121 Flight Time Limitation

[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?

 

[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.