Far 135.263 and .267 unscheduled

[Makesheepnervus]

"However, the opinion also points out that prevention of flight crew fatigue is the joint responsibility of both the crew and operator. Both would be jointly liable for any violation of 91.13 which might arise if either the flight crew or operator knew, or should have known, that the crew was fatigued or lacked proper rest."

"Both would be jointly liable for any violation of 91.13"? Yeah, and you can bet who is going to be more "jointly liable" than the other.

Sorry, I don't care what legal precedent you wave in front of me, until they change the regs 14 hours is the limit. Period.

 

[FLIIFAST]

Where (web) would I go for FAR written interpitations?

 

[charter dog]

Yep, you got that right! The crew are always on the hook if anything goes wrong or any actions come under FAA scrutiny. At least I assume that to be so.

Sorry, I don't care what legal precedent you wave in front of me, until they change the regs 14 hours is the limit. Period.

I had the exact same reaction when it was waved in front of me. Now I have come to understand that the opinion of FAA legal council need have no effect on what I will do, only on how I will justify my decision to the company and to the customer. This opinion only ALLOWS duty time to be exceeded under the stipulated circumstances. It does not REQUIRE it. You may still refuse just the same way you would refuse to perform other actions which though apparently legal, are not in your opinion safe under the given circumstances. Just don't quote this regulation as your reason for refusal, since you may then have this legal opinion waved in your face. If you feel it is not safe, that is all the reason you need! Think 91.13.

You still may not accept a PLANNED duty period in excess of that (14 hours) which would result in finding ten consecutive hours of rest within the last 24 hours. (lookback) This happened to me recently when a new kid in the office demonstrated their unfamiliarity with this regulation by scheduling a trip in excess of the allowable duty period. Naturally, I'm the one who gets to tell the customer when I arrive to pick him up that he will have to arrive earlier from his meeting than he had been led to believe. He was very understanding toward us, but chewed the charter department's rear end good. Now in the eyes of charter management, I'm the bad guy! (for a day or two anyway) Oh well, that's charter!

Hey, at least the paychecks cash, the airplane credit cards work and nobody pays in cash!

Best,

 

[pilotyip]

Again charter dog demonstrates the big picture is about getting the job done, so the money keeps coming in, so the pilot keep getting paid. You are legally allowed to go over 14 hours for unplanned delays. Some days it is an easy thing to do. You were called out at 0700, you are suppose to be off at 1900, but the pax gets delayed, and you don't get back until 2300. You were in a hotel for 8 of your waiting hours. Who here would put their company’s relationship with the customer in jeopardy for a simple 1.5-hour’s flight back to home base? How there are other cases where at the end of 12 hours after 0100 launch, you call fatigue and go to bed. The regs allow it gives some flexibility and keeps the jobs moving.

 

[FlyingSkip]

Way to go, Yip! Some of these guys may give you grief with these "management" insults, but you have a decent idea that without happy pax/customers there IS NO 135 flying! Safety for the operation of the flight is the premier concern, not some relentless clock ticking away somewhere. The FARs demonstrate the rules we all live under, but common sense should ALWAYS win out! Your example of the "get them there in the AM, sit around in a hotel day room all day napping and watching TV, then showing up for a PM launch and being delayed" syndrome is perfect---are you any less safe in this example than you were for the AM flight after a quick shower, hurried drive to the airport and fast cup of coffee duirng the weather brief? Professionals operate within the regs to safely fly in a way that ensures their companies are successful---prima donnas use the regs to get out of things they don't want to do or look for ways NOT to fly a mission or make a customer happy. But they are the first ones to complain about how the companies aren't doing well enough to give them raises, etc.

Sorry, but I hate whiners. Most of us do, I guess. Those of you who aren't---sorry about the digression. Those of you who are---you know who you are.

 

[gunfyter]

. You are legally allowed to go over 14 hours for unplanned delays..

Unplanned delays are delays that happen before you rotate. If the pax are late... you have not taken off yet. You are now PLANNING to go over 14 hrs. This is not legal.

 

[charter dog]

Well... thanks Pilotyip... I think!

I responded to this thread only to demonstrate that the regs, as interpreted by FAA legal council, do in fact allow SOME flexibility to extend duties beyond the PLANNED period. If a crew believes that it is safe to exceed the planned duty day maximum due to circumstances beyond the control of themselves or the company, it is allowed under this interpretation. Getting the job done IS important for the reasons you state and more. However, conducting a SAFE operation that intends to comply with the spirit of the law is even MORE important. That is why it is important to note that the opinion of FAA legal council contains the proviso that the crew and operator are jointly responsible for assuring that crew fatigue does not become excessive so as to present a safety hazard. If it does, it would be considered careless or reckless operation. As Makesheepnervus has intimated, it is the crew who have the most to lose in this situation. Just as an aside, I know that he has paid his dues in a sketchy hard charter company that pushed the rules beyond limits right along side me. Fortunately for him, he now enjoys more reasonable working conditions in his present job. Not a whiner! Just in a better position to expect some reasonable standards.

I hope that what he, and anyone else reading this takes away from this discussion is simply that if this issue of extended duty due to unforeseen circumstances should happen to come up, that the crew will have to make that decision on their own judgement. Quoting 135.267(b) to defend the decision to call it off is not correct under the currently FAA interpreted meaning of the rule. Safety is the only defensible argument in these circumstances. If on the other hand, the trip is PLANNED in excess of the regulatory limits, this is an entirely different matter! Then quoting the rule is correct. I know this is a fine distinction, but that is the nature of regulations. If I ever found out that an operator was lying to me about the planned duty period in order to circumvent the rules, I would be most disappointed to say the least.

So just to be clear, I am all about getting the job done if it can be done safely and within the rules whether I like it or not. I have another pilot flying with me who must agree with my judgement. It is on me to put a stop to something that is not right whether anyone else agrees or not. It can be discussed later. SAFE and LEGAL are not always the same thing. This is the responsibility of the crew, and to a greater degree, the PIC to determine since they (and perhaps their pax) are the ones who must live with the decisions. I often wonder what the pax would think if they knew how close to the edge fatigue can take you. Pressure to produce, when coupled with fatigue can produce some monumental breakdowns in aeronautical judgement. This usually comes to light following accidents, incidents and violations along with myriad other factors. Fatigue and commercial pressure are still aviation's dirty little secrets in that the general public really has no idea how these factors affect their safety. My job is to balance all the competing and often contradictory interests to achieve a safe outcome every time while satisfying both my employers and their customers interests. All this without running afoul of the rules so that I might remain employable.

I do not approve of the practice of hiding behind rules to justify not doing something you just don't want to do. Nor do I believe that just because the rules may allow something to be done, that it is always necessary or prudent to do so. It all comes down to objective thinking and a desire to do the right thing. The above statement presupposes that the necessary skills, knowledge and proficiency allready exist within the individuals concerned. Since this is really not measurable to any degree of certainty, operators must apply some safety margins of their own beyond what the rules require. Bottom feeder companies tend to "forget" this in the name of the allmighty dollar with regularity! "Premium" companies are not exempt either. The company culture sets the tone, but the flightcrew has the last word in putting a stop to unsafe or illegal actions. A great many of us got our start in bottom feeder companies and then moved on to greener pastures. Only by raising our standards can we hope to raise the industry standards. So think about that when pilots "whine" about fatigue. It may not be simple griping.

Best,

 

[pilotyip]

Charter dog as posted above it is always about safety. There are situations where you can feel very safe in going over 14 hrs because of a delay and there are other times even going to 14 hrs is a stretch of a crew’s endurance. But to say a trip that was planned for less than 14 hrs hits a delay for any reason that it should be shut down automatically, is counter to good business practice when it can be done safely. The regs give you the option and crews can legally finish that trip. We run a clean operation inside the constraints of the on-demand business and our crews understand their limitations in getting the job done.

 

[charter dog]

Agreed Pilotyip.

The fact is, it takes many years of working within the industry to achieve a working knowledge of the regulations sufficient to interpret them accurately in day to day operations. This is why we must rely on senior airmen and continual self directed study to aid in this learning process. I have been fortunate enough to have some good CPs who could provide references to back up their interpretations and I have endeavored to emulate their good example. Just as I feel I finally understand the current flight and duty time regulations, they are on the verge of changing! I hope there are real improvements in the new regs when they take effect. From a business standpoint, a level playing field is probably the most important factor. From a pilot employee standpoint, the issue of what constitutes duty and rest could stand some improvement. Whatever the rules turn out to be, we will all have to know how to work within them. It will be an interesting transition to say the least!

Best,

 

[AngelKing]

Unplanned delays are delays that happen before you rotate. If the pax are late... you have not taken off yet. You are now PLANNING to go over 14 hrs. This is not legal.

Gunfyter, that is not how it works, give it up, you are stretching, doesn't even makes any sense.

AK