135 dutytimes

[pilotyip]

Nolife that flight with company comat is legal, it is all Part 91 tail end ferry, there is no prduct or person on board resulting in revenue for your company. It will have to be counted a commercial flying. Now if you are too tired to do the trip, you call fatique.

 

[Vastly Underemp]

I'll stick my toe in the water on this one.....

Even though the tail-end-charlie legs MAY be 91 (some fsdos interpret return to base from a 135 as a 135 leg, even if empty), the company changed the schedule by adding the extra legs on the end of a previously scheduled day. That changes everything. My interpretation would be that they are 91 legs, but because they were tagged on at the end of a full day the pilots would get hung for bad judgement if there's any bent metal involved. Remember, the "legal to start, legal to finish" axiom that everyone loves is only applicable if your assigned "schedule" for the day does not change. That can be published schedule for the scheduled operators or company assignment at the beginning of your "duty day" for the charter guys.

 

[cvsfly]

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.

Best,

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...................

I do. I have not read the FAA Legal opinions and don't exactly know where they can be accessed. Not really interested in spending the time. I do have the regulations as they are (poorly written). We have never come close to exceeding the flight time limitations and I'm not sure if we are ever considered having a "regulary assigned duty period of .. 14 hrs." in our particular operation. So the only sections I really need to consider are 135.267 a,b,d & f. There are sections that descibe provisions for going over flight time, but nowhere do I interpret where any leeway is given for rest requirements - 10 hr in any 24 hr period = 14 duty day. I may not loose sleep (pun intended) if at the end of the last leg that has a legal "planned completion time" I encouter a big reroute for weather or even an ATC ground hold that will put me over. I'll argue the point with the FSDO if needed and accept the consequences. I will not extend my neck for the chopping block for inconsiderate passengers that choose to be lax in their ground transportation planning. If the FAA includes the wording some suggest from these legal opinions in the regulations - "duty time may be exceeded by x number of hours due to circumstances beyond the control of the operator (such as adverse weather, late passengers, late cargo, etc" I'll be happy. I would make the necessary allowances for the passenger in the interest of good business and also consider my own limitations for my individual rest requirements (in consideration of 91.13). Where do you draw the line? How long is too long for CBTCOTO?

 

[cvsfly]

We also will consider a Part 91 leg home to base that puts us over 14 hrs. OK if the crew agrees. But we consider it elective. If the company demands it due to repositioning needs - say for another 135 flight the next day - I deny it and request a rescheduling. But then again, we only have 2 pilots, 1 airplane, I'm in charge, and I like my sleep. Our company isn't soley dependant on charter and how can they be with such a limited operation.

 

[kingairyahoo]

...and if we extend past 14 for a "tail end ferry" we insist on showing 10 hours rest after the end of that "tail end ferry" before the next duty day starts.

in other words if we had an early flight the next morning...guess what, we dont take it

 

[charter dog]

Where do you draw the line? How long is too long for CBTCOTO?

That's right!

With no absolute definition to rely upon, it is up to you to decide. I suggest that we should make that decision on the basis of safety. Where the rules may allow it to be done according to FAA legal council, the authority to do so relies upon the safety judgement of the crew and the operator. If something happens, you will be left to defend your decision to proceed with the trip. If fatigue is found to be a causal factor in the incident, accident or other occurance, you may be found to have proceeded in violation of 91.13 even though not in violation of crew duty, or any other regulations. This could be the case at ANY time during any other perfectly rules compliant duty assignment. Some days, it might be just as safe to proceed with the last flight of the day as it was for the first. (maybe more so!) It could be the case that you are in better shape to fly after having rested all day while not on "official" rest at your "sit and wait" stop. With the rule being so ill-defined, I have reached the conclusion that, for me personally, my decision to proceed or not to proceed will be based purely upon my judgement of whether it is safe to do so. I will not engage in any debate of what the rules allow or don't allow with pax, dispatch or company management as a defense of my safety decisions. Everyone must agree in order to go. Any dissent which cannot be resolved reasonably on the part of anyone involved means the plane stays parked, period. I will be happy to discuss the decision at a later time. At my company, it has been made clear by the CP that this is how it is to be. The duty rule is not the proper defense for a no-go decision. Safety is! The rules allow us to go only if we do not have a valid safety concern. How much is too much? Are we in a safe position to make such decisions when we might be fatigued? Well, I can't tell you. I just have to trust my own judgement of my fitness to fly by doing the best evaluation I can of my own, and my fellow crew's state of readyness to accept the assignment. You must decide for yourself in the absence of any better defined limit. I am looking forward to reviewing the new rules when or IF they are finally released. It oughta be interesting!

Best,

 

[livin'thesim]

The new interp that they are discussing is proprosing that tailend ferry be counted the same as if it was revenue. This could get very interesting. There is also some talk about treating all time assigned by a 135 operator as though it was revenue flight. I'm curious how this will all shake out.

 

[Nolife]

The rule change would be welcome in my book. The problem with calling safety as the reason not to fly a trip is that management can easily second-guess you. Everybody is very safety conscience until safety costs money. Cause the company to down a few trips because you were tired and couldn't or wouldn't ferry an airplane after a max duty day and you might safely be out of a job.

It'd be great if the FAR's would be more concrete and give us pilots something solid to point to as the reason for not pressing on past the reasonable point of fatigue.

The first 135 cargo company I worked for considered any duty assignment where you flew any part 135 to be all 135 and thus only 14 hrs long. That's where I get the one drop pollutes the barrel analogy. Fly 1 leg 135 and you're restricted to 14 hrs. Makes sense to me but I can't seem to find any legal opinions regarding this. Any help finding some would be greatly appreciated.

 

[pilotyip]

Nolife again all the talk is about 135. If the proposed 135 duty rules becomes too restrictive and now add a cost to do the same level of revenue generation, it would most likely impact pay. A change to 121 supplemental crew rest rules would actually give companies more flexibility in using their crews because of the ability to give duty breaks.

 

[Way2Broke]

Okay, here is a 135 duty time question. Is it legal to take a pilot off duty in the middle of their duty and then put them back on duty as long as the pilot gets the required rest at night.

 

[cvsfly]

Yes, as long as it is 10 consecutive hours of rest, uninterupted, no company required duties (communication?), etc. We offer to get day rooms if the client wants a long day. They usually baulk at it since I quess in their eyes we are trying to squeeze more money from them. Alot of times this where the 134 1/2 s really chap my b utt. We had one day where we were already flying the company owner on a couple of 91 legs. A charter request came in shortly before we were arriving back at base. We said we could do it if; 1 we got back x time, or 2 we overnighted. This wasn't good for them since they wanted to return in between those times. They proceed to call up a corporate operator (whose owner happens also to be friends with ours - everyone knows everyone around here). It just so happens that their plane had been on basically the same schedule as ours only in a faster plane. By the time we were pulling in back home this 91 operator was leaving with our potential client. They returned much later that night, probably being "on duty" for 16-17 hours. I asked later if they had a "lease" with them. Of course they said, they were able to write up a "quick lease all legal like". Right. I was ready to do something but our owner didn't want to make waves. What is the best procedure to turn in a known illegal operation? What evidence should you present to whomever you report to?

 

[Way2Broke]

Okay, here is the situation I am talking about. A pilot gos on duty at 4am, and then gos off duty at noon. The pilot then returns to duty at 3:30pm and works until 7pm. That night the pilot gets 9 hours of rest. The pilot is operating under part 135.265 Scheduled operator. Not on-demand.

 

[cvsfly]

not familiar with scheduled ops. but my quick read of it would be OK, but I don't know if that does anything for you. I assume you would get 9 hr (consecutive) rest in the look back 24 hr and 8 hr of flying and not accounting for reduced rest provisions- at least from 1900 previous day (9 hr rest to 0400) to 1900 on the scheduled day. Dutying off for 3.5 hrs during the scheduled day - I can't see it doing anything for you. It can't be considered a rest period. Unless they pay by the "duty hour", then you are getting ripped off.

 

[Nolife]

Hey YIP, I understand that if the rule changes it could affect the way companies work but I don't think it will affect pay. Management will adjust to the new rules just as they have done in the past by passing on the cost to customers. I'm sure Ford will pay 2K more per charter for that part so you can staff more pilots in order to cover the change, and this will add to the pilot hiring boom you're waiting for in 2007 .

It would be good for everybody in the end.

 

[charter dog]

cvsfly:

What is the best procedure to turn in a known illegal operation? What evidence should you present to whomever you report to?

You want to tread very carefully here. It may be best for you to stick with flying your trips and leaving the enforcement to the FEDS. For one thing, you don't need any enemies you don't have to have. For another, it could cost you your current job if it implicates your boss in any way. Thirdly, if you take something like that on, be prepared for scrutiny of your own actions. It's not worth it. Keep your eyes open for better opportunities and quietly do your job to your own standards in the meantime. Chances are, if this is a regular practice, birdies have chirped and notes have been slipped under doors. Don't leave your fingerprints where anyone might find them. The FEDS move at their own pace and in their own ways. Word gets around. Charter company owners can rat each other out all they want. Pilots mind their own store and don't get involved in other people's affairs unless they have no choice. Take this advice for what you think it's worth and tread carefully.

Best,

 

[pilotyip]

Already too many costs

Nolife, but you add that as another cost of business on top of costs that good companies are already doing, like paying top wages in the under 100K category, training in sims and actual maintenance, makes it tuff to compete in business where not all operators bear these same costs. And many lower end operatrors will find ways around any new crew rest, if it restricts their operations. BTW I love the way you are catching on to the 2007 hiring boom, it is coming.

 

[A Squared]

Hi, Arriving late to this thread and still haven't quite digested everything. A couple of quick comments and questions;


First, WTF is "CBTCOTO" ?????? Maybe it was explained, but I missed it.


THis is interesting:

The new interp that they are discussing is proprosing that tailend ferry be counted the same as if it was revenue. This could get very interesting. There is also some talk about treating all time assigned by a 135 operator as though it was revenue flight. I'm curious how this will all shake out.

Who is they and what new interpretation are "they" discussing? WHere did you hear of this? I'd be interested to find out more about it.

The first 135 cargo company I worked for considered any duty assignment where you flew any part 135 to be all 135 and thus only 14 hrs long. That's where I get the one drop pollutes the barrel analogy. Fly 1 leg 135 and you're restricted to 14 hrs. Makes sense to me but I can't seem to find any legal opinions regarding this. Any help finding some would be greatly appreciated.

I'm pretty sure you won't find any existing interpretations which back this up, as it goes against longstanding, consistent interpretation ofh the regulations. Your comapny may have operated this way, considering all flying to be 135 if any was, butthey were certainly not *required* to do this for hte flights after the 135 flights. I think that it was good that they did this, as it would improve your work conditions, but the fact that they did this doesn't mean that they were required to do it.

 

[charter dog]

First, WTF is "CBTCOTO" ?????? Maybe it was explained, but I missed it.

A2:

That was me. I was abbreviating circumstances beyond the control of the operator as used in FARs regarding flight and duty time limitations and rest requirements and subsequent rules interpretations made by FAA legal council. Just laziness!

This thread has taken a few twists and turns, so it IS a bit a challenge to follow! I think the poster referring to "they" might be referring to the now closed aviation rulemaking committee discussion of 135 rules revisions. We all await the NPRM release to see what is in store!

Get caught up on the discussion and add your thoughts. I'm sure you have something to add.

Best,