal to start, legal to finish" only applies to the max flight time limits. Rest/duty limits are hard limits that have no such "out".

I challenge you to bust out an interpretation that contradicts this.

Please do a little research....Try starting with a court case by the Washington Court District the majority opinion by Ms. Henderson.

Here is a link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=DC&navby=case&no=011027A

Next time do some research. Please. I have more CASE LAW and the such. Does ALPA no longer issue these papers to you guys?

 

[regionalcap]

I do not see anything in that case referring to flight time limitations. It is referring to the Whitlow letter, duty time limitation, and rest requirements. Try again.

 

[honeycomb]

Really?

I don't think you read it completely. And, with some understanding this time. I know most of you are not lawyers but most of you are at least high school educated...right?

Yes it addresses it. Read between the lines if you have too. Yes no flight time may be violated if you know before the push back or t/o you will exceed the limits in the regs.

I'll keep me legal and let you do the same. BTW there is more in the way of court cases and interps. Go get'em boys. You can do the rest if you really want too. I am not getting paid to school ya' young'ins...so good luck.

Ya'll are on you own from here on.

 

[regionalcap]

I won't lower myself to your attitude. Grow up.

This is directly from the ALPA book.

A flight crewmember is scheduled to fly five hours each day for six days and has met the schedule for the first five days. During the first flight of this series-of-flights on the sixth day the pilot exceeds his/her schedule by one hour due to an ATC delay. Is the crewmember "legal" to complete the schedule knowing that he/she will exceed the 30-hour flight time limit?
A-2. Yes. In this example when the crewmember began the last day of the scheduled series-of-flights, he/she was legally scheduled and could complete the flights and not exceed 30 hours. Because the delay was caused by circumstances beyond the control of the air carrier, FAR 121.471(g) provides the necessary relief to exceed 30 hours in this circumstance.​

 

[honeycomb]

I did.

And the courts have said that is wrong.

Learn some history, and then come talk to me. I know something about this. I also know what the Feds are up to in regards to this matter.

It is being handled right now by attorney's for the FAA and the Airlines. They claim due to past practice that they are eligable to continue. Yes the ALPA guide is worthless on the matter.

I have spoken with the FAA Lead Con. on this matter Mr. Conce (something like that).

I know their position.

 

[regionalcap]

I go by what the FAR's say. I am sorry if the ALPA book is wrong. We go by what we are given. If the courts say otherwise, I am glad to read about. I am always eager to learn something new. I am not going to read between the lines. I don't interprete things that way. I read your case completely and it doesn't relate to flight time limitations at all. Like I said, I hope you can teach us something about these rules but provide us the cases and not the attitude.

 

[honeycomb]

I started this with...

I started this with...hey go get you CP to sign off on anything you think is fuzzzzzy.

Nothing has changed there.

I have not been in the 121 business for over 2.5 years. I don't remember all of the cases by heart. Hey you happened to be lucky this old mind could remember the case you got. I recently, as of about 1 year ago, was in touch with an old FSDO I know and also talked to Mr. Conce (I still don't know if that is exactly right).

I know where they stand. I know what court decisions have been handed down.

As for the Reg.s well....you said it you are not a lawyer. Nor am I btw. This is a matter of Law. And, both the Airlines and ALPA have been fighting the FAA about the role of these interps that started as far back as the 1998 time period. I can only guess that ALPA doesn't like the change due to money lost by its pilots. You would think it would generate more pilots and they would be on board. But, they are not.

Nothing new...if you read the court case I gave you...they say as much.

Look I don't have my, stored away material, on the matter at hand. And, I have no intention of digging it up. Sorry.

Go looking for the court cases. Talk to the Head Conc. member Mr. Conice. Who btw is in the book....that is the FAA directory. He answers calls sometimes same day.

Go Get'Em.

 

[Ralgha]

Read your own paper. Footnote 3:

While subsection (g) of FAR 121.471 provides that flight time limits can be exceeded based on circumstances beyond the certifi- cate holder's control (such as adverse weather conditions), it does not apply to the specified rest requirements which allow only the scheduling flexibility spelled out in section 121.471(c). 14 C.F.R. § 121.471(g).

You're welcome to try again.

 

[honeycomb]

Read your own paper. Footnote 3:

While subsection (g) of FAR 121.471 provides that flight time limits can be exceeded based on circumstances beyond the certifi- cate holder's control (such as adverse weather conditions), it does not apply to the specified rest requirements which allow only the scheduling flexibility spelled out in section 121.471(c). 14 C.F.R. § 121.471(g).

You're welcome to try again.

I have now re-read some of the items you discuss and please do yourself a favor stay out of law.

It is a footnote. Try reading the passage it applies too and its context. Read the whole thing again. Geeeeez.

Do you understand a transcript of a judge's ruling. They plead the case from the arguements by the lawyers present. Then discuss the decision they made. They typical have footnotes. Read each arguement carefully. As a matter of fact take three days to digest it if you would please.

Then read it again. Maybe then will you understand it.

 

[Ralgha]

Ok, here's the context:

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U.S.C. §§ 40101 et seq. (Act), directs the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to "promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce" by prescribing "regulations in the interest of safety for the maximum hours or periods of service of aircrew and other employees of air carriers." 49 U.S.C. § 44701(a)(4). The rules issued by the FAA under section 44701(a)(4) of the Act are generally referred to as "flight time limitations."1 In 1985, pursuant to notice-and-comment rule- making, the FAA promulgated FAR 121.471, establishing flight time limitations and rest requirements for "flight crew- members engaged in air transportation." See Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements, 50 Fed. Reg. 29,306 (July 18, 1985). While the FAA was focused on simplifying scheduling and giving air carriers added scheduling flexibility, it also noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking that the "current Part 121 rule ... provides no protection against acute short-term fatigue for crewmembers." See Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements for Flight Crewmem-
bers, 49 Fed. Reg. 12,136, 12,136-7 (March 28, 1984). The regulation allows a domestic airline "certificate holder" to schedule, and a crewmember to accept, a flight assignment only if the crewmember's total flight time does not exceed yearly, monthly and weekly maximum flight time limitations. 14 C.F.R. § 121.471(a)(1)-(3). In addition, the regulation establishes a maximum of eight hours of flight time between "required rest periods." 14 C.F.R. § 121.471(a)(4). Pursuant to subsection (b), during the twenty-four consecutive hours preceding "the scheduled completion of any flight segment," a crewmember must be scheduled for a rest period of at least nine consecutive hours for eight hours or fewer of "scheduled flight time"; ten consecutive hours of rest for more than eight but fewer than nine hours of "scheduled flight time"; and eleven hours of rest for nine or more hours of "scheduled flight time." Id. § 121.471(b)(1)-(3). Subsection (c), however, allows a carrier a measure of scheduling flexibility by way of a "compensatory rest period." A required rest period of nine hours may be "scheduled for or reduced to" a minimum of 8 hours if the crewmember is given compensatory rest of at least ten hours "begin[ning] no later than 24 hours after the commencement of the reduced rest period." Id. § 121.471(c)(1).2 Compensatory rest, like required rest under paragraph (b), may not be reduced or delayed under any circumstances. See 14 C.F.R. § 121.471(e); see also 50 Fed. Reg. at 29314 ("If a flight crewmember does not receive the required number of hours of rest, the operator and the flight crewmember are in violation of the regulation").3


The context doesn't change a thing. You are the one who doesn't understand it. Law does not read between the lines, which is why it sometimes seems so convoluted and verbose.

If you can find some document to prove your side, I'll join you over there, but give it up with this one, it just doesn't do it. Don't bother trying to tell me that you've talked to so-and-so or know "that" guy, I don't believe most things that pilots say about topics like this without proof, especially when I don't know them personally.

Care to try again?