gunfyter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Posts
- 3,785
Yip and Reality,
I am not aware of any non-scheduled operation that obeys the 135 rest regulations with prospective rest.
In fact 50, 135 companies sued the FAA when the FAA announced they were going to enforce prospective rest.
see http://www.law.emory.edu/1circuit/aug99/99-1888.01a.html
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
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.
In my experience, Operations called you in and you had to answer the phone nearly 24/7. You never knew when your duty period would be or when your rest would be or when it began or when it ended....
I am not aware of any non-scheduled operation that obeys the 135 rest regulations with prospective rest.
In fact 50, 135 companies sued the FAA when the FAA announced they were going to enforce prospective rest.
see 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.
.
