Flexjet info...

[LavMan]

Use 202 and you'll be close.

Don't count per diem as income but last year I did $8500.00 worth of per diem

Thanks.

 

[Fozzy]

Go pound sand.

Truth hurts.

 

[broken spoke]

Here's my .02

I think that Flex is a good place to work. Good equipment, good maint., and a great bunch of guys to fly wit. Perfect? Not. Union? Thank God no. But that is my opinion. New hires make about 40K. And you will fly. Sometimes a lot. (Isn't that why I became a pilot???) Anyway, right now, about two to three years in the right seat. We are continuing to grow. New aircraft coming. But, if your one of those pretty boys (or girls) that want to get paid to sit at home, yeah, I'd look somewhere else. I, for one, love it here. Best job that I've had in this industry. Believe it, or not.

 

[Club ORD FO]

ha...well I might have to disagree with that last statement... Not a lot of flying going on in the 60 it seems like. Lots of sitting on my butt the last few rotations. But I hear the challenger folks are flying a junkload.

 

[broken spoke]

Well, I flew well over 6500 miles my last 6 day rotation. I think we are busy enough. Granted, not as busy as the 40/45 guys and gals, but busy. But we're not complaining, are we?

 

[twincessna]

This is for Gunfyter.
The way it is wriiten in our FOM for the 91k stuff, and approved by out POI on the 135 side of things, if the day is planned for 1359 and we have a delay early in the day, since it was planned for less than 14 we can go over the 14 hours. We get extra rest on the tail end. I don't like it, but it is approved and in writting.

 

[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.
​

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 some managements 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





​

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.

 

[gunfyter]

This is for Gunfyter.
The way it is wriiten in our FOM for the 91k stuff, and approved by out POI on the 135 side of things, if the day is planned for 1359 and we have a delay early in the day, since it was planned for less than 14 we can go over the 14 hours. We get extra rest on the tail end. I don't like it, but it is approved and in writting.

Is your FOM FAA APPROVED? Or FAA ACCEPTED?

Accepted is not Approved. I think it just means you submitted it and we received it... I don't believe it guarantees compliance with the Regs.

 

[Just Peachy]

Hi,

I only have 2,200 hrs, but a good bit of lear jet time, and considering Flexjet int the future. I used to work at simuflite, and alot of the learjet instructors there were from flex and were very bitter about the company. Is this still the case with most of the pilots? Is it considerd to be a company you could spend your entire career with?

Is it considerd to be a company you could spend your entire career with?

NO... I spent 5 years there ( left with seniority # 17) and never looked back..... go to NJA, NJI or even CC if you can. The same people who were in charge back then are pretty much still in power now, and still making the same weasel decisions..........

The work hours are a typical example

 

[HazMat]

The Duty Time Debate continues

It is not possible to go more than 14 hours for any delay that is caused before you cross the hold short line for T/O on 135 or 91K flights....

Gunfyter, This continues to be a debate in this industry

For an On-Demand Operator a duty day that is reasonably scheduled for 14 hours can go beyond the 14 hours due to weather, maintenance, passenger or cargo delays so long as there has been no other adjustment to the schedule. When a duty day extends there is no provision written for additional rest requirements. Though there are no set regulations of how much time an operator can exceed 14 hours, most FSDO’s will only allow 16 hours tops.

This is supported by the following interpretation letter:

January 16, 1992
(no name given)

This is in response to your letter dated July 22, 1991, requesting an interpretation of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Sec. 135.267(d). Your letter was forwarded to us by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials in your region. We apologize for the delay in responding to you.

Your letter first states the following scenario:

Pilot reports to work at 0600. Aircraft departs at 0700 with passengers on a two hour flight to another city. The passengers have scheduled the return departure time for 1700 but they do not show up for the return flight until 1830. Since it is over a two hour flight back to the departure city the pilot will go over the maximum 14 hours duty time. If the passengers had been on time the aircraft would have been back at the departure city with a full hour to spare before the 14 hour maximum duty time.

Question

1. What is the pilot's responsibility when the passengers show up late and he knows that he can not get back to the departure point without exceeding the 14 hour duty day?

2. Assuming my understanding of FAR Sec. 135.267(d) is correct and that we relied on the scheduled return time of the passengers and my pilot flies back to the departure point and goes over the 14 hour duty day, what is our responsibility pertaining to rest that must be given to the pilot before he can fly again?

Answer

Paragraph (d) of FAR Sec. 135.267 provides as follows:

Each assignment under paragraph (b) of this section must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24 hour period that precedes the planned completion time of the assignment.

Section 135.267(d) does not contain an explicit limitation on duty time. This regulation provides limits on flight time rather than duty time. Thus, paragraph (d) of Sec. 135.267 cannot be construed as a hard and fast rule that 14 hours of duty time must never, under any circumstances, be exceeded.

The key to the applicability of Sec. 135.267(d) is in the final phrase "planned completion time of the assignment" (emphasis added). If the original planning is upset for reasons beyond the control of the crew and operator, the flight may nevertheless be conducted, though crew duty time may extend beyond the planned completion. This assumes, of course, that the original planning was realistic.

As to what circumstances are beyond the control of the operator and crew, the FAA has taken the position that delays caused by late passenger arrivals, maintenance difficulties, and adverse weather constitute circumstances beyond the certificate holder's control.

We would like to point out, however, that a flight crew may not depart if the crewmembers' state of fatigue would endanger others. Section 91.13(a) provides as follows: "No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another." Both the crew and the certificate holder would be in violation of Sec. 91.13(a) if crewmembers fly when their lack of rest would endanger others. Furthermore, the flight crew need not actually endanger others for a violation of Sec. 91.13(a) to occur - a violation exists if the crew's fatigue subjects life and property to potential endangerment.

Thus, in your first scenario, the pilot may fly the late returning passengers back to the original departure point without violating FAR Sec. 135.267(d). Upon completion of the flight, the pilot may not accept his next assignment unless he is first given 10 hours rest. As indicated above FAR Sec. 135.267(d) requires that the pilot be given 10 hours of rest during the 24 hour period preceding the planned completion of an assignment. The certificate holder, Commonwealth Jet Service in this case, must ensure that pilots receive their required rest period prior to scheduling their next flight.

Your second scenario states:

Pilot reports to work at 0600 and takes off at 0700, empty, to another city to pickup passengers at 0800 and fly a two hour flight to a third city. The passengers inform the pilot that they will not be ready to depart until 1730. The pilot determines that he can depart at 1730 and get to the airport that he picked up the passengers within the 14 hour duty day but will go over if he continues on for the extra hour to get him back to his home base.

Question
Since the FAA has previously determined that empty legs are considered to be conducted under FAR Part 91, does this pertain to duty time? Is the pilot allowed to fly back to his home base and exceed the 14 hour duty day since he has no passengers or freight on board?

Answer

Repositioning flights are governed by Part 91. The rule, however, applies to flight time limitations not duty time limitations. The rule with respect to flight time limitations is that any "other commercial flying" (e.g., flights conducted under Part 91) must be counted towards the daily flight time limitations of Part 135 if such flying precedes the flight conducted under Part 135. Such would be the case of the first leg of flight in your second scenario. In contrast, if the Part 91 flight occurs after the Part 135 flying, as would be the case in the last leg of your second scenario, the Part 91 flight is not counted against the daily flight time limitations of Part 135.

As to duty time limitations, once again, if the original planning is upset for reasons beyond the control of the crew and operator, such as in your second scenario, the flight may nevertheless be conducted. As we pointed out there is no 14 hour duty time limitation. This assumes that the original planning was realistic and the crewmember's lack of rest would not endanger others.

This interpretation was prepared by Francis C. Heil, Attorney, Operations Law Branch; Richard C. Beitel, Manager. I hope this information satisfies your request.

Sincerely,

Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division


While this letter is older than the lawsuit, it has been used in discussions with many FSDO's and accepted as evidence that the practice is acceptable. The utilization of this rule must be balanced with the Safety factor where fatigue overides (91.13) and takes precedence.

But the debate continues with the FAA and they have publicly asked for help on this topic

AIN published this in the recent past:

Unrest Persists over Flight Time and Rest Rules
The FAA has been working for years to revise Part 121 and 135 flight time, duty and rest rules, but it’s still not close to issuing new proposals or final rules. Meanwhile, confusion persists over interpretation of certain aspects of the rules that pertain to Part 135 on-demand operations. Recently, the agency received several requests for an interpretation of FAR 135.263(d) and 135.267(b), (d) and (e). Before issuing its interpretation, the FAA wants to receive public comments on the requestors’ questions, namely whether late-arriving passengers can be considered an “unforeseen circumstance or circumstance beyond the certificate holder’s or crewmember’s control” and whether the rest period under FAR 135.267(d) must be received in a timely manner. Based on comments received, the FAA will decide whether to restate prior interpretations or issue new ones. The agency also plans to reconsider interpretations related to the 14-hour duty day (the docket incorrectly states “14-hour test period”). Comments are due July 10.