Netjets new 91K rules are demeaning...

[Raskal]

We just had a meeting with some big aircraft owners who are looking to have aircraft managed. One of the big things that they have with EJM and other are the crew charges and crew changes during trips to meet the required days off.

They do not want to be dealing with this. End of customer.

You may well end up with a great contract on an aircraft that does not exist.

That's an interesting point, although we have 10 aircraft in a small frax op we manage one wholly owned plane. It's advantageous to the owner to have his plane on our interchange agreement, but his flights (like everything we do) are run under our 135 cert. Wonder, if he didn't need the interchange if he wouldn't just take the plane away and run it pure 91.

I don't know how EJM or any of the others run their management ops though, I'm just assuming it's similar.

 

[gunfyter]

That's not correct depending upon the "on call" definition. As an example, I have a soft callout Mon-Thurs until 6pm. Report time is 2-3hrs, but usually longer. This time is considered rest, and the FSDO along with our POI are in agreement. Rest time is not defined specifically in pt 135. In 91k (91.1057) the regs actually define reserve,rest,duty etc. As of the 17th, under 91k, my weekdays are duty.

I agree that in principal on call is duty, but such as the way of the world...if it's not defined.

The POI and the FSDO are not in agreement with the FAA Chief Counsel.

The FAA has made its position clear in Federal Court that OnCall time is NOT REST.

You may want to read this:

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
http://www.law.emory.edu/1circuit/a...9-1888.01a.html​

No. 99-1888



AVIATORS FOR SAFE AND FAIRER REGULATION, INC.,



Petitioner,



v.



FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,



Respondent.





ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF

THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION











Before

Selya, Boudin and Lynch,​

Circuit Judges.​

John M. Edwards with whom John C. Blessington and Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP were on brief for petitioner.

Charles W. Scarborough, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, with whom David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Robert S. Greenspan, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, were on brief for respondent.







BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. Petitioner, Aviators for Safe and Fairer Regulation, Inc. ("Aviators"), is a trade association of about fifty on-demand air charter companies. It brings this case to challenge a so-called notice of enforcement policy issued by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") that purports to interpret, and to express its intent to enforce, a preexisting regulation governing how much rest pilots or other flight crewmembers must get between flight assignments.

Air charter companies furnish "air taxi" service to customers on demand rather than on a scheduled basis. The FAA regulates such companies under Part 135 of its regulations, 14 C.F.R. pt. 135 (2000). The regulation at issue in this case, id. ? 135.267(d), was adopted in its current form in October 1985 and aims to ensure that pilots have adequate rest for purposes of air safety, see 49 U.S.C. ?? 40101(d), 44701(a)(4)-(5) (1994 & Supp. II 1996). It states, in relevant part, that each flight assignment to unscheduled one- and two-pilot crews "must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour period that precedes the planned completion time of the assignment." 14 C.F.R. ? 135.267(d).

The term "rest" is not defined in the regulation. On several occasions, the FAA sought to refine the term through rulemaking but those efforts were abortive. (1) Then, on June 15, 1999, without prior notice or rulemaking proceedings, the FAA issued a "notice of enforcement policy." The notice said that it was merely reiterating the FAA's "longstanding interpretation of its regulations" concerning rest requirements and continued in pertinent part:

[T]he FAA has consistently interpreted the term rest to mean that a flight crewmember is free from actual work from the air carrier or from present responsibility for work should the occasion arise. Thus the FAA previously has determined that a flight crewmember on reserve was not at rest if the flight crewmember had a present responsibility for work in that the flight crewmember had to be available for the carrier to notify of a flight assignment.

Notice of Enforcement Policy, 64 Fed. Reg. 32176, 32176 (1999). The principal controversy centers upon how (and in one case whether) the notice resolves two different scenarios, which we shall refer to as the duty-to-report and the duty-to-be-available.

In the duty-to-report scenario, a crewmember who is nominally off duty has a responsibility during the period to leave a contact number, to be fit to fly, to take any telephone calls or other communications notifying him of a flight assignment, and to report for that assignment in a reasonable time (e.g., two hours). In the duty-to-be-available scenario, the same is true but the crewmember has the option to accept or decline a flight assignment that is offered during this off-duty period. It is easy to see why such arrangements would be attractive to an air taxi carrier.

Under either scenario, a call to the crewmember followed by an accepted assignment would (at some stage) terminate any "rest" that might otherwise be accruing. The crewmember, to be eligible for the assignment, would have to have met the "ten hours rest" quota based on "rest" that had already occurred. But the FAA's position in its notice as to the duty-to-report scenario (the duty-to-be-available scenario is a different issue) is that even if no call were made during this nominal off-duty period, none of the period would count as rest because the generic responsibility to leave a number, take calls, and report if assigned would negate "rest" for the entire period.

 

[Raskal]

I never knew of that definition, thanks for the post. I can't help but wonder what the definiton our fsdo is operating under...why is it so much to ask for that the FAA actually be consistent and know what is going on??

Thanks again.

 

[Bandit60]

You cannot count time on call as rest under Part 135. If you are on call you are not in rest

What you said here is not what is in the court ruling that you posted. It seems to me if you are "on reserve" then you are correct. But a on demand 135 outfit can still call a guy out for duty as long as he has had 10 hours of rest. Most On-demand charter outfits dont have reserve per say.

Where am I going wrong?

 

[Grizz]

Bandit,

Under the interpetation and that court order, if you have to be by a phone or pager and ready to fly - it's not rest. A lot of 135 operators play all sorts of games with their employees to get them to believe they are ok but if you get thoroughly checked, you're going to get a violation the same as the company. How many licenses have you got that it's worth putting it up for grabs like that?

 

[gunfyter]

What you said here is not what is in the court ruling that you posted. It seems to me if you are "on reserve" then you are correct. But a on demand 135 outfit can still call a guy out for duty as long as he has had 10 hours of rest. Most On-demand charter outfits dont have reserve per say.

Where am I going wrong?

What I posted is not the whole court ruling. Just the Intro. Go to the link i provided.

Bottom line is this. If you have a duty-to-report if called... then you are not in rest and that time spent in reserve is not rest. If you are called and can say... "you know what I don't feel like flying right now its 3 AM call back later say 0830."... Then that time may count as rest.
==========================================

91K is partly the result of the complaints of 135 Charter companies jealous of the success of Executive Jet and complaining that there was not a competitive level playing field. Now that the CMH FSDO is enforcing 135 Rest rules on probably the Worlds largest fractional and 135 operation ... I wonder if same CMH based company will sue the FAA to level the playing field and enforce 135 Rest Rules on everyone else...

 

[Bandit60]

Bandit,

Under the interpetation and that court order, if you have to be by a phone or pager and ready to fly - it's not rest. A lot of 135 operators play all sorts of games with their employees to get them to believe they are ok but if you get thoroughly checked, you're going to get a violation the same as the company. How many licenses have you got that it's worth putting it up for grabs like that?

Its not really a personal issue for me because I work for a strict 91 operation

 

[Grizz]

Sorry man. Thought you needed the info.

 

[wolfpackpilot]

In theory what you say is correct...However they have us showing up and sitting stby in locations that aren't even open for business....How many aviation careers do you know of that require you to sit in your car for hours on end???

Call Scheduling and tell them your hanging out at the Waffle House with your coffee and USA Today, and please dont bother me! Or try the Krispy Kream, the cops like to sit around the bar and brag about the nights events.

Either way, that situation is bull hockey. I dont see the advantage to the company, other than screwing around with you guys.

 

[netjetwife]

These new rules give the pilots lots of leverage! There is also going to be a bunch of overtime pay racked up with all the o'dark thirty shows... Make it work for you and for the cause! I can't wait to hear how my husband's first day turns out. From the minute he checked in, he had them scrambling...lol

I'm sure the pilots will be sharing their experiences on the board over the next few days--how best to handle the 91K rules. I know SU/P2P is waiting for my husband's report. I think we'll see plenty of the NJ pilots making the most of this opportunity. Finally, the tide has turned in their favor!