Far 135.263 and .267 unscheduled

[ultrarunner]

Thank you charter dog a nice touch of reality. It can be abused by companies, but you are allowed to go over 14 hrs duty in 135 ops if it is not planned.

So, an "unplanned delay" say, for 8 hrs has occured, and you have a 2 hr flight after the end of this "delay".

You can depart? And basically been 'on-duty' for 24 hrs since you had 10 hrs rest before beginning the duty period?

 

[pilotyip]

Happiness?

Ultra I think an 8 hour delay might be streching it. What point are you trying to make? Have you worked in the 135 on-demand? Are you happy now? I have heard of 135 guys taking a 10 hour delay and calling it rest, because they are paid by the mile. They were legal, but were they rested. BTW we pay by the hour, not the mile, so is was not our outfit.

 

[AngelKing]

Ultra I think an 8 hour delay might be streching it. What point are you trying to make? Have you worked in the 135 on-demand? Are you happy now? I have heard of 135 guys taking a 10 hour delay and calling it rest, because they are paid by the mile. They were legal, but were they rested. BTW we pay by the hour, not the mile, so is was not our outfit.

I agree, 8 hours is stretching it a bit much. It is not really clearly defined how much it can be stretched. That is where common sense has to come in. That is also why we have lawyers. If all laws/regs were cut and dried, there would be no need for them.........hmmmm.


AK

 

[ultrarunner]

I agree, 8 hours is stretching it a bit much. It is not really clearly defined how much it can be stretched. That is where common sense has to come in. That is also why we have lawyers. If all laws/regs were cut and dried, there would be no need for them.........hmmmm.


AK

Yes Pilot, I have done 135 OD, and traded it for this specific reason, among others also. And yes I'm happy.

But again, you guys are saying that "oh..no 8 hr delay would be a stretch..."

Who says????? No one. That's my point. There is no protection. In the eyes of the FAA, if a 1 hr "delay beyond the control...." is legal, so then is a 9 hr delay. Right? I can't find the FAA's reference to the common sense comment by AK.

Hence, in theory, a 135 OD slave could in fact be on duty for 24 hrs.

THIS is why the 135 duty regs with get a re-write to align with 121. And that's ok.

 

[gunfyter]

http://www.ainonline.com/issues/04_01/Apr_2001_faanewdutypg1.htmlFAA to enforce new duty time interpretation

by Gregory Polek

The Regional Airline Association has alerted its Part 121 members that the FAA will affirm in a policy statement its November 20 “clarification” of the pilot duty-time rule that requires a rest period of at least eight hours for each 24-hr period and a maximum of eight flight hours between required rest periods. The new interpretation of the rule, at press time under review by the DOT and scheduled to appear in the Federal Register early this month, removes ground delays from the generally accepted list of uncontrollable circumstances that allow pilots to exceed their duty limits.

The FAA will require all Part 121 carriers to comply within six months of the policy statement’s publication date. The Air Transport Association has filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in an attempt to reverse the FAA’s new interpretation of the rule.

According to the RAA, the policy statement will, in essence, establish a strict 16-hr duty limit, regardless of circumstances beyond the control of the carrier. Currently, the rule allows pilots to exceed their scheduled duty limits if circumstances such as adverse weather conditions and traffic cause a delay. Under the FAA’s “clarification,” an airline will have to adjust its crew schedules to reflect those changing conditions. Similarly, if a ground delay occurs while the pilot waits in line to take off, he or she must return to the gate if the delay will result in a duty-time violation. Only after the airplane leaves the ground can unforeseen circumstances allow a crewmember to exceed scheduled duty times.

 

[gunfyter]

In the FAA interpretation that the Court of Appeals has just held valid, FAA Deputy Chief Counsel James Whitlow wrote, "If, when using the actual expected flight time [for a segment], the carrier cannot find at least 8 hours of look-back rest upon arrival, then the flight may not depart [on that segment]."

With regard to delays, the interpretation states, "If, when this information is factored in, it is known or should be known that arrival based upon the actual expected flight time will not result in at least 8 hours of look-back rest, then the flight may not leave the gate. If the flight is away from the gate, but not yet in the air, then the flight may not take off." The ruling therefore requires pilots and airlines to continuously monitor delays, particularly during lengthy duty periods, to ensure that a flight will not violate the rest requirements under the FAA regulations.


AK says:

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

AK



​

You were saying AK?

 

[pilotyip]

121 rules

Gunfyter, are you confusing 121 regs with 135 regs? BTW ultra, 121 supplemental rules are among the most demanding regs on a flight crew. The reg lets you take duty breaks. Company says there is going to be a 4 hr cargo delay, so go to the hotel we will take you off duty for three hours, then we can still keep you on a 16 hr duty day, which will really be 19 hrs since you checked in. 100% legal. Then there is the lovely drop and add, where you never really get legal, because you will not exceed 8-hr flight time in a 24 hour period. You fly 6.5 hours, so you need 13 hours for duty free for legal rest, but you only get 11 so it is only a duty break. You start dropping time from the night before at 2230, so you can take off at 2135 and start flying because as you build time you are dropping time from 24 hours ago. We went like that for two days in the awesome L-188 flying out of the Emery Dayton Hub. I did that under an ALPA contract at TransAmerica. 121 crew rest rules would be the idea replacement for 135 if the changes approach Part 91 subpart K

 

[gunfyter]

I am not confusing them. I am just showing what FAA thinks of delays. They will say the same thing if you are 135.

Just because I can't find a quote from the Chief Counsel... you rotate to do the trip at your own risk.


The book THE FARS EXPLAINED by Jeppessen has examples Court Cases of Pilots VIOLATED for exceeding Part 135 Duty limits... due to ground delays.

Get a copy.

We are not far away from a rewrite of 135 with all new and different Duty/Rest rules. 135 managements are at the ARC trying to influence the outcome in their favor... because they KNOW that FAA interprets the current rules as i have said... and they don't like it.

 

[AngelKing]

I am not confusing them. I am just showing what FAA thinks of delays. They will say the same thing if you are 135.

Just because I can't find a quote from the Chief Counsel... you rotate to do the trip at your own risk.


The book THE FARS EXPLAINED by Jeppessen has examples Court Cases of Pilots VIOLATED for exceeding Part 135 Duty limits... due to ground delays.

Get a copy.

We are not far away from a rewrite of 135 with all new and different Duty/Rest rules. 135 managements are at the ARC trying to influence the outcome in their favor... because they KNOW that FAA interprets the current rules as i have said... and they don't like it.

Gunfyter, I would love to see an example of a 135 violation of a pilot who started out on a trip that was going to be legal and for circumstances beyond the control of the operator was delayed and the pilot was violated for it.

Cough it up and shut us all up.


AK

 

[gunfyter]

http://www.finkelaviationlaw.com/art7.html

Weather, ATC and mechanical delays often compromise rest requirements. To these, an FAA attorney has given this interpretation:

"The FAA has consistently interpreted delays due to weather, ATC, and mechanical delays as examples of circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder under FAR 135.263(d). A correct interpretation of the flight time limitations under FAR 135.265, together with the flexibility of FAR 135.263(d), results in a requirement to add a flight crewmember's actual flight time accumulated in the previous days to the flight time scheduled to be flown for the particular day that is under review. If the total flight time, actual plus scheduled, is not in excess of the limitations under FAR 135.265, then the flight crewmember may complete all flight segments for that day."​

However, as a caveat, the interpretation makes clear the FAA's ultimate position:

"Lastly, we point out that in the course of a day's scheduled events, delays due to adverse weather conditions, ATC, or unscheduled maintenance, may cause a flight crewmember to become significantly fatigued. If the state of fatigue would endanger or potentially endanger the life or property of other persons, then the certificate holder should relieve the flight crewmember from further duty aloft. In this respect, note the provisions of FAR 91.13 entitled 'Careless or Reckless Operation.'"​

If the FAA believes careless or reckless operation was involved, certificate action will probably occur. Otherwise, rest period violations often involve civil penalties, where the losing pilot ends up with a hefty fine. One such case resulted in a $10,000 civil penalty assessed against a charter operator, and $2,000 each against the two Lear Jet pilots. The pilots were held to have had less than the required 10 consecutive hours of required rest. They argued that delay of delivery of freight to an airport constituted a circumstance beyond their control. But the Administrative Law Judge was quick to point out that the pilots were aware when they accepted the assignment that the freight would be late in delivery.

The lesson to be learned from this decision is that pilots must formulate a planned completion time. They must make certain in advance that duty times will not be excessive, and rest periods complied with. ...

Part 121 and 135 operators and pilots must be thoroughly aware of duty/rest period requirements. Inspectors and attorneys are under considerable pressure to police the industry. One aftermath of the ValueJet crash into the Florida Everglades was increased scrutiny into commercial operations. The public demands that the FAA make certain commercial operators are safe. That means inspectors will be paying more and more attention to records. As long as operators and pilots follow the rules and make certain their record keeping is precise, the flying public can feel more secure about their safety, and pilots more secure about their future.
§ 121.471 Flight time limitations and rest requirements: All flight crewmembers.

 

[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