Flight time limits

[satpak77]

I understand the regs completely! They are a vague and anybody who has been around aviation knows that if you ask 3 feds, you will get 3 different answers. Thus, we always ask our POI for clarification, which you will hardly ever get in written form. We know how to exploit every loop hole or at least make sure they don't exploit us.

As far as flight duty time stuff, I will go one step further. I was in ELP one day and happen to be talking to a guy that turned out to be with the ABQ FSDO (never seen feds in jeans before). As this subject came up he pretty much agreed with our and our POIs take on this. He did add, what you can legally do is not always what is safest and that of course you should use good judgement before accepting any flight assignment.

The regs can't make you safe. There is no training for common sense. Cover your butt and be safe.

Once again you have tried to get us off topic AVBUG. Perhaps keep your worthless rants and personal attacks to yourself.

at 7100 hours isn't it time to get that ATP?

loser

 

[chperplt]

He did add, what you can legally do is not always what is safest and that of course you should use good judgement before accepting any flight assignment.

The regs can't make you safe. There is no training for common sense. Cover your butt and be safe.

Lear,

The statement made by this FED is completely accurate. Each reg is not designed as an all encompassing rule. When you put the different regs together, they do their best (not always spot on) to keep everyone safe.

You said it... There is no training for common sense. The FARs and company manuals can't account for stupidity. If you have a long haul flight ahead of you, one would think you would take it upon yourself to prepare your body for that flight. If you can't, you just complain that the rules suck and are hard to understand..

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

Lear,

The statement made by this FED is completely accurate. Each reg is not designed as an all encompassing rule. When you put the different regs together, they do their best (not always spot on) to keep everyone safe.

You said it... There is no training for common sense. The FARs and company manuals can't account for stupidity. If you have a long haul flight ahead of you, one would think you would take it upon yourself to prepare your body for that flight. If you can't, you just complain that the rules suck and are hard to understand..

Just to be clear, I don't think I said that this was a good idea or advocated doing it. If so, that was not my intention. However, on the 135 side, once you get your 10 hours rest...there is no telling when the pager will go off. Turn down a couple trips after you have gone green and you will likely be looking at a pink slip or find yourself at the bottom of the roster.

SADSAK77...you have made that comment else where. Is your ATP what defines you? Sorry that your life is so sad if that is the case. For me, when it becomes necessary to get my ATP, then I will. Until then I am content with my ratings and licenses.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Wild guess. The regulation is less about flying too much than employers =forcing you= to fly too much. Take a look at 135.263 through 135.267. Notice that they talk in terms of "no certificate holder shall..."

FAA Legal opinions have not limited the sections to flying activity. According to a 1991 Opinion, the certificate holder can't assign a pilot to such things as maintenance, fueling, or even making a sales call.

 

[A Squared]

A couple of things:


Flight time regulations shouldn't count personal recreational flying because that crosses a line and becomes dictating what you can and cannot do on your time off. You have an obligation to report for work adequately rested. How you accomplish that is your responsibility as a professional. Once the FAA begins telling you how you can spend your time away from the job, there's no logical end to the intrusion. Can't fly recreationally. OK, you can't drive for 3 hours in your car either, because that could make you fatigued. Can't go for that 5 mile run you enjoy every morning, because that migh make you fatigued. In the extreme, you'd have a monitor by your bed so that the FAA can verify that you're getting the FAA mandated amount of sleep. Do we want to start down that slope? I certainly don't. So, I think that regulating what and how much duties your employer(s) assign you is a very sensible point to draw the line in the "how far do we go in regulating fatigue" question.


Second, If your employer and POI are interpretating the regulations such that it would be legal fly a 2 hour positioning flight then an 8 hour revenue flight when limited to 8 hours of commercial flying, (or 2 and 10 when limited to 10 hours) then that POI is "interpreting" the regulations contrary to the intent of the regulations and existing official interpretations. Positioning *before* a revenue flight is counted in 135 and 121 flight time limits.

Positioning *after* the flight is not. Hey, I don't like a tail end repo any more than the next guy, but the reasoning is sound. A positioning flight *after* a revenue flight has no safety risks for the fare paying public (assuming adequate rest before further 135 flying, which is required by reg.) That is what the 135 regs (and 121 regs) are about; protecting the fare paying public. not protecting your own life or your employer's airplane. In the context of a tail end repo flight, you as a pilot are expected and priveliged to assess your own fatigue state and accept or reject the risks to yourself, and your employer is expected to make his own decisions about the risks to his own property. The 135 and 121 regulations are not about protecting individual pilots or business owners from risks to thier own lives or thier own property, so if you have concerns, you need to grow a pair and deal with it directly with your employer, rather than expecting a government agency to protect you. If you feel that you are in no condition to safely do any further flying, you need to refuse that flight. That's your responsibility and obligation as a pilot It may involve you having to quit. It $ucks. Life is like that sometimes. Along with the priveliges and freedoms we are given with a pilot certificate are responsibilities. This is one of them.

 

[A Squared]

I wanted to add to my earlier comment about a POI "interpreting" the flight thme limits to "allow" a ferry flight before a revenue leg which would otherwse exceed flight time limits.

It is not legal. Your POI has no authority to make that "interpretation". FAA policy on the issue is well established, and there is no ambiguity, question, or grey area. If you're on a ferry flight, that flight time must be considered for any subsequent revenue flight. Period. With something this black and white (and obvious), "My POI said it was OK" is probably *not* going to protect you in an enforcement action.

I've posted below two official letters of interpretation from the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel which address the same question for 135 and 121 operations. They are pretty clear, and if your POI is telling you differently, he is wrong.

FAA Legal Opinion:
April 9, 1993
Andrew Donahue

This is in response to your request for an interpretation dated August 6, 1992.

You ask what conditions must be met for a flight to be conducted under FAR Part 135 versus Part 91. You give the following example:

A flight is dispatched from Memphis to El Paso to pick up freight and deliver to Kansas City. The flight then returns to Memphis. The leg from Memphis to El Paso is empty. The leg from El Paso to Kansas City carries cargo. The leg from Kansas City back to Memphis is empty.

You then ask:

If the "assignment" is to fly from Memphis to El Paso to Kansas City, then back to Memphis, are the flights from Memphis to El Paso, and from Kansas City to Memphis considered operations conducted under Part 91 or Part 135?

Additionally, you state:

The company will sometimes dispatch a flight with enough duty time to get to a destination (i.e., Memphis to Newark, NJ) and then want the crew to Part 91 the aircraft back to Memphis or "re-position" the aircraft back to its base. Can this be done simply because the aircraft is empty, or must other conditions be met (i.e., non-revenue versus revenue)?

Section 135.1 provides in pertinent part that:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing -

(3) The carriage in air commerce of persons or property for compensation or hire as a commercial operator...

(b) ...this part does not apply to - ...

(3) Ferry or training flights....

A ferry flight is defined in the Airman's Information Manual (AIM) glossary as:

- A flight for the purpose of:
1. Returning an aircraft to base
2. Delivering an aircraft from one location to another

The issue is whether the Part 135 flight or "assignment" is completed when the cargo is unloaded at the destination airport. The purpose of the flight conducted under Part 135 is to deliver freight to the destination airport. The ferry flight to return the aircraft to the base of operations changes the purpose to re-positioning the aircraft under Part 91. A flight conducted for the purpose of re-positioning an aircraft under Part 91, after the completion of an assigned flight conducted under Part 135, cannot be considered a new assignment under Part 135 and, therefore, is not subject to the flight time limitations and rest requirements of Part 135.

The general rule with respect to flight time limitations of Part 135 is that any "other commercial flying" (e.g., flights conducted under part 91) must be counted against the daily flight time limitations of Part 135 if it precedes the flight conducted under Part 135. However, if the Part 91 flight occurs after the Part 135 flying, the Part 91 flight is not counted against the daily flight time limitations of Part 135.

The first leg from Memphis to El Paso delivers an aircraft from one location to another. It repositions. It is a ferry flight conducted under Part 91. However, because it precedes a Part 135 leg, flight time accumulated on the first leg must be counted toward Part 135 flight time for the 24 hour period.

The second leg from El Paso to Kansas City is a cargo flight conducted under Part 135.

The third leg from Kansas City to Memphis is returning the empty aircraft to home base. It is also considered a ferry flight conducted under Part 91. Because the flight time accumulated on the third leg occurs after the Part 135 flight is completed it does not count against Part 135 flight time limitations for that 24 hour period.

All Part 91 commercial flight time is counted against the pilot's quarterly and yearly flight time limitations. However, please note that if, for example, the pilot has reached the yearly flight time limit for Part 135 operations, the pilot can nonetheless continue to fly under Part 91 in that calendar year. "Other commercial flying" under Part 91 is counted to the calendar year limit only if a subsequent Part 135 operation is conducted in that calendar year. We enclose a copy of an interpretation dated October 9, 1990, issued to Mr. Steve Wolff. That interpretation concerns Part 121 operations, but the analysis concerning yearly flight time limitations and other commercial flying is applicable here.

The general rule regarding rest requirements is that if the Part 91 flying is assigned by the certificate holder, it may not be conducted during a required rest period. Since your example involves a Part 91 operation, required by the certificate holder, it may not be conducted during the required rest period and, therefore, may affect the availability of the crew for the next Part 135 operation.

You also ask a question regarding rest periods. You state:

(deleted this portion as it dealt with rest periods and was not relevant to the question at hand)


This interpretation was written by Thomas Kiely and Arthur E. Jacobson of the Operations Law Branch, AGC-220. It has been reviewed by Joseph Conte,
Manager of the Operations Law Branch and it has been coordinated with the Air Transportation Division of the Flight Standards Service .

Sincerely,

Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division

Now a letter addressing the same question in Part 121 operations:

FAA Legal Opinion:
"January 13, 1992
(no name given)

This is in response to your request for a legal interpretation, based on a request from Hawaiian airlines, whether that carrier's interpretation of the "12 in 24" role in subsections 121.521(a) and 121.523(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) is correct. Hawaiian airline's position is that a flight crew may fly up to 12 hours in duration under Part 121 and then ferry an empty aircraft under Part 91. For the reasons stated below, Hawaiian airline's position is correct.

The applicable sections of the FAR state:

FAR 121.517 states:

No airman who is employed by a supplemental air carrier or commercial operator may do any other commercial flying, if that commercial flying plus his flying in operations under this part will exceed any flight time limitation in this part.

FAR 121.521 states:

(a) No supplemental air carrier or commercial operator may schedule an airman to be aloft as a member of the flight crew in an airplane that has a crew of two pilots and at least one additional flight crewmember for more than 12 hours during any 24 consecutive hours.

FAR 121.523 states:

(a) No supplemental air carrier or commercial operator may schedule an airman for flight deck duty as a flight engineer, or navigator in a crew of three or more pilots and additional airmen for a total of more than 12 hours during any 24 consecutive hours.

FAR 121.521(a) and 121.523(a) limit an air carrier from scheduling a crewmember for more than 12 hours during any 24 consecutive hours. FAR 121.517 prohibits a crewmember from doing any other commercial flying, if that commercial flying plus their flying in operations under Part 121 will exceed any flight time
limitation in Part 121.

A Part 91 ferry flight constitutes "other commercial flying." "Other commercial flying" however, is considered only when determining whether a subsequent Part 121 flight may be conducted. Thus the time spent on a ferry flight flown between two Part 121 legs would be counted towards the flight time limitations under FAR 121.521(a) and 121.523(a). If, as in this case, Part 121 flying does not follow the "other commercial flying," then the Part 121 limitations applicable to a period of 24 consecutive hours do not apply.

We hope this interpretation satisfactorily responds to your inquiry.

Sincerely,

Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division"

 

[100LL... Again!]

I would suggest that flying your own personal cessna 150 for 20 hours immediately before reporting for a 121 leg is legal, but unsafe. The only prohibition that I can think of is careless/reckless. If you are too fatigued to fly safely, you are in violation. Therefore, the determination is left to YOU to make a decision. Would that we were given more altitude in some areas.

Do you REALLY want the FAA to write such thorough rules that essntially nothing becomes possible EVER? Be glad that the rules are sometimes vague and that so much is left to us as PICs.

The last thing I want is a rule book that is 12 inches thick, but has an answer for every question ever asked.

 

[avbug]

I understand the regs completely! They are a vague and anybody who has been around aviation knows that if you ask 3 feds, you will get 3 different answers. Thus, we always ask our POI for clarification, which you will hardly ever get in written form. We know how to exploit every loop hole or at least make sure they don't exploit us.

As far as flight duty time stuff, I will go one step further. I was in ELP one day and happen to be talking to a guy that turned out to be with the ABQ FSDO (never seen feds in jeans before). As this subject came up he pretty much agreed with our and our POIs take on this. He did add, what you can legally do is not always what is safest and that of course you should use good judgement before accepting any flight assignment.

For someone that "understands" the regulation so well, you have apparently missed the basic fact that anything you get at the FSDO level, in writing or verbal, from your POI or otherwise, carries no weight and is in no way defensible under the regulation. The "interpretations" you've received from the various FSDO-level personnel carry the weight of a personal opinion, nothing more...in other words, they mean nothing. That the FAA doesn't understand the regulation, and often doesn't apply it correctly, is no excuse for you to not understand it correctly. It's also not exactly news, or rocket science.

You know how to exploit every loophole, do you? Aren't you just the thriving ball of experience. Hardly a professional...but then what do we expect from the man that ran his own maintenance shop for five years, all the while paying a gaggle of mechanics that worked three hours, for eight hours of work. Not the brightest apparently, either.

I've read a few of your posts here, and I think you're the same private pilot character that flies his own airplane into ice and brags about it, threatens members of the site, and keeps coming back under a different name. One who others herein claim they have "owned" whatever that may mean.

Depending on the specific regualtion (again, you failed to cite a specific circumstance...can you do that?), the 24 hour period in which we look for flight time may be a callendar day for a crew with regularly scheduled duty under 135, or it may be a 24 hour look back period. The way in which personal flying before and after that period works with the regulation is directly tied to the type of operation.

Personal flying done before your duty period begins doesn't affect your flight totals for the day, but any commercial flying (including flight instruction, according to the FAA) does affect those totals. Unless you're a regularly scheduled crewmember, in which case the sliding 24 hour ruler doesn't apply, but the callendar day does.

You wanna fly your cherokee to work and then go to work, fine. Legally you can do that. Unless it becomes an issue with rest or fatigue, and you put yourself in a situation in which you might be accused or careless or reckless behavior on the ground or in flight. The purpose of the regulation's under discussion is specifically to limit the flying you can do commercially. Period. If you can legally fly more and do so, but compromise safety, you are then beholden to regulations addressing safety. Each in it's turn.

No need to seek out loopholes. Compliance with the regulation is simple, as is understanding the regulation. Those who seek to exploit the regulation at ever turn need to have their own professionalism examined...but our friend 7,100 hour learjet wannabe without the ATP...you're no professional, nor are you who or what you claim to be...that much is clearly in evidence. Attack away, mate.

 

[Lear Wanna Be]

I am done with you. You obviously live in your own reality. Seems you only have read the words that you (master of all that is holy) have rambled on about. It is clear that you think you are all of that. Just look at the additional info you have provided on yourself, A/C flown: all, Ratings: all, Civ/Mil: N/A, TT: N/A. You surely are one of the less desirables discussed in the thread about tools that others here have flown with. You don't happen to fly a Falcon at your normal job do ya?

Again, it is unfortunate that you have not helped Flint4xx is his original topic. Hijacked yet another topic (you know what I am talking about). Your personal insults I am sure have been aw inspiring to the other Alpha wanna bees. Perhaps you could show some respect and keep your non-sense out of the forum and via PMs. By the way, the feds are happy to have wonderful discussions with pilots/operators. They often say, "Well that is something for the lawyers to argue about." I'm sure you know more than me (and everyone else), but it seems that carless and reckless is usually tacked onto another violation. Have not read about too many if any that were just C&R.

To put this to bed, Flint4xx, as I am sure you already know and were just trying to have a nice discussion about, the regs under 135-121 are more there to protect the general public. The feds are not overly concerned if you kill yourself. The CFRs can't regulate everything and all the possible circumstance that can happen. There is no substitude for sound judgement and good training.

 

[heph224]

Don't worry, when the FAA revises the 135 and other regs, hopefully they will make the duty and flight time regs more realistic than they are now.