135 duty times... again

[oops!]

people are not an unexpected delay... You know before you close that door for your last flight that your passengers are late and in turn so are you... weather can affect you while in flight but passengers made you late before the flight started.... PILOTYIP needs the FARs spelled out to him

 

[pilotyip]

Understand them well, it is spelled out very clearly

people are not an unexpected delay... You know before you close that door for your last flight that your passengers are late and in turn so are you... weather can affect you while in flight but passengers made you late before the flight started.... PILOTYIP needs the FARs spelled out to him

For you and avbug, if you feel you will be subject to a 91.13 and do not want to finish a legal trip, that is your option. If I leave YIP on a legal trip to YIP-EWR- SHV-MMHO-ELP, and take a three ground delay at ERW for wx, I am 100% legal to make that trip if it goes over 14 hrs duty.

 

[Nolife]

You don't have a 14 hour duty limitation. You have a 10 hour rest limitation. That only leaves 14 hours in which to perform your duties, but a duty period isn't spelled out; only rest. It's not the duty issues that jeopardize you; it's the rest.

Correct... the regulation implies a 14 hr duty day which is what we're talking about.

I'm sent to pick up freight in Mexico and transport it to BFE. The trip is scheduled/planned to be completed well within 14 hrs thereby allowing me to show 10 hrs rest in the 24 hrs preceding the planned completion of the assignment. The freight ends up being late in Mexico and now I complete the assignment in 16 hrs. That, in my interpretation of 135.267(d), is illegal because I can't show 10 hrs rest in the 24 hrs prior to my completing the assignment.

Or does that fact that it was planned in good faith to be completed within the 14 hr duty allow for the extended time.

In the above example, as soon as the crew realizes that they will get too far away from rest should they bag the trip, or can they call freight delay and since it was originally planned to terminate within legal time can they continue?

 

[Nolife]

For you and avbug, if you feel you will be subject to a 91.13 and do not want to finish a legal trip, that is your option. If I leave YIP on a legal trip to YIP-EWR- SHV-MMHO-ELP, and take a three ground delay at ERW for wx, I am 100% legal to make that trip if it goes over 14 hrs duty.

YIP... that's exactly the example I'm looking for. Can you provide reference for why it's legal?

 

[dhc8fo]

YIP... that's exactly the example I'm looking for. Can you provide reference for why it's legal?

I can tell you from experience that in that situation we had to taxi back and change crews. Since we hadn't taken off, we exceeded our rest. Now if you took a delay IN FLIGHT (for say weather), that is acceptable because it would be unexpected.

 

[Way2Broke]

Man.... this is a beaten horse ain't it! It has to be one of the easiest regs in the book. Legal to start....Legal to finish. Cry about it all you want but the reg allows you to get beaten up pretty bad, if your fatigued call fatigued. Its that simple. If you don't like it go fly for a scheduled carrier. Whats that smell? Oh its the horse. Its been dead for years.

Bottom line is that the reg is simple, and if you fly fatigued its you that decided to break a reg. You might have to live with the consequences of your actions for doing so.

 

[ksu_aviator]

One of the key phrases that is being ignored is "beyond the control of the operator." The operator and flight crew are in control of whether or not the aircraft departs. Late pax/freight aside, if you know you will exceed your flight/duty time before you depart, you can not depart. You are in control over the departure.

Arrival, on the other hand, can be completely different. This regulation was put in place to protect the pilots that enter holding with 10 minutes left on their flight/duty time and don't get cleared for approach until an hour later. The idea being that crews won't push landing in questionable conditions because the regulations dictated that they be on the ground now.

 

[pilotyip]

What the FAA allows

YIP... that's exactly the example I'm looking for. Can you provide reference for why it's legal?

The FAA allows this to be the standard. There are no rulings to the contrary. There is a slide in our Interview Presentation. It says to make it through probation, you must, 1. Show up on time, 2. Demonstrate you are reasonable to work with, and 3. Work with the company. Work with the company means, we interpolate the regs. If a pilot does not like how we interpolate the regs. There probably not a good fit for employment. You will probably find different opinions

 

[Seadogrun]

3. Work with the company. Work with the company means, we interpolate the regs. If a pilot does not like how we interpolate the regs. There probably not a good fit for employment. You will probably find different opinions

That right there is good stuff. Who gets thrown under the bus when the FAA comes looking for trouble.

I bet it's not the company that you (the pilot) is trying so hard to work with.

Why don't you just say: "bend or break the regs if it's in the companies best interest."

 

[Way2Broke]

That right there is good stuff. Who gets thrown under the bus when the FAA comes looking for trouble.

Since the current D.O. had been in his position not one pilot has received an certificate action at the company, and he has been around for a while. And trust me, some guys have tried real hard! Tell me what other company can say that. The Feds tend to let us take care of things in house. They know how we do business and not one has come "looking for trouble." You can throw a rock from ops and hit the FSDO. If they were going to come looking for trouble, where do you think they would look first? Listen people, how much easier can I make it to understand for you. It says "ON DEMAND" right there in the name of the reg. Tell me, what does on demand mean?

If your fatigued call in fatigued! If you don't its your fault.