repositioning legs

[hawkercpt]

In a 135 operation, are the repositioning legs indeed under 135 as well? If you are positioning to do a revenue leg then would it not be considered under 135?

 

[vclean]

Depends on how you are dispatched.

 

[pilotyip]

If you are flying into a 135 revenue, leg all the time and duty must count toward 135 flight and duty. If you have no revenue on board, you may operate under certain 91 rules. I.e. Op. Spec C-64 (approved source of weather) need not apply to land at the airport. On tail end, ferries accepted by the crews where fight time or duty has been exceeded can only operate under part 91.

 

[Canucit]

I thought that if it was a non rev flight it was Part 91 unless your op specs says different

 

[pilotyip]

Yes you can operate under 91 on non-rev legs. However all flight time and duty on a 91 leg flying into a revenue leg has to be counted towards 135 limits.

 

[User546]

I second what PilotYip said. That's the way our 135 operates as well.

Saves lots of paperwork on our end doing it that way.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

also when flying internationally (at least at my company) we operate all legs 135 because customs considers us a commercial operation both directions even if we only flew pax one way

 

[soarby007]

part 135 legs

We consider all legs part 135. The customer is usually paying for the whole trip, not just one leg, at least in our operation that is the case. I think it is a little shaky to call it a part 91 leg because no passengers are on board. The key, is 'revenue', and I have been told that if the customer is paying for all legs, then it is revenue. Our DO says we are a part 135 operator, not 91 and to save any confusion, all legs are part 135, unless the owner is flying.

 

[Daveman]

I'll third what the PilotYipper has said. Though we all know of the sinister operators.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Hawkercpt,

This is another issue that may vary from fed to fed. I have heard inspectors say if the flight is dispatched by the certificate holder or operates under the company call sign, it is 135. I have heard it interpreted as if your job title is as a 135 SIC, then everything you fly for-hire with that company is 135. Others may take a more "common sense view". I suggest calling your FSDO or POI and asking them.

CR

 

[Guitar Guy]

Hawkercpt,

This is another issue that may vary from fed to fed. I have heard insectors say if the flight is dispatched by the certificate holder or operates under the company call sign, it is 135.

That's not necessarily the case at the fractionals. We use our company call-sign on Part 91 legs as well as our Part 135 legs.

 

[soarby007]

One has to think about the reason for wanting a part 91 leg. Weather, runway length, duty times, etc., and determine if using part 91 legs is the best thing to do.

I still believe that if you are flying part 135, then all legs are part 135, not to exclude the ones with no passengers and call them repositioning legs. Certainly there are sometimes when it is advantageous to use part 91, I agree. There apparently is no clear cut answer from the type of responses I'm seeing here as to whether you fly the aircraft 20 miles to pick up passengers and call it a repositioning leg, thus part 91.

 

[fly4free]

If it is duty time your worried about

In a 135 operation, are the repositioning legs indeed under 135 as well? If you are positioning to do a revenue leg then would it not be considered under 135?

Empty legs can be dispatched under part 135, that gives an obvious answer.

However, when there are no dispatch rules against it, repositioning flights may be dispatched under 91. the tricky part about non-sched 135 is that since there is no definition of duty day we have to look at flight time and rest time on a sliding 24 hour scale (the 24hr look back).

Front end ferries as well as tail end ferries are not duty time but they are not rest time either. The flight time on a front end or tail end ferry is not 135 but it counts towards your total commercial flying time for the 24hr period. Front end ferries always affect revenue legs and tail end ferries only under certain circumstances affect revenue legs.

Example 2 man crew - after a couple days off, crew show time is 0000z wheels up @ 0100z repo empty 5hrs away for a revenue flight back @ 0700z, a mechanical delays your off time to 0900z and another 5hrs puts you on @1400z. In this case, looking back 24 hrs from the completion of the revenue leg the crew has flown the maximum 10hrs and had the required minimum 10hrs of rest. No more revenue legs for this crew until they receive 10hrs of rest.

However, after the revenue leg that same night, dispatch asks the crew to reposition empty 5 hrs away...that puts them on the ground lets say 2000z. This is perfectly legal because it is not a revenue leg, albeit probably not the best use of judgement. 15hrs flying is tough.

Here is the tricky part. Dispatch says your show time is 0700z, 11 hours from your block-in to allow for post-flight and travel to the hotel and 10hrs of rest. This is all perfectly legal so far. You get your leg schedule and it says you will be for wheels up @0800z doing a 7hr revenue leg that puts you on at 1500z. Its only 7hrs of flying and you've had your 10hrs of rest, right. Wrong!!

This is how the tail end ferry will screw you. If you look back 24hrs from the end of your revenue leg of 1500z, you will find another 5hrs of commercial flying the day before. That makes your total, if you accept the 7hr trip, 12hrs of flying in a 24hr period.

The lesson here is that the 10hr rest period does reset the duty day sliding period but it does not reset your flight time period.

The best method - look at the planned completion time of the scheduled revenue legs. Then from that time on the clock look back 24hrs. If you can find 10 consecutive hrs of rest and not more than 10hrs of commercial flying, including the planned revenue legs, then you can accept the trip.

I hope this helps.

Fly

 

[7B2]

Anyone know of cases that ended up in court because of this 91 reposition stuff.

I tend to lean toward 135 on a reposition leg and especially on a tail end reposition, partly based on a discussion about this (one of the many discussions about this) with a cut dry no nonsense aviator.

His "beer-theory" applies; he told me: "When I come off duty I can drink beer, right?" "Well, I can't if I have to ferry the plane back the customer is paying for, so therefor it is duty time and therefor it is 135 time" (yeah I know, unless his rest time is only 8 hrs, bla bla)

He's got a point.

 

[Clutch_Cargo]

7B2,

I don't know of any court cases concerning 91 repos but I do know there have been a number of FAA legal interpretations about it.

I wish that your "no nonsense aviator" friend had a point but I'm afraid he doesn't. It wouldn't matter who paid for the plane, he wouldn't be able to fly it if he had been drinking. Heck, he could own it... still wouldn't matter... that is a whole different set of regs.

Unfortunately, the 91 repos are legal. They can, as others have pointed out, affect your flight and duty time limits, but they're still legal. Of course, if you're fatigued or something you could play the 91.13 card, I guess. Just my .02. Maybe I'll rummage through some legal interps and see if I can find anything more definite to post.

 

[Rattler71]

We have always interpreted that a dead leg to pick up passengers is 135 and a dead leg at the end is part 91 but still counts toward flight/duty.

Rattler71

 

[7B2]

clutch cargo,

We all know about the drinking and flying but it definately gets the point across about being on or off duty as a general and simple way of looking at things. ('cause there's some truth to that)

Now here's another point though.

If your reposition flight time counts towards your total flight time (let's say the 34 hrs and 7 days deal) it must obviously be commercial flying, otherwise you wouldn't have to count it ("true" part 91 flying) towards the 34 hrs.

Well, if you do have to count it towards that; aren't you operating under part 135 in this case?
How else can it be that that time shows up there (excl. flying skydivers, banertowing etc.; because that's clearly not what you're doing on a reposition)

Just some food for thought.
Definately curious to see if you can find something about this deal in legal interps.

thanks for you're input.

 

[Rattler71]

7B2, We don't count the last deadhead repo legs flight time toward 135 time. But the crew rest time starts after you land +the 30 or 45 minutes for post-flight depending on your company. Hope I have that right and not confused again.

 

[A Squared]

Here's an FAA legal interpretation on the subject:



FAA Legal Opinion:
April 9, 1993

Andrew Donahue

This is in response to your request for an interpretation dated August 6, 1992.

You ask what conditions must be met for a flight to be conducted under FAR Part 135 versus Part 91. You give the following example:

A flight is dispatched from Memphis to El Paso to pick up freight and deliver to Kansas City. The flight then returns to Memphis. The leg from Memphis to El Paso is empty. The leg from El Paso to Kansas City carries cargo. The leg from Kansas City back to Memphis is empty.

You then ask:

If the "assignment" is to fly from Memphis to El Paso to Kansas City, then back to Memphis, are the flights from Memphis to El Paso, and from Kansas City to Memphis considered operations conducted under Part 91 or Part 135?

Additionally, you state:

The company will sometimes dispatch a flight with enough duty time to get to a destination (i.e., Memphis to Newark, NJ) and then want the crew to Part 91 the aircraft back to Memphis or "re-position" the aircraft back to its base. Can this be done simply because the aircraft is empty, or must other conditions be met (i.e., non-revenue versus revenue)?

Section 135.1 provides in pertinent part that:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing -

(3) The carriage in air commerce of persons or property for compensation or hire as a commercial operator...

(b) ...this part does not apply to - ...

(3) Ferry or training flights....

A ferry flight is defined in the Airman's Information Manual (AIM) glossary as:

- A flight for the purpose of:

1. Returning an aircraft to base

2. Delivering an aircraft from one location to another

The issue is whether the Part 135 flight or "assignment" is completed when the cargo is unloaded at the destination airport. The purpose of the flight conducted under Part 135 is to deliver freight to the destination airport. The ferry flight to return the aircraft to the base of operations changes the purpose to re-positioning the aircraft under Part 91. A flight conducted for the purpose of re-positioning an aircraft under Part 91, after the completion of an assigned flight conducted under Part 135, cannot be considered a new assignment under Part 135 and, therefore, is not subject to the flight time limitations and rest requirements of Part 135.

The general rule with respect to flight time limitations of Part 135 is that any "other commercial flying" (e.g., flights conducted under part 91) must be counted against the daily flight time limitations of Part 135 if it precedes the flight conducted under Part 135. However, if the Part 91 flight occurs after the Part 135 flying, the Part 91 flight is not counted against the daily flight time limitations of Part 135.

The first leg from Memphis to El Paso delivers an aircraft from one location to another. It repositions. It is a ferry flight conducted under Part 91. However, because it precedes a Part 135 leg, flight time accumulated on the first leg must be counted toward Part 135 flight time for the 24 hour period.

The second leg from El Paso to Kansas City is a cargo flight conducted under Part 135.

The third leg from Kansas City to Memphis is returning the empty aircraft to home base. It is also considered a ferry flight conducted under Part 91. Because the flight time accumulated on the third leg occurs after the Part 135 flight is completed it does not count against Part 135 flight time limitations for that 24 hour period.

All Part 91 commercial flight time is counted against the pilot's quarterly and yearly flight time limitations. However, please note that if, for example, the pilot has reached the yearly flight time limit for Part 135 operations, the pilot can nonetheless continue to fly under Part 91 in that calendar year. "Other commercial flying" under Part 91 is counted to the calendar year limit only if a subsequent Part 135 operation is conducted in that calendar year. We enclose a copy of an interpretation dated October 9, 1990, issued to Mr. Steve Wolff. That interpretation concerns Part 121 operations, but the analysis concerning yearly flight time limitations and other commercial flying is applicable here.

The general rule regarding rest requirements is that if the Part 91 flying is assigned by the certificate holder, it may not be conducted during a required rest period. Since your example involves a Part 91 operation, required by the certificate holder, it may not be conducted during the required rest period and, therefore, may affect the availability of the crew for the next Part 135 operation.

You also ask a question regarding rest periods. You state:

My company believes they can have a crew member in rest (getting legal) and at the same time have the crew member on a beeper in case a trip comes up within their remaining duty time. I believe this is in direct conflict with 135.263(b).

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has consistently interpreted "rest" requirements to be satisfied only if the rest time is determined prospectively, is continuous, is free from all duty and restraint, and is free from the responsibility for work should the occasion arise. A period when a pilot has a present responsibility

for work, if called, does not qualify as a rest period. This should be contrasted with a pilot who does not have a present responsibility to fly, if called. For example, when called, he is merely notified of a flight assignment that is to take place at the conclusion of his rest period.

Recently, a development has occurred concerning reserve status and standby issues. Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Anthony J. Broderick, Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification, to Mr. James Landry, President of the Air Transport Association of America. In that letter, Mr. Broderick announced

that a study is being conducted in order to allow the FAA to reappraise its position on reserve status and standby issues.

During this period of reappraisal, Flight Standards Service would like to have the benefit of your views and experiences on these important issues. A letter describing your reserve and standby experiences, and stating your opinions on the issues can be sent to the following address:

Air Transportation Division, AFS-200

Flight Standards Service

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Re: "Reserve" and "Standby" study.

This interpretation was written by Thomas Kiely and Arthur E. Jacobson of the Operations Law Branch, AGC-220. It has been reviewed by Joseph Conte,

Manager of the Operations Law Branch and it has been coordinated with the Air Transportation Division of the Flight Standards Service .

Sincerely,

Donald P. Byrne

Assistant Chief Counsel

Regulations and Enforcement Division

 

[Clutch_Cargo]

Thanks A2!

That answers the original posters question perfectly and save me the trouble of scanning through the interps.

cc