Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Flexjet info...
- Thread starter 206amphib
- Start date
- Watchers 18
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
broken spoke
Registered Psyco (Pilot)
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Posts
- 44
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.
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.
Last edited:
Club ORD FO
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2003
- Posts
- 608
broken spoke
Registered Psyco (Pilot)
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2004
- Posts
- 44
twincessna
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Posts
- 40
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.
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Posts
- 3,785
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/01-1027a.txt
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.
Your POI can NOT.
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
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.
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.
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...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
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-1
800 Independence Avenue
Washington, DC 20591
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.
Last edited:
Just Peachy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2002
- Posts
- 189
macpilot said:
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Posts
- 192
The Duty Time Debate continues
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.
gunfyter said:
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.
Last edited:
gunfyter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Posts
- 3,785
I have done all I can to help you. FSDO can't interpret for the adminsitrator or Chief Counsel.
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
================================
Definition of: AIR TAXI An aircraft operator who conducts operations for hire or compensation in accordance with FAR Part 135 in an aircraft with 30 or fewer passenger seats and a payload capacity of 7,500# or less. An air taxi operates on an on demand basis and does not meet the "flight scheduled" qualifications of a commuter
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
================================
Definition of: AIR TAXI An aircraft operator who conducts operations for hire or compensation in accordance with FAR Part 135 in an aircraft with 30 or fewer passenger seats and a payload capacity of 7,500# or less. An air taxi operates on an on demand basis and does not meet the "flight scheduled" qualifications of a commuter
Last edited:
gunfyter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Posts
- 3,785
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.
But what is 10 hrs of rest?
A crew goes into rest at 1800L after a day of flying and assigned a trip with a 0900L showtime for the next morning. 10 hrs after going into rest it is now 0400L. If the crew must respond to pager or telephone call starting after 0400L in the event an earlier popup trip comes up... but in this case the popup trip does not come up....
When does the Rest period end? At 0400L or at 0900l when the crew shows up for the trip briefed before rest began?
The answer is: Rest ended at 0400L, when the crew become responsible for answering the phone or page and to report in the event a fligt assignment popped up. The crew must be in rest again by 1800L.
The time between 0400 and 0900L when the crew had to respond to pager or phone does not count as REST. The crew is now available for flight only from 0900L to 1800L or 9 hrs of duty not 14 hrs.
see http://www.law.emory.edu/1circuit/aug99/99-1888.01a.html
So... how many of these crews wondering in they can fly past 14 hrs duty time, even had a legal 10 hr rest period in the first place?
Last edited:
Fozzy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 889
macpilot said:
Not only should you read it, but if you consider yourself a professional you should also understand and follow it.
I always get a chuckle thinking back to the crew sitting in the MKE Sig. Pilot 1 asking Pilot 2 if he was okay calling their time sitting in the crew room all day as their rest period. Gota love that.
Hey Gunfyter, the question we need to know is if they don't answer the phone after 10 hours of "rest" will they ever upgrade or be able to "bid" a different fleet. :laugh:
kingairyahoo
my old job...
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Posts
- 515
kingairyahoo
my old job...
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Posts
- 515
kingairyahoo
my old job...
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Posts
- 515
actually, theres quite an in-depth conversation going on over this very subject...
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=80521
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=80521
Unfortunately incorrect..
as long as the flight was SCHEDULED to leave inside of 14 hours and the planning was realistic, you are legal to depart. even if you take-off after 14 hours due to taxi delays or flow restrictions, passengers, or cargo. of course you've got to consider careless and reckless. (FAA Interpretation 1990-40 & 1991-16 & 1992-19)
gunfyter said:
as long as the flight was SCHEDULED to leave inside of 14 hours and the planning was realistic, you are legal to depart. even if you take-off after 14 hours due to taxi delays or flow restrictions, passengers, or cargo. of course you've got to consider careless and reckless. (FAA Interpretation 1990-40 & 1991-16 & 1992-19)
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
