logging instrument approach question

[A Squared]

Avbug,

the explanation which you give requires a voluntary nature of the flight (hey, you're not *assigning* the flight, I'm volunteering for it) I'm a little skeptical that this distinction is made, it would leave the door wide open for a lot of "volunteering" to get around all sorts of regulations. Even beyond that, the voluntary nature of this would satisfy the part about the certificate holder scheduling the flight, but not the pilot accepting the flight.

Do you have any reference to support that it hinges on the voluntary nature of the flight?

I dug up an older interpretaion which references Part135.1 "applicability", which states that the part (135) is not appliccable to ferry flights. This would explain why my friend had an enforcement action for the flight, it was clearly not a ferry flight (ie: sole purpose is to reposistion the aircraft)

The thing is, Part 135.1 has been changed and no longer includes this exclusion of ferry flights ..... so any interpretation regarding part 135 issued before this change would seem to be invalid as the regulations are now different.

Part 121.1 has no similar exclusion for ferry flights that I can find.

 

[avbug]

Asked, and answered, Checks. And it's avbug, not avweb.

I don't assert that an approach must be flown to minimums under actual or simulated instrument conditions to meet recency of experience requirements. The FAA does. Argue with them.

 

[bigD]

The FAA does. Argue with them.

You know, for someone who constantly tells people to always post a reg to back up their assertions - I see a distinct lack of FAR quotage in your posts!

 

[avbug]

It's already been quoted here, repeatedly. Why post it again. Read the thread.

 

[bigD]

Yes, the regs have been posted here. They can also be found on AOPA's web site, the FAA site, and a number of other locations. I can pull a FAR/AIM off my shelf and get to them there, too. But again, nobody seems to be able to point to a reg that specifically states that an approach has to be flown to mins to count for currency. Perhaps you're seeing something I'm not, and I'm merely trying to get you to point that out.

 

[flewa72]

avbug wrote:

He is not assigned to make the flight, and is not accepting an assignment. He's given the choice, and he returns home. This is how it's typically done.

I'm assuming that you never flew for a cargo outfit. At our Part 121 Supplemental we were regularly assigned Part 91 repo flights and if you refused, you got to come to HQ and meet with the Chief Pilot and Director of Operations. There were rare occasions when we got to volunteer for one to come home early but the majority were definitely assignments. Our POI was well aware that these were not voluntary flights and he didn't seem to have a problem with them.

 

[avbug]

Flewa172,

Yes, I have, and you missed the point. It's a matter of semantics in defining what you are doing, insofar as you don't wish to lose you ticket. Yes, there are many times when you had better get your ass in gear and take the flight, or you'll not be able to aford quality top ramen tomorrow. But when the FAA comes calling, were you assigned to that flight? The answer had better be a resounding hell, no!

The company has offered you the chance to come home, and you elected to do that rather than stay overnight. Your assigned duty period has ended. We've all been there. Yes, you need to come home, but when the FAA asks, you weren't assigned, you did it on your own. You were released, and you elected to fly the airplane home, and the company was nice enough to let you do it. Saved you being away from your beloved daschsund one more night.

How many of us have flown a typical 135 operation, in which you are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Many, I'd bet. You're not considered on-duty until you take the flight. Now the truth of it is that if you are in any way obligated to take the flight, then you're not free, you're obligated in some way. It may not be duty, but it's also not a rest period, as a rest period is at least 10 hours (or more) of uninterrupted rest with no obligation to act for the employer.

In a typical 135 operation, however, that's often not the case. You're on all the time. The days you don't fly just became your day off, in retrospect. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. The company shows you being off the appropriate days and times, but in reality, you haven't had a day off in ten months. Been there. Many others have, weather they'll admit to it or not. One former employer was quite adamanant unofficially that there were NO days off for the first year. And they meant it.

Is that what was expressed to the FAA? Of course not. But that's how the game is often played...just like something not breaking until short final of the last flight of the day, or putting squawks on stickum notes on the airplane can, instead of writing up and grounding the airplane. Anybody who has ever had to fight for their job and worked in the trenches is probably familiar with this.

BigD, rather than get into a round circle of words with you, don't bother picking up your regulations. Don't bother going to AOPA's web site. Don't bother getting your regs from the FAA site or a number of other locations.

I said to read this thread, because the information you snidely asked for is right here. It's a legal interpretation, defensible in both administrative and civil court, and it specifically states as a direct representation of the Administrator, that an approach for the purposes of meeting recency of experience requirements must be flown in instrument conditions (specifically it states "IFR conditions, as previously discussed at great length) to the minimums published for that proceedure. It's been published here several times, and discussed at great length throughout this thread.

Read it, you'll see the interp, sections of the interp, and discussions of the interp. This interpretation is fully supported, and you need look no farther than that. Not only is the interpretation very clear and very specific, but it's been expounded upon here and explained to you over, and over, and over. Now, do you really want me to post it again??

 

[flewa72]

who missed the point?

avbug,

You missed my point. Our POI (FAA Principal Operating Inspector) was well aware that these were flight assignments as a couple of employees and former employees made sure of it. He did not have a problem with the company operating that way. So what makes you think they aren't all aware of it? And if they are all aware of it, how would they be able to support a certificate action for activities they have condoned? I know enough to play the game, but don't like playing games.

 

[A Squared]

flewa72,

I would point out that the regulations specifying the flight time limitations for flag and supplememtal carriers do not contain the words which I read to be a prohibition on assiging or accepting "other commercial flying". That is only in 121.471, which applies to domestic operations only. Flag and supplememtal operations, as you know have thier own regulations. I fly 121 supplememtal cargo also (international rules, even worse) so I'm pretty familiar with thoe regs and I don't see anything that seems to me to prohibit "other commercial flying" or tail end ferry flights.

regards

 

[midlifeflyer]

But again, nobody seems to be able to point to a reg that specifically states that an approach has to be flown to mins to count for currency. Perhaps you're seeing something I'm not, and I'm merely trying to get you to point that out.

That's true. In fact, as I mentioned in my earlier post, in 1997, the FAA specifically rejected such a rule.

(BTW, that post, part of a personal FAQ file, represents the "universe" of FAA-based (official or unofficial) information that I've been able to collect through the years on this. It's designed to present the information rather than come to a specific conclusion. If anyone has some other sources that bear light on any side of the issue, I'd love to add it)