Results of ARC rewrite for Flight and Duty (135)

[pilotyip]

assigned is the word that allows legal to start, legal to finish. In Part 121 is is limiting and you are not allowed to fly over 16 hours, except on the last leg. And then only if it was planned to be completed within 16 hours and enroute delays forced the duty over 16 hours.

 

[Seadogrun]

It says: occurs during a regularly assigned duty period of no more than 14 hours and—


Occurs during the regularly assigned duty period of no more that 14 hours. It does not say before or after the normally assigned duty period.

I don't see the logic in your interpretation.

Are you of the opinion that if a cert. holder can assign a 14 hr duty day, but the pilot can fly as long as he/she wants because the duty day is only assigned?

 

[400pilot]

135.267(c) does not apply to most 135 operators. A regular assigned duty period of 14 hours would be, for example, a case where the duty starts every day at 8am and goes to 10pm. A lot of the helicopter pilots who fly workers out to oil rigs fall under this, but most on-demand charter outfits do not.

If you are curious about 135.267(c), there are a couple legal interps on the FAA website to look at.

 

[Seadogrun]

135.267(c) does not apply to most 135 operators. A regular assigned duty period of 14 hours would be, for example, a case where the duty starts every day at 8am and goes to 10pm. A lot of the helicopter pilots who fly workers out to oil rigs fall under this, but most on-demand charter outfits do not.

If you are curious about 135.267(c), there are a couple legal interps on the FAA website to look at.

Once again, I don't get it. Here's what the reg says:

(c) Sections 135.267 and 135.269 apply to any operation that is not a scheduled passenger-carrying operation and to any operation conducted solely within the State of Alaska, unless the operator elects to comply with §135.265 as authorized under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

 

[pilotyip]

assigned trip can not be more than 14 hrs duty. For example you are assigned a trip from YIP-ATL-LRD-MMTO, supposed to be completed, using flight times and reasonable ground times is 12 hours. However a departure delay at ATL causes you to be 3 hours late coming out of ATL, you are still good for the trip. And if you want a tail end ferry back to LRD is 100% legal. All in all a 18 hr day. Good to go coach send me in.

 

[belchfire]

Aviation Rulemaking Comittee: Joint effort between industry and the FAA

Ah, well there's an oxymoron...industry vs. government-representation getting squished in the middle!

The problem with fatigue is that it affects judgement first. Someone that was well rested might very well say "frack that tail end ferry, get me a hotel room and I'll call you in 12 hours" whereas a worn out crew, tired from the previous days work, longing to see some sunshine for a change will accept it.

The Feds have statistics that are (while I am no real fan of statistical "evidence") are quite clear. The rate of incidents and accidents are substantially higher in the first hour and a half or duty and after 14 hours on duty.

Which makes perfect sense. The average human needs eight hours of sleep.

The wakeup call happens one hour before duty starts. 14, 16, or maybe 18
hours later the duty ends. Even at 14 hours, that person should be getting ready for bed, not wondering where the nearest taco bell is...you are already past getting into supper and sleep mode. The 16 or 18 hour duty days put someone awake and active for nearly or in excess of 20 hours. Throw in a couple of min rest periods that give you 9 hours off duty-but only five or six hours of sleep and you have a receipt for disaster. In fact I'm surprised disaster doesn't happen more often!

Small wonder performance begins to suffer!

I lost a friend in an accident that could be blamed in my estimation anywhere between 60 and 80 percent on fatigue. The rules still haven't changed. They won't either untill enough people die, enough NASA forms get filled in and enough pilots use the f word (fatigue) and document it.

And yeah, I don't want to be called a ************************* any more than the next guy, so I don't call in either-we are the problem!

 

[Seadogrun]

Pilotyip - No disrespect intended, but you haven't backed up anything you've said with resources that support your claim. It would be very helpful if you would site your source for your information. So far the best I've heard is "because I said so."

 

[FlyingMoose]

Pilotyip - No disrespect intended, but you haven't backed up anything you've said with resources that support your claim. It would be very helpful if you would site your source for your information. So far the best I've heard is "because I said so."

No disrespect intended here either, Pilotyip, but that is because he can't; it doesn't exist. The arguement he is making is based solely on the invalid misinterpretations that so many carriers and pilots have, for what ever reason, used to justify violating very specifically written regulations. I'll say that another way; companies have been violating these rules for some time after numerous attempts by the FAA (not to be read POI's) to clarify the current regs to no avail. That is why the rewrite has become necessary.

Some of the examples used in this thread have specifically illustrated the very real mentallity some operators have which places vague interpretations of regs in the name of business over common sense safety. Example: maybe it was just to prove a point, so I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but the post regarding the 18 hour scenario (which I absolutely do not feel is in compliance with the regs) might reveal a lot about your operating philosophy, yip. Most significantly, nowhere was there any mention regarding crew fatigue in determining legality. The PIC's determination of crew airworthiness is the first and foremost factor, by regulation. And, yes I do, as does the FAA regulatory division and Chief Counsel, disagree with that interpretation.

Some of the other posters seem to understand the point, what would be the purpose of the rest and duty limitations if you could knowingly begin a flight operation that would violate them. The regulatory requirement at issue is 135.267(d) which stipulates 10 hours of rest in the preceeding 24 hours. The "14 hour duty limit" is actually additional language in 135.267(c). It is very important to understand the language to properly interpret the regs. And they are exactly right, the regs only allow for exceeding "flight" time restrictions, not "duty" times.

Secondly, all those other terms that come up in these discussions and specifically one that you mentioned are of no value in the arguement. "Non-duty non-rest", seriously, even if you wanted to build a case on that made up term it specifically by name is self defeating. "...non-rest". That is the whole legal and practical (safety/fatigue) basis of the issue, it isn't REST! So, yeah, I would agree, you can be in "non-duty non-rest" indefinitely what ever that is. More to the point; your posts seem to suggest that rest is something that is required after an assignment and not prior (i.e. in the 24 hours preceeding the completion of the assignment)..... that ain't how it works.

 

[400pilot]

Once again, I don't get it. Here's what the reg says

(c) A flight crewmember's flight time may exceed the flight time limits of paragraph (b) of this section if the assigned flight time occurs during a regularly assigned duty period of no more than 14 hours and—
(1) If this duty period is immediately preceded by and followed by a required rest period of at least 10 consecutive hours of rest;
(2) If flight time is assigned during this period, that total flight time when added to any other commercial flying by the flight crewmember may not exceed—
(i) 8 hours for a flight crew consisting of one pilot; or
(ii) 10 hours for a flight crew consisting of two pilots; and
(3) If the combined duty and rest periods equal 24 hours.

When you are reading 135.267, ignore part c unless you have a "regularly assigned duty period." That was the point.......

 

[pilotyip]

Fatique not regulated

Never mentioned fatigue, because when a crew is fatigued, they call fatigue and go to the hotel. In fact to fly fatigued, would be a violation of 91.13, careless and reckless. To start a trip at 0600 after a good night's sleep it is almost a no brainer to fly until 2200 or 2300 and still feel fresh. I would rather tail end back to LRD than go through the hassle of staying at MMTO, I will most likely get to bed quicker in LRD. However after no sleep from being up all day and getting called out at 2300, you may find at 0600 the next day after 7 hours you are fatigued, so you call fatigue even though you are still legal for another 7 hours. There is no rest policy that will keep a crew fresh for all flights. How about I call you at 0900, and get you out of bed after 10 hrs of sleep, I tell you to go into rest at 1000 for a 2000 trip. Are you going to get any more rest in the next 9 hours? You will most likely not unless you take sleeping pills. The trip is scheduled for 13 hrs, you are 100% legal by the regs, are you still alert at 0900? you would be legal until 1200 the next morning? As someone else posted here it is the PIC's duty to determine if he can safely make the trip. You cannot regulate that beyond common sense. My experience with this rule comes from inspections with the FAA while reviewing our flight and duty time records.

 

[pilotyip]

I came to USA Jet about eight years ago as the result of a union shutting down my airline. It was the last place in world I expected to be in my mid 50’s. I found the job in a garbage can, but that is another story. I was hired a Director of Training and given a blank sheet of paper to build a training department. I believe I was successful in that, most pilots who have been through our training will support that USA Jet has quality training. At that time, our turnover was running about 50% per year and having that turnover puts a tremendous burden on the training department. It was elected to pay our pilots more out of the savings that could be generated by reducing turnover and the associated training costs. USA Jet guarantee pay was raised well above industry averages in the on-demand cargo sector. The plan worked, turnover dropped to around 10%-15% per year. We have not hired a Captain off the street since 1998, I do not believe there is anyone else in the on-demand business that can make that same statement. The company wanted to make USA Jet a place where a pilot if they desired could make a career. I desperately wanted to help make this the best place to work in the on-demand business. The higher pays that part of this plan were predicated upon the ability to fly a certain levels in the on-demand market. The on-demand market is changing with the fortunes of the US Auto industry. In defense of USA Jet Airlines, it tried to break out of the on-demand mold and make the airline a place a person could make a good guarantee, have great training and great maintenance. A place someone might consider as a career. The on-demand business is too unpredictable. However even with the recent pay change at USA Jet, the company is still above the average for the on-demand market. Plus it is certainly way above average in days off. It is a tuff business. We run on tight margins, we have to have the flexibility of having minimum crews to cover our airplanes and still pay the best wages in our sector of the industry. That is why we operate the way we do and feds approve of it. If anyone has an answer they could be a very valuable person.

 

[Seadogrun]

Once again a "because I said so" response. I'll stop beating a dead horse now.

 

[pilotyip]

My thoughts exactly, just because you said so does not make it right, we will continue doing it the correct way. Thanks for for the input and best of luck in your career.