Readdressing Legalt to Start...

[ksu_aviator]

I have heard of, but never seen, an FAA ruling that basically said if you are operating under part 135 as an ondemand passenger operator, legal to start, legal to finish only applies for in the air.

Example would be, if you are waiting at xyz airport and approaching the end of your legal duty day and the passengers show, but you know you will be 5 minutes over your duty time when you land, you can not depart. Any one know where or if this is documented?

Taking it a step further, if your passengers show later, say 10 minutes after your duty day ended, could you still depart?

 

[avbug]

Unless you are a scheduled crewmember under 135, meaning you have a regularly assigned duty period, there is no prescribed duty period under 135...only a required rest period. Looking back 24 hours, you must have ten hours rest...the regulation doesn't prescribe a 14 hour duty period.

The regulation also provides that exception due to unforseen circumstances exists...but waiting until you're beyond your 24 hour lookback on rest and then departing places you not only in jeopardy of duty and rest requirement regulations, but also in position of being a strong candidate for 91.13, careless and reckless operation.

In every FAA legal opinion addressing the matter, 91.13 is always invoked to remind you of the fact.

Passenger delays, weather delays, mechanical problems...unforseen circumstances. But allowing your full day to expire, with rest a distant memory, and then departing, puts you on very shaky ground.

I've done that on a few occasions in the past, but very few. One in particular involved a heart recovery. The delays that occured were unforseen, and we were pushing our rest when the heart was harvested and ready to fly to the recipient. Had it been bone or other tissue, we probably would have taken the additional delay of calling in another aircraft and crew to take the flight...but we were too far away and there could be no delays.

In other circumstances, I've had passengers under 135 arrive much later than they indicated, and I informed them we'd be spending the night because I was no longer legal to fly. In other circumstances, I've arranged for other aircraft and crews to take them.

As for duty and rest regulations applying only in the air...no. If you start your duty day, you've started your duty day. At any given point during the day when on duty you need to be able to look back over the previous 24 hours and find ten hours of consecutive rest. If your company calls you to the hangar at 0900 and you go to work...but don't fly until 1800, you've still got 9 hours since you rested...and the FAA would very likely take the viewpoint that you have been on duty for 9 hours. Don't let the company tell you that you haven't flown yet, so you can still go for 14 hours, because it won't wash.

 

[Lostdog65]

Don't let the company tell you that you haven't flown yet, so you can still go for 14 hours, because it won't wash.

But how else is a 135 operator gonna make any money??? (J/K)

I've heard this from bosses in the past. It's a line the FAA is unwilling to argue about. If the company says you're to be in the office at 0800...you've been assigned duties. Many operators will argue that if the pilot is just sitting around, waiting to go, then that's not "assigned duties". Either way, if something happens and you can't find that 10 hours of rest in the past 24...your arse is grass!

Take if from someone who was forced to resign all because he was short an half and hour on his duty rest...

Eric

 

[ksu_aviator]

Unless you are a scheduled crewmember under 135, meaning you have a regularly assigned duty period, there is no prescribed duty period under 135...only a required rest period. Looking back 24 hours, you must have ten hours rest...the regulation doesn't prescribe a 14 hour duty period.

The regulation also provides that exception due to unforseen circumstances exists...but waiting until you're beyond your 24 hour lookback on rest and then departing places you not only in jeopardy of duty and rest requirement regulations, but also in position of being a strong candidate for 91.13, careless and reckless operation.

In every FAA legal opinion addressing the matter, 91.13 is always invoked to remind you of the fact.

Passenger delays, weather delays, mechanical problems...unforseen circumstances. But allowing your full day to expire, with rest a distant memory, and then departing, puts you on very shaky ground.

I've done that on a few occasions in the past, but very few. One in particular involved a heart recovery. The delays that occured were unforseen, and we were pushing our rest when the heart was harvested and ready to fly to the recipient. Had it been bone or other tissue, we probably would have taken the additional delay of calling in another aircraft and crew to take the flight...but we were too far away and there could be no delays.

In other circumstances, I've had passengers under 135 arrive much later than they indicated, and I informed them we'd be spending the night because I was no longer legal to fly. In other circumstances, I've arranged for other aircraft and crews to take them.

As for duty and rest regulations applying only in the air...no. If you start your duty day, you've started your duty day. At any given point during the day when on duty you need to be able to look back over the previous 24 hours and find ten hours of consecutive rest. If your company calls you to the hangar at 0900 and you go to work...but don't fly until 1800, you've still got 9 hours since you rested...and the FAA would very likely take the viewpoint that you have been on duty for 9 hours. Don't let the company tell you that you haven't flown yet, so you can still go for 14 hours, because it won't wash.

Did you read past the topic line or did you just read the topic line and go into a sophmoric rant? I did not ask for an explination of the rules, I asked for a link to a ruling that addressed only the "legal to start aspect," and then only the aspect of departing knowing you would not finish legally. You only addressed how you think the issue should be handled and I wasn't asking for your opinion.

 

[avbug]

You know, for a college kid, you aren't too bright. Or perhaps it's just your comprehension, or even reading skills that need a little polish. Hard to tell from this angle, but in daylight, you don't appear too polished. It's probably not your fault.

Seeing as you failed to give much information, specifics may be somewhat difficult. However, as stated, the regulation doesn't prescribe a 14 hour duty day (unless you are a scheduled crew). It prescribes 10 hours of rest in the previous 24. If you have not yet departed, and your passengers show up placing you in jeopardy of making the look back rest requirements, you may not depart.

Every single FAA legal interpretation on the subject emphasizes the fact that the critical regulation is 91.13...careless and reckless operation. You may be able to leave due to unforseen circumstances legally, but by so doing, you may place yourself in jeopardy of the larger, and more expansive regulation.

Delays which stretch the last leg out beyond your normal duty and rest cycles are covered under the regulation as unforseen circumstances. If instead, you depart at the end of your 14 hours, fully knowing you will be well over your duty and rest periods, you are in violation of the regulation.

A proper answer to your question will depend specifically upon the regulations under which you're operating. (Yes, I know, 135). Are you a scheduled crew, or unscheduled crew? This makes a difference. If your'e a scheduled crew, you can exceed the duty and flight times in a 24 hour look back period, but not in a 24 hour calendar period. If you're an unscheduled crew, you must rely on the 24 hour lookback...each circumstances will determine how arriving at the end of your duty, or going over, will be viewed...or even if you're going over.

However, even for a scheduled crew in which one might go over the limitations of a 24 hour lookback and still be legal, you can still be in jeopardy of 91.13...which was already given you in the previous post over which you scoffed.

I'm having some computer difficulties in copying and pasting...so the following posts may not be complete, or may have to wait.

 

[avbug]

Unfortunately the computer I'm borrowing right now doesn't allow me to copy material or even highlight it. It's not state of the art by any means...so you'll just have to dust off those comprehension skills for a moment, if your'e able.

The regulation is set up in such a fashion that it provides additional rest requirements to your benifit if you exceed daily flight time limitations due to unforeseen circumstances. It does not provide relief for exceeding duty periods. In the case of an unscheduled crew for which a duty period is not prescribed, your only requirement at any given point in the day is to look back 24 hours and find 10 continuous hours of rest. Relief is not provided for violating this requirement.

HOWEVER, the FAA has determined that unforseen circumstances may include passenger delays, weather, maintenance issues, etc. Unless you are a scheduled crew with a prescribed regular 14 hour duty day, you have some relief for unforseen circumstances...under some conditions. This is not to say that if you've been waiting for passengers for fifteen hours and they're only moments away, that you can still go.

If you've been on duty for ten hours, your passengers are running late, and you were scheduled to be home in another three, arrival of your passengers an hour from now is unforseen and won't place you in jeopardy of the regulation. Arrival of your passengers four hours from now will, and if you take the flight, not only will you be in violation of 135.267(b) or (c) (depending on your type of operation), BUT also 91.13.

Operators are able to exceed the moving 24 hour limitations (24 hour lookback limitations) on flight time when using a scheduled crew...you have the same duty schedule every day. In any given 24 hour period, you may fly more than your eight or ten hours of flying...just not in a 24 hour calendar day. However, you give something up...the certificate holder can fly you more, but there is no provision or allowance for unforseen circumstances and delays.

If instead you're an unscheduled crew, you're bound to a moving 24 hour lookback period in which your flight time and rest limitations are contained, but because the nature of your schedule is flexible, so is the regulation with regard to being able to exceed your time on duty vs. rest limitations.

Therefore, depending on the specific regulation under which you are operating, yes you can go, or no you cannot...but you haven't provided enough information to say.

Your use of the term "legal to start, legal to finish," is nebulous and therefore vague...ask a vague question, get a vague answer.

You ask if a crew, knowing that their passengers are arriving late and knowing it will get them home over their 14 hour period, are legal to go...depends on the circumstances of the flight and the regulations under which you are operating.

You then ask if the passengers are sufficiently late that they will be departing after the full duty day is over, is legal...yes, and no. I provided you with a legal circumstance in which that very thing occured, and the FAA didn't have an issue with it. I also stated that the circumstances under which one may do this are rare, and unusual. Apparently you found this too onerous for your college brain...try reading it again.

An important aspect of the allowance for unforseen circumstances for an unscheduled crew is that they crew cannot be assigned a trip that would knowingly exceed the time on duty beyond the required rest requirements (ie, 14 hours). In other words, the certificate holder, knowing the weather is bad, the aircraft has difficulty starting up, and the passengers are traditionally four hours late, can't assign the trip (and the pilot can't accept it) on the premise that when these things occur they can be classified as "unforseen" and therefore used as a loophole. Operators do that all the time; it's skating on thin ice, and won't hold water. In each legal interpretation addressing the matter, the FAA always invokes 91.13 to remind those considering these regulations that there is a bigger picture to which they (you) are beholden. Consider it.

Legal interpretations dated 08/30/1993, 07/15/1992, etc, each point out the circumstances regarding when operations involving unforseen delays are legal, and at the same time admonish the reader that 91.13 always applies...even if the flight is legal.

I can't post the interpretations presently, or I would...or perhaps I would for someone else who doesn't cry over the material they're given. Pearls before swine, I guess. You asked, you're the beggar...even a begger can be choosy, I suppose. Try providing a little more information when you ask for help, and then not snapping back at those who offer a helping hand. In other words...grow up.

 

[AngelKing]

Why is it avgnat, that every time you post, it becomes a confrontation between you and everyone else?

ak

 

[avbug]

You dropped into contribute exactly what to the topic at hand, mr. kalishnikov?

No confrontation existed until the college boy had a tantrum because he didn't hear what he wanted to hear. As one asking the question, at most he might have merely said he was still looking for more, or queried what was written. He didn't. I attacked no one. He had his little cry, and the thread moved on...still on topic...until you arrived.

As always.

What have you to contribute to the topic, mate?

 

[100LL... Again!]

Quite often the legal-to-start is referring to the max flight hours, not the duty day.

At my airline, you could only exceed the duty day if you were airborne. Essentially, if you had a 2 hour flight segment, you needed to be airborne no later than 2 hours to your duty limit.

Legal to start legal to finish referred only to flight time limits (at my airline).

Incidentally, after reading a previous post, i realize that I've been spelling the word "benefit" wrong all these years. Turns out my dictionary is wrong, too.

 

[avbug]

Aah, the spelling cops are back again.

The queston regards flying under Part 135, not for an airline. The regulation regarding rest and duty is different, and varies with the type of operation and pilot schedule under 135...the original poster needs to provide more information.