Anyone familiar with new rest regs for 135?

[DO328-JET FO]

Hi there,

A good friend of mine told me that in 2007 some new regulation is coming out that mandates duty periods. No more being on call and on 'rest'.

That if your duty period is supposed to be from 5pm to 5am, you are 'required' to be in bed 'resting' from 5am to 5pm (or somwhere in that neighborhood).

I can't find anything on the FAA web site about it.

Does anyone here have any info?

Thanks!

 

[avbug]

If such regulation were to be fielded, it would be virtually unworkable. You'd see it as a NPRM first, a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, and you'd hear a LOT about it. Such a regulation, especially one that requires you to be in bed (can you imagine enforcement of such ridiculousness?), would make the FAA a laughingstock.

Presently under Part 135, for unscheduled crews, two regulations apply. One is for those with regularly scheduled duty periods. 14 CFR 135.267(c). That is, the crew is on every day from noon to midnight, for example. Despite having a scheduled duty period, unless the crew is flying for an operation with a published regular schedule of five or more trips a week, they're not considered scheduled (sometimes confuses people..."scheduled" refers to the type of operation, not the regularity of the duty period).

The second regulation applied to crews for duty is 135.267(b). This applies to crews who do not have a regular duty schedule.

Both 135.27(b) and 135.267(c) cover flight time limitations, which is the only difference between unshcheduled crews who have a regular duty schedule, and those who do not. Crews who do not have a regular duty schedule cannot exceed 8 hours of flying in any consecutive 24 hours (10 hours for a crew of two, eight for one), whereas crews who have a regular duty schedule cannot exceed those limitations within a scheduled duty period.

The regularly scheduled crew is required to have ten hours rest before and after the duty period..not just looking back 24 hours, but part of 135.267(c) is that the crew scheduled duty period must be preceeded by and followed by 10 consecutive hours of rest. The FAA has also determined that the duty schedule must be repetative and not change, in order for an operator to avail himself of this advantage. The advantage to 135.267(c) is that the operator may use the pilot more than 10 hours of flying (crew of two) in a 24 hour period...just not in a scheduled duty cycle.

For example, the crew is scheduled to be on duty from noon until two in the morning, every day. The crew gets an assignment to fly, and achieves ten hours of flying between 1600 and 0200 today. Ten hours of rest follow, and the crew comes on duty again at noon tomorrow. Upon comming on duty, the crew gets an assignment, and they fly another ten hours. This flying lasts from noon until 2200 that night. Under 135.267(b), we can see that the crew has easily exceeded 10 hours within a 24 hour period...take the period from 1600 the first day until 1600 the second day, for example...during that 24 hour period, the crew has flown 13 hours...legal under 135.267(c), but not under 135.267(b)...because the crew has scheduled duty and rest.

Harking back to your question after that tangent, you indicate someone told you that the rest requirements are changing. I mentioned the current regulation because it spells out rest requirements, which remain ten hours before duty, and because depending on the type of schedule (regularly assigned duty period, or not regularly assigned), the rest requirements change, as well as the technical description of crew requirements. What the current regulation has in common is a requirement for ten hours of rest before beggining duty.

You'll notice that this discusses flight time and not duty, as duty is implied under all but 135.267(c), and defined by deducting required rest from a 24 hour period. Only in 135.267(c) is duty specifically defined as 14 hours preceeded by 10 hours of rest, whereas elsewhere it's merely defined as 10 hours rest preceeding the duty within the past 24 hours, a subtle, but important difference.

That comes back to your question...is the FAA changing the rest requirement? If changes are published, you'll find them in the Federal Register. However, any policy stating that on-call isn't "rest" isn't a regulatory change, it's a clarification of policy, and it already exists. In 1999, in the Federal Register 64 FR 32176, the Administrator had this to say about being on call or on reserve:

The current rules specify flight time limitations and rest requirements for air carriers certificated to operate under part 121 (domestic: subpart Q; flag: subpart R; and supplemental: subpart S) and part 135 (subpart F). The FAA has consistently interpreted the term rest to mean that a flight crewmember is free from actual work for the air carrier or from the present responsibility for work should the occasion arise. Thus, the FAA previously has determined that a flight crewmember on reserve was not at rest if the flight crewmember had a present responsibility for work in that the flight crewmember had to be available for the carrier to notify of a flight assignment.

The Administrator goes on to say:

The FAA has consistently interpreted § 121.471(b) and the corresponding § 135.265(b) to mean that the certificate holder and the flight crewmembers must be able to look back over the 24 consecutive hours preceding the scheduled completion of the flight segment and find the required scheduled rest period. This interpretation of rest also has been applied to pilots on "reserve time." Reserve time while not defined in 14 CFR is generally understood to be a period of time when a flight crewmember is not on duty but must be available to report upon notice for a duty period. Thus, a flight crewmembers on reserve could not take a flight assignment, and the certificate holder could not schedule that crewmember for a flight assignment, unless the flight crewmember had a scheduled rest period such that at the end of the flight segment one could look back 24 hours and find the requirement amount of rest.

The FAA already applies enforcement action to the rest requirements, with several various legal interpretations and statements (such as the segments of Federal Register statements of enforcement policy above) being available to define this time. Being on-call and available for duty any time as many 135 operators continue to do, has never been legal...up until 1999 the FAA looked the other way, and today the FAA still doesn't question the general practice so long as the operator and pilot can show on paper that 10 hours existed prior to an assignment in which the pilot was not on duty. The FAA states that one must be free of duty during that period.

As far as requiring you to sit on your bed...ain't gonna happen.

 

[English]

There is a change in the works...supposed to be out in 2007...

 

[pilotyip]

The NPRM stated operators would be allowed to develope their own crew rest to meet the requirements of their operations. Then submitt that to the FAA for approval. The 121 regs are much clearer on what is rest, duty and non-duty non-rest. Look at 121 crew rest for supplemental ops, they allow duty breaks that are neither duty or rest. These basically allow you to go for 6 days with no rest if you do not fly more than 8 hours in a 24 hour period.

 

[avbug]

Seeing as it came up, it's probably worth addressing a little more. Recently I had a conversation in which an individual stated emphatically that under no circumstances will the Administrator tolerate overflying a duty period (he was referring to Part 135). We discussed the concept of duty period, and under 135.267(b) there isn't one. Ten hours of rest mean that one can't exceed 14 hours of duty in the past 24 hours...so 14 hours is implied...but not stated. But can one exceed that duty? Yes.

In an excerpt from a legal interpretation provided by the FAA Chief Legal Counsel on August 30, 1993, we read the following excerpt:

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.

The end of that excerpt notes that rest requirements after duty are tied under135.267(b) (everything but regularly assigned duty periods) to flight time, not duty time. Under 135.267(c), rest is required both before and after duty, but that only applies to operators with regularly assigned duty periods. For everybody else, the vast, unwashed on-call on-demand any-time any-place run-of-the-mill charter operator...the only rest requirements take place before duty. This rest period must be free of all requirements to report for duty.

If you've been on call for 24 hours and have a responsibility to report for duty during that period, then you have not been at rest, and have not met the legal rest requirements should a trip arise.

In the same legal interpretation excerpted above, we read:

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.

Who gets to make the decision as to weather your act, even if nothing happens or no one gets hurt, is careless or reckless? Why, the FAA, of course. That's not up to you to decide, nor your employer. Accordingly, while the employer may think he's getting away with industry standard practice, the FAA always has the option of applying enforcement action from several angles to ensure the integrity of the regulation and it's appropriate application. 91.13 is the big "Gotcha" that's not often considered when contemplating what constitutes rest.

Generally no such enforcement action will take place unless something occurs to draw the FAA's attention, but never bank on "not getting caught."

 

[avbug]

121 regulations, while "clearer" in their specifics, add far too much complexity to operations conducted under 135...especially with the diversity that 135 encompasses.

I had a much more detailed reply before, but the system here required it to be chopped down to nothing, and for whatever reason wouldn't allow me to copy and save part of it as I used to be able to do. However, one last interpretation regarding rest, may be of interest. I've had the question arise on numerous occasions regarding what one can do in one's time off, outside of direct availability for the employer, or rest specific for that employer...this addresses some theoreticals, and a final warning. The date is August 30, 1993:

Your primary employer gives you the required rest between duty days, and you want to know if you can fly for yourself or for someone else without interrupting the rest period.

You ask about the following specific situations:

1. Does flying your own plane during this rest period interrupt it?

Answer. No.

2. Does flying for a corporate flight department during this rest period interrupt it?

Answer. No, as long as the corporation is not associated with your primary employer.

3. Does giving flight instruction during this rest period interrupt it?

Answer. No, as long as the flight instruction is not for, or associated with your primary employer.

4. Does flying for another Part 135 certificate holder during this rest period interrupt it?

Answer. No.

We call your attention to section 91.13 (a) that provides as follows:

No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Both the flight crewmember and certificate holder would be in violation of section 91.13 (a) if a flight crewmember flies when his lack of rest would endanger others. Furthermore, the flight crewmember need not actually endanger others for a violation of section 91.13 (a) to occur. A violation exists if the flight crewmember's fatigue subjects life or property to potential endangerment. If a flight crewmember is so fatigued that he believes he is incapable of safely operating an aircraft, he should immediately inform his employer.

 

[mike1mc]

The Aviation rulemaking Committee (ARC) has been meeting for the past couple of years working on a LOT of issues. One of the issues is rewriting the 135 Duty/Rest regs whcih was cut from the agenda during th 91K/135 changes. I know some of the proposed reg changes, but there will be a few sessions at NBAA this week that will discuss things further. I'll try to post what I can find.

 

[mike1mc]

The Aviation rulemaking Committee (ARC) has been meeting for the past couple of years working on a LOT of issues. One of the issues is rewriting the 135 Duty/Rest regs whcih was cut from the agenda during th 91K/135 changes. I know some of the proposed reg changes, but there will be a few sessions at NBAA this week that will discuss things further. I'll try to post what I can find. One

 

[mike1mc]

The Aviation rulemaking Committee (ARC) has been meeting for the past couple of years working on a LOT of issues. One of the issues is rewriting the 135 Duty/Rest regs whcih was cut from the agenda during th 91K/135 changes. I know some of the proposed reg changes, but there will be a few sessions at NBAA this week that will discuss things further. I'll try to post what I can find. One thing I have heard is that the FAA

 

[mike1mc]

The Aviation rulemaking Committee (ARC) has been meeting for the past couple of years working on a LOT of issues. One of the issues is rewriting the 135 Duty/Rest regs whcih was cut from the agenda during th 91K/135 changes. I know some of the proposed reg changes, but there will be a few sessions at NBAA this week that will discuss things further. I'll try to post what I can find. One thing I have heard is that the

 

[mike1mc]

I know of some of the proposed changes but will post them after this week. There will be a few sessions at NBAA this week on the reg changes from the Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) and Flight/Duty regs is one of the issues.

 

[rightseatguy]

Avbug-
Can you provide a link to the source for the chief counsel interpretation dated August 30, 1993? I'm having a disagreement with my poi, and want to be able to reference a source. He insists that unless the pilot believes he will complete the trip within the 14 hour timeline at the time of departure before the last leg, he has to overnight. Put another way, he's saying that the only acceptable "circumstances beyond the control of the crew" that would allow you to exceed 14 hours duty are weather deviations or atc delays on the final leg only; if you know prior to beginning that final leg that you will exceed 14 hours (regardless of what originally caused the delay), you cannot depart.
Thanks

 

[guitarflyer]

Such a regulation, especially one that requires you to be in bed (can you imagine enforcement of such ridiculousness?), would make the FAA a laughingstock.
.

Since when does that stop them

 

[avbug]

Since when does that stop them?

Touche'.


Rightseat, the legal interp in it's entirety follows. I don't have a link; this comes from my own disc. You can get one from ASA; it's the Summit Publications Pro Flight Library, and runs about eighty bucks. Same disc the FAA uses, incidentally.

I've broken the interpretation into two posts, because the system won't let the entire thing be published in one post, due to length:

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.

 

[avbug]

Continuing...

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

 

[avbug]

Rightseatguy,

Generally speaking, your POI is correct. I wouldn't do much to argue with him or get on his bad side. Your ability to remain employed and effective in your job is largely dependent upon what amount of rope he gives you, and your employer. Remaining on good terms with your POI should alway be a priority.

Depending on what type of operation you have and the circumstances, your POI is very likely correct...the opportunity to exceed your duty, implied or specifically stated, will very much depend on the circumstance and the regulations under which you are operating...the opportunities are narrow.

You're far better to make every effort to complete your mission in less than 14 hours, and if you can't, or if you continue flying under Part 91 (ferry, empty reposition legs, etc), be sure to document that on your flight logs or whatever paperwork your company uses to record the daily flight operations. Note the time that your duty ended, and the nature of what went on afterward. It means less explaining to do if going "over" the time raises an eyebrow, and it can help save you a lot of grief.

 

[Wankel7]

It would be crazy if there was no more...at rest on calls....

I envsion less flying and more drinking....