135 Rest Requirements

[Way2Broke]

So if the passengers or cargo are late is that "because of circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder or flight crew member." The only example listed in the reg is adverse weather.

Even when I have received 10 hours of rest I still have to be able to look back and not exceed 10 hours of flight time in the previous 24 hours, correct?

When you are on call could you also be considered in rest? If not, how can you be on call 24 hours a day?

 

[pilotyip]

legal to start, legal to finish applies to the entire trip under 135, legal to start legal to finish applies to 121

 

[400pilot]

legal to start, legal to finish applies to the entire trip under 135, legal to start legal to finish applies to 121

That just isn't true. The faa has said in numerous interps that what's good for 121 is good for 135. You just happen to reside next to the most company friendly fsdo in the country.......

 

[pilotyip]

121/135

Thank you 400, we are doing just fine under our correct interpretation of 135, actually 121 supplemental crew rest gives much more flexibility to management than 135.

 

[Way2Broke]

Jan. 11, 2005
Mr. Jan Marcus
6901 Brandenburg Court Charlotte,
North Carolina 28210
Dear Mr. Marcus:
This letter responds to your letter of August 14, 2003 in which you seek an interpretation of the flight and duty regulations relating to supplemental operations (Subpart S, 14 C.F.R. §§ 121.500-121.525).
You refer to sections 121.505(b)1, 121.507(b)2 and 121.509(b)3 that state duty limits of 16, 18, and 20 hours, respectively.
You ask three specific questions:
1. A pilot is delayed, and now just before gate pushback he is scheduled to exceed the supplemental duty time limits. Can he go?
2. What will constitute a break in the duty to allow a new duty period to start fresh? Commonly we ask for 8 hours in the hotel to break the duty.
3. Are there circumstances or a set of rules the company can choose to avoid complying with the duty time limitations and if yes, what would the rules be and what constitutes the company's ability to switch to those rules for a certain occurrence?
In addition, your letter contains the following statement: "The company is saying that in supplemental operation, `legal to start-legal to finish,' meaning that if a pilot is scheduled for less than the duty time limit, but unforeseen delays cause the duty day to extend beyond the limit, he is legal to go. The company does state that under scheduled domestic ops a pilot cannot exceed the duty day limit under any circumstances. It seems that the same should be applicable to supplemental operations."
At the outset, we note that while the provisions in sections 121.505(b), 121.507(b) and 121.509(b) state explicit duty limits, section 121.471 does not explicitly specify a duty limit for flight crewmembers. Rather, under section 121.471, it is the mandatory rest requirements that inherently limit the length of duty periods. See Oct. 29, 2002 Letter to James W. Johnson, from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division [2003-6] (copy enclosed) and 50 Fed. Reg. 29,306, at 29, 308 (July 18, 1985).
The domestic regulations contain an exception to the flight time limits. We have previously emphasized that this exception--the "circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder exception"4-- applies only to the regulatory flight time limits. It does not apply to the regulations' mandatory rest requirements. See Oct. 29, 2002 Letter to James W. Johnson; see also Air Transp. Ass'n of America v. FAA, 291 F.3d 49, 52 n.3 (D.C. Cir.2002). Thus, the "legal to start legal to finish" cliché may not be used, in operations under the domestic regulations, to ignore the mandatory rest requirements because these mandatory rest requirements in effect limit a pilot's duty period. See Oct. 29, 2002 Letter to James W. Johnson.
Although subpart S does not contain a similar exception, via interpretation, the Agency has also applied the "circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder exception" to flight time questions concerning supplemental air carriers and commercial operators. See Dec. 2, 1991 Letter to John H. Dewitt, from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division [1990-33]. However, it is important to note that the 1991 Letter specifies flight time questions, not duty time questions.
We have previously recognized that the duty limit stated in sections 121.505(b) is a "hard" limit that may not be exceeded. In other words, this limit is a "cut-off' point beyond which a certificate holder may not use a pilot. This view is implicit in our response in an early interpretation:
Question: Assume a pilot commences a flight at 0000, and flies [sic] for a total of 7 hours and 59 minutes. Assume further, that because of additional ground time during the various legs, the flight actually ends at 9:29 a.m. Would it be legal for this pilot to start this route again the next day at 0001?
Answer: Section 121.505(b) states: No pilot of an airplane that has a crew of two pilots may be on duty for more than 16 hours.
As long as the actual flying time does not exceed eight hours, and the total duty time does not exceed 16 hours, the pilot may begin the same route the next day at 0001. (Emphasis added.)
See Feb.5, 1975 Letter to John Griffith, from George L. Thompson, Associate Regional Counsel, ANE-7 [1975-7] (copy enclosed).
Therefore, the answer to your first question is that the pilot may not leave the gate if just before pushback he is scheduled to exceed the duty time limit.
A recent opinion involving a scenario governed by section 121.505(b), addresses the question whether a 3-hour break spent in a hotel room in a duty day that from report to off duty totaled 17 hours and 15 minutes qualified as a rest period or was, instead, an extension of the 16-hour duty limit. See August 5, 2004 Letter to Don Treichler from James W. Whitlow, Deputy Chief Counsel (copy enclosed). We concluded that the 3-hour period did not satisfy the three conditions necessary to qualify as rest. It was not a period of at least 8 continuous hours that was known in advance to the flight crew. It also appeared that the flight crew was in effect "on call" for the 3-hour break it spent in the hotel, and thus had a present responsibility for work. Instead, the 3-hour break was duty time that extended the crew's duty period beyond the 16-hour limit stated in section 121.505(b). The Treichler opinion supports the conclusion that only a minimum rest period may constitute a break in the section 121.505(b) 16-hour duty limit. Under the supplemental regulations, the minimum stated rest period is 8 hours. See Section 121.505(a). Thus, the answer to your second question is that only a minimum 8-hour rest period may break a duty period and allow it to start fresh.
Finally, you inquire whether there are any circumstances or rules that allow a company to avoid compliance with the duty time limits. The answer is no. There are no circumstances or rules that allow a company to avoid compliance with the duty time limits. However, if at the time of take-off for the last flight, an operator has a reasonable basis for believing that it can complete the flight within the duty limits, but it actually exceeds the duty limits, and if the operator presented evidence to the FAA that the delay was due to a circumstance beyond its control that first manifested itself when the flight was in midair, the FAA would take those factors into consideration in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion.
This letter was prepared by Joseph A. Conte, Manager, Operations & Air Traffic Law Branch and Constance M. Subadan, Attorney, Operations & Air Traffic Law Branch. It was coordinated with The Air Transportation Division of the Flight Standards Service at FAA Headquarters.
Sincerely,
Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant
Chief Counsel Regulations Division


This is why 121 is different than 135. No such interpretations has been made for part 135.

 

[Way2Broke]

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.

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.

 

[Way2Broke]

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



Redux: Late Pax are considered beyond operational control, there are huge differences between how the FAA views 135/121 rest requirements. Don't fly fatigued as it is not only unsafe it is also clearly a violation of part 91. As it pertains to legal to start legal to finish, it is TRUE for part 135.267.