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.