SR22

Don't get me wrong here, Dylan. In general, I like your post, but I would like to use your post to respond to a couple of things.

As you and I have both noted, there is no question about it. There is no gray area as has been suggested by others. Many interpretations of 'rest' have been issued by the FAA, and all of them indicate that rest must be prospectively determined, continuous, and without restraint or present responsibility for work. A Federal Court of Appeals upheld the FAA's right to interpret its regulations and their interpretation of rest as it regards 135.267. There is not a single contradictory opinion or interpretation out there as far as I've been able to determine. 121 crews and even flight attendants, as you noted, abide by this definition of rest. Yet charter companies push and pilots continue to believe that on-call is rest. On-call is not rest. The only question is whether we will be caught and violated.

While I cannot say that I don't understand this question, it still bothers me. Do you drive around without wearing a seatbelt because the police probably won't stop you for it? No, most people wear seatbelts because it is safer and it's the law. We have a professional certification on the line, not just a ticket on a driving record. Even if you assume that no one has ever been violated for this, think of all the other violations that could potentially result from flying while fatigued. The slightest blemish can ruin us, depending upon our career aspirations. A gear-up landing could kill us. Why not just follow the law? It's in our best interest (and favor, for once).

Instead of wasting time trying to find out whether anyone has been violated, spend that time educating your buddies. If everybody is on the same page, then they can't single you out. If you really want to know though, you are in for a lot of searching that ultimately may not give you a conclusive answer. Many violations are settled without a hearing, and therefore don't result in any kind of a searchable record. Unless we get lucky and someone who has been violated happens to read this thread, then you may never know. PM me if you want information on how to search for that information.

As to the second sentence in the quote, the appeal was not the result of a violation. In 1999, the FAA issued a 'Notice of Enforcement'. The Notice expressed the FAA's intent to rigorously enforce their interpretation of rest against operators and pilots. A group of fifty charter companies challenged the Notice and the rest interpretation in Court. They lost.