Terminations at Flight Options

[KSUPILOT]

fozzy sumed it up

 

[gunfyter]

FOZZY got it right?

WOW... I guess it does not pay to be an A-teamer....

How many people will answer the phone and call their partners while in rest now?

 

[Diesel]

Why would the fire the A teamer. He was doing the companies buisness.

Of course notnjapilot would think just because he saw stayed at a hotel on vacation once a year he understands that our job doesnt even come close to ending when the engines shut down.

Where oh where is njw though???? I'm sure her insight would be invaluable.

sigh

 

[cjdriver]

Fozzy's right, score one for following the rest rules.

 

[152SIC]

Sounds to me like Flops still isn't following the Prospective Rest regs the way they are supposed to be. If you're required to be contactable (i.e., required to have your phone on), you are no longer in rest.

What are prospective rest regs? Sorry to interrupt the thread, but I have never heard of these. Are they 91K?

 

[CA1900]

What are prospective rest regs? Sorry to interrupt the thread, but I have never heard of these. Are they 91K?

Yes. Take a look at 91.1057. Included in that section is this paragraph:

Rest period means a period of time required pursuant to this subpart that is free of all responsibility for work or duty prior to the commencement of, or following completion of, a duty period, and during which the flight crewmember or flight attendant cannot be required to receive contact from the program manager. A rest period does not include any time during which the program manager imposes on a flight crewmember or flight attendant any duty or restraint, including any actual work or present responsibility for work should the occasion arise.

Standby means that portion of a duty period during which a flight crewmember is subject to the control of the program manager and holds himself or herself in a condition of readiness to undertake a flight. Standby is not part of any rest period.

Seems pretty clear to me. You're either in rest (where you're under no obligation to be contacted) or you're on duty. There's simply no other status a 91K pilot can be under.

 

[152SIC]

Thanks for the information!

 

[gunfyter]

Same applies to 135!

 

[152SIC]

Are you sure? I think that 135 is a bit different now that I have read about 91K. If so can you point me to the FAR which is appropriate?

Thanks in advance!

 

[gunfyter]

Yes I am sure.

http://www.law.emory.edu/1circuit/aug99/99-1888.01a.html

United States Court of Appeals​

For the First Circuit​

No. 99-1888​

AVIATORS FOR SAFE AND FAIRER REGULATION, INC.,​

Petitioner,​

v.​

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,​

Respondent.​

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF​

THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION​

Before

Selya, Boudin and Lynch,​

Circuit Judges.​

John M. Edwards with whom John C. Blessington and Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP were on brief for petitioner.​

Charles W. Scarborough, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, with whom David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Robert S. Greenspan, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Department of Justice, were on brief for respondent.​

BOUDIN, Circuit Judge. Petitioner, Aviators for Safe and Fairer Regulation, Inc. ("Aviators"), is a trade association of about fifty on-demand air charter companies. It brings this case to challenge a so-called notice of enforcement policy issued by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") that purports to interpret, and to express its intent to enforce, a preexisting regulation governing how much rest pilots or other flight crewmembers must get between flight assignments.​

Air charter companies furnish "air taxi" service to customers on demand rather than on a scheduled basis. The FAA regulates such companies under Part 135 of its regulations, 14 C.F.R. pt. 135 (2000). The regulation at issue in this case, id. ? 135.267(d), was adopted in its current form in October 1985 and aims to ensure that pilots have adequate rest for purposes of air safety, see 49 U.S.C. ?? 40101(d), 44701(a)(4)-(5) (1994 & Supp. II 1996). It states, in relevant part, that each flight assignment to unscheduled one- and two-pilot crews "must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour period that precedes the planned completion time of the assignment." 14 C.F.R. ? 135.267(d).​

The term "rest" is not defined in the regulation. On several occasions, the FAA sought to refine the term through rulemaking but those efforts were abortive. (1) Then, on June 15, 1999, without prior notice or rulemaking proceedings, the FAA issued a "notice of enforcement policy." The notice said that it was merely reiterating the FAA's "longstanding interpretation of its regulations" concerning rest requirements and continued in pertinent part:​

[T]he FAA has consistently interpreted the term rest to mean that a flight crewmember is free from actual work from the air carrier or from present responsibility for work should the occasion arise. Thus the FAA previously has determined that a flight crewmember on reserve was not at rest if the flight crewmember had a present responsibility for work in that the flight crewmember had to be available for the carrier to notify of a flight assignment.​

If I were the Captain forced to resign... FLOPS would be hearing from my lawyer. Fired for not being able to contact a crewmember who was in Required 135/91K prospective Rest? I don't think so.