Could this be legal under 135

[Flywrite]

they are BREAKING THE LAW. That's how...

​

That what I thought...

 

[gunfyter]

That what I thought...

yep... If standby and reserve could count as 135 rest.... Why did 50 charter companies sue the FAA (on this very issue) in Federal Court (and LOSE)?

Why are POI s and FSDO s looking the other way? that is the question.

 

[luvu]

I liked the very last part of the ruling

"we think that a refusal to tell Aviators in advance whether the scenario constitutes "rest" would itself require a lot of explaining."

The judges are telegraphing that if the FAA doesn't clarify its position on "duty to be available" position to the satisfaction of AVIATORS then the judges will be inclined in the future to rule that the FAA had abused its discretion.

The reason that AVIATORS didn't pursue clarification was because it would have only applied to PART 135 operators and it would have been clarification that eliminated all the supposed "grey" areas that they were accustomed to scaming.

Any clarification would have hurt them and would not have applied at all to Fractional operators under the previous part 91 rules.

Now most players are using part 135 for Passenger operations and nobody but exhausted pilots and their organizing committees has any motive to fight for either clarification or enforcement.

Professional pilots are getting organized and saying NO. It is not a lifestyle worth having, it is abusive, it is illegal, and ultimately it compromises safety.

Thanks for that link, Gunfyter, that was very helpful to discussion and it isn't one that is easy to find.

 

[gunfyter]

luvu,

You catch on fast. Very insightful analysis.

I like to compare the situation we have with Rest and Safety to the situation we had prior to 911 with SECURITY.

Government agencies ignored security concerns because the Industry (NATA) did not like it because it cost money and makes airline travel a hassle.

 

[gunfyter]

Part 135 rulemaking group tends to the tough issues

by John A. Pope

At present, the most that can be said about the FAA’s intention to have an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) assist in rewriting FAR Parts 135 and 125 is that it is a work in progress.

The first ARC was formed several years ago and dealt with developing FARs that would apply to fractional jet operations. After lengthy deliberations, the new FAR–Part 91 Subpart K–was promulgated and instituted.

The requirement for the current ARC was published in the Feb. 3, 2003, Federal Register for a comprehensive regulatory review of 14 CFR Parts 135 (which governs commuter and on-demand operations) and 125 (which governs the operation of airplanes that carry 20 or more passengers or have a payload of 6,000 pounds or more). The stated purpose of the ARC was to review and provide advice and recommendations to resolve current issues affecting this part of the industry, including:

• Enable new aircraft types and new technologies in air-transportation operations.

• Provide safety and applicability standards that reflect the current industry, industry trends and emerging technologies and operations.

• Address international harmonization and ICAO standards.

• Potentially rescind Part 125 from 14 CFR.

...

As dictated by the FAA, the ARC would be composed of members selected by the FAA representing aviation associations, industry operators, manufacturers, employee groups or unions, FAA and other government entities, and other aviation industry participants.

GAMA’s Bolen Chairs the ARC
The ARC was subsequently formed with Ed Bolen of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) as the chairman, and it has been meeting with some regularity. For the more obvious reason that any issue would be subject to change or modification before the final report, not much information as to specific issues has been leaked out. However, some participants have indicated that less contentious items have been resolved and draft language has been prepared, but that a number of difficult issues involving differences of opinion remain open. The next ARC meeting will be a four-day session this month that will probably be focused on changes to Part 125, something that the FAA wants to see tightened with more stringent safety requirements. The ARC expects to submit its recommendations to the FAA in November.

The National Air Transportation Association (NATA), which speaks for a large number of Part 135 on-demand operators, is represented on the ARC and is generally optimistic about the project since many of the current regulations are outdated, confusing and no longer necessary. NATA expects that the introduction of very light jets (such as the Eclipse 500 and Citation Mustang), large airships and other new technologies might change the industry, and suggests that any new regulations be able to accommodate all the newest advances.

NATA also seeks to ensure that the new regulations do not place undue regulatory or financial burdens on smaller Part 135 operators. The association’s specific concern is with the revision of on-demand flight, duty and rest regulations, and managing crew fatigue. NATA members participating on the ARC and members of its Air Charter Committee have been providing input to ensure that any changes have minimal impact.

On the other hand, NBAA is concerned about proposals to expand FAR 91.501(f) to include Part 125 airplanes and that any safety standards would apply only to those aircraft.

Some NBAA member companies set up an affiliate company whose sole purpose is to operate the company aircraft. The FAA’s view is that these operations are commercial and fall under Part 135; NBAA’s position is that these companies should be allowed to operate their aircraft under Part 91.

‘Job Well Done’
ARC participants laud the FAA’s Kathy Perfetti for a job well done, not only for keeping the committee focused on the task but in supporting the process and providing the necessary resources to accomplish the stated objectives.

Looking ahead as to when the FAA will issue the revised FARs takes gazing intently into one or more crystal balls. Assuming the ARC completes its work on time and submits its recommendations to the FAA would be a good bet. However, the ARC report will have to work its way through the various FAA offices for legality, clarity and coordination with their various divisions.

Having done that, the FAA would then have to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register and request comments from interested parties. Those comments would have to be evaluated, with the possibility that some changes to the original proposal could be made.

This route can be time consuming and, basing a guess on the time it took for the fractional ARC recommendations to become FARs, the crystal ball comes up with 2006 or later. Holding one’s breath while this process negotiates its tortuous trail would not be recommended.

 

[Dep676]

Wrong, if you were breifed for a 14 hour rest, under 135, you are under no obligation to pick up the phone. Even being under the obligation to pick up the phone is considered duty. So, by the memo you got, it looks to me like you cant do any 135 flights from 14 hours past your 10 hours of rest. Get it? Cause you being obliged to take calls or answer your blackberry starts you 135 clock.

Got ya. I didn't see where someone was in a 14 hour rest period. I do agree with you though. I wasn't saying that I didn't agree with the orginal question.

 

[minimums]

How does NetJets treat rest periods? Are you required to answer the phone after 10 hours or once released, not obligated to the company until your next show time for duty (even if it is 15 hours)?

 

[gunfyter]

Not obligated till briefed end of rest... even if its 15 hours. If I have to answer the phone it aint rest...

We are in rest or we are on duty.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

Not obligated till briefed end of rest... even if its 15 hours. If I have to answer the phone it aint rest...

We are in rest or we are on duty.

I've been listening to all of this and been trying to apply some logic: If you get off duty and there are no other flights on the horizon for you, when do you turn your phone on? In this scenerio, the pilot has no obligation to turn his phone on and the operator has no way of telling him to go on duty and turn on that phone. From what I'm seeing here, the operator would always have to advise the pilot of his next duty start while he is still on duty - even if they have no idea of when the next flight would be. Anyone see the movie Catch 22?

Ace

 

[gunfyter]

Ace you got it right.

They have to tell you your showtime on the last day you work... I already have my showtime for Sunday and I have had it since last friday. 9 days ahead of time since I have had some time off.

 

[Ace-of-the-Base]

Ace you got it right.

They have to tell you your showtime on the last day you work... I already have my showtime for Sunday and I have had it since last friday. 9 days ahead of time since I have had some time off.

Boy that would be great for the on-demand 135 pilots. Might actually give them a schedule. The only question I have is what happens to us poor 91 guys?

Ace

 

[FracCapt]

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.

The real problem here is that the POI approved this. Management has him in their back pocket, and he does what they want. Whether or not this BS from the POI will hold up in court or not.....who knows? We have no input or control over this without a Union.

 

[FracCapt]

Not obligated till briefed end of rest... even if its 15 hours. If I have to answer the phone it aint rest...

We are in rest or we are on duty.

That's the way it was at Options.....for about 2-3 weeks, anyways. Then it was changed to the current policy listed in the initial post on this thread. If I'm called before I'm scheduled to go on duty, I know I can always play the fatigue card if they call me at oh-dark-thirty to go fly.

If we are briefed to go on duty at, say, 1500Z....we go on duty at 1500Z, even if they call us at 1458Z and say they don't need us on duty until much later. Unless they give us another 10 hours of rest from that point of notification, it doesn't make a difference. I hope that most of our pilots understand it this way, too.

 

[gunfyter]

Boy that would be great for the on-demand 135 pilots. Might actually give them a schedule. The only question I have is what happens to us poor 91 guys?

Ace

Thats why you guys collect the BIG BUCKS

 

[gunfyter]

That's the way it was at Options.....for about 2-3 weeks, anyways. Then it was changed to the current policy listed in the initial post on this thread. .

If you really want to know whats legal...

Federal Aviation Administration​

Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-1​

800 Independence Avenue​

Washington, DC 20591​

ONLY the CHIEF COUNSEL or the ADMINISTRATOR can make legal interpretations of the Regs.​

Your POI can NOT.

Direct your question in writing to the ONLY source that matters.