Anyone familiar with new rest regs for 135?

[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....