121 Flight Time Limitation

[regionalcap]

November 12, 1992
Richard P. Schweitzer
Zuckert, Scoutt & Rasenberger 888 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006-3959

Dear Mr. Schweitzer:

This is in response to your request dated July 31, 1992, for interpretation of 14 C.F.R. Section 121.471(g).

You ask about the following scenarios:

(1) When a carrier knows at the beginning of a multi-leg flight that adverse weather during the final leg will preclude the pilot from completing all the legs within the allowed flight time.

(2) When, prior to the final leg of a multi-leg flight, the carrier knows that adverse weather conditions along the final leg will preclude the pilot from completing the final leg within the allowed flight time.

Discussion:

Section 121.471(g) applies to both the scenarios you describe. It reads:

A flight crewmember is not considered to be scheduled for flight time in excess of flight time limitations if the flights to which he is assigned are scheduled and normally terminate within the limitations, but due to circumstances beyond the control of the air carrier (such as adverse weather conditions), are not at the time of departure expected to reach their destination within the scheduled time.

If the schedule was set up by the air carrier so as to meet the requirements of §121.471(a)(4), deviations within the particular time frames due to weather or other unforeseen delays would be permitted. The key to the applicability of such an exception is the unforeseen weather conditions or other unforeseen delays disrupting an otherwise properly scheduled flight. If the original scheduling is upset because theweather causes a diversion, the final segment(s) may,
nonetheless, be conducted, notwithstanding that the final segment(s) will be completed outside the eight hour period originally planned.

This interpretation is supported by the preamble to the mostrecent revision of the flight time rules. "Subsection 121.471(g) ... state that a flight crewmember is not considered to be scheduled for duty in excess of flight time limitations if the scheduled flights normally terminate within the limitation" (emphasis original) 50 FR 29306 at 29314,
July 18, 1985. No penalty exists in §121.471 for circumstances under which actual flight time exceeds scheduled flight time when the delay is due to circumstances beyond the control of the operator.

The flight time regulations have a premise that each certificate holder is scheduling realistically. The aforementioned preamble specifically states: "compliance with the flight scheduling rules requires each air carrier to schedule realistically. If actual flight time is consistently higher than the scheduled flight time allowed, the schedule should be adjusted." Thus, constant deviations from the flight and duty time limitations of Part 121 based upon such delays are not acceptable if the certificate holder is not scheduling realistically.

In light of the above discussion it should be clear that in both scenario (1) and (2) the remaining legs may be legally completed.

We hope that this satisfactorily answers your inquiries. Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

 

[Beanie]

Well, that was interesting. Thank you regionalcap for proving what we all learned about the first day of initial indoc. Someone needs to go to the Honeycomb Hideout and do some reading of their own.

 

[honeycomb]

Don't wrestle with pigs..and..don't argue with idiots.

From Legal Brief:

ATA maintains that the phrase "scheduled comple- tion of any flight segment" in subsection (b) means that compliance with FAR 121.471 turns solely on the legality of the originally established flight schedule irrespective of any unexpected flight delay that may require re-scheduling. See ATA Blue Br. at 25. The phrase, ATA asserts, cannot be squared with the Whitlow Letter, which requires scheduled flight time to take into account "actual expected flight time." See Whitlow Letter at 4.
The FAA responds that the phrase "scheduled completion of any flight segment" can reasonably be understood to include a re-scheduled flight time based on actual flight conditions. To be sure, "scheduled completion" can be con- strued narrowly to refer only to the originally scheduled flight completion time. The point, however, is that the FAA's more expansive interpretation is not unreasonable. A re- scheduled completion of a flight segment based on flight conditions existing in fact is nonetheless a "scheduled" com- pletion. Nothing in the text of FAR 121.471 or in the ordinary usage of the word "scheduled"8 dictates that the timetable of a particular flight segment can be determined only when the schedule is originally created regardless of adjustments made necessary by then-current conditions.

AND

The FAA did not define the phrase "operation of an otherwise legitimately scheduled flight" in Interpretation 1992-24; if "operation" refers only to the in- flight segment of a flight schedule, Interpretation 1992-24 is simply a restatement of the FAA's longstanding enforcement policy not to charge a rest violation for a delay that occurs after takeoff. See also Interpretation 1998-7 at I-207. Be- cause Interpretation 1992-24 can reasonably be interpreted in this way,11 we do not believe the Whitlow Letter "significantly revises" a previous "definitive interpretation" of FAR 121.471. See Alaska Hunters, 177 F.3d at 1034.


Footnotes,

8. One definition of "schedule" is a "procedural plan that indicates the time and sequence of each operation." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 1050 (1990). Completion of a flight segment that allows for elapsing flight conditions is a "scheduled" completion within that definition.

11. In Interpretation 1992-94, the FAA suggested that "The regulation restricts an air carrier's scheduling of a pilot and a pilot's accepting an assignment at the time of scheduling." (Emphasis in original). In saying this, however, the agency in no way purported to limit the definition of time of scheduling to time of original scheduling. The Whitlow Letter can be seen as supplementing the earlier interpretation by more precisely construing the term to refer to scheduling that occurs any time before the flight in question departs. Nor does the fact that the FAA previously referred to the regulation as "prospective in application" suggest any inconsistency with the Whitlow Letter. Even as we construe it, the regulation applies prospectively from the time of scheduling; the Whitlow Letter declares that the "scheduling" can be done up to departure. While Interpretation 1992-94 may not have specifically adopted this construction of scheduling, it in no way rejected it. Interpretation 1992-94 is best understood as an ambiguous state- ment whose details the Whitlow Letter has now filled in. Because there is no discontinuity between the two, notice and comment were not required.


My comments:

I have been told not to wrestle with pigs and not to argue with idiots. People cannot tell the difference. So my last post on the subject.

Try to update your library of info. You should get all of the interp’s and legal briefs. I am not going to go out and get them all from storage.

I was at Executive for all of 1997 and 1998 flying flag rules. This was being taught in 1999/2000 at American Eagle when I got back to the main land. It was by ALPA local (DFW) that it was taught. Before this decision was handed down. If ALPA national has a differing opinion (now) then so be it.

There is more. I don't have the time. Those flight time limits are LIMITS...look it up.

Of course your mileage will/may vary.

GOOD BYE

 

[regionalcap]

Just because we disgree with you does not make us idiots. Who the hell do you think you are? This case, once again, has nothing to do with flight time limitations. It involves whether or not we take into account scheduled or actual flight time in regards to duty time and rest requirements. It also explains rescheduling based on actual conditions up until the departure (i.e. winds). It does not rescind the 1992 interpretation. The following letter shows that we can complete the flights and exceed the flight time limits. It was prepared this year by Mr. Conce.

February 23, 2006



Patrick M. Ryan
Aviation Safety Inspector
FAA Detroit FSDO-23
Willow Run Airport-East Side
8800 Beck Rd.
Belleville, MI 48111

Dear Mr. Ryan:

​

This letter responds to your May 12, 2005 request for an interpretation of 14 C.F.R. section 121.503(a) (subpart S).

SCENARIO AND QUESTION PRESENTED​

The scenario you present involves a 2-pilot crew, scheduled for a 3-leg as follows: outcome:

Scheduled Actual

Legs 1 & 2: 3.5 hours 4.5 hours

Leg 3: 4 hours 4 hours

Total: 7.5 hours 8.5 hours


You state that “the crew and company know what is scheduled and what is likely to be actual.” In addition, the crew and company also know that the actual times will exceed 8 hours, as per 14 C.F.R. 121.503(a) without an intervening rest, prior to conducting Leg 3.

Your question is whether the company may dispatch the crew and the crew launch out on Leg 3 knowing ahead of time that they will exceed 8 hours. Your view is that the company may not dispatch, nor may the crew take, Leg 3.

ANSWER​

We understand your view to be that the crew may not be deemed, by operation of the “circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder” rule, to be scheduled to fly for 8 hours or less in any 24 consecutive hours under section 121.503(a),[1] because the crew and company know before taking leg 3 that they will exceed 8 hours of flight time. Instead, the crew is in effect scheduled under section 121.505 (a),[2] applicable to a crew scheduled to fly more than 8 hours in any 24 consecutive hours, and would be operating in violation of that section which requires an intervening rest period at or before the end of 8 hours. We address below, the relevant legal and policy issues that pertain to a resolution of your question.

​

Subpart S operations are also subject, by interpretation, to the “circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder” rule, stated in section 121.471(g) [3] of subpart Q that, in certain situations, excuses a carrier’s violation of the section 121.471(a)(4)[4] scheduled flight time limits. See Nov. 8, 1990 Letter to John H. DeWitt, from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division [1990-33] (copy enclosed )(stating that “past Agency interpretations have applied the same ‘circumstances beyond the control of the air carrier’ rule to flight time questions concerning flag air carriers and supplemental air carriers & commercial operators”).

Prior interpretations applying section 121.471(g) to the scheduled flight time limit in section 121.471(a)(4) articulate the safety rationale that underpins the rule. The Agency has said that flights may exceed the flight time limits in a narrowly drawn context, namely:

a. The delay results from circumstances beyond the control of the carrier; and

b. The air carrier’s original schedule is realistic.

See Feb. 9, 1993 Letter to David S. Parent, from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division [1993-3] (copy enclosed).

• What the Agency considers to be a circumstance

beyond the certificate holder’s control​

​

. ​

• What the Agency considers realistic

or reasonable scheduling​

​

To the extent that the scheduled flight times are determined to be realistic and to the extent that the causes for the delays for Legs 1 and 2 were legitimately beyond the control of the air carrier, then the carrier and the pilots are permitted to complete Leg 3. This, of course assumes, that at that point the crew is not so fatigued by the amount of the delays and the amount of time on duty so as to create a careless or reckless situation in violation of Section 91.13 of the regulations.

This letter was prepared by Joseph A. Conte, Manager, Operations Law Branch and Constance M. Subadan, Attorney, Operations Law Branch. It was coordinated with the Flight Standards Service at FAA Headquarters.

​

​

​

.

Sincerely,




Rebecca B. MacPherson
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division

 

[Mr Wu]

And there you have it.

Do you have a link to this letter?

 

[TheRaven]

just tell Screw scheduling you see the 31st on your wall calendar, so unless the "calendar month" is changed to "contractual month" in the FARs they can pound sand.

 

[loflyer]

And there you have it.

Do you have a link to this letter?

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2006/February%20%2023.doc

 

[Mr Wu]

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2006/February%20%2023.doc

Thanks:beer:

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

When I went through INDOC at Trans States, they told us we were not legal to block out, or legal to take off, if that specific leg could not be completed within our flight time AND duty time limitations.

If we blocked out, and we were OK for duty/flight time, and we subsequently encountered a taxi delay, that would've made us fly over our flight or duty time, we had to taxi back to the gate and we would be replaced by a legal crew.

I have read that other airlines interpret this differently, and they ARE allowed to block out/take off, if the whole TRIP was legal when they started.

It doesn't make sense to me that different -121 operators interpret this differently.

I think the regs need to be changed so that every understands them the same.

cliff
YIP

 

[ksu_aviator]

Hi!

When I went through INDOC at Trans States, they told us we were not legal to block out, or legal to take off, if that specific leg could not be completed within our flight time AND duty time limitations.

If we blocked out, and we were OK for duty/flight time, and we subsequently encountered a taxi delay, that would've made us fly over our flight or duty time, we had to taxi back to the gate and we would be replaced by a legal crew.

I have read that other airlines interpret this differently, and they ARE allowed to block out/take off, if the whole TRIP was legal when they started.

It doesn't make sense to me that different -121 operators interpret this differently.

I think the regs need to be changed so that every understands them the same.

cliff
YIP

Well, everything depends on the ops specs and the POI. I've worked for a 135 pax company that got the POI to say reserve time wasn't duty time. I worked for another 135 company that considered reserve time duty time because the POI said it was so. Of course that same POI said you had to have 4 copies of your W&B. So they all have their quarks.