Question about re-position flt’s

[A Squared]

So the flight starts out a 121 flight but magically enroute you revert to part 91? I'm not seeing how that works...

No, it doesn't, although I have flown with folks who believe that a flight which departed as a 121 flight can become a part 91 flight in midair. (provided no revenue cargo is on board) I don't buy it.

At the company I mentioned previously, the belief was common that *any* flight which wasn't carrying revenue cargo was automatically a part 91 flight when it left the ground.

mar brings up an interesting point about call signs, that any part 91 flight may not be operated under the company's call sign and must use the Registration number. That certainly seems to be a commonly held opinion, although I've never seen any official guidance on the subject. It seems nonsensical to me. There are plenty of non-airline operatins which have registered telephony callsigns. Many large corporate flight departments. The Phillips petroleum 737 which haul workers to the north slope, they fly under thier own callsign but it's still a Part 91 operation.

 

[mar]

I don't buy it either

No, it doesn't, although I have flown with folks who believe that a flight which departed as a 121 flight can become a part 91 flight in midair. (provided no revenue cargo is on board) I don't buy it.

Right.

But I also know about a flight that amended its call sign (from flight number to N-number) with ATC so as to appear as a Part 91 flight when they learned the weather was below mins....

....so you know, why draw more attention to yourself than you need to. I think that's the whole point.

CYA.

 

[pilotyip]

Op Spec A001, allows you to use any of the Company's Op Specs you desire on a part 91 flight, pick and chose according to your compnay. The company's GOM should give further guidence on what you can use and what you can not use. It also states that any repositioning flight can be done under Part 91. So using your call sign on part 91 repositioning flight, ferry flight or a training flight is perfectly alright

 

[mar]

Fair point.

Thanks pilotyip but I've never had the luxury of picking and choosing.

Usually if the company wants the airplane moved they're gonna try to be released from the OpSpecs.

And if it's a nice day the pilot may want to fly VFR thru a pass or something....

Legality aside, I still don't think it's a good idea to broadcast your company's call sign unless all the 't's are crossed and 'i's dotted.

Just my own little self-preservation instinct.

 

[A Squared]

Right.

But I also know about a flight that amended its call sign (from flight number to N-number) with ATC so as to appear as a Part 91 flight when they learned the weather was below mins....

....so you know, why draw more attention to yourself than you need to. I think that's the whole point.

CYA.

Yeah, I think we're on the same page here. I've seen guys change thier call sign enroute, believing it gives them some protection. I just shake my head. Personally, I either abide by Part 121, or make sure my release explicitly states "Part 91", before I depart.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

I've heard the example ksu provided about the last flight being under part 91. I think it's a lot of bull. Had it thrown my way by operations also. Say you have an incident on that so called part 91 flight that you are operating for a part 121 carrier. Let's say it was a flight that puts you almost three hours over your duty and flight times for the day. Does anyone here think the NTSB or FAA would look at it and say "oh, they were on a part 91 leg, it's ok".

I'd be pretty shocked and it would be your tickets up for evaluation by a bunch of fellas in an office at the FAA. I know I wouldn't be sleeping comfortably in that situation. I bet it would cost a $hitload in lawyer fees too. Maybe the company would cover it......

Mr. I.

 

[A Squared]

I've heard the example ksu provided about the last flight being under part 91. I think it's a lot of bull. Had it thrown my way by operations also.

well, you may think it's bull, but is not. It is well documented in interpretations by the FAA Chief Counsel that is is perfectly legal it release tail end repo flights under part 91. amd exceed Part121 time limits. You may not like it, and I don't either, but it's perfectly legal.

Say you have an incident on that so called part 91 flight that you are operating for a part 121 carrier. Let's say it was a flight that puts you almost three hours over your duty and flight times for the day. Does anyone here think the NTSB or FAA would look at it and say "oh, they were on a part 91 leg, it's ok".

In that situation, as all flights you as PIC are ultimately responsible for the safe conduct of the flight. True, if you you may get a violation for something, put it wont be for violating any reg in Part 121.
If you believe you are too fatigued to safely fly the flight, it is you obligation to refuse that flight, whether it is Part 121 or part 91

 

[pilotyip]

Part 91 OK

A squared has got in figured out correctly. Part 91 is legal after 16 hours on part 121 duty. If you are fatigued, you call fatigue and go to bed.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Ok, I'll admit I'm wrong. Regardless, how do you think it will play out in a court of law? And do you think the FAA Chief Counsel will be anywhere to be found if a horrible situation arises? I'm not trying to flamebait. I think I'd agree with yip that calling fatigued is the way to handle it.

Mr. I.

 

[grandma]

A squared has got in figured out correctly. Part 91 is legal after 16 hours on part 121 duty. If you are fatigued, you call fatigue and go to bed.

How does that figure into rest? If you had to fly the next day for 121 or 135 and needed your lookback rest, would the 91 leg count as duty time? Or just not rest time? Or something you did on your time off just because its really fun and you want to see the company succeed. Besides, you hate sleep anyways.

135.263(c) and
121.471(4)(f)

say the same thing... 'transportation not local in character.... not considered part of a rest period'... (i.e. a repostion or 91 tack-on flight). And if it's not rest, then isn't it duty? I'm really trying to get this down. It's been coming up quite a bit lately.