wjl408

When our company books a charter from point a to point b and we deliver the customer to his destination at point b that the charter is over and whether we deadhead back to point a (which is home base) or relocate to another location to start another charter that leg would be a Part 91 reposition flight and we can conduct training company orientation flight or whatever because the is no revenue onboard (paying pax or cargo). Our POI has taken the position that these are Part 135 flights because when we price the charter we intended to return to point a (home base). I am getting ready to contact FAA legal in Atlanta for a ruling but thought that I would post here to get some opinions. Thanks.

NoSidNoStar

Please do post the final FAA ruling about this.
I hated the "91 legs" repo flights when I was in 135.

JamesNoBrakes

I can't imagine that legal would agree with the POI in this case, as there are so many part 91 flights going on pretty much everywhere that meet your definition. A few years back though, HEMS operators were abusing the heck out of the "part 91 leg" idea and throwing crew rest and other rules to the wind. This may be where some of the attitudes have come from over the years.

wjl408

I don't understand, why did you hate them so much. We get paid for repo flights, and what's up with "don't post the FAA final ruling"?

JamesNoBrakes

Well, 1, he said "do post", and 2, there have been companies that abuse the pilots on the part 91 legs in terms of duty hours and other safety aspects, since they aren't under the more stringent 121 or 135 rules at that point. Not sure if that was what he was referring to, but there are definitely issues with it, despite how "cool" it is to do stalls at FL410.

wjl408

Sorry I read it wrong "do post". I will as soon as I get a answer. I was told it will take about three months as it has to go to Washington for a final in print ruling.

NoSidNoStar

Yes, I did say do post the result please.
As the other guy said, the reason I hated the "91 legs" was the abuse to extend the crew beyond duty time. Back then I was paid a monthly retainer plus something extra for each flight day, not per flight hour, so I really did not care too much about the extra leg.
Additionally, there is not enough money to justify the risk of a fatigued crew. I remember being asked to hold on there, so the company could try to sell the empty leg back home, only to be told to repo back hours later, well passed duty time, because "91 legs" don't count for 135 regs. That was I job I quitted fast, even when money was not too bad, proportionally to my experience level then.

I understand you are trying to utilize those flight for training, and that is a different issue, I don't see why not, but I am no legal expert.
For initials qualifications, I do consider simulator training more valuable then cruising around in the real plane, but there are practical benefits to both, and that is why a well organized training curriculum has IOE after the completion of the sim part.

I know 117 clarified that for 121 operators, assigned flights are duties. I would not be surprised if the current position of the FAA would mirror such interpretation for 135.
I think when flying "91 legs" the manipulation of flight controls is a different issue than the duty time extensions, but it is only my opinion. However, just to complicate things even further, I would consider training time as duty time, and for sure not rest time.
So the two issues could overlay, nevertheless they remain two different issues. Again, just my opinion.
I am really curious to see if you can get an answer that would establish once for all a guidance on this matters.
Please, do let us know.

Hawker Driver

Ditto with our POI at our operation.

pilotmec

Regulations Division ? Legal Interpretations & Chief Counsel's Opinions


Did you search here?

galaxy flyer

Read this GC finding

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...rpretation.pdf