135 dutytimes

[FLIIFAST]

Has this changed.

14 hours max with no extensions for mech, late pax or weather?

This is for 135 unscheduled two pilot ops. Duty day only.

 

[pilotyip]

14 hours is max planned, it can be exceeded if caused by unforeseen circumstances, ATC, Wx, late cargo, etc.

 

[need2fly]

Legal to start...legal to finish...

 

[AngelKing]

on no...here we go again

ak

 

[avbug]

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.

 

[iflyjets4food]

14 hours is max planned, it can be exceeded if caused by unforeseen circumstances, ATC, Wx, late cargo, etc.

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.

 

[avbug]

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.

 

[avbug]

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

 

[avbug]

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

 

[avbug]

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