135 Duty day

[HS125]

RIght, I realize that the "legal to start, legal to finish" with unforseen circumstances applies here.

I'm talking about what *is* "legal to start", not whether you can press on with unforseen delayy that put you over limits.

My understanding is that, ignoring the situation of unforseen delays, there are situations where you might not be legal if you are using 135.267(b), but *would* be legal if you're using 135.267(c). But in order to use 135.267(c) you must have a regularly assigned 14 hour duty day.

Of course in either case, the 8 hours, 10 hours and 14 hours duty goes out the window with unforseen delays.

Agree? Disagree?

As I usually do with you when you discuss regulations "Agree". Sometimes things just get lost in translation.

 

[Say Again Over]

Boiled down...look back 24 hours

Bingo, it's all about the previous 24 hours.

 

[CFIse]

My understanding is that, ignoring the situation of unforseen delays, there are situations where you might not be legal if you are using 135.267(b), but *would* be legal if you're using 135.267(c). But in order to use 135.267(c) you must have a regularly assigned 14 hour duty day.

Maybe we were an exception - but our GOM told us what set of rules we were being scheduled under (it was the "scheduled operations" one, not the 14 hour one) so we didn't have a choice. Sometimes we would have been better off with the unscheduled ops. version, but that was too bad.

 

[CFIse]

Like it or not, agree with it or not, the current FAA interpretation of 135.267 is such that as long as the assignment is planned "Scheduled" to be 8 hours of flying (10 hours as the case maybe) or less and 14 hours of duty or less, you may exceed those numbers for unforeseen circumstances (weather, ATC, late freight and/or passengers). As long as you have the 10 hours of rest in the preceding 24 hours prior to the "Planned (Scheduled) Completion" of the trip, you can still fly past the 8/10 hours flight time and well past 14 hours of duty. Just make sure you document the circumstances that caused you to exceed those times.

Is that true? I'm in the 121 world now and the duty day is inviolate (well duty day doesn't exist, but the required rest provisions). Even if flights have been delayed all day we can't start the last leg unless we'll be finished within a 16 hour duty day (reduced rest). Now the LAST flight can suffer unforseen delays IN THE AIR and what can you do, but if we're delayed on the ground and run out of time, it's back to the gate.

I thought 135 was the same - maybe not.

 

[Stealthh21]

You know its funny, we are beating this to death, and the FAA is almost finished re-writing the entire 135 section. From what I have heard, the new 135 will have a much better duty system. It will be much better for pilots. Completely different from what is in place now. And its coming faster then you think.

 

[A Squared]

Maybe we were an exception - but our GOM told us what set of rules we were being scheduled under (it was the "scheduled operations" one, not the 14 hour one) so we didn't have a choice. Sometimes we would have been better off with the unscheduled ops. version, but that was too bad.

Yeah, I didn't mean that you could just say, hey, today we're going to operate under these rules instead of those rules.

 

[charter dog]

And its coming faster then you think.

Tell me another one!

Stealth:

Wisecracks aside, I have been hearing about this for at least the last 3 years. Nobody would like to see this 135 crew duty and rest mess cleaned up more than I would. The rumor mill has generated some wildly disparate versions of what the new rules may look like. The one I hear the most is that the issue of "on call" will finally be addressed within a "reserve duty" definition. Also that "scheduled duty" will be further defined. And that many options affecting duty and flight time limitations will be included.

In a give and take negotiation process similar to the one used to develop the 91 subpart K rules, multiple interests are involved in the Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). So it would be reasonable to expect that many compromises will be required prior to submitting the package for approval. It remains to be seen how this will affect the average part 135 pilot's job. (and life!) I don't know how well pilot/employee interests are/were represented within the committee, but hope springs eternal!

That's what we'll find out when the re-write is released to the public. The latest news fron AIN (April, '06) suggests that the industry committee (ARC) has submitted their work product to the FAA and it is currently "under review." To get an idea how long this has been in the works, I had a peek at the NTSB "most wanted" list for some history on the matter. Even if approved today, I would be somewhat surprised to see the new 135 rules take effect before 2008. "Industry" needs time to examine the economic impact and contest anything they don't like!

If you, or anybody have any additional insight on the content specifics of the ARC recommendations, please share them here. I would be most interested. What I have heard is only second hand rumor from someone who spoke with a committee participant.

Best,

 

[HS125]

Is that true? I'm in the 121 world now and the duty day is inviolate (well duty day doesn't exist, but the required rest provisions). Even if flights have been delayed all day we can't start the last leg unless we'll be finished within a 16 hour duty day (reduced rest). Now the LAST flight can suffer unforseen delays IN THE AIR and what can you do, but if we're delayed on the ground and run out of time, it's back to the gate.

I thought 135 was the same - maybe not.

I don't have a copy of 121 regs handy, and I'm too lazy to look them up on the net. But, that is the way 135 is written and (in the case of my former POI) applied. It's been a while since I flew 121, but if I remember correctly, you are correct, if you can't get it in the air before you turn into a pumpkin then you went to the hotel.

 

[mike1mc]

You know its funny, we are beating this to death, and the FAA is almost finished re-writing the entire 135 section. From what I have heard, the new 135 will have a much better duty system. It will be much better for pilots. Completely different from what is in place now. And its coming faster then you think.

Don't hold your breath. Flight and Duty has been a hot topic with the FAA for the past 15 years. They have attempted numerous re-writes, but never gotten very far. The 135 ARC has a very good proposal, but the proposed "program" is VERY confusing. Hopefully the FAA with accept the proposal (along with the many others for Part 135). The issue came up with 91K and it was decided to drop it then too. For some reason ALPA keeps throwing their noses into the 135 Duty issues as well.

 

[Stealthh21]

Don't hold your breath. Flight and Duty has been a hot topic with the FAA for the past 15 years. They have attempted numerous re-writes, but never gotten very far. The 135 ARC has a very good proposal, but the proposed "program" is VERY confusing. Hopefully the FAA with accept the proposal (along with the many others for Part 135). The issue came up with 91K and it was decided to drop it then too. For some reason ALPA keeps throwing their noses into the 135 Duty issues as well.

Quite right for sure! The only reason why I brought it up, is because a friend of mine is on the committee that is working with the FAA. He seems to think that the FAA is doing a good job working with those that are in the industry. Alot of interesting stuff going on. Kinda wish the FAA moved as fast as some of the airplanes that we fly!!

Anyway, it's nice to see a good and useful thread!!

Safe flying!!!

Stealthh

 

[mike1mc]

Its great the FAA s finally getting industry input before creating all these new regs. The 91K FOARC worked so well that they decided to do the same for the 135 re-write. Some great ideas and discussion came out of these meetings. Hopefully the changes will take place before I retire!!!

 

[CaptainSpaz]

HS125 is correct. I have seen a copy of the legal brief written by FAA Legal Dept. Basically what they are saying is they screwed up. Legally you can go over for ANY unforseen circumstance, and that is their fault for making the regs too vauge. I am pretty certain they will be rectifying this with the new time/duty regs if they get approved.

I operate on my own standard until the regs firm up. Most pilots I know worth anything would agree with this, as do every POI I ever worked with:

1) 14 hours is an absolute limit.

2) 8/10 hours flight may be exceeded ONLY for UNFORSEEN weather or ATC delays.

Until they fix the regs, the discussion continues. The part about the FAA legal brief that I liked was how it said that pax being late was ok for exceeding time/duty. Think about this one...

Customer: "I wont be able to make it back until 10pm from the meeting, will this be a problem for the crew?"

Sales: "No, when the day comes and the crew asks when you will be returning, just tell them 8pm and show up late. Make some excuse why you were late. It will be fine."

That would happen every day. I can only hope the rulemaking comittee moves quickly to impliment the recommended new time/duty regs. The new regs are only about 30 years overdue.

 

[Vspeeds]

In rest Yet Burning time

Folks, whats your take on a particular issue:

Say a crew starts duty at 0800 am & is good till 2200. They fly for 2.5 hours complete that trip in 4 hours. They have 10 hours of duty left.
Crew scheduler/Flt. Follower says "ya'll can go to bed but if we get a trip we'll page you.
So my question is how can you be in rest and at the same time burning duty time? Cuz if you do not get a trip in those 10 hours that cannot be construed as rest. Either you are in " total & uninterrupted" rest or you are on call. You can not be doing both. (just my 2 cents)

Appreciate any info!

 

[A Squared]

So my question is how can you be in rest and at the same time burning duty time? Cuz if you do not get a trip in those 10 hours that cannot be construed as rest. Either you are in " total & uninterrupted" rest or you are on call. You can not be doing both. (just my 2 cents)

You're right. Counting it as rest if you don't get a call ain't legal. The FAA has stated that the obligation to work, should work arise *is* duty. So, yeah if you're expected to pick up hte phone and report for work, it's not rest.

Also the FAA has stated that rest must be "prospective" in nature, meaning you should know ahead of time that it's rest. SAying hey, we didn't call you in hte last 10 hours, so that was your rest isn't legal.

 

[Carlos O'Maley]

Like it or not, agree with it or not, the current FAA interpretation of 135.267 is such that as long as the assignment is planned "Scheduled" to be 8 hours of flying (10 hours as the case maybe) or less and 14 hours of duty or less, you may exceed those numbers for unforeseen circumstances (weather, ATC, late freight and/or passengers). As long as you have the 10 hours of rest in the preceding 24 hours prior to the "Planned (Scheduled) Completion" of the trip, you can still fly past the 8/10 hours flight time and well past 14 hours of duty. Just make sure you document the circumstances that caused you to exceed those times.

I am in no way saying that you are off base on this one because that is the way that I use to interpret this reg, and that's the way I think it should be interpreted! It wasn't until I had a former POI spell it out to me that I realized that this reg doesn't provide much protection for the pilot when it comes to getting proper rest.

Legal to start, legal to finish.

First, I'll be very clear, I don't like it, because that interpretation does not follow the intent of the regulation or a comom sense rule of safe operation. But, that being said, the last time I looked the regulation only addresses exceeding flight time limitations, not duty period limitations. I definitely think the regulations need to be changed and strengthened but I have never really felt they were vague. There just seems to be an abudance of operators that try to manipulate the current language... and an abundance of POI's who let it happen.

I appreciate the first part of your second paragraph but don't understand why you would change your opinion of a written regulation based on the interpretation or explanation of a POI. It is alarming how many POI's (the guys that are supposed to be the experts) are ignorant to many of the FAR's and how many of them will have specifically contrasting interpretations. But, the FAA has addressed this in prior publications and stated very clearly that a POI does not have the authority to "interpret" or make regulations. The only one that counts is that of the Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, or a higher courts ruling.

My biggest concern with the trend of interpretations is with the definitions of duty and rest and being on-call, not so much the limitations. I have had many discussions with POI's about the duty, rest, and on-call debate. I feel the FAA has been very clear on the matter, if you are required to be on call or are not "free of all responsibility for work or duty should the occasion arise" then you are not in rest, period. But you will find POI's with "different interpretations" even though there are numerous notices, letters of opinions, and official publications addressing the matter. Coincidentally, I haven't yet found one of those POI's with different opinions that would make an official written and signed statement of his or her interpretation... curious.

But the bottom line is this, whether there is a rewrite of the current language or a change in the current regulation or not, it is up to each of us pilots to do the right thing and not do the wrong things. Just my observation, but I have found that most of the aviation guys in offices, especially in 135, end up being more concerned with a few other things and less concerned about regulations.