Far 135.263 and .267 unscheduled

[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