Results of ARC rewrite for Flight and Duty (135)

[RedGuy]

Personally I think the rule is just fine the way it is. You can't legislate good judgement, just becuase you give someone a "perscribed" rest period doesn't mean they will rest. I know a few guys that will get home from a trip at 7-8am and stay up all day simply because it's "normal" to be awake during the day. Then they may get a trip later that night and be tired. They meet the rest requirement rule, but due to their own stupidity they will still be flying tired. If you ask me the decresion should be left up to the pilot, like it is now. If I'm tired, I don't go. I've only had to use this once before a trip and I didn't catch any flack for it. They also never have a problem with me stopping for a nap if I need one. I also don't think being on call is being on duty. I'm on call right now and I'm not doing ANYTHING work related, I'm sitting around my house, puttsing around on my computer and later I'll probably go to the store, and just carry out my life normally. I'm not working, if they call me for a trip I'll go in and once I'm at the airport, then I'm working. But by no means is being on call work. IMO anyone that thinks being on call is work needs to get a real job for awhile so they can see what work really is.

Also if I want to fly home after my trip that is and should still be my discression. I don't like being on the road all the time and from what I've heard so far is that the new rule would eliminate 91 home. So basically if I fly for 8 hrs and end up in some place like Gwinner North Dakota, that's where would have to stay. I don't agree with that at all, if I'm not tired, I'm coming home. I know my limits better than the FAA does, everyone has different tolerances, so why put out a blanket rule limiting and possibly making things worse.

The only part of the rule I would like to see changed is to put a maximum on the delay allowed, say a 4 hr max delay.

 

[pilotyip]

Red what a refreshing approach to the reality of the business. One of things that never seems to make much sense, is the mantra that a pilot can do whatever they want when not assigned a duty by the airline i.e. do an 8 hour jumpseat into a trip leaving for Europe at 1900L, basically the crewmember has put himself on voluntary duty 8 hours prior to the flight, he is in line for a 26 hour duty day. Does this have anything to do with safety? But if airline makes me answer the phone I am on duty at that instant. What if the new rule says you have to be rest in a company provided facility at the employer’s place of business? New phone call “Hey Joe you got a trip in 11 hours come on in right now and check into the rest center, you have bunk 5B. How many like that part of the new rule?

 

[Seadogrun]

Personally I think the rule is just fine the way it is. You can't legislate good judgement, just becuase you give someone a "perscribed" rest period doesn't mean they will rest. I know a few guys that will get home from a trip at 7-8am and stay up all day simply because it's "normal" to be awake during the day. Then they may get a trip later that night and be tired. They meet the rest requirement rule, but due to their own stupidity they will still be flying tired. If you ask me the decresion should be left up to the pilot, like it is now. If I'm tired, I don't go. I've only had to use this once before a trip and I didn't catch any flack for it. They also never have a problem with me stopping for a nap if I need one. I also don't think being on call is being on duty. I'm on call right now and I'm not doing ANYTHING work related, I'm sitting around my house, puttsing around on my computer and later I'll probably go to the store, and just carry out my life normally. I'm not working, if they call me for a trip I'll go in and once I'm at the airport, then I'm working. But by no means is being on call work. IMO anyone that thinks being on call is work needs to get a real job for awhile so they can see what work really is.

Also if I want to fly home after my trip that is and should still be my discression. I don't like being on the road all the time and from what I've heard so far is that the new rule would eliminate 91 home. So basically if I fly for 8 hrs and end up in some place like Gwinner North Dakota, that's where would have to stay. I don't agree with that at all, if I'm not tired, I'm coming home. I know my limits better than the FAA does, everyone has different tolerances, so why put out a blanket rule limiting and possibly making things worse.

The only part of the rule I would like to see changed is to put a maximum on the delay allowed, say a 4 hr max delay.

I happen to agree with you on idea that "on call" should not be "on duty" When you are on call you should be resting.

I don't care which way you follow the rules, someone who normally sleeps at night gets a scheduled a trip at 2am will be below peak perfomance on that trip. I personally find it very difficult to sleep during the day reguardless of what rest rules are in place.

I agree with you also on the Part 91 trip home, however some will argue that if the leg has been paid for, even though it has no passangers, it should be operated as Part 135. Just to clarify say a consumer needs to go from FLL to TEB. He is quoted a round trip so the plane can return to base. This consumer "owns" and has paid for the return trip therefore it should be conducted under 135.

I don't personally accept this interpretation, but I'm sure there are people that do and they do have a valid arguement.

 

[pilotyip]

Not 135

seadogrun, The part 91 leg on a 135 trip is not part of a 135 trip. There is no revenue being generated on that leg, there is no revenue source being moved from A to B. Look at it this way, you get a trip to fly from YIP-SDF-LRD, cargo moving from SDF-LRD. Your airplane breaks at SDF, will your company receive any revenue for that leg? The answer is no, therefore you were not involved in 135 ops. This is the way it is written in our GOM and approved by our POI.

 

[Seadogrun]

seadogrun, The part 91 leg on a 135 trip is not part of a 135 trip. There is no revenue being generated on that leg, there is no revenue source being moved from A to B. Look at it this way, you get a trip to fly from YIP-SDF-LRD, cargo moving from SDF-LRD. Your airplane breaks at SDF, will your company receive any revenue for that leg? The answer is no, therefore you were not involved in 135 ops. This is the way it is written in our GOM and approved by our POI.

In your situation there is no question about it, it's Part 91.
As I said before this isn't my personal view, but for this exercise I'll play Devil's Advocate:

The situation that I gave is different. The main difference is that in my situation someone, a specific person, is paying for the leg. For example the charter from FLL to TEB. The pax only wants to get himself to TEB and knows its a 3hr trip and the plane cost say $3000/hr. So his trip should cost $9000. So the plane will need to be repo'd back to base and the charter co. will charge the pax for the return leg. The way they do that is by including it in the trip quote. So the quote would read like:

(obviously simplified)
Leg 1 FLL TEB $9000
Leg 2 TEB FLL $9000(empty)
Total $18000.

So Mr. Moneybags pays the $18000 and off we go. He gets out in TEB and goes about his business. The crew gets back in the plane and off we go back to FLL.

There's no question that Mr. Moneybags PAID for the return trip as appears clearly on the quote.

Just to remind you I am playing Devil's Advocate I don't necessarily subscribe to this train of thought, however am pointing out that it COULD BE a valid arguement.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

The discussion about the 91/135 leg is exactly why we need the regs re-written. It is a grey area. If the reg was written explicitly, there would be no discussion as everyone would clearly see what is 91/135.

I personally think we should be like the rest of the world and have -121 and
-91. There is NO -135, NO -125, NO -127 in other parts of the world.

If you're a business, ALL your flying is -121. If you're not a business, ALL your flying is -91.

cliff
YIP

 

[hammer2]

12 on 12 off!!!!!!!! Someone tell me why we need a 14 hr day? Why not try to get our duty days reduced some. That would reduce fatigue.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

Not if the FAA/FSDO/Regional FAA lets you extend your duty day indefinitely for just about anything.

I know a guy who had a 25 hr. duty day, and that is 25 hrs from when he showed up at work after being on call for an extensive time period before that.

cliff
YIP

 

[Boilermaker]

12 on 12 off!!!!!!!! Someone tell me why we need a 14 hr day? Why not try to get our duty days reduced some. That would reduce fatigue.

Just a question. With 12 on 12 off, what happens when a trip comes in on your 9th hour but your other shift is still off???

 

[pilotyip]

Yea Hammer, tell me how do I schedule a 12 on 12 off in the on-demand business?