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 dutytimes
- Thread starter FLIIFAST
- Start date
- Watchers 13
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
When you say non-scheduled, do you mean crew, or operation? An unscheduled crew does not have a duty time; a nonscheduled crew has a required rest time with a 24 hour lookback. 14 hours of duty is implied by the requirement for 10 consecutive hours of rest in the previous 24...but actual duty time limits are not prescribed.
You may exceed the implied 14 hours for unforecast circumstances (which are under re-evaluation by the FAA shortly), provided your original planning was realistic, and provided you do not act in a careless and reckless manner (14 CFR 91.13).
Remember that if you're at 10 hours of duty and still have time to spare, you can still violate 91.13 if you're tired, ill, pushing weather, etc. It's an open door that does NOT swing in your favor.
You may exceed the implied 14 hours for unforecast circumstances (which are under re-evaluation by the FAA shortly), provided your original planning was realistic, and provided you do not act in a careless and reckless manner (14 CFR 91.13).
Remember that if you're at 10 hours of duty and still have time to spare, you can still violate 91.13 if you're tired, ill, pushing weather, etc. It's an open door that does NOT swing in your favor.
iflyjets4food
R.O.N. at home
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Posts
- 211
pilotyip said:
The way it was explained and I've read it, as long as you would arrive at your destination (under reasonable planning) within your 14 hours, you can takeoff. If while in the air you encounter stronger than forecasted headwinds or an ATC delay like a hold that causes you to end up over your 14 hours, you were legal to start, so you are legal to finish. The FAA doesn't expect you to land after being given a hold that will push you over your duty day. On the other hand, if you have a 1 hour flight home, and your passengers show up 13:15 into your duty day, you are not legal to start, so you can't leave. You'll be spending the night. This is a conservative interpretation, but it keeps me out of trouble.
Again, the issue of legal to start vs. legal to finish does not address the issue of safety, and does not hold true. Not enough information is provided. While the FAA does hold that an operator who has exercised prudent planning may exceed the rest provisions of Part 135 under unforecast circumstances, the FAA has never granted a waiver to operate in a careless or reckless manner. A pilot who is deemed, strictly in the judgement of the FAA to have operated in a careless or reckless manner, may be held in violation of 91.13 while still operating under the legal-to-start, legal-to-finish philosophy.
Sounds good on paper, but it isn't true.
For example, the FAA has held that planning may have been adequate on a given day, but passener delays have occured which push the entire day back. Even though the day has been pushed back, later legs may still depart which were planned to arrive within regulatory limited times, even though now they will arrive over time. The FAA also strongly cautions the reader that 91.13 always arrives, regardless of the provision of any other regulation...you may have been legal to start, but you may still be violated.
Sounds good on paper, but it isn't true.
For example, the FAA has held that planning may have been adequate on a given day, but passener delays have occured which push the entire day back. Even though the day has been pushed back, later legs may still depart which were planned to arrive within regulatory limited times, even though now they will arrive over time. The FAA also strongly cautions the reader that 91.13 always arrives, regardless of the provision of any other regulation...you may have been legal to start, but you may still be violated.
April 20, 1992
Mr. Jeffrey Stout
Dear Mr. Stout:
This is in response to your letter of March 31, 1992, and phone conversation of April 14, 1992, requesting an interpretation of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 135.265(a)(3). Your facts and surrounding circumstances have been summarized below followed by our answer.
You state that you are a pilot employed by Jetstream International Airlines (JIA), a scheduled Part 135 operator. On February 28, 1992, your 5th consecutive day of flying, you informed JIA scheduling personnel that you would be unable to fly the last scheduled trip of the day, scheduled for 2 hours and 20 minutes, because it would place you over the 34 hours in 7 days flight time limitation under FAR 135.265(a)(3). In your phone conversation your stated that at the time you informed JIA scheduling personnel of your concern, your actual total accumulated flight time, including those flights that were completed on day 5, was 32 hours and 6 minutes. You stated that some flights completed on day 5 were delayed because of adverse weather conditions and mechanical delays, causing the actual flight time for day 5 to be in excess of what you were originally scheduled for. You stated that your actual total accumulated flight time at the end of day 4 was 26 hours and 29 minutes and your scheduled flight time for day 5 was 7 hours and 0 minutes.
You further state that after conversations with FAA personnel, union representatives and company officials, you elected to fly the last scheduled flight. Although FAA personnel and union officials believed otherwise, JIA officials believed you would not be violating FAR 135.265(a)(3) because at the beginning of the day you were "legal to start" therefore you were "legal to finish." Apparently, JIA's Director of Operations had an interpretation issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which you recall stated that, so long as a flight crewmember was legal to start the day they may continue, regardless of actual accumulated flight time for that day. You believe that under FAR 135.265 a pilot must not knowingly begin additional flights if it is clear at the time of departure that he would exceed the limitations in FAR 135.265.
You ask for an interpretation of FAR 135.265(a)(3) as it applies to the above facts.
The applicable sections of the FAR, in pertinent part, state:
Sec. 135.265(a) No certificate holder may schedule any flight crewmember, and no flight crewmember may accept an assignment, for flight time in scheduled operations or in other commercial flying if that crewmember's total flight time in all commercial flying will exceed - (3) 34 hours in any 7 consecutive days.
Sec. 135.263(d) A flight crewmember is not considered to be assigned flight time in excess of flight time limitations if the flights to which he is assigned normally terminate within the limitations, but due to circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder or flight crewmember (such as adverse weather conditions), are not at the time of departure expected to reach their destination within the planned flight time.
We have attached a copy of a prior interpretation issued to Captain Lloyd W. Barry dated September 9, 1987, which discusses the 30 hours in 7 days limitation of FAR 121.471(a)(3). A correct interpretation of the "30 in 7" rule, together with the flexibility provision of subparagraph (g), results in a requirement to add a flight crewmember's actual flight time accumulated in the previous 6 days to the flight time scheduled to be flown in the 7th day. If this total is less than 30 hours, the flight crewmember may begin and complete the day's scheduled flying even if events beyond the carrier's control cause total actual flight time to exceed 30 hours. The same process is repeated for each successive day of flying.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) interprets FAR 135.265(a)(3) and 135.263(d) in the same manner. That is, if the flight crewmember's actual flight time, in this case for the first 4 days, plus the scheduled flight time for the 5th day, is 34 hours or less, then the flight crewmember may complete all flight segments for the 5th day. The attached prior interpretation issued in 1987 discusses in full the applicable principles involved.
Lastly, we point out that in the course of a day's scheduled events, delays due to adverse weather conditions or unscheduled maintenance, may cause a flight crewmember to become significantly fatigued. If the state of fatigue would endanger or potentially endanger the life or property of other persons, then the certificate holder should relieve the flight crewmember from further duty aloft. In this respect, note the provisions of FAR 91.13 entitled "Careless or Reckless Operation."
This interpretation was prepared by Francis C. Heil, Attorney, Operations Law Branch; Richard C. Beitel, Manager. We hope this information satisfies your request.
Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
Mr. Jeffrey Stout
Dear Mr. Stout:
This is in response to your letter of March 31, 1992, and phone conversation of April 14, 1992, requesting an interpretation of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 135.265(a)(3). Your facts and surrounding circumstances have been summarized below followed by our answer.
You state that you are a pilot employed by Jetstream International Airlines (JIA), a scheduled Part 135 operator. On February 28, 1992, your 5th consecutive day of flying, you informed JIA scheduling personnel that you would be unable to fly the last scheduled trip of the day, scheduled for 2 hours and 20 minutes, because it would place you over the 34 hours in 7 days flight time limitation under FAR 135.265(a)(3). In your phone conversation your stated that at the time you informed JIA scheduling personnel of your concern, your actual total accumulated flight time, including those flights that were completed on day 5, was 32 hours and 6 minutes. You stated that some flights completed on day 5 were delayed because of adverse weather conditions and mechanical delays, causing the actual flight time for day 5 to be in excess of what you were originally scheduled for. You stated that your actual total accumulated flight time at the end of day 4 was 26 hours and 29 minutes and your scheduled flight time for day 5 was 7 hours and 0 minutes.
You further state that after conversations with FAA personnel, union representatives and company officials, you elected to fly the last scheduled flight. Although FAA personnel and union officials believed otherwise, JIA officials believed you would not be violating FAR 135.265(a)(3) because at the beginning of the day you were "legal to start" therefore you were "legal to finish." Apparently, JIA's Director of Operations had an interpretation issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which you recall stated that, so long as a flight crewmember was legal to start the day they may continue, regardless of actual accumulated flight time for that day. You believe that under FAR 135.265 a pilot must not knowingly begin additional flights if it is clear at the time of departure that he would exceed the limitations in FAR 135.265.
You ask for an interpretation of FAR 135.265(a)(3) as it applies to the above facts.
The applicable sections of the FAR, in pertinent part, state:
Sec. 135.265(a) No certificate holder may schedule any flight crewmember, and no flight crewmember may accept an assignment, for flight time in scheduled operations or in other commercial flying if that crewmember's total flight time in all commercial flying will exceed - (3) 34 hours in any 7 consecutive days.
Sec. 135.263(d) A flight crewmember is not considered to be assigned flight time in excess of flight time limitations if the flights to which he is assigned normally terminate within the limitations, but due to circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder or flight crewmember (such as adverse weather conditions), are not at the time of departure expected to reach their destination within the planned flight time.
We have attached a copy of a prior interpretation issued to Captain Lloyd W. Barry dated September 9, 1987, which discusses the 30 hours in 7 days limitation of FAR 121.471(a)(3). A correct interpretation of the "30 in 7" rule, together with the flexibility provision of subparagraph (g), results in a requirement to add a flight crewmember's actual flight time accumulated in the previous 6 days to the flight time scheduled to be flown in the 7th day. If this total is less than 30 hours, the flight crewmember may begin and complete the day's scheduled flying even if events beyond the carrier's control cause total actual flight time to exceed 30 hours. The same process is repeated for each successive day of flying.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) interprets FAR 135.265(a)(3) and 135.263(d) in the same manner. That is, if the flight crewmember's actual flight time, in this case for the first 4 days, plus the scheduled flight time for the 5th day, is 34 hours or less, then the flight crewmember may complete all flight segments for the 5th day. The attached prior interpretation issued in 1987 discusses in full the applicable principles involved.
Lastly, we point out that in the course of a day's scheduled events, delays due to adverse weather conditions or unscheduled maintenance, may cause a flight crewmember to become significantly fatigued. If the state of fatigue would endanger or potentially endanger the life or property of other persons, then the certificate holder should relieve the flight crewmember from further duty aloft. In this respect, note the provisions of FAR 91.13 entitled "Careless or Reckless Operation."
This interpretation was prepared by Francis C. Heil, Attorney, Operations Law Branch; Richard C. Beitel, Manager. We hope this information satisfies your request.
Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
Last edited:
While specifically applicable to Part 121, the following statement also defines issues regarding exceeding prescribed duty and rest times, and therefore relates to Part 135 as well.
April 16, 1992
Captain G. L. Bergner
Dear Captain Bergner:
This is in response to your letter of November 8, 1991, requesting an interpretation of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 121.471 regarding flight time limitations and rest requirements for domestic air carriers. We regret that the press of other matters, including safety rulemaking, exemptions, and requests for interpretations submitted prior to yours, has prevented us from responding to your request sooner.
In reference to FAR 121.471(a)(1) through (a)(4) you ask the following question.
"May these time limitations be exceeded if a pilot is legal to start a day but, due to factors such as wind, etc., exceeds his regularly scheduled block times and becomes faced with a situation where if he begins his last flight, it will knowingly cause him to exceed the limitations in this section?"
The answer to your first question is yes. We have attached a prior interpretation, to Captain Lloyd W. Barry dated September 9, 1987, which addresses your first question. Please note that Captain Barry's interpretation specifically addresses FAR 121.471(a)(3). Because we must have precise facts regarding the other paragraphs we have limited our answer to FAR 121.471(a)(3).
Your second question asks how FAR 121.471(g) affects the implied 15 hour, or 16 hour, "duty day" of FAR 121.471(b), (b)(1) and (c)(1)?
To answer this question we must first point out that FAR 121.471 does not contain an explicit limitation on duty time. As the subheading for FAR 121.471 states, that provision deals with flight time limitations and rest requirements for domestic air carriers. Under FAR 121.471 there are no 15 hour or 16 hour duty time limitations. With this in mind we assume your question asks how FAR 121.471(g) applies to actual flights flown in excess of the scheduled flight time amounts in FAR 121.471(b), (b)(1) and (c)(1)?
In considering this question, we point out that the scheduled flight time amounts in these provisions are used to designate the number of hours of scheduled rest required. Thus, they are not flight time limitations as in the case of FAR 121.471(a) limitations. Therefore, paragraph (g) does not apply. The discussion and answer under your last question are fully dispositive of your second question.
Lastly you ask, if the circumstances and facts of a given flight or series of flights are such, that looking back 24 hours from the actual completion time of the last flight you will not be able to find the applicable rest period required under FAR 121.471 (b) and (c), because the flight was delayed for reasons not inconsistent with FAR 121.471(g), what is the result?
The answer to this question lies within the language of the applicable provision itself. Under the scheduling provisions of FAR 121.471(a) and (b) no air carrier "may schedule" a flight crewmember and no flight crewmember "may accept" an assignment in excess of the flight time limitations and rest requirements under that section. This language is prospective in application. If the schedule is set up by the air carrier, so as to meet the flight time limitations and rest requirements under that section, deviations encountered in the operation of an otherwise legitimately scheduled flight are permitted. The regulation restricts an air carrier's scheduling of a pilot and a pilot's accepting an assignment at the time of the scheduling. It is important to note however, that the delay cannot infringe on the next required rest period. In recognition of this type of circumstance the regulation contains allowance for use of a reduced rest period. Of course, if the carrier uses a reduced rest period, it must then provide a compensatory rest period in accordance with the regulation.
We point out that in the circumstance of a flight's continuing beyond the 24 hour planned completion period, it is possible that the flight crewmember may have become significantly fatigued. If the state of fatigue would endanger or potentially endanger the life or property of other persons, then the certificate holder should relieve the flight crewmember from further duty aloft. In this respect, note the provisions of FAR 91.13 entitled "Careless or reckless operation."
This interpretation was prepared by Francis C. Heil, Attorney, Operations Law Branch; Richard C. Beitel, Manager. We hope this information satisfies your request.
Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
April 16, 1992
Captain G. L. Bergner
Dear Captain Bergner:
This is in response to your letter of November 8, 1991, requesting an interpretation of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 121.471 regarding flight time limitations and rest requirements for domestic air carriers. We regret that the press of other matters, including safety rulemaking, exemptions, and requests for interpretations submitted prior to yours, has prevented us from responding to your request sooner.
In reference to FAR 121.471(a)(1) through (a)(4) you ask the following question.
"May these time limitations be exceeded if a pilot is legal to start a day but, due to factors such as wind, etc., exceeds his regularly scheduled block times and becomes faced with a situation where if he begins his last flight, it will knowingly cause him to exceed the limitations in this section?"
The answer to your first question is yes. We have attached a prior interpretation, to Captain Lloyd W. Barry dated September 9, 1987, which addresses your first question. Please note that Captain Barry's interpretation specifically addresses FAR 121.471(a)(3). Because we must have precise facts regarding the other paragraphs we have limited our answer to FAR 121.471(a)(3).
Your second question asks how FAR 121.471(g) affects the implied 15 hour, or 16 hour, "duty day" of FAR 121.471(b), (b)(1) and (c)(1)?
To answer this question we must first point out that FAR 121.471 does not contain an explicit limitation on duty time. As the subheading for FAR 121.471 states, that provision deals with flight time limitations and rest requirements for domestic air carriers. Under FAR 121.471 there are no 15 hour or 16 hour duty time limitations. With this in mind we assume your question asks how FAR 121.471(g) applies to actual flights flown in excess of the scheduled flight time amounts in FAR 121.471(b), (b)(1) and (c)(1)?
In considering this question, we point out that the scheduled flight time amounts in these provisions are used to designate the number of hours of scheduled rest required. Thus, they are not flight time limitations as in the case of FAR 121.471(a) limitations. Therefore, paragraph (g) does not apply. The discussion and answer under your last question are fully dispositive of your second question.
Lastly you ask, if the circumstances and facts of a given flight or series of flights are such, that looking back 24 hours from the actual completion time of the last flight you will not be able to find the applicable rest period required under FAR 121.471 (b) and (c), because the flight was delayed for reasons not inconsistent with FAR 121.471(g), what is the result?
The answer to this question lies within the language of the applicable provision itself. Under the scheduling provisions of FAR 121.471(a) and (b) no air carrier "may schedule" a flight crewmember and no flight crewmember "may accept" an assignment in excess of the flight time limitations and rest requirements under that section. This language is prospective in application. If the schedule is set up by the air carrier, so as to meet the flight time limitations and rest requirements under that section, deviations encountered in the operation of an otherwise legitimately scheduled flight are permitted. The regulation restricts an air carrier's scheduling of a pilot and a pilot's accepting an assignment at the time of the scheduling. It is important to note however, that the delay cannot infringe on the next required rest period. In recognition of this type of circumstance the regulation contains allowance for use of a reduced rest period. Of course, if the carrier uses a reduced rest period, it must then provide a compensatory rest period in accordance with the regulation.
We point out that in the circumstance of a flight's continuing beyond the 24 hour planned completion period, it is possible that the flight crewmember may have become significantly fatigued. If the state of fatigue would endanger or potentially endanger the life or property of other persons, then the certificate holder should relieve the flight crewmember from further duty aloft. In this respect, note the provisions of FAR 91.13 entitled "Careless or reckless operation."
This interpretation was prepared by Francis C. Heil, Attorney, Operations Law Branch; Richard C. Beitel, Manager. We hope this information satisfies your request.
Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
June 19, 1991
Mr. Neil Stringer
Director of Operations
Express Airlines I, Inc.
Memphis International Airport, PO Box 30397
Memphis, Tennessee 38130
Dear Mr. Stringer:
Thank for your letter of October 5, 1990, to Mr. Joseph of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Flight Standards District Office, located at Tennessee, in which you requested an interpretation of the flight and duty time limitations contained in Federal Aviation Regulations sections 121.471(g) and 135.263(d). We apologize for the delay in responding to your request.
The FAA does not subscribe to broad statements such as "legal to start, legal to finish", although the effect of what we say below may appear to fit that phrase.
The principles articulated in interpreting section 121.471(g) are also applicable to section 135.263(d).
Your Example 1: In effect, you ask whether a flightcrew may complete the segment(s) of a trip after the scheduled completion time if they were properly scheduled but were delayed due to circumstances beyond the control of the air carrier.
Answer: If the schedule met the requirements of section 121.471 at the time of scheduling, deviations 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 the weather causes a diversion, the final segment(s) may, nonetheless, be conducted, notwithstanding that the final segment(s) will be completed outside the period originally planned.
Your Example 2: In effect, you ask whether a flightcrew may complete the final segment(s) of a trip beyond the 8 hour limitation of section 121.471(a)(4) if they were properly scheduled and during a middle segment of the flight, they were reassigned to a different route, for operational reasons. The addition of the reassigned route was not expected to result in a schedule of more than eight hours. However, it did result in a completion of flight beyond that originally planned.
Answer: We would need to know the facts of the reassignment in order to give you a definitive interpretation. Section 121.471(g) would apply to your example only if the operational reasons were attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the operator.
We trust this information will prove helpful.
Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
Mr. Neil Stringer
Director of Operations
Express Airlines I, Inc.
Memphis International Airport, PO Box 30397
Memphis, Tennessee 38130
Dear Mr. Stringer:
Thank for your letter of October 5, 1990, to Mr. Joseph of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Flight Standards District Office, located at Tennessee, in which you requested an interpretation of the flight and duty time limitations contained in Federal Aviation Regulations sections 121.471(g) and 135.263(d). We apologize for the delay in responding to your request.
The FAA does not subscribe to broad statements such as "legal to start, legal to finish", although the effect of what we say below may appear to fit that phrase.
The principles articulated in interpreting section 121.471(g) are also applicable to section 135.263(d).
Your Example 1: In effect, you ask whether a flightcrew may complete the segment(s) of a trip after the scheduled completion time if they were properly scheduled but were delayed due to circumstances beyond the control of the air carrier.
Answer: If the schedule met the requirements of section 121.471 at the time of scheduling, deviations 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 the weather causes a diversion, the final segment(s) may, nonetheless, be conducted, notwithstanding that the final segment(s) will be completed outside the period originally planned.
Your Example 2: In effect, you ask whether a flightcrew may complete the final segment(s) of a trip beyond the 8 hour limitation of section 121.471(a)(4) if they were properly scheduled and during a middle segment of the flight, they were reassigned to a different route, for operational reasons. The addition of the reassigned route was not expected to result in a schedule of more than eight hours. However, it did result in a completion of flight beyond that originally planned.
Answer: We would need to know the facts of the reassignment in order to give you a definitive interpretation. Section 121.471(g) would apply to your example only if the operational reasons were attributable to circumstances beyond the control of the operator.
We trust this information will prove helpful.
Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
August 30, 1993
Dear Mr. Ross:
This letter is in response to your letter of January 25, 1993, requesting an interpretation of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) sections 135.263(d) and 135.267(a) through (f). We apologize that the press of other matters, including safety rulemaking, petitions for exemptions, and requests for interpretations received prior to yours, has prevented us from answering sooner.
Sections of the FAR applicable to your request for interpretation provide:
135.263 Flight time limitations and rest requirements: All certificate holders. * * *
(d) A flight crewmember is not considered to be assigned flight time in excess of flight time limitations if the flights to which he is assigned normally terminate within the limitations, but due to circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder or flight crewmember (such as adverse weather conditions), are not at the time of departure expected to reach their destination within the planned flight time.
135.267 Flight time limitations and rest requirements: Unscheduled one and two pilot crews. * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, during any 24 consecutive hours the total flight time of the assigned flight when added to any other commercial flying by that flight crewmember may not exceed -
(1) 8 hours for a flight crew consisting of one pilot; or
(2) 10 hours for a flight crew consisting of two pilots qualified under this part for the operation being conducted.
(c) A flight crewmember's flight time may exceed the flight time limits of paragraph (b) of this section if the assigned flight time occurs during a regularly assigned duty period of no more than 14 hours and -
(1) If this duty period is immediately preceded by and followed by a required rest period of at least 10 consecutive hours of rest;
(2) If flight time is assigned during this period, that total flight time when added to any other commercial flying by the flight crewmember may not exceed -
(i) 8 hours for a flight crew consisting of one pilot; or
(ii) 10 hours for a flight crew consisting of two pilots; and
(3) If the combined duty and rest periods equal 24 hours.
(d) Each assignment under paragraph (b) of this section must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24 hour period that precedes the planned completion time of the assignment.
(e) When a flight crewmember has exceeded the daily flight time limitations in this section, because of circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder or flight crewmember (such as adverse weather conditions), that flight crewmember must have a rest period before being assigned or accepting an assignment for flight time of at least -
(1) 11 consecutive hours of rest if the flight time limitation is exceeded by not more than 30 minutes.
(2) 12 consecutive hours of rest if the flight time limitation is exceeded by more than 30 minutes, but not more than 60 minutes; and
(3) 16 hours of rest if the flight time limitation is exceeded by more than 60 minutes.
(f) The certificate holder must provide each flight crewmember at least 13 rest periods of at least 24 consecutive hours each in each calendar quarter.
For your convenience, we have restated your hypothetical and questions below. Each question is followed by our interpretation of pertinent parts of the applicable regulations.
Hypothetical: A flightcrew is assigned to fly a Challenger Jet under FAR part 135, unscheduled operations using a two pilot crew. The crew begins its day at LAX at 1700Z hours, with the following itinerary for the day:
On duty: 1700Z
Depart Enroute Time Arrive
LAX 1800Z 1.2 hr SFO 1912Z
SFO 0100Z 1.2 hr LAX 0212Z
LAX 0130Z 4.0 hrs MSP 0530Z
MSP 0600Z 0.8 hr MSN 0645Z
Off duty: 0700Z
The total flight time is 7.2 hours. The assigned duty period is 13.8 hours. This schedule allows 1 hour for the crew to prepare for departure, and 12 to 15 minutes to shut down the aircraft after arriving at MSN. The crew accepts this assignment as being in alignment with applicable regulations.
Midway through the day, when back at LAX ready to depart for MSP, the director of operations informs the pilot in command that several passengers will not be arriving at LAX for the flight to MSP until 0330Z, i.e., 2.0 hours late. This delay will put the aircraft in position at MSP at 0730Z, exactly 14.5 hours after coming on duty. It will also delay the flightcrew's arrival in MSN until 0845Z. The director of operations states that the passengers' late arrival is beyond the certificate holder's control, and that the flightcrew can therefore continue the flight to its final destination at MSN without violating the FAR.
To be continued...(due to length and posting limitations)...
Dear Mr. Ross:
This letter is in response to your letter of January 25, 1993, requesting an interpretation of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) sections 135.263(d) and 135.267(a) through (f). We apologize that the press of other matters, including safety rulemaking, petitions for exemptions, and requests for interpretations received prior to yours, has prevented us from answering sooner.
Sections of the FAR applicable to your request for interpretation provide:
135.263 Flight time limitations and rest requirements: All certificate holders. * * *
(d) A flight crewmember is not considered to be assigned flight time in excess of flight time limitations if the flights to which he is assigned normally terminate within the limitations, but due to circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder or flight crewmember (such as adverse weather conditions), are not at the time of departure expected to reach their destination within the planned flight time.
135.267 Flight time limitations and rest requirements: Unscheduled one and two pilot crews. * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, during any 24 consecutive hours the total flight time of the assigned flight when added to any other commercial flying by that flight crewmember may not exceed -
(1) 8 hours for a flight crew consisting of one pilot; or
(2) 10 hours for a flight crew consisting of two pilots qualified under this part for the operation being conducted.
(c) A flight crewmember's flight time may exceed the flight time limits of paragraph (b) of this section if the assigned flight time occurs during a regularly assigned duty period of no more than 14 hours and -
(1) If this duty period is immediately preceded by and followed by a required rest period of at least 10 consecutive hours of rest;
(2) If flight time is assigned during this period, that total flight time when added to any other commercial flying by the flight crewmember may not exceed -
(i) 8 hours for a flight crew consisting of one pilot; or
(ii) 10 hours for a flight crew consisting of two pilots; and
(3) If the combined duty and rest periods equal 24 hours.
(d) Each assignment under paragraph (b) of this section must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24 hour period that precedes the planned completion time of the assignment.
(e) When a flight crewmember has exceeded the daily flight time limitations in this section, because of circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder or flight crewmember (such as adverse weather conditions), that flight crewmember must have a rest period before being assigned or accepting an assignment for flight time of at least -
(1) 11 consecutive hours of rest if the flight time limitation is exceeded by not more than 30 minutes.
(2) 12 consecutive hours of rest if the flight time limitation is exceeded by more than 30 minutes, but not more than 60 minutes; and
(3) 16 hours of rest if the flight time limitation is exceeded by more than 60 minutes.
(f) The certificate holder must provide each flight crewmember at least 13 rest periods of at least 24 consecutive hours each in each calendar quarter.
For your convenience, we have restated your hypothetical and questions below. Each question is followed by our interpretation of pertinent parts of the applicable regulations.
Hypothetical: A flightcrew is assigned to fly a Challenger Jet under FAR part 135, unscheduled operations using a two pilot crew. The crew begins its day at LAX at 1700Z hours, with the following itinerary for the day:
On duty: 1700Z
Depart Enroute Time Arrive
LAX 1800Z 1.2 hr SFO 1912Z
SFO 0100Z 1.2 hr LAX 0212Z
LAX 0130Z 4.0 hrs MSP 0530Z
MSP 0600Z 0.8 hr MSN 0645Z
Off duty: 0700Z
The total flight time is 7.2 hours. The assigned duty period is 13.8 hours. This schedule allows 1 hour for the crew to prepare for departure, and 12 to 15 minutes to shut down the aircraft after arriving at MSN. The crew accepts this assignment as being in alignment with applicable regulations.
Midway through the day, when back at LAX ready to depart for MSP, the director of operations informs the pilot in command that several passengers will not be arriving at LAX for the flight to MSP until 0330Z, i.e., 2.0 hours late. This delay will put the aircraft in position at MSP at 0730Z, exactly 14.5 hours after coming on duty. It will also delay the flightcrew's arrival in MSN until 0845Z. The director of operations states that the passengers' late arrival is beyond the certificate holder's control, and that the flightcrew can therefore continue the flight to its final destination at MSN without violating the FAR.
To be continued...(due to length and posting limitations)...
Continued...
Question 1: Can the flightcrew depart LAX for MSP, knowing they will arrive at MSP 14.5 hours after coming on duty? If so, how many hours of rest will be required before accepting another assignment?
Answer: The answer to this question depends on whether the flightcrew has a regularly assigned duty day of no more than 14 hours, bringing it within the scope of FAR 135.267(c). If the flightcrew does not have a regularly assigned duty period of no more than 14 hours, then FAR 135.267(b) applies.
Assuming FAR 135.267(b) applies, the answer to the first part of your question is yes. When a flightcrew's assigned schedule is delayed for reasons beyond the control of the crew and operator, FAR 135.263(d) applies and a flightcrew may complete their scheduled assignment, even though flightcrew duty time will exceed 14 hours. This assumes, of course, that the original planning was realistic.
The FAA has previously concluded that circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder and crew include delays caused by late passenger or cargo arrivals, maintenance difficulties, and adverse weather. In your hypothetical, the delay was caused by late passenger arrivals. As such, the delay is a circumstance beyond the control of the certificate holder and the flightcrew. The flightcrew therefore may complete their assigned schedule, continuing on not only from LAX to MSP but also from MSP to MSN, even though the flightcrew know they will exceed the 14 hour maximum duty period.
If, however, the flightcrew have a regularly assigned duty period of no more than 14 hours, to which FAR 135.267(c) applies, the answer to your question is no. As a preliminary comment, it is to be noted that paragraph (c), which contains the 14 hour duty time limitation, provides an exception to the moving 24 consecutive hour flight time limitation contained in FAR 135.267(b). The advantage of paragraph (c) is that it allows a greater amount of flight time to be concentrated between the middle or latter part of one day and the early part of the next day than would be permitted under the moving 24 consecutive hour period in paragraph (b). The flexibility conferred by paragraph (c) is subject to a number of safeguards, the first of which is the requirement for the flight time to occur during a regularly assigned duty period of no more than 14 hours and the remainder of which are the constraints in (c)(1) through (c)(3).
The concept in paragraph (c) has its roots in an industry suggestion during the Regulation by Negotiation Advisory Committee meetings in the summer of 1983. The industry representative described a consistent day-by-day work pattern such as one in which a pilot reports to work at 6:00 a.m. and is on duty to no later than 8:00 p.m., leaving 10 hours for rest before reporting for work at 6:00 a.m. the next morning. According to that representative, fog or other unusual conditions could delay planned early morning takeoffs to the extent that substantial amounts of flight time would be shifted from the usual early morning to the late morning period or early afternoon. The effect of the moving 24 hour period flight time limitation would be that the flight crew utilization the next morning would be seriously disrupted. Accordingly, the representative suggested to the Advisory Committee that there be an exception to the moving 24 hour period concept provided certain safeguards were imposed, one of which was a rigid 14 hour duty period.
FAR 135.267(c) was adopted as proposed in the Notice of Proposed rulemaking and contains no provision for relief from a rigid 14 hour duty period. Therefore, if FAR 135.267(c) governs the operations described in your hypothetical, the flightcrew and the certificate holder would both be in violation of FAR 135.267(c) if the flightcrew agreed to continue with departure from LAX to MSP, knowing that they would arrive 14.5 hours after coming on duty. Of course, if the flightcrew reasonably anticipated being able to complete the LAX to MSP segment without exceeding a 14 hour duty day, but were unexpectedly delayed enroute from LAX to MSP (due to unanticipated headwinds, for example), the FAA would not consider either the flightcrew or the air carrier to be in violation of FAR 135.267(c).
Returning to the second part of your question, assuming that FAR 135.267(b) governs the operations in question, FAR 135.267 does not require increased rest periods when a flightcrew exceeds the 14 hour maximum duty period. FAR 135.267 requires increased rest periods only when a flightcrew exceeds the flight time limitations contained in FAR 135.267(b). The circumstances in your hypothetical increase the flightcrew's duty time upon their arrival at MSP to 14.5 hours, and to 15.75 hours when they arrive at MSN. Those same circumstances do not, however, increase the flightcrew's total flight time. Therefore, neither the certificate holder nor the flightcrew would violate FAR 135.267 if the ensuing rest period did not exceed the 10 hours specified in FAR 135.267(d). In other words, the increased rest provisions of FAR 135.267(e) are inapplicable if the daily flight time limitations are not exceeded.
Question 2: Can the flightcrew continue with their late schedule and depart MSP at 0800Z and fly to MSN, with an expected arrival time of 0845Z?
Answer: Assuming that FAR 135.267(b) applies, the answer is yes. The same rationale applies to the MSP to MSN segment of the flight schedule as applies to the LAX to MSP segment. If, however, FAR 135.267(c) is applicable, the flightcrew and the certificate holder would be in violation of FAR 135.267(c)'s 14 hour duty time limitation if the flightcrew continued with the assigned schedule.
Question 3: Due to tailwinds, the crew arrives in MSP at 0700, or exactly 14.0 hours after coming on duty. After a 15 minute ground turn around at MSP, can the flightcrew proceed to MSN, with an ETA of approximately 0800Z?
Answer: Again, assuming that FAR 135.267(b) applies, the answer is yes based on the rationale discussed in the answer to your first question. If FAR 135.267(c) applies, however, the flightcrew and the certificate holder would be in violation if the flightcrew undertook the MSP to MSN flight.
You should note, however, that the FAA has stated that the goal of the flight and duty time regulations is to prevent fatigue. Therefore, the flight and duty time regulations place concurrent responsibility on both the certificate holder and the flightcrew to prevent fatigue, not only by following the regulations, but also by acting intelligently and conscientiously while serving the traveling public. This means the certificate holder and the flightcrew must take into consideration conditions that might affect the flightcrew's alertness or judgment on a particular flight.
Total duty time is a factor which may adversely affect a flightcrew's alertness or judgment while aloft. Therefore, a certificate holder would violate FAR 91.13 if it authorized a flight crewmember to operate an aircraft when the certificate holder knew or should have known that the flight crewmember was fatigued or lacked proper rest and that condition caused the flight crewmember to operate the aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. In light of the dual responsibility the flight and duty time regulations impose on certificate holders and flightcrews, we conclude that a flight crewmember also would violate FAR 91.13 if he or she accepted an assignment when his or her alertness or judgment caused a careless or reckless operation so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Question 4: You believe the intent of the regulations in question is to allow an operator to fly more than the 10 hours of flight time normally mandated if circumstances such as adverse weather are encountered. As an example, you cite a planned flight schedule of 9.7 hours total duration that is exceeded by one hour due to a hold on departures after the aircraft starts to taxi. In that case, where 10.7 flight time hours are logged, 12 hours of rest are required before the next assignment. Is your reasoning correct?
Answer: Yes. Assuming the 9.7 hour planned flight time was realistic, FAR 135.267(e) clearly governs the situation described in this hypothetical. Since the flightcrew would exceed their flight time limits by 0.7 hours, under paragraph (e)(2), the certificate holder must relieve the flightcrew of all duty for a period of at least 12 hours.
We hope this information has satisfactorily answered your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division
Question 1: Can the flightcrew depart LAX for MSP, knowing they will arrive at MSP 14.5 hours after coming on duty? If so, how many hours of rest will be required before accepting another assignment?
Answer: The answer to this question depends on whether the flightcrew has a regularly assigned duty day of no more than 14 hours, bringing it within the scope of FAR 135.267(c). If the flightcrew does not have a regularly assigned duty period of no more than 14 hours, then FAR 135.267(b) applies.
Assuming FAR 135.267(b) applies, the answer to the first part of your question is yes. When a flightcrew's assigned schedule is delayed for reasons beyond the control of the crew and operator, FAR 135.263(d) applies and a flightcrew may complete their scheduled assignment, even though flightcrew duty time will exceed 14 hours. This assumes, of course, that the original planning was realistic.
The FAA has previously concluded that circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder and crew include delays caused by late passenger or cargo arrivals, maintenance difficulties, and adverse weather. In your hypothetical, the delay was caused by late passenger arrivals. As such, the delay is a circumstance beyond the control of the certificate holder and the flightcrew. The flightcrew therefore may complete their assigned schedule, continuing on not only from LAX to MSP but also from MSP to MSN, even though the flightcrew know they will exceed the 14 hour maximum duty period.
If, however, the flightcrew have a regularly assigned duty period of no more than 14 hours, to which FAR 135.267(c) applies, the answer to your question is no. As a preliminary comment, it is to be noted that paragraph (c), which contains the 14 hour duty time limitation, provides an exception to the moving 24 consecutive hour flight time limitation contained in FAR 135.267(b). The advantage of paragraph (c) is that it allows a greater amount of flight time to be concentrated between the middle or latter part of one day and the early part of the next day than would be permitted under the moving 24 consecutive hour period in paragraph (b). The flexibility conferred by paragraph (c) is subject to a number of safeguards, the first of which is the requirement for the flight time to occur during a regularly assigned duty period of no more than 14 hours and the remainder of which are the constraints in (c)(1) through (c)(3).
The concept in paragraph (c) has its roots in an industry suggestion during the Regulation by Negotiation Advisory Committee meetings in the summer of 1983. The industry representative described a consistent day-by-day work pattern such as one in which a pilot reports to work at 6:00 a.m. and is on duty to no later than 8:00 p.m., leaving 10 hours for rest before reporting for work at 6:00 a.m. the next morning. According to that representative, fog or other unusual conditions could delay planned early morning takeoffs to the extent that substantial amounts of flight time would be shifted from the usual early morning to the late morning period or early afternoon. The effect of the moving 24 hour period flight time limitation would be that the flight crew utilization the next morning would be seriously disrupted. Accordingly, the representative suggested to the Advisory Committee that there be an exception to the moving 24 hour period concept provided certain safeguards were imposed, one of which was a rigid 14 hour duty period.
FAR 135.267(c) was adopted as proposed in the Notice of Proposed rulemaking and contains no provision for relief from a rigid 14 hour duty period. Therefore, if FAR 135.267(c) governs the operations described in your hypothetical, the flightcrew and the certificate holder would both be in violation of FAR 135.267(c) if the flightcrew agreed to continue with departure from LAX to MSP, knowing that they would arrive 14.5 hours after coming on duty. Of course, if the flightcrew reasonably anticipated being able to complete the LAX to MSP segment without exceeding a 14 hour duty day, but were unexpectedly delayed enroute from LAX to MSP (due to unanticipated headwinds, for example), the FAA would not consider either the flightcrew or the air carrier to be in violation of FAR 135.267(c).
Returning to the second part of your question, assuming that FAR 135.267(b) governs the operations in question, FAR 135.267 does not require increased rest periods when a flightcrew exceeds the 14 hour maximum duty period. FAR 135.267 requires increased rest periods only when a flightcrew exceeds the flight time limitations contained in FAR 135.267(b). The circumstances in your hypothetical increase the flightcrew's duty time upon their arrival at MSP to 14.5 hours, and to 15.75 hours when they arrive at MSN. Those same circumstances do not, however, increase the flightcrew's total flight time. Therefore, neither the certificate holder nor the flightcrew would violate FAR 135.267 if the ensuing rest period did not exceed the 10 hours specified in FAR 135.267(d). In other words, the increased rest provisions of FAR 135.267(e) are inapplicable if the daily flight time limitations are not exceeded.
Question 2: Can the flightcrew continue with their late schedule and depart MSP at 0800Z and fly to MSN, with an expected arrival time of 0845Z?
Answer: Assuming that FAR 135.267(b) applies, the answer is yes. The same rationale applies to the MSP to MSN segment of the flight schedule as applies to the LAX to MSP segment. If, however, FAR 135.267(c) is applicable, the flightcrew and the certificate holder would be in violation of FAR 135.267(c)'s 14 hour duty time limitation if the flightcrew continued with the assigned schedule.
Question 3: Due to tailwinds, the crew arrives in MSP at 0700, or exactly 14.0 hours after coming on duty. After a 15 minute ground turn around at MSP, can the flightcrew proceed to MSN, with an ETA of approximately 0800Z?
Answer: Again, assuming that FAR 135.267(b) applies, the answer is yes based on the rationale discussed in the answer to your first question. If FAR 135.267(c) applies, however, the flightcrew and the certificate holder would be in violation if the flightcrew undertook the MSP to MSN flight.
You should note, however, that the FAA has stated that the goal of the flight and duty time regulations is to prevent fatigue. Therefore, the flight and duty time regulations place concurrent responsibility on both the certificate holder and the flightcrew to prevent fatigue, not only by following the regulations, but also by acting intelligently and conscientiously while serving the traveling public. This means the certificate holder and the flightcrew must take into consideration conditions that might affect the flightcrew's alertness or judgment on a particular flight.
Total duty time is a factor which may adversely affect a flightcrew's alertness or judgment while aloft. Therefore, a certificate holder would violate FAR 91.13 if it authorized a flight crewmember to operate an aircraft when the certificate holder knew or should have known that the flight crewmember was fatigued or lacked proper rest and that condition caused the flight crewmember to operate the aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. In light of the dual responsibility the flight and duty time regulations impose on certificate holders and flightcrews, we conclude that a flight crewmember also would violate FAR 91.13 if he or she accepted an assignment when his or her alertness or judgment caused a careless or reckless operation so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Question 4: You believe the intent of the regulations in question is to allow an operator to fly more than the 10 hours of flight time normally mandated if circumstances such as adverse weather are encountered. As an example, you cite a planned flight schedule of 9.7 hours total duration that is exceeded by one hour due to a hold on departures after the aircraft starts to taxi. In that case, where 10.7 flight time hours are logged, 12 hours of rest are required before the next assignment. Is your reasoning correct?
Answer: Yes. Assuming the 9.7 hour planned flight time was realistic, FAR 135.267(e) clearly governs the situation described in this hypothetical. Since the flightcrew would exceed their flight time limits by 0.7 hours, under paragraph (e)(2), the certificate holder must relieve the flightcrew of all duty for a period of at least 12 hours.
We hope this information has satisfactorily answered your inquiry.
Sincerely,
Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division
charter dog
Rabid member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Posts
- 179
Thanks for posting this Avbug. This "Ross letter" is the one our CP uses to make a point regarding the "fourteen hour duty day" issue and how to deal with it. His position is that it is not illegal to continue duty beyond fourteen hours if the pax are late, or for other "circumstances beyond the control of the operator." As long as our planning is realistic and the pax have been informed of the latest time we must depart, then their lateness alone is not a valid reason to cancel the continuation of the flight. If, in the judgement of the crew and company, the flight can be completed safely, it may be continued. If anyone calls fatique, or believes that continuation would be contrary to safety, the flight must be discontinued, regardless of any non safety of flight related considerations such as customer or charter department desire to complete the flight. Bottom line: If the day is realistically planned to complete within 14 hours and it later becomes apparent that it will not, because of CBTCOTO, then don't quote duty rules as your reason for refusal to continue the trip. Discontinue the trip if you believe it is unsafe and your decision will be supported by the company.
Sounds good. Though I sometimes wonder how many hours into a long day I can really trust my judgement to make the right decisions. Honestly, I think most of the dumb things I've done occured after departing early, on little or no sleep. No rule except 91.13 to fall back on there! How well can you trust your judgement when you're wiped out? You can't legislate sleep. Or enforce it. One day, it's a 04:00 showtime, the next a 22:00. As long as the rest is there, it's legal. Everybody knows it isn't smart, but NOBODY calls it off at the beginning. As with everything else in flying, your judgement is the last line of defense when the rules don't address the situation directly. As a charter pilot, I've just had to learn to drink lots of "liquid aviation safety" (coffee) and tough it out. Naps in FBOs help and so does sleeping away my off days. Try to eat right and get a little exersize. I've done about all I can. Those of us who don't even think in terms of a "normal" sleep schedule seem to do better than those who do. Either way, you're often tired. If only the pax knew, I wonder if they'd care then! Oh well, I'm not gonna quit, and I'm gonna keep doing the best I can to pay attention and stay safe while keeping my job. So far, my errors have been minor, and I keep working on ways to eliminate those. I hear the FAA is going to teach me how to "manage" fatigue. Can't wait!
Best,
Last edited:
The problem with using best judgement to define how fatigued is too fatigued is that when it comes to enforcement action, you don't get to make that call, and you will be second guessed. The other problem, and of course the most important one, is just as you have said: when your judgement is most needed, it's most impaired...you may not realize how fatigued or tired you are, and you may be in denial of the fact. Add to it pressure from the passenger or company to complete the trip...and often the end result is all but a foregone conclusion.
The best insurance against this is strict adherence to the 14 hour duty/10 hour rest in 24 hour period rule. This doesn't mean that you can't call the day for safety reasons before the 14 hours is up. Make safe calls, always.
I've had 14 hour days with 8 hours of hard flyinging in which my legs hurt so badly from working the rudders that I couldn't bend them or use them to climb out of the cockpit for 45 minutes or more after shutting down. Physically I could think, but my body was shot. When that's occured, I felt okay when flying, though on the dead legs back to load, my knees were burning...but the circumstances seemed to justify the pain. Not until the end of the day when I could finally draw a free breath did I realize or learn just ow much I hurt.
I might have found the same thing at eight hours of duty if I'd stopped there...the "damage" was probably done earlier in the day...but I've also made the call earlier in the day to stop operations because of that very reason. Too tired, judgement, pain, physical impairment, feel a cold coming on...you name it. If you find at some point during the day that you shouldn't go on, then don't. If you do, of course use your best judgement, but if enforcement action comes a calling, then you don't get to make the decision as to what constituted good judgement. Someone else does that. If someone else is making that observation over your smouldering ashes, then the enforcement action has already taken place...tough price to pay for being wrong. For everyone involved.
The 14 hour rule isn't absolute; you can see that under various operations it increases and may decrease, but the concept is sound. Like most regulation, it's very much written in blood, having been created as the result of losses of life and equipment over the years.
Yes, employers would like us all to push the limits to get the most "bang for the buck," but those regulations aren't just fluff. Adhere to them, and you won't need to worry about just how far you can exceed them and still be legal.
Good luck.
The best insurance against this is strict adherence to the 14 hour duty/10 hour rest in 24 hour period rule. This doesn't mean that you can't call the day for safety reasons before the 14 hours is up. Make safe calls, always.
I've had 14 hour days with 8 hours of hard flyinging in which my legs hurt so badly from working the rudders that I couldn't bend them or use them to climb out of the cockpit for 45 minutes or more after shutting down. Physically I could think, but my body was shot. When that's occured, I felt okay when flying, though on the dead legs back to load, my knees were burning...but the circumstances seemed to justify the pain. Not until the end of the day when I could finally draw a free breath did I realize or learn just ow much I hurt.
I might have found the same thing at eight hours of duty if I'd stopped there...the "damage" was probably done earlier in the day...but I've also made the call earlier in the day to stop operations because of that very reason. Too tired, judgement, pain, physical impairment, feel a cold coming on...you name it. If you find at some point during the day that you shouldn't go on, then don't. If you do, of course use your best judgement, but if enforcement action comes a calling, then you don't get to make the decision as to what constituted good judgement. Someone else does that. If someone else is making that observation over your smouldering ashes, then the enforcement action has already taken place...tough price to pay for being wrong. For everyone involved.
The 14 hour rule isn't absolute; you can see that under various operations it increases and may decrease, but the concept is sound. Like most regulation, it's very much written in blood, having been created as the result of losses of life and equipment over the years.
Yes, employers would like us all to push the limits to get the most "bang for the buck," but those regulations aren't just fluff. Adhere to them, and you won't need to worry about just how far you can exceed them and still be legal.
Good luck.
charter dog said:
I have to agree with this. I don't see the unscheduled 135 crew as having any leeway in the rest requirement. It uses phrases like "planned completion time of the assignment", etc and describes allowances for going over FLIGHT time, but not rest/duty time. I think many attribute the allowances for exceeding planned flight time to the duty as well. Also I can see the arguement that enroute weather or holding can be called "circumstances beyond the control of the operator", but not late passengers. If I tell the passenger the latest they can be back is 5:00 and they call and say "Oh, the concert ran late and then we were stuck in traffic" and they arrive at 6:00 they are out of luck. This is a circumstance under my control where I can say we can't depart as planned. This has happened with one particular customer. I'm all about trying to make things work to keep the business. That's why our operation and my job exit. We usually plan are flights conservatively. 12 hrs. take-off to touch down. 1 hr pre-flight/ 1/2 hr post flight / 1/2 hour fudge factor. Under the right circumstances I may reduce our pre/post-flight time. Our customer in question had a history of trying to schedule the maximum duty they could get. One particular flight wanted a pick-up 80 miles away and then a full duty from there. I said I could reposition the night before and give a little more time available the next day and even offered to get a day room for 10 hr on that day and return later. They said no to that. I also planned on a reduced pre-flight (without telling them). Fine, done. Next day, fly to destination - emphasize the drop dead time for return (with fudge factor). Sure enough, they call and say the horse derby ran later than they thought and would be leaving at x-time, at the airport at x-time. I said I do have a little leaway so, OK. They call again and say they are stuck in traffic. I say well if you still get here at x-time we can depart. If not I have 2 options. One stay overnight or 2 re-dispatch to a destination short of where they wanted to be and drive from there. Sure enough they arrive late and I say my hands are tied and they agree to the shortened leg. I had already set a rental car at the new destination. But the wife was very angry. Give them an inch - they will take a mile. Be firm, but diplomatic.
kingairyahoo
my old job...
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Posts
- 515
gunfyter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Posts
- 3,785
Excellent Posts as usual AVBUG.
Do you have a copy of the Whitlow Letter? I do but its PDF and cannot attatch to this board.
Please do me a favor and give your thoughts in light of the below:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/commo...5/01-1027a.txt
Further:
ATA contends that the Whitlow Letter, by requiring
the recalculation of a previously computed rest period, is
inconsistent with both the text and the purpose of FAR
121.471. 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 ATA is arguing against FAA the basic "Good to start... good to finish" rhetoric that some managements argue.
But the FAA and the Courts disagree.
Do you have a copy of the Whitlow Letter? I do but its PDF and cannot attatch to this board.
Please do me a favor and give your thoughts in light of the below:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/commo...5/01-1027a.txt
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued January 18, 2002 Decided May 31, 2002
No. 01-1027
Air Transport Association of America, Inc.,
Petitioner
v.
Federal Aviation Administration,
Respondent
Air Line Pilots Association, International, et al.,
Intervenors
No. 01-1303
Air Transport Association of America,
Petitioner
v.
Federal Aviation Administration,
Respondent
No. 01-1306
Regional Airline Association,
Petitioner
v.
Federal Aviation Administration,
Respondent
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued January 18, 2002 Decided May 31, 2002
No. 01-1027
Air Transport Association of America, Inc.,
Petitioner
v.
Federal Aviation Administration,
Respondent
Air Line Pilots Association, International, et al.,
Intervenors
No. 01-1303
Air Transport Association of America,
Petitioner
v.
Federal Aviation Administration,
Respondent
No. 01-1306
Regional Airline Association,
Petitioner
v.
Federal Aviation Administration,
Respondent
1 The flight time limitation rules applicable to "major scheduled
air carriers" and "other airlines operating large transport category
airplanes" are contained in Part 121 of the FAR. The flight time
limitation rules applicable to scheduled air carriers operating air-
planes of 30 or fewer seats and air taxi operations are contained in
Part 135 of the FAR. The substance of the rules in Parts 121 and
135 is essentially the same and the rules are likewise interpreted.
...zip...
("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").
...zip...
5 If the flight is away from the gate but not yet in the air, the
flight may not take off. As a matter of enforcement policy, the
FAA will not charge a violation of the rest requirements if a delay
that first becomes known after the flight is in the air disrupts the
scheduled flight time, provided the required minimum reduced rest and the compensatory rest occur at the completion of that flight segment.
air carriers" and "other airlines operating large transport category
airplanes" are contained in Part 121 of the FAR. The flight time
limitation rules applicable to scheduled air carriers operating air-
planes of 30 or fewer seats and air taxi operations are contained in
Part 135 of the FAR. The substance of the rules in Parts 121 and
135 is essentially the same and the rules are likewise interpreted.
...zip...
("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").
...zip...
5 If the flight is away from the gate but not yet in the air, the
flight may not take off. As a matter of enforcement policy, the
FAA will not charge a violation of the rest requirements if a delay
that first becomes known after the flight is in the air disrupts the
scheduled flight time, provided the required minimum reduced rest and the compensatory rest occur at the completion of that flight segment.
Further:
ATA contends that the Whitlow Letter, by requiring
the recalculation of a previously computed rest period, is
inconsistent with both the text and the purpose of FAR
121.471. 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.
But the FAA and the Courts disagree.
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.
More significantly, in Interpretation 1998-7, the
FAA declared that both the carrier and its crewmembers
would violate FAR 121.471 if they knew "prior to departure"
that due to a ground hold for weather the "scheduled arrival
time of the last flight segment would force the crew to begin
its compensatory rest period later than 24 hours after the
commencement of the reduced rest period." Interpretation
1998-7. The FAA's conclusion was based on the "actual
expected arrival time" calculated prior to departure and is
therefore consistent with its approach in the Whitlow Letter
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.
More significantly, in Interpretation 1998-7, the
FAA declared that both the carrier and its crewmembers
would violate FAR 121.471 if they knew "prior to departure"
that due to a ground hold for weather the "scheduled arrival
time of the last flight segment would force the crew to begin
its compensatory rest period later than 24 hours after the
commencement of the reduced rest period." Interpretation
1998-7. The FAA's conclusion was based on the "actual
expected arrival time" calculated prior to departure and is
therefore consistent with its approach in the Whitlow Letter
charter dog
Rabid member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Posts
- 179
cvsfly: In the above statement, it appears that you have some doubt as to the legality of extending a duty period beyond 14 hours due to CBTCOTO, or that the rules only allow for exceedence of planned flight time. This does not appear to be the case, as indicated in the excerpt from the FAA legal council opinion addressed to Mr. Ross posted below. Take particular note of the fact that late pax or cargo are specifically included as CBTCOTO. Also, this applies only to crews who do not have a regularily assigned duty period of 14 hours maximum and consequently fall under the provisions of 135.267(b) and 135.263(d) As such, operation beyond 14 hours of duty IS allowable under these rules according to this opinion, provided that the original planning was realistic and that crew fatigue issues during the proposed operation would not represent "careless or wreckless operation". (91.13)
Personally, I favor your approach to the problem and use it myself. My point is simply that when you call off the flight due to late pax, you are doing it for safety reasons, not because crew duty time regulations require it! According to this FAA legal interpretation, they don't, for 135.267(b) crews. It is your call if you want to proceed beyond 14 hours for the allowable reasons. As is calling it off for safety reasons. It actually seems to me like a small semantic point, unless you wish to continue. In that case, having reallistically planned for the completion of the flight within a 14 hour duty period, relying on all the best information available, you have the option of continuing beyond 14 hours if CBTCOTO require it. You also have the option of discontinuing the flight if you believe it to be in the interest of safety.
The very bottom line is that it is up to you to decide whether to proceed, under the FAA legal interpretation of the rules. As usual, this means that should anything untoward occur, YOU were responsible! We are all allowed to set any standard which is more conservative than the rules allow, and I applaud you for doing so. Personally, I think this interpretion stinks because it is so prone to abuse by operators and pax. I would like to see a "harder" allowable duty period limitation in the rules. Until this happens, we'll just have to throw the "safety card" on the table whenever we find it necessary to do so. Strict interpretation of the rules requires it.
Avbug: Thanks again!
Of course there are circumstances when it is our duty to limit operations to less than what the rules may allow from time to time. I have done so whenever I thought it was prudent and will no doubt have to do so again in the future. While I wish to give my employer the most "bang for their buck", and to be well regarded as a "good" pilot for the company, I realize that if anything goes wrong, I am responsible! And the company, feds, insurance companies and damaged parties will all duck and cover, leaving me holding the bag. We're anly as "good" as our last trip. This is understood!
This discussion has been constructive in that it really more about responsibility than it is about the letter of the law. It is agreed that using the letter of the law to either "push" the limits or to rationalize a decision made in error is not an effective defence of that decision. Limiting operations to well short of what the current interpretation of the rules may allow might often be required in the interest of safety. If we can justify our actions with solid logic and accurate application of the rules, any employer who does not support our decisions is nobody we want to work for. Mutual trust and confidence is required between pilot and company for this to work effectively. I am happy to be able to say that relationship with my current employer provides this mutual trust to higher than average degree.
I am ever mindful of the fact that fatigue is a fact of life in this line of work and that it affects judgement in ways that may be difficult to quantify or address. In the end, where rules do not directly adddress a situation, judgement is really all we have left. Improving the rules would be a positive step in the right direction, but even the best written rules will always require judgement to apply them correctly. No matter what the rules may allow, we must still decide whether we can do the trip safely. Making these decisions while tired is just something we have to live with if we are going to stay in the business.
So we'd better have a pretty clearly defined sense of priorities! And plenty of well justified confidence in our own abilities to fly an airplane and make good decisions, even when not at our best. With regard to the confidence placed in you by others, it was best said by one of my first captains when I was new to charter flying:
Platitudes regarding "fitness to fly" aside, we all fly when we are not at our best. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying, kidding themselves or just squawking the party line. Maybe all three. Where each of us draws the line is a personal decision which we know affects others. We must all try to make the best choices we can. It's a given that defined rules and policies must be adhered to. Beyond that, much is still left to our discretion. If something bad happens, that discretionary decision making will be questioned. We must do our very best to see that nobody ever has that opportunuty, while still seeking to provide enough utility to our employers to justify our employment.
Company culture can have a large influence on how we see the priorities. I know from having worked for operators that had accidents that they will happily drive on and continue to be a successful enterprise following a wreck. They may even show a profit! The crews and pax will not. Something to remember...
Best,
Last edited:
Nolife
Tired Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Posts
- 547
Very informative. I have one more question. I've been debating some guys over this for a few weeks now.
Hypothetical scenario: On duty 0400. Fly Part 91 to pick up pax. Fly pax to destination and standby all day then return pax to pick up airport and arrive there at 1800. That's 14 hrs of duty and we are now facing a Part 91 leg home. Now the company wants you to fly to another airport to pick up some comat and then fly back to the home base. You'll arrive there at 2100. That's 3 hrs over 14 hrs duty. The flight time is well under 8 hrs.
I think you can't accept this as it will put you over 14 hrs of duty even though the last legs are flown Part 91. The fact that there was Part 135 flying in the middle pollutes the whole day so to speak. You are now restricted to 14 hrs duty or else you will violate the requirement for 10 hrs rest in the preceding 24 hrs prior to the completion of the assignment.
Anyone have any thoughts or know where I can find a legal opinion.
Hypothetical scenario: On duty 0400. Fly Part 91 to pick up pax. Fly pax to destination and standby all day then return pax to pick up airport and arrive there at 1800. That's 14 hrs of duty and we are now facing a Part 91 leg home. Now the company wants you to fly to another airport to pick up some comat and then fly back to the home base. You'll arrive there at 2100. That's 3 hrs over 14 hrs duty. The flight time is well under 8 hrs.
I think you can't accept this as it will put you over 14 hrs of duty even though the last legs are flown Part 91. The fact that there was Part 135 flying in the middle pollutes the whole day so to speak. You are now restricted to 14 hrs duty or else you will violate the requirement for 10 hrs rest in the preceding 24 hrs prior to the completion of the assignment.
Anyone have any thoughts or know where I can find a legal opinion.
charter dog
Rabid member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Posts
- 179
Nolife said:
Wait for Avbug. He's got 'em all!
Short answer: The 135 day begins when you report for assigned duties. (and your rest period ends) 135 flight rules must be followed when you are carrying pax or property for hire. (When the company is under hire, not you personally) The 135 rest and flight/duty time rules are only applicable during this time. The 135 ends when the pax or property are off the plane. Anything you do after this is not part 135. Flying those final two legs is "commercial flying" for the purposes of your 135 rest, flight and duty for subsequent 135 assignments. Your rest does not begin until you are free from all company duties. You may elect to fly those final two legs unless doing so would be "careless or wreckless" as in 91.13. If you are to fly 135 the next day, remember to include all commercial flying time in your 24 hour rolling lookback and be sure to find the required rest period within the last 24 hours. You are not on rest unless free from all campany duties.
Gotta go fly, I'll check back later.
Best,
Share this page
Latest posts
-
Question Any Other NXCub Drivers Out There?- Latest: lrobichaux
-
-
-
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
