Question about re-position flt’s

[fxbat]

Funny thing about re-position flights, The company clams your operating under part “91” But I have yet to see a dispatch release that specifically said in accordance with part “91”. The company I work for (121 sup.) has a template that they use and nowhere is part “91” listed.

Is that legal provided they respect 121 flt. times and duty day? And what if they don’t?

 

[b82rez]

Sure....i would guess that the release they're giving you is for "informational purposes" only. When you operate a Part 91 flight it's your flight. If you wish to have the dispatcher do some work for you....weather planning, filing a flight plan, you can.

This is all assuming of course that your company doesn't have any language in your GOM that addresses this.

 

[fokkers&beer]

If you have a release and its signed by you and the dispatcher, its part 121. At least thats the way it went at the old company I worked for.
Now you also have to do a weight and balance.

 

[fxbat]

It’s in the GOM, but I do question the flight time and duty legalities. (As perceived by the dispatcher)
If your 91 legs count for that duty day only, or are they included in the 30/7 for the week. They should be included in your yearly total.

 

[A Squared]

If you have a release and its signed by you and the dispatcher, its part 121. At least thats the way it went at the old company I worked for.
Now you also have to do a weight and balance.

Not necessarily. when we have a part 91 leg, our flight release says "part 91" on it. We still sign the release, although strictly speaking, it's not necessary. I would argue that whether or not it says "Part 91" on the release, it doesn't automatically make it Part 121, you're just doing unnecessary paperwork for a part 91 leg. I agree though that it would be comforting to have the "Part 91" printed on the release for a leg that you're going to go over time, or disregard some other Part 121 reg. Then there is no question if somone asks ...."see, says right there on the flight release, Part 91"

Just to muddy the waters further, I've been told (by co-workers who flew for that company) that another airline here has in thier GOM that *any* and *all* flights operating with no revenue cargo on board are Part 91 flights.

Would this hold up before the NTSB? I dunno.

 

[ksu_aviator]

As far as daily, weekly and yearly totals, part 91 flight time (that is commercial flight time) counts towards all flights after the part 91 time.

Example:

You fly 8 hours under 121, then have to repo 3 hours part 91 home. Legal.

You repo 3 hours to start the day, then are scheduled to fly 8 hours Part 121. Not Legal

All part 91 flight time (that is commercial flight time) counts towards monthly, weekly and yearly totals unless it is the last flight of the week, month or year.

The duty day works very much the same way. If you are on duty for 4 hours prior to starting 121 flight time (flying 91 or not) you have burned 4 hours of duty time (or rest time if you want to be technical). However, if you are at the end of the day and you are asked to repo part 91 it is legal. That is assuming that you consider yourself safe to fly, because if you aren't (too tired or too pissed off, both work for me ) then it isn't legal even if the duty time doesn't matter. Think 91.13.

 

[fxbat]

Thanks KSU

That explains it more clearly. What a grate loophole for dispatchers.

 

[mar]

Holding out.

Just to muddy the waters further, I've been told (by co-workers who flew for that company) that another airline here has in thier GOM that *any* and *all* flights operating with no revenue cargo on board are Part 91 flights.

Would this hold up before the NTSB? I dunno.

It's an interesting question but please understand the bulk of this post is not directed at you. It's mostly for those new to commercial flying.

But I'd start with this question: When would it matter?

How about an instrument approach with the visibility below mins? Of course, Part 91 you can "take a look", Part 121 you can't pass the FAF.

So, hypothetically, Company ABC operates Flight 123 by "holding out" to the public. But on this day the public don't show up. It's a scheduled flight and departs as Flight 123. But on descent, while outside the FAF the vis drops below mins...

...see where I'm going with this?

If I'm gonna take a look I'm sure as hell not gonna be using my Flight 123 call sign. A Part 91 flight should be Part 91 all the way and be using its N-number as a call sign.

And just to expound a little on the topic of a flight release. A flight release doesn't make the flight a commercial flight. The concept of "holding out", the operating certificate and the OpSpecs make it a commercial flight.

The flight release is a document that serves to divide the responsibility for the operation of the aircraft between the PIC and the dispatcher.

Under 121 domestic rules dispatchers may cancel and delay flights and even declare emergencies when the flight crew is unable. They are every bit as much of the crew as the PIC, SIC and FE.

 

[SSDD]

It also affects your takeoff minimums. alternate requirements, Cat II operations., and a host of other things that may be authorized under Part 121, but not for a Part 91 flight.

 

[minitour]

So, hypothetically, Company ABC operates Flight 123 by "holding out" to the public. But on this day the public don't show up. It's a scheduled flight and departs as Flight 123. But on descent, while outside the FAF the vis drops below mins...

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

-mini

 

[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.