Results of ARC rewrite for Flight and Duty (135)

[Way2Broke]

Thanks for answering my questions Moose and YIP. Very helpful. You only need the extended rest if you fly more than 10 hours in any 14 hour duty day, not if you fly more than 10 hours in any given 24. Got it. I had a bit different scenario going in my head in which the pilots flew more in the 14 hour period than the on you described. Either way we are on the same page.

 

[Seadogrun]

Way2 you are correct rest can not be violated. Late pax is an unexpected delay, late freight, TAC delays, weather etc are all unexpected delay and you can exceed 14 hours of duty. If you are tired you call fatigue. You can exceed 10 hrs of flight time in a 24 hours period provided there is 10 ten hour rest period during the 24 hours and all flight time in excess of 10 hours follows the 10 hour rest period.

My understanding was that a late pax/cargo does not qualify as unexpected delay. If the pax shows up late and causes you not to be able to complete the trip within your legal duty day, then the trip doesn't go. I always thouhgt that unexpected delay was for weather already airborne that causes you to extend your duty day, then requires the longer rest. Once again I haven't flown 135 in a couple of years so it's a little foggy to me.

 

[hammer2]

It is still unknown how the on-demand charter operations are going to comply, but my boss is on one of the boards trying to figure it out. He said the FAA wanted it done last year and if they don't do something soon they are going to start enforcing the rest requirement of 10 hours prior to your scheduled trip (which would mean alot of violations!). We are trying to figure out how to do it without hiring more pilots to cover pop-ups or turning down late evening trips. One thing we are toying with is going to a hard 8-6 off time and then only being able to fly until 8-10 pm should we get a late afternoon trip.

We are a small company that can't really afford to hire enough pilots to make it work effectively (24-7 on call) but we need to be able to serve our clients who have short term needs so we can continue to provide a valuable service. I'm all in the interest of safety and good rest requirements for crewmembers but I hope there is a middle ground somewhere.

If your companies come up with some good alternatives to this issue, please post them so we all can brainstorm!

I'm sorry your company can't afford more pilots. I hope people like your boss don't get their grubby little hands on these new rest rule! I'm tired of being tired. A 14 hr day followed by just ten hrs of rest.... or 10 hrs rest in a 24 hrs period... however you want to look at it is crazy. If companies can't afford to stay in business, because a pilot needing to rest, that company going out of business is a good thing. The alternitive ,or middle ground is MAX TO NEVER EXCEED, ALL OPS OF THAT CREW MEMBER STOPs At 12 HRS OF DUTY!!!!! Duty also defined as on call. We may get some legatimate operators.

 

[pilotyip]

Lets see here how we will handle 135 10-hr rest followed by duty. Since I can only 14 hours, and you are on duty, I want you in the bldg. to able to capture any trip that comes up. So I have to have pilots on a rotating schedule. I want you in here at 0800, no trips by noon, put you back in rest, at 2200 you come back in get a trip at 0300, come back at 1100 the next day. Back in to rest have you come back 2200 again, no trip send you back into rest at 0200, at 1200, I tell you to go into another 10 hours rest, and report into the building at 2200, lucky night trip comes in right away, YIP-MMTO-YIP get back at noon. Are you any less tired than under the present system?

 

[CelticCitation]

I agree with YIPster. Change the rules, change the way they get abused.

The best way to keep in duty is to have enough flying that "on call" is not an issue. Figure that out, and you can write your own checks. If you can't be happy with what one crew can do most days, you probably won't be able to survive in business anyway. Everyone points out that crew costs are a small percentage of the total costs, but fact of the matter is we operate in a high capital, small margin business. If your cost structure necesitates an additional full time crew to do what can be done in a day, your costs are probably too tight to ever get beyond break even anyway. An airplane that has to fly more than a 135 duty day to make money is a liability.

 

[hammer2]

12 on 12 off........

 

[Boilermaker]

I'm sorry your company can't afford more pilots. I hope people like your boss don't get their grubby little hands on these new rest rule! I'm tired of being tired. A 14 hr day followed by just ten hrs of rest.... or 10 hrs rest in a 24 hrs period... however you want to look at it is crazy. If companies can't afford to stay in business, because a pilot needing to rest, that company going out of business is a good thing. The alternitive ,or middle ground is MAX TO NEVER EXCEED, ALL OPS OF THAT CREW MEMBER STOPs At 12 HRS OF DUTY!!!!! Duty also defined as on call. We may get some legatimate operators.

In all honesty, my boss is a great guy. He is trying to figure out the best way to keep us safe and to still be able to provide last minute service to people that need it. What we may end up doing is having to stay overnight instead of departing for home at 2200-2300 hrs for a 2 hr flight home. I am priveleged to work for a guy that doesn't work his guys into the ground but still knows how to have a company that can stay in business for 30 years.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

My understanding was that a late pax/cargo does not qualify as unexpected delay. If the pax shows up late and causes you not to be able to complete the trip within your legal duty day, then the trip doesn't go. I always thouhgt that unexpected delay was for weather already airborne that causes you to extend your duty day, then requires the longer rest. Once again I haven't flown 135 in a couple of years so it's a little foggy to me.

THe above is one reason why -135 needs to be re-written. It is grey and vague as to what is allowed to be a "delay". If it was black and white, everybody would know what the rules were, and mgmt/fsdos wouldn't be allowed to bend the rules to fit what they wanted.

cliff
YIP

 

[rice]

Hi!



THe above is one reason why -135 needs to be re-written. It is grey and vague as to what is allowed to be a "delay". If it was black and white, everybody would know what the rules were, and mgmt/fsdos wouldn't be allowed to bend the rules to fit what they wanted.

cliff
YIP

AMEN!!!!!!!

 

[pilotyip]

Cliff we would just go to 121 and call it a duty break then we can extend the day to 24 hours and if 8 hours flight time is not exceeded, you would not need any rest. You would be ready for 16 hours of duty and 8 hours of flynig the next day.

 

[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?

 

[hammer2]

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???

Then you hire more people!
Question, what if that trip consisted of a ten hour day, you are in your 9th hr should you take it? Most companies say hell yeah! Whats the problem? It will go down on paper as a 10 hr day. I know I'm spinning my wheels, but we as pilots do except to much. Try telling a company you are fatigued on a regular basis and see what happens!!!!

 

[pilotyip]

Hammer, you guys who feel this way can fix it, by refusing to work for companies that don't do 12 on 12 off. Incidentally one of our pilot went to work for a company that has 12 on 12 off, it is an EMS helo outfit. His 12 hours is spent in uniform in the hanger on a 15 minute go. If a trip comes up at 11:45 and the next crew is not there, they are required to fly. Is that how you want 12 on 12 off to work?

 

[hammer2]

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

Don't tell me it won't work. Being at a fractional( which is nothing more than a charter company.) I never take on more than a 14 hr day which could be reduced to 12. And we get pop ups as well. Oh! I forgot, I'm at a company thats willing to spend money.... They hired enough pilots to make it work..... You have so many aicraft, so hire enough pilots to crew the aicraft 24 hrs. Your buddy is getting screwed.

 

[Boilermaker]

Hammer, I completely understand where you are coming from. The problem is that we live in different worlds (assuming you are a frax pilot). Your company is able to have the staff it needs where we do not. If you guys run into a duty day problem you bring in another fresh crew to cover it. If that doesn't work you call......us. What happens to the whole system when we can't cover that?? Believe me, I won't fly fatigued and my boss wouldn't press me to. As was stated earlier, if I have been home all day watching the tube and I get a call at 4pm for an 8 hour trip I'll take it. If I get to 10 pm and I can't go anymore, I make that call and get a hotel room. My company supports that call 100%. The problem I would run into would be a frax wanting to use me for my 14 hours at whatever time they called (some frax are not that bad but some try to push it).

I agree we will never all be in agreement, but there are 2 different worlds. Frax charge their customers for pilots to be on standby and cover these situations (and recent data shows people are figuring out that the dollars and cents don't make sense when they look at frax vs. chartering). ODC can only charge owners so much and charge customers so much (i.e. you guys wouldn't use us if our hourly charge went to $4000 per hour for a Hawker) before we go out of business. This is not because our owners are cheap! They understand what the market allows and pay accordingly, but they know they don't need 5 pilots to cover one airplane. Just a part of the business.

Honestly it will probably work out to where we have to lose trips for us to meet the new rest requirements and that is not all bad. I will always lean to the position of safety. Again, as someone said, common sense will always be the turning point regardless of rules. Those that fly tired now will fly tired no matter what FAR135 says and those of us that know when to call it a day will do it regardless of if we started at 4am or 4pm.

My soapbox just broke so I'm done!

Boiler

 

[hammer2]

You all are right. Things are good the way they are.

 

[pilotyip]

Nice touch boiler, a touch of reality from a company trying to stay in business versus a very profitable company with deep pockets that can hire extra pilots to do the same work. Not to mention 99% of hammer’s flying is done between 0600L and 2400L, with a four-hour call out. That gives schedulers a lot more consistency to deal with than a uniform coverage 24/7 with a 30-minute call out. Different worlds, different solutions. BTW isn’t NJ Part 91 subpart K?

 

[Boilermaker]

You all are right. Things are good the way they are.

No one ever said that, Hammer. There is always room for improvement and increases in safety. There will be a middle ground where pilots will get their rest period and operators can still service a part of the aviation system that makes it valuable to people. Who knows what that will look like. On our side, we will lose some last minute charter revenue, but that is a (small) part of the business. Don't be fooled, though, it will affect everyone. Frax will start having to tell some of their customers that they have to wait 8-10 hours for a crew to come out of rest because there is not as much availability from the ODC industry. (Which always happens at the worst time....New Years, President's Day, Super Bowl, etc.) Granted, you can tell them to deal with it because they have bought in and they don't have much to say about it.

It would be nice if everything worked out in a nice, concise way but it never will. We will survive, however, but I suspect there will be some that won't.

 

[hammer2]

Nice touch boiler, a touch of reality from a company trying to stay in business versus a very profitable company with deep pockets that can hire extra pilots to do the same work. Not to mention 99% of hammer’s flying is done between 0600L and 2400L, with a four-hour call out. That gives schedulers a lot more consistency to deal with than a uniform coverage 24/7 with a 30-minute call out. Different worlds, different solutions. BTW isn’t NJ Part 91 subpart K?

So Yip are you saying that a company struggling should be able to massage the rules to stay in business? You can bend a rule 27 different ways and make the paper work look legal. I had to go through the 2 clock system, I'll bet you have too. Then I wised up and quit. You're right most of my flying is between 0600l-1200l, but in my short life I have learned time works the same whether it is o600l-1200l or 1200l-0600! Yip you're more interested in saving USA JET than easing the rules on pilots and making this a decent career outside of Southwest

 

[hammer2]

One more question. Do you believe 10hrs is enough rest?

 

[hammer2]

Yip I just read your post in the union forum. I see what you think we are worth.