Is this how you interpret all the regs? what other regs do you "interpret" in that way? It was just a one or two beers but I am fine. I shoot this approach all the time, I know I can bust minimums here. Wow, Do you tell your clients that the FAA regulations are for other peoples aircraft and crews, not the one they are on.Those rules are for pilots with less judgement than you have. By the way, I believe SR22 did give you a written interpretation from a credible source about the legality of rest. Where is yours? Some POI who is a "135 junkie" probably won't stand up in court. Ask your POI to put it in writing and see if he will. I seem to remember Southwest getting in trouble for a POI telling them their mx method was ok when it wasn't. SR22 gave you a written opinion of the FAA Chief Counsel and you rebut with a POI saying he thinks its all right. Hmmmmm I believe SR22 has a lot more credibility here than you. If you can't get a written statement from your POI then you should not schedule your crews that way just to make more money. To top it all off, those remarks about unemployment at the end seem to be a thinly veiled threat to people in your industry that obeying the rules will lead to their dismissal. And on a public message board no less.

Entertaining stuff. More name calling, red herrings, and threats; but no substance. Notice folks, no one even bothers to argue the legality of it anymore. Smells like desperation.

If you dare to demand a good day/night's sleep before operating heavy machinery at high speeds for 14+ hours, then you are "...lazy and dumb..." and apparently fired. Here's another entertaining quote:
Here's a bit of advice that I think I will heed:
Back to the purpose of the thread, the legality issue. If anyone wants an official opinion, I would recommend retaining your own aviation attorney or writing to the FAA Chief Counsel. The local POI is likely a little biased, and as skybob suggested, his word won't be a defense in court.

Oh, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the incoming administration to adopt that industry proposal you referenced, Jetcap. Plenty of unscheduled operations manage to comply with the minimal protection provided by the rest regs, so can you.

I can't imagine jetcap would continue to argue that it is legal to be on call 24/7. I wonder if he would be ok with professionals he hires to take that attitude about the rules. What would you do if you spent alot of money having a contractor renovate your home and then you found out he didn't do it to code. But he assures you it is safe. Do you A) force him to do it correctly under threat of legal action or B) keep his secret and pay him his money.

The legal issue of being on call at all times is not even an issue of controversy. If you have to answer the phone you are not at rest. Duh

No, I have heard and seen many companies get rid of some of these pilots. I am not one of them.

This is why.

So basically you are on call or in rest, right?
Starting at midnight, you are on call till 14.00 and on rest till midnight?

Isn't that 135 Scheduled?

Scheduled vs Nonscheduled is the type of operation, not whether or not the crew has scheduled rest.
And yes the 0000 to 1400 then rest back to midnight is legal as long as 1) your company doesn't expect you to answer your phone or be available for duty should the need arise
2) whatever duty you complete that day is completed in a timeframe that allows look back rest at least equal to the minimum required rest in the last 24 hrs (refer to the Whitlow Letter)

Well, which one is it? Do your pilots have a choice, or are they fired if they choose not to accept a trip without some rest? Based on your comments I think it's pretty obvious which.

The choice referred to is not between one's job and the law. Under the duty-to-be-available scenario "...the crewmember has the option to accept or decline a flight assignment..." (quoting the opinion).

Personally I have no problem with a scenario that involves true choice, free from any pressure. I can think of several situations which would allow for a well-rested pilot, despite some period of time on-call. I can see it getting out of control, too.

Even assuming a true choice, a pilot's (or operator's) reliance on that scenario is risky at best. Neither the court nor the FAA have affirmatively approved it as rest. The FAA has always defined a rest period as prospective in nature, and "...the FAA's brief, and its statements at oral argument, suggest that an unrequited duty-to-be-available is not [rest]...." The only reason the court gave for failing to decide the issue was that it was "...unripe for review at this time." In addition, the court implied it would likely rule for the FAA given certain circumstances.

So, you're betting that the second highest court in the country will do an about face and overturn decades of FAA interpretations/policy if it is only given another chance to review the issue. Here's how I see that fight playing out.

First, your lawyer will go back and forth with the Regional Counsel's office handling the violation. Then, he will request a hearing before a DOT ALJ. The Regional Counsel will have everything that has been discussed in this thread to rely upon, and you'll have the court's IN-decision.

From there it will go to the Administrator or the NTSB board, depending on the type of action being taken against you. Again, you've got nothing. Finally, maybe your lawyer can get the Court of Appeals to give you a hearing. If he's successful, they probably rule against you.

Meanwhile two years have gone by, you've probably been without your certificate for at least some of that time, and you're out $20,000 in attorney's fees and fines. You now have a violation on your record; and if you're lucky your boss let you keep your job, assuming he managed to stay in business, because you're sure not getting another one.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't need that kind of grief!

My pilots have a choice, based on my comments. But you try to put words in my mouth (errr Words in my posts). I have been around 135 since 1994, I have seen many people getting fired, or not even hired, because of this. Including myself, about something very similar, only time I ever got fired from anything. I have made sure that I cover myself and my company in situations like this.

But yes, you are probably right. The FAA and their Chief- Council are what Police and Internal Investigation are or the Church and the Inquisition. If they dig and look long enough any 135 operator in this country can be found guilty of something and shot down, ANY Operator. This is why the FAR's are written so vaguely, they are trying to give themselfs some leeway. And as you said so before yourself, many districts have as many different opinions..... Why would that be?

I have worked with 7 different FSDO's and had 6 different opinions. Maybe next Chief-Counsel will come up with a different solution. Or maybe they will make it madatory in the FAR's, but till that day comes, I (my company) will live by the FAR and our district's interpretation.

I think that is very rude, you have no idea. I have been doing this for a long time with no accident, incidents or any type of FAA action against me. Just because I disagree with you and SR22, doesn't give you the right to even remotely say things like this. But it does give me an indication what level you are. And I won't sink that low.....:eek: