Omen38

Assume you work for a part 135 operator and your company decides to give you a chance to become a line check airman. You are in the process of doing your .299 observation flight, with the examiner in the jumpseat and the aircraft has an issue. You wisely decide to return to the FBO and have MX look at it. Maintenance doesn’t have the parts on hand, so the plane needs to be ferried. To make matters worse, the crewmember who was supposed to be observed for the .299 has now timed out under part 135. However, since the plane is now being ferried, part 91 rules apply.

Putting aside the obvious difference besides what is “legal” vs what it prudent, would a .299 flight even be legal in this situation?

Specifically, can a 135.299 flight be performed while ferrying an aircraft under part 91, with a crew member who timed out under part 135?

...yeah “for a friend”. 😜

PerfInit

These are my thoughts and opinions. You might want to ask the FSDO for a legal interpretation through general consel’s office in HQ. 135.299 checks are routinely done on flights without paying pax. One could argue that since no paying pax onboard, the flight can be conducted under 91. Having said that, the PIC being checked must be current and qualified under 135, and the flight conducted in accordance with the cert holders 135 certificate, GOM and company specific procedures.

The ferry permit (special flight permit) adds another dimension to this scenario. The SFP contains written limitations. Did the PIC review these limitations before accepting the flight? It is important to comply with the terms and limitations of the SFP, such as “who” can be on that flight and is training/checking/testing permitted concurrently? The devil is in the details.

135 time & duty regs are “squishy” as you know. The “timed out” crewmember- were they really timed out or did they fall under one of the many exceptions? Notwithstanding, if that crewmember was fatigued, they may be obligated to make that declaration and not accept any further flight time in the interest of safety.

Omen38

Yeah, the “squishy” 135 duty hours add complexity. Another factor is that since the flight was now a ferry, the originally scheduled operation was invalidated, which in my mind reverts back to the 14 hour duty day (10 hours rest). Now, for purposes of the ferry being conducted under 91, that probably doesn’t matter but for the purposes of a 135 operation... ���️

PerfInit

Another consideration is OpSpec D084 if issued to the company...

TiredSoul

Without reviewing anything my inclination would be to say no you cannot.
Ferry permits usually limit to “required” crewmembers.

frmrbuffdrvr

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. "Required crewmembers" probably doesn't include an FAA observer.

USMCFLYR

One thing that I am unclear on from your OP is if you are using ferry correctly.
are you actually saying that the aircraft was MEL’ed for the maintenance concern and now you are FERRYING the aircraft home or are you actually saying you had to get a no kidding SPECIAL FERRY PERMIT?
in my limited experience with ferry permits do only allow ‘required crew members’, and in that case the observer absolutely does not meet that definition!

deadstick35

BTDT...with my DO and DOM at the FSDO for a 293/297/299. When we got the ferry permit, the DO was on the phone trying to get the inspector to say it was ok for them to go in the event the maintenance issue got worse, there would be more experience on board to deal with it. All he’d say, over and over again, was “minimum required crew members only.” I said no, they’re not required. They got Avis and a long drive, and I flew home alone. Yes, I still had a job and got an “atta boy” when they got back.