Far 135.263 and .267 unscheduled

[AngelKing]

Maybe you didn't read you own post. It said the "pilots accepted the assignment knowing the freight would be late". That is a big difference than accepting an assignment that you planned in the beginning to run on time.

Keep trying.:beer:

AK

 

[gunfyter]

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/01-1027a.txt

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued January 18, 2002 Decided May 31, 2002
No. 01-1027
Air Transport Association of America, Inc.,
Petitioner
v.
Federal Aviation Administration,
Respondent
Air Line Pilots Association, International, et al.,
Intervenors
No. 01-1303
Air Transport Association of America,
Petitioner
v.
Federal Aviation Administration,
Respondent
No. 01-1306
Regional Airline Association,
Petitioner
v.
Federal Aviation Administration,
Respondent​

1 The flight time limitation rules applicable to "major scheduled
air carriers" and "other airlines operating large transport category
airplanes" are contained in Part 121 of the FAR. The flight time
limitation rules applicable to scheduled air carriers operating air-
planes of 30 or fewer seats and air taxi operations are contained in
Part 135 of the FAR. The substance of the rules in Parts 121 and
135 is essentially the same and the rules are likewise interpreted.

...zip...

("If a flight crewmember does not receive the
required number of hours of rest, the operator and the flight
crewmember are in violation of the regulation").

...zip...

5 If the flight is away from the gate but not yet in the air, the
flight may not take off. As a matter of enforcement policy, the
FAA will not charge a violation of the rest requirements if a delay
that first becomes known after the flight is in the air disrupts the
scheduled flight time, provided the required minimum reduced rest
and the compensatory rest occur at the completion of that flight
segment.

 

[AngelKing]

You still haven't shown one case that a pilot was violated for flight/duty time limitations when the flight was planned to be completed on-time and there was no accident.

Oh, I wish you luck , then we would have some ammunition to use.


AK

 

[gunfyter]

Further:

ATA contends that the Whitlow Letter, by requiring
the recalculation of a previously computed rest period, is
inconsistent with both the text and the purpose of FAR
121.471. ATA maintains that the phrase "scheduled comple-
tion of any flight segment" in subsection (b) means that
compliance with FAR 121.471 turns solely on the legality of
the originally established flight schedule irrespective of any
unexpected flight delay that may require re-scheduling. See
ATA Blue Br. at 25. The phrase, ATA asserts, cannot be
squared with the Whitlow Letter, which requires scheduled
flight time to take into account "actual expected flight time."
See Whitlow Letter at 4.


​

The ATA is arguing against FAA the basic "Good to start... good to finish" rhetoric that AK and PilotYip argue.

But the FAA and the Courts disagree.

The FAA responds that the phrase "scheduled completion
of any flight segment" can reasonably be understood to
include a re-scheduled flight time based on actual flight
conditions. To be sure, "scheduled completion" can be con-
strued narrowly to refer only to the originally scheduled
flight completion time. The point, however, is that the FAA's
more expansive interpretation is not unreasonable. A re-
scheduled completion of a flight segment based on flight
conditions existing in fact is nonetheless a "scheduled" com-
pletion. Nothing in the text of FAR 121.471 or in the
ordinary usage of the word "scheduled"8 dictates that the
timetable of a particular flight segment can be determined
only when the schedule is originally created regardless of
adjustments made necessary by then-current conditions.



More significantly, in Interpretation 1998-7, the
FAA declared that both the carrier and its crewmembers
would violate FAR 121.471 if they knew "prior to departure"
that due to a ground hold for weather the "scheduled arrival
time of the last flight segment would force the crew to begin
its compensatory rest period later than 24 hours after the
commencement of the reduced rest period." Interpretation
1998-7. The FAA's conclusion was based on the "actual
expected arrival time" calculated prior to departure and is
therefore consistent with its approach in the Whitlow Letter


​

 

[AngelKing]

You keep referring to part 121. This is not 121. You still haven't shown a case of a pilot being violated under the conditions I stated earlier.

AK

 

[gunfyter]

You keep referring to part 121. This is not 121. You still haven't shown a case of a pilot being violated under the conditions I stated earlier.

AK

The flight time
limitation rules applicable to scheduled air carriers operating air-
planes of 30 or fewer seats and air taxi operations are contained in
Part 135 of the FAR. The substance of the rules in Parts 121 and
135 is essentially the same and the rules are likewise interpreted.


​

If you look at the court case... 135 carriers were also Plaintiffs against the FAA.

You are skating on thin ice wth your opinion and 135 operators have been getting away with murder because the POIs have not been enforcing the regs.

I don't want to repost the whole case. The exact same "unexpected delay" arguments made by the 121 companies are what you are hanging your hat on... FAA and the court decided against those arguments. And as you can see by the above quote... the same interpretaion applies to 121 and 135.

"...For the foregoing reasons, the consolidated petitions for
review are denied.

So ordered."
​

 

[AngelKing]

The flight time
limitation rules applicable to scheduled air carriers operating air-
planes of 30 or fewer seats and air taxi operations are contained in
Part 135 of the FAR. The substance of the rules in Parts 121 and
135 is essentially the same and the rules are likewise interpreted.


​

If you look at the court case... 135 carriers were also Plaintiffs against the FAA.

You are skating on thin ice wth your opinion and 135 operators have been getting away with murder because the POIs have not been enforcing the regs.

They haven't been enforcing it becuse it is so vague. You seem to miss our point here. That is the problem, it is vague. It allows operators to exploit it. Noone is saying it is smart or safe to fly beyond the flight/duty req. Its not, but under certain conditions, it is legal. Hopefully, with the new regs coming out, the problem will be solved. But, there will always be room for someone to interpret it differently.

AK

 

[gunfyter]

Angel,

I work for I would guess THE largest nonscheduled operator in the world.

The only reason our FSDO enforces the rules is because our union petitioned the FAA chief counsel. We KNOW the rules and so does the company and the FSDO.

You are right... unless you dent the airplane or hurt somebody... right now you will not likely see a violation.

But dent an airplane they will look back to see how much rest you had in the last 24 hrs.

 

[AngelKing]

Angel,

I work for I would guess THE largest nonscheduled operator in the world.

The only reason our FSDO enforces the rules is because our union petitioned the FAA chief counsel. We KNOW the rules and so does the company and the FSDO.

You are right... unless you dent the airplane or hurt somebody... right now you will not likely see a violation.

But dent an airplane they will look back to see how much rest you had in the last 24 hrs.

:beer:

AK

 

[pilotyip]

Threat hi jack alert

Aren't we supposed to be talking about 135.263 and 267, Unscheduled operations. 267 has nothing to do with scheduled passenger.

 

[AngelKing]

Aren't we supposed to be talking about 135.263 and 267, Unscheduled operations. 267 has nothing to do with scheduled passenger.

uuhh....I don't know....I lost track a long time ago.


AK

 

[gunfyter]

Aren't we supposed to be talking about 135.263 and 267, Unscheduled operations. 267 has nothing to do with scheduled passenger.

What the FAA thinks about DELAYS has everything to do with DELAYS.

And the court said interpretations regarding duty and rest apply to 121 and 135 equally.

The reason you can't find many quotes on the web on 135 nonsched cases is this.

The cases you find on the web are posted because lawsuits were filed after Pilots were FIRED by the air carrier when the pilot refused to exceed the duty limits. Only the pilots represented by large unions had the resources to Fight the management that fired them... the managements lost had to re-instate the pilots.

Then the companies filed lawsuits against the FAA... and the courts decided in favor of the FAA and the previously terminated pilots.

In general there are few nosched operations with large pilot groups represented by unions.... therefore the terminated pilots never file lawsuits.. and the decisions are never posted.



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.

 

[pilotyip]

gunfyler; with all of your aviation legal knowledge, please post one these examples to educate those of us who need to be educated, I think a couple others may have requested the same thing. Didn't charterdog post an option that say unplanned delays were acceptable for going over 14 hrs . I only know what I rtead.

 

[gunfyter]

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

See the above case where 50, 135 charter companies sue the FAA and lose. The 135 managements were wrong about Rest Requirements....

This is not a case involving delays. But it shows that MANY non-sched flights are operated without meeting the FAA's interpretation of a legal crew rest.

YIP,

The case I know where crews were violated on exceeding duty are contained in Jepessen's THE FARS EXPLAINED. I am not going to retype it for you and there is no link I can find.

 

[pilotyip]

Interesting what did it say? I though at the end they dismissed it.

 

[gunfyter]

Interesting what did it say? I though at the end they dismissed it.

Whats the difference? You know they are not enforcing it....

And the 135 ARC is changing all the rules soon we'll have to learn new rules.

 

[livin'thesim]

There appears to have been a different standard applied to the otherwise similar language in 121 and 135, especially the scheduled 135.

I hope that the NPRM will tighten 135 up to match 121, but I am certain that tricky 135 operators might find a way around it.

Try this on for size for getting around the 'contactibility' issue:
Suppose that the operator tells pilots that theydont have to answer the phone, therefore they are not on duty. Hwever if you dont answer the phone, you get passed over for good trips or some other type of difficult to prove retaliation. How can this be prevented? Airlines have to meet a higher standard of accountability, and they usually have unions that would grieve such abuses, but I am afraid that there will never be a satisfactory means to ensure that operators follow the intent of the rule.

 

[livin'thesim]

Does anyone know when the new rule is likely to be issued?

 

[gunfyter]

I don't know when. But one proposal is a PROTECTED TIME... Where you do not have to answer the phone and you MAY NOT operate an arcraft even if you did answer the phone.

if you are out and late pax would cause you to be operating the plane during the protected time... you may not take that trip. Gotta be in rest.

 

[AngelKing]

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

See the above case where 50, 135 charter companies sue the FAA and lose. The 135 managements were wrong about Rest Requirements....

This is not a case involving delays. But it shows that MANY non-sched flights are operated without meeting the FAA's interpretation of a legal crew rest.

YIP,

The case I know where crews were violated on exceeding duty are contained in Jepessen's THE FARS EXPLAINED. I am not going to retype it for you and there is no link I can find.

I would like to see the circumstances involved with the crews being violated for exceeding flight/duty. Will believe it when I see it. You keeeeeep posting about how the FAA feels about it, but you have not posted one single example of a violation with the caveats posted earlier.


AK