Could this be legal under 135

[slowtation capt]

CREW DUTY/REST POLICY

Dispatch may attempt to contact crewmembers once they have received minimum required rest (defined as at least 10 hours uninterrupted rest or extended rest as defined by SOP) after their last assigned duty period, but before their expected duty-on time.

When doing so, the following procedure will apply:

Dispatch will only initiate contact after the crewmembers have received at least the minimum required rest. Crewmembers will ensure they are available for contact after receiving the minimum required rest. After required rest, the crewmember will also ensure the hotel phone and the Blackberry is turned on and not silenced. The crewmember is expected to answer either if called. If called from 0001 to 0600 local by dispatch, for an earlier than originally assigned trip, the crewmember's duty begins at time of contact. For calls after 0600 local, duty will begin at the scheduled show time.

 

[Grizz]

The moment you start being responsible to answer a phone or pager AND if answered have a duty to report to go fly then it is no longer rest.

Also duty begins when it begins..not at some arbitrary time. Following the rules you listed WILL get you violated if the FAA checks.

 

[gunfyter]

Actually, if you must be contactable BUT can say NO to the earlier duty... then it is legal.

 

[Fozzy]

ACTUALLY, you are WRONG!

If you are available for contact, you are NOT in rest. Period. Rest or Duty. So after your min rest (10 hrs) in that example, you are on duty and the clock is ticking. But hey with no Union to go to bat you are screwed. Or maybe you can call the Feds, but I am glad I am not you.

Rest or Duty, don't let them sell you the BS.

 

[luvu]

Gunfyter-not correct

the law says nothing about EARLIER duty. If they call you, and you have to answer the phone, and they give you any assignment and you have to take that assignment then you were not at rest for that entire period that you had to answer the phone. Griz, is basically correct except that the "assignment" doesn't have to be a "flight assignment." It is any "work assignment."

It is not limited to an EARLIER assignment either. The commonsense application of this ruling is that there can be no requirement by the company to have you answer the phone and call that time anything other than standby, which is not rest.

To repeat, the judges have pointed out that "the assignment" or "work" we are talking about is NOT limited to flying for the purposes of "at rest" considerations.

If you are told you "MUST ANSWER THE PHONE" during a certain period of time, then that in and of itself is a "WORK" assignment even if it isn't Flight and therefore can NOT be considered at rest.

Byrne explained that even though this Standby time couldn't be counted as rest, it also wasn't necessary to lump it in with "flight assignment" for the purposes of the 24 hour look back provisions.

It is this ruling that created three distinct categories of REST(no obligations whatsoever to company), STANDBY (NOT rest but not duty subject to 24 hour look back provision), and DUTY (flight assignment subject to look back)

 

[gunfyter]

I am NOT wrong

http://www.law.emory.edu/1circuit/aug99/99-1888.01a.html

In the duty-to-report scenario, a crewmember who is nominally off duty has a responsibility during the period to leave a contact number, to be fit to fly, to take any telephone calls or other communications notifying him of a flight assignment, and to report for that assignment in a reasonable time (e.g., two hours). In the duty-to-be-available scenario, the same is true but the crewmember has the option to accept or decline a flight assignment that is offered during this off-duty period. It is easy to see why such arrangements would be attractive to an air taxi carrier.



Under either scenario, a call to the crewmember followed by an accepted assignment would (at some stage) terminate any "rest" that might otherwise be accruing. The crewmember, to be eligible for the assignment, would have to have met the "ten hours rest" quota based on "rest" that had already occurred. But the FAA's position in its notice as to the duty-to-report scenario (the duty-to-be-available scenario is a different issue) is that even if no call were made during this nominal off-duty period, none of the period would count as rest because the generic responsibility to leave a number, take calls, and report if assigned would negate "rest" for the entire period.


​

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

The moment you start being responsible to answer a phone or pager AND if answered have a duty to report to go fly then it is no longer rest.

Also duty begins when it begins..not at some arbitrary time. Following the rules you listed WILL get you violated if the FAA checks.

Grizz,

I've heard horor stories my whole career about pilots getting violated when busting a 135 reg. Have you ever heard of it actually happening to a specific pilot? In all of the reports that I have read, if the 135 company initiated the illegal operation, then they got the violation, if it was the pilot breaking a reg without being told to (or lead to), then he got the bust. I've worked with a lot of pilots over the past 35 years and have yet to hear a specific story of a pilot getting busted for something his company told him to do, which has lead me to believe that it is all just a fear thing. BTW, same thing with mechanics, alot of "you'll loose your licence" stories.

Thoughts?

Ace

 

[ProFracPilot]

While I certainly wouldn't bet MY certificate on it

I have been involved with 135 operations for 20 years, have been through RASIP and NASIP inspections, fought false allegations, and defended a few honest screw ups - both on the maintenance AND the flight operation side.

That said, I've NEVER seen the FAA take certificate action against a crewmember for a 135 infraction. If they busted a 91 reg, absolutely (can you say altitude bust??). The FAA takes the stance that if there was a deviation from a 135 regluation, it is most likely a SYSTEMIC problem, and the action is taken against the Air Carrier certificate holder.

My .02.

 

[luvu]

Gunfyter

"Under either scenario, a call to the crewmember followed by an accepted assignment would (at some stage) terminate any "rest" that might otherwise be accruing."


Okay, you have come out of ten hours rest and company wants you to start standing by the phone. This occurs at 7 Am. Shortly after 7 AM company calls and tells you that you don't have anything going on until 2pm but then you have near 14 hours schedule starting which puts you on duty until 4AM the next morning. You ACCEPT this assignment.

Having accepted the assignment you are no longer at REST. When you finish up at 4AM and look back 24 hours, you only find 3 hours of legal rest, and you could get busted.

This is how playing games with "duty to be available" rules runs afoul of the law.

There is REST, STANDBY, and DUTY (with look back previsions) and any blurring of the lines gets you in trouble. You can not count STANDBY as rest when you are looking back.

 

[gunfyter]

JEPPESSEN's THE FARS EXPLAINED has examples of crewmembers being violated for 135 infractions. Crew rest and flight time.

LUVU,

Right, you can't count standby as rest but while you are in REST you can agree to answer the phone. This is the duty to be available scenario. Its a scam but its how 135 operators get around this rest issue and the FAA is letting them.

Of course you can refuse the trip in this scenario but eventually you lose your job or do not get promoted. Or the compensation rules where you work make it highly unlikely you would pass up on a trip once you were "legal".