Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




Allegheny
07-06-2019, 04:07 AM
Business Aviation
FAA Establishes New Part 135 Rest and Duty Committee
by Kerry Lynch
- July 3, 2019, 10:22 AM

A joint government/industry committee is set to tackle Part 135 pilot rest and duty requirements once again. At the behest of Congress, the FAA formally established the charter for a Part 135 Pilot Rest and Duty Rules Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) that will review current regulations and make recommendations on any necessary changes.

In the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Congress directed the FAA to establish a Part 135 rest and duty ARC that includes representatives of industry, labor (both from Part 135 and 91K), and safety experts. Congress further stipulated that the ARC is to review prior efforts to develop new rest and duty rules, accommodations that might be necessary for small business, scientific and safety data, and the need to accommodate the diversity of operation, among other aspects surrounding flight and duty.

The charter for the new ARC calls for a committee comprising 20 members to be “balanced in viewpoints, interest, and knowledge,” and stipulates that members should review current rules; review other commercial rest and duty rules, including for Part 121 and ICAO standards, identify deficiencies within the current regulations; consider aspects directed by Congress; and develop consensus recommendations. While the ARC’s charter will last 24 months, the recommendations will be due within 16 months of the first meeting. Meetings will be closed to the public.

The ARC resurrects the decades-long effort to update Part 135 pilot rest and duty rules, including proposals in the 1990s that would have applied a commercial airline approach to Part 135 to the subsequent efforts of the Part 135 ARC in the early 2000s that developed much more tailored recommendations for on-demand and fractional operators.

Those attempts, however, faltered as Part 135 pilot rest and duty requirements were a lower priority for an agency focused on a number of other congressional mandates.


LLWS09R
07-06-2019, 10:51 AM
Interesting reading. I have found most respectable companies do already implement some style of self governing rest rules. Short of a few minor tweaks as in shorter duty days for early morning shows. I would assume Netjets, Flex-jet, XOjet, GAMA, amongst other would be very quick to show a relatively good ( Not perfect) system.

One thing that might be a better talking point would be Max allowable days on duty consecutively.

tlove482
07-07-2019, 11:24 AM
I'd like to see a 12 hour duty day limit.

Sent from my BTV-W09 using Tapatalk


Peabody17
07-07-2019, 11:28 AM
I’d like to only fly on Wednesdays.

tlove482
07-07-2019, 01:54 PM
I’d like to only fly on Wednesdays.Sounds reasonable to me.

Sent from my BTV-W09 using Tapatalk

JTwift
07-07-2019, 03:27 PM
Why not just match 121?

LLWS09R
07-07-2019, 04:04 PM
Why not just match 121?

My guess it would be problematic maybe not impossible as a lot of Fractionals do not know the volume of segments that need to be served and have the ability to properly plan. Where an airline part 121 has had weeks if not months to appropriately plan staffing. An airline tells the passengers where and when the flight will be. Fractionals the customer tells the operator when they want to go. Plus the airline routes the plane well ahead of time. Where a Fractional must figure how when and where to adjust literally within a day of the flights.

A small example would be Delta says we fly 6 flights from ATL-LAX on Tuesday. Choose which one you want to be on. Where as late as Monday 12 Fractional owner members all want there own plane to fly PDK-VNY-customer 1. ATL-BUR-customer 2. FTY-LGB-customer 3. Etc....

SonicFlyer
07-07-2019, 04:57 PM
Are they going to make the rules more favorable for the pilots or the employer? :confused:

CardboardCutout
07-07-2019, 05:39 PM
Omni, Atlas, Miami, Swift, etc etc etc all manage to fly charters and observe 121 rules. I mean maybe arguably in the case of Swift...

LLWS09R
07-07-2019, 05:49 PM
Omni, Atlas, Miami, Swift, etc etc etc all manage to fly charters and observe 121 rules. I mean maybe arguably in the case of Swift...

However in most of those airlines cases they bid Ad-Hac charter. Implying they can bid and turn down charter request. Where as in a Fractional side of 135/91K a customer is promised use of an aircraft they presumably own. I’m not sure Netjets Flexjet or XOjet can pick and choose which owner request they want to accept or turn down. Now Im sure they could tell them they can not accommodate their request for a multitude of reasons. But I would assume they would lose clients very quickly if a pattern developed.

Swift usually does Sports and military charters. Most are planned well in advance. Omni ( flown them a few times). Has concentrated on military movement charters. They usually are afforded ample time to staff trips allowing well planned out duty days and ample rest for crew.

TeamSasquatch
07-07-2019, 07:38 PM
Add in the single pilot aspect. Freight and passenger ops both. Can’t really pull in the 121 stuff with that. Also a good chunk of 135 freight is adhoc for feeder ops based on day to day volume and manufacturing supply chain. Just no way to predict or do scheduled ops.

birdstrike88
07-07-2019, 10:37 PM
Just make it mandatory 10 hours rest. Keep it simple. The fractionals will not be the only ones fighting change. The UPS and Fedex feeders will all be affected by an extension of rest. We all saw how the 121 cargo carriers got excluded from the 117 rules. My guess is that there will be no changes.

FlyingTired
09-14-2019, 10:01 PM
What will this do for the pilots who are forced to be on call 24/7? They can put out letters of interpretation saying one thing but then turn the blind eye and allow operators to do something different.

Will they finally make it a regulation so that pilots are required to ACTUALLY know when they are on duty every day?

They should put it in the big book of FARs in part 135 that a flight crew member's rest period must be "(1) continuous, (2) determined prospectively (i.e., known in advance), and (3) free from all restraint by the certificate holder, including freedom from work or the present responsibility for work should the occasion arise."

If you’re required to be on call all day for work, they shouldn’t be allowed to call you at midnight to get up and go fly 14 hours. That isn’t safe yet it’s not forbidden under part 135. All 135.267 says is that they,”must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour period that precedes the planned completion time of the assignment.”
Based on the vague wording, they could call you at 2am and tell you that you weren’t at work for the last 10 hours so you’ve had rest. It doesn’t matter if you we’re just laying down after being awake for 16 hours ready to go waiting for a call.

These operators aren’t going to stop what they’re doing until 135.267 says what all the letters of interpretation say.

EMAW
09-15-2019, 06:48 AM
What will this do for the pilots who are forced to be on call 24/7? They can put out letters of interpretation saying one thing but then turn the blind eye and allow operators to do something different.

Will they finally make it a regulation so that pilots are required to ACTUALLY know when they are on duty every day?

They should put it in the big book of FARs in part 135 that a flight crew member's rest period must be "(1) continuous, (2) determined prospectively (i.e., known in advance), and (3) free from all restraint by the certificate holder, including freedom from work or the present responsibility for work should the occasion arise."

If you’re required to be on call all day for work, they shouldn’t be allowed to call you at midnight to get up and go fly 14 hours. That isn’t safe yet it’s not forbidden under part 135. All 135.267 says is that they,”must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour period that precedes the planned completion time of the assignment.”
Based on the vague wording, they could call you at 2am and tell you that you weren’t at work for the last 10 hours so you’ve had rest. It doesn’t matter if you we’re just laying down after being awake for 16 hours ready to go waiting for a call.

These operators aren’t going to stop what they’re doing until 135.267 says what all the letters of interpretation say.

I agree, the wording needs to be amended. But these 134.5 operators continue to do this because they have people willing.

deadstick35
09-15-2019, 10:49 AM
What will this do for the pilots who are forced to be on call 24/7? They can put out letters of interpretation saying one thing but then turn the blind eye and allow operators to do something different.

Will they finally make it a regulation so that pilots are required to ACTUALLY know when they are on duty every day?

They should put it in the big book of FARs in part 135 that a flight crew member's rest period must be "(1) continuous, (2) determined prospectively (i.e., known in advance), and (3) free from all restraint by the certificate holder, including freedom from work or the present responsibility for work should the occasion arise."

If you’re required to be on call all day for work, they shouldn’t be allowed to call you at midnight to get up and go fly 14 hours. That isn’t safe yet it’s not forbidden under part 135. All 135.267 says is that they,”must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour period that precedes the planned completion time of the assignment.”
Based on the vague wording, they could call you at 2am and tell you that you weren’t at work for the last 10 hours so you’ve had rest. It doesn’t matter if you we’re just laying down after being awake for 16 hours ready to go waiting for a call.

These operators aren’t going to stop what they’re doing until 135.267 says what all the letters of interpretation say.


Hate to be blunt, but the operator is only half the problem. Pilots who accept such assignments when they know it’s in violation of the regs are the other.

135.263(a) A certificate holder may assign a flight crewmember and a flight crewmember may accept an assignment for flight time only when the applicable requirements of §§135.263 through 135.271 are met.

From the Orellana LOI (2015) (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2015/Orellana%20-%20(2015)%20Legal%20Interpretation.pdf)
The federal aviation regulations have the force and effect of law. Certificate holders and flightcrew members operating under part 135 are required to comply with §135.267. Whether a POI should be held accountable for not enforcing a requirement is an internal agency matter and is separate and apart from a certificate holder's duty to comply with the regulations.