New Part 135 duty and rest committee ARC
 

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.

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.

I'd like to see a 12 hour duty day limit.

Sent from my BTV-W09 using Tapatalk

I’d like to only fly on Wednesdays.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Sent from my BTV-W09 using Tapatalk

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....

Are they going to make the rules more favorable for the pilots or the employer? :confused:

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.