Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
135 duty times... again
- Thread starter Nolife
- Start date
- Watchers 14
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
pilotyip
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 13,629
Avbug sorry the fit isn't there, but does that mean we can't drink beer and swap flying stories. We make very clear during the interview process how we work, so that pilot such as your self can elect not to accept the job if offered. BTW this works two ways; we have many policies that are much more conservative that he FAR's. They are in our GOM, and it is not up to the PIC to determine if they will comply or not. Also on Part 91 legs the only thing we waive is crew rest and duty on a tail end ferry if the crew elects to accept the tail end ferry. Things such as 0/0 Part 91 T/O’s are the acts that will quickly move you back to the right seat or on the street.
Well, I don't drink, but I'll certainly buy you a beer and swap stories.
You wouldn't have to worry about me doing zero zero takeoffs where not needed. I like to see what I'm hitting.
I'm not questioning your particular interpretation of the regulation, nor am I suggesting that you personally would push a crew beyond the legal (or safe) limits. We've known each other long enough on these boards that I'm sure you know that, too.
Several years ago I worked for a man who has been in the business for a long time. An issue regarding this same subject came up, and while it's not even debatable, it drifted to tail-end ferry flights. The owner of the company made a stand, and I observed that his viewpoint didn't concur with the regulation.
"Don't tell me about the regulation!" he bellowed, and he slammed his fist down on the table. "I wrote the regulation!"
I wasn't really expecting that. Perhaps a spin on how he interpreted it, maybe. But wrote the regulation?
"I'm sorry, I think I misheard. Did you say you wrote the Code of Federal Regulations?"
"That's right, when I was in the Army. I wrote them. When the FAA wants to understand a regulation, they come to me!"
Army? FAR's? FAA? Too wierd...but when it comes to employers "interpreting" the regulation, I've heard it all, or most of it (I think). Not too long ago I knew an operator who advised crews to keep flying into Aspen after dark. The crews said they couldn't, it wasn't permitted in the GOM, nor the procedures for the airport. No problem, said the DO...just don't talk to anyone, don't file IFR, just go VFR and speak to no one. Pick up the passengers and then skedaddle.
Last winter in another part of the world a US operator and a Canadian operator told me that their job was to get me to agree to things, and my job to some degree was to resist. Whatever pressure I couldn't resist was legitimate in their eyes..."we got you to do it, so it must be okay." I fixed that right away...pressure put on by an employer is always a red flag that says "stop right there." Hold the phone. Shut down the show until we get this sorted out.
I'm all for working with the company. After all, that's who is paying my wage. When I accept a wage, or agree to do a job, I throw myself at it 100%, and I will work hard to find a way to make something happen. That said, when the need for something to happen is greatest, the need for caution is always greatest, too. You don't get lift without drag, you don't get light without shadows, you will never see a single sided coin, and urgency demands caution.
An employer does not have the right to interpret the regulation. An employer has the right to approach the person with the final authority regarding the flight, the Pilot in Command, with a viewpoint, but it is the PIC who will make the final decision. It is the PIC who risks his certificate, his career, and his life. It is the PIC who is entrusted with the ultimate choice, and by default, the ultimate interpretation of the regulation, insofar as he or she elects to follow it.
Legal to start, legal to finish is an incomplete thought. It's a little like saying that if you have enough fuel to start the trip, you have enough fuel to finish. That's not true; it really depends on what you did during the trip. You may be completely out of fuel long before the destination, if you had to hold, divert, fly low etc. Legal to start does not mean legal to finish, as there are far too many extenuating circumstances that can intervene in the course of the day (or night as the case may be).
Certainly I have reached the end of my 14 hours, and pressed on. I have been at the airport, or in a hospital, waiting on a heart team which is extracting the organ for immediate transport. Am I going to tell them to waste the heart and insist on my rest? Probably not. I've done it, I've gone past my "duty" and rest times to make that happen. I don't believe for a minute that any overzealous inspector will dare push me on that one, and if he does, then he's probably political mincemeat, because I'll mop the floor with what's left of his career when I'm done.
Conversely, I'll not hesitate to make the opposite decision in the interest of safety. Some years ago, with a heart team on board, we turned back at the destination due to changes in weather and circumstance. We made the determination that it wasn't in our interests with respect to safety, to land, and wait out the heart harvest in freezing fog at the end of the NDB approach in the mountains. Our choice, nobody questioned it...one we didn't make lightly,either. Again, duty or any other issue, including a life at stake, should never compromise safety; you may be tired and unable or unwilling to press on at less than your 14 hours, you may be able to do something legally but not safely, and the answer is, and always should be, an unequivocal, emphatic, "NO!"
In between, I have been on duty as part of an organ harvest (I use medical flights here as an example of some degree of urgency to the mission, though it could just as easily apply to flying airbags for cars, tires, passengers, or a parcel of poodles to poughkeepsie) in which delays during the day made clear the fact that we were going to exceed our rest intervals. On one particular occasion, requirements to fly back and forth with additional tissue samples and fluid samples for crossmatching and compatbility tests (or whatever they did, I'm not a doctor) stretched the day out. In the end, we called in a second airplane and a second crew and retired ourselves for the day to ensure no interruuption in service, and to ensure we wouldn't run over our times.
I've had to tell clients that they are going to need to get a hotel room for the night...we're out of time. We've pushed the ragged edges, we told them what would happen, they had to make that last business dinner, and when their day was and they wanted to fly home...guess what? Ours was done too, and we were staying put. We were legal to start, but we were not legal to finish, nor were we going to attempt to do so. And while we could have finagled paperwork to show that ten hours had elapsed on the ground while waiting for the client, we didn't...we didn't get rested, and it wasn't prospective, and we weren't going to play games with the regulation. Legal to start didn't mean legal to finish, and there was no good reason to make that flight that couldn't wait until morning. The client got billed the extra six hundred for the crew overnight, we went home the next day, life's like that.
Legal to start does not by necessity mean legal to finish, as it overlooks far too much circumstance. Calling fatigue is a good way to lose a job too...there's more than just fatigue. Fatigue is a safety issue. Duty and rest are legal issues. If the flight isn't both legal and safe then it should not, must not go. The employer can no more tell the employee if he or she is fatigued than the employer may tell the employee if he or she is legal. The wise employee makes that determination for himself, and once made, that decision should not be compromised in the least, save for a more conservative decision.
You wouldn't have to worry about me doing zero zero takeoffs where not needed. I like to see what I'm hitting.
I'm not questioning your particular interpretation of the regulation, nor am I suggesting that you personally would push a crew beyond the legal (or safe) limits. We've known each other long enough on these boards that I'm sure you know that, too.
Several years ago I worked for a man who has been in the business for a long time. An issue regarding this same subject came up, and while it's not even debatable, it drifted to tail-end ferry flights. The owner of the company made a stand, and I observed that his viewpoint didn't concur with the regulation.
"Don't tell me about the regulation!" he bellowed, and he slammed his fist down on the table. "I wrote the regulation!"
I wasn't really expecting that. Perhaps a spin on how he interpreted it, maybe. But wrote the regulation?
"I'm sorry, I think I misheard. Did you say you wrote the Code of Federal Regulations?"
"That's right, when I was in the Army. I wrote them. When the FAA wants to understand a regulation, they come to me!"
Army? FAR's? FAA? Too wierd...but when it comes to employers "interpreting" the regulation, I've heard it all, or most of it (I think). Not too long ago I knew an operator who advised crews to keep flying into Aspen after dark. The crews said they couldn't, it wasn't permitted in the GOM, nor the procedures for the airport. No problem, said the DO...just don't talk to anyone, don't file IFR, just go VFR and speak to no one. Pick up the passengers and then skedaddle.
Last winter in another part of the world a US operator and a Canadian operator told me that their job was to get me to agree to things, and my job to some degree was to resist. Whatever pressure I couldn't resist was legitimate in their eyes..."we got you to do it, so it must be okay." I fixed that right away...pressure put on by an employer is always a red flag that says "stop right there." Hold the phone. Shut down the show until we get this sorted out.
I'm all for working with the company. After all, that's who is paying my wage. When I accept a wage, or agree to do a job, I throw myself at it 100%, and I will work hard to find a way to make something happen. That said, when the need for something to happen is greatest, the need for caution is always greatest, too. You don't get lift without drag, you don't get light without shadows, you will never see a single sided coin, and urgency demands caution.
An employer does not have the right to interpret the regulation. An employer has the right to approach the person with the final authority regarding the flight, the Pilot in Command, with a viewpoint, but it is the PIC who will make the final decision. It is the PIC who risks his certificate, his career, and his life. It is the PIC who is entrusted with the ultimate choice, and by default, the ultimate interpretation of the regulation, insofar as he or she elects to follow it.
Legal to start, legal to finish is an incomplete thought. It's a little like saying that if you have enough fuel to start the trip, you have enough fuel to finish. That's not true; it really depends on what you did during the trip. You may be completely out of fuel long before the destination, if you had to hold, divert, fly low etc. Legal to start does not mean legal to finish, as there are far too many extenuating circumstances that can intervene in the course of the day (or night as the case may be).
Certainly I have reached the end of my 14 hours, and pressed on. I have been at the airport, or in a hospital, waiting on a heart team which is extracting the organ for immediate transport. Am I going to tell them to waste the heart and insist on my rest? Probably not. I've done it, I've gone past my "duty" and rest times to make that happen. I don't believe for a minute that any overzealous inspector will dare push me on that one, and if he does, then he's probably political mincemeat, because I'll mop the floor with what's left of his career when I'm done.
Conversely, I'll not hesitate to make the opposite decision in the interest of safety. Some years ago, with a heart team on board, we turned back at the destination due to changes in weather and circumstance. We made the determination that it wasn't in our interests with respect to safety, to land, and wait out the heart harvest in freezing fog at the end of the NDB approach in the mountains. Our choice, nobody questioned it...one we didn't make lightly,either. Again, duty or any other issue, including a life at stake, should never compromise safety; you may be tired and unable or unwilling to press on at less than your 14 hours, you may be able to do something legally but not safely, and the answer is, and always should be, an unequivocal, emphatic, "NO!"
In between, I have been on duty as part of an organ harvest (I use medical flights here as an example of some degree of urgency to the mission, though it could just as easily apply to flying airbags for cars, tires, passengers, or a parcel of poodles to poughkeepsie) in which delays during the day made clear the fact that we were going to exceed our rest intervals. On one particular occasion, requirements to fly back and forth with additional tissue samples and fluid samples for crossmatching and compatbility tests (or whatever they did, I'm not a doctor) stretched the day out. In the end, we called in a second airplane and a second crew and retired ourselves for the day to ensure no interruuption in service, and to ensure we wouldn't run over our times.
I've had to tell clients that they are going to need to get a hotel room for the night...we're out of time. We've pushed the ragged edges, we told them what would happen, they had to make that last business dinner, and when their day was and they wanted to fly home...guess what? Ours was done too, and we were staying put. We were legal to start, but we were not legal to finish, nor were we going to attempt to do so. And while we could have finagled paperwork to show that ten hours had elapsed on the ground while waiting for the client, we didn't...we didn't get rested, and it wasn't prospective, and we weren't going to play games with the regulation. Legal to start didn't mean legal to finish, and there was no good reason to make that flight that couldn't wait until morning. The client got billed the extra six hundred for the crew overnight, we went home the next day, life's like that.
Legal to start does not by necessity mean legal to finish, as it overlooks far too much circumstance. Calling fatigue is a good way to lose a job too...there's more than just fatigue. Fatigue is a safety issue. Duty and rest are legal issues. If the flight isn't both legal and safe then it should not, must not go. The employer can no more tell the employee if he or she is fatigued than the employer may tell the employee if he or she is legal. The wise employee makes that determination for himself, and once made, that decision should not be compromised in the least, save for a more conservative decision.
Last edited:
Way2Broke
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Posts
- 2,882
Your right we are talking about part 135 here. Actually I'm mostly watching as I know how to use the search feature and read the multitude of times this has been discussed. You can't talk about on demand 135 duty rules without the tail end part 91 ferry flight coming into play at some point. Like YIP said, all 135 regs still apply except duty and flight time.
in fact you can talk about 135 without mentioning part 91... and no, 135 regs do not apply while flying 91. dee dee dee
Actually you can't...Part 91 applies when you're flying Part 135, like it or not. Fly Part 135, you're still beholden and subject to 91.
Part 135 adds to Part 91. It doen't replace it.
Part 135 regulations do continue to apply to Part 91 operations when operating a 135 aircraft under 91. For example, to maintain 135 status, the aircraft must still continue to be maintained under 135. A 135 pilot must still count his commercial flying under Part 91 toward his limits, and regardless of which part, 91.13 still applies all the time. A pilot may reach his legal limitations under Part 135 and continue flying Part 91...but 91.13 still applies, and it's not the pilot who gets to decide how it applies to him. It's the FAA, after the fact...something which should never be far from thought.
Part 135 adds to Part 91. It doen't replace it.
Part 135 regulations do continue to apply to Part 91 operations when operating a 135 aircraft under 91. For example, to maintain 135 status, the aircraft must still continue to be maintained under 135. A 135 pilot must still count his commercial flying under Part 91 toward his limits, and regardless of which part, 91.13 still applies all the time. A pilot may reach his legal limitations under Part 135 and continue flying Part 91...but 91.13 still applies, and it's not the pilot who gets to decide how it applies to him. It's the FAA, after the fact...something which should never be far from thought.
Great comments on this issue. All I can say is that companies will continue to abuse this reg until pilots stand up against it! We have all flown over our duty day at one time or another, and most of us have gotten away with it. I had a captain do a 20 hour duty day and called it an "unknown freight delay"! I kindly rejected the trip, we swapped crews and the company never questioned me. Likewise they were happy to deliver the cargo and collect their money. But rest assured, if he had an incident, what do you think the FAA would have done? Any time you go over your 14 hours, you are risking your license, especially if something happens. The FAA has bigger fish to fry than going to the nearest 135 company and auditing flight and duty times. But if there is an accident, look out. Its like speeding on the freeway, everyone does 70 in a 55, and no one will get a ticket for doing 57, unless you crash. Then they will say you are speeding and it is now your fault. Companies rely on this "extra" productivity to increase their bottom lines, and anytime you participate, you are contributing to the cause. Once they can no longer rely on this extra revenue, they will have to charge a little more-and the whole charter business will not know the difference.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
