floridaCFII

I agree that these new flight time/rest/duty rules should apply to scheduled and on-demand 135 as well. The FAA has a 60-day comment period on this proposed rule change. Nothing is stopping us from submitting comments explaining the reasons why 135 should be included now. Doesn't mean it will happen, but maybe it will encourage the FAA to get 135 rules done a bit earlier and help make our jobs safer.

TedStryker

Our company is in compliance with this regulation. Actually, we get 5 hard days off per month (scheduled in advance,) so we get more time off than the regulation requires. I was referring to the "on-call 24/7" aspect of the job.

TedStryker

I would say yours is an isolated occurrence. Most FSDOs would have no idea what to do if the rules were to be applied correctly and consistently to passenger 135 charter.

lear 31 pilot

Yeah it will make our jobs alot safer because we wont have them, these rules will not work with on demand 135 period, I wish they would, but I dont see how my company could stay in business and I would rather be a little fatigued for a few more years then be trying to find a new job in this economy

Oldog

Actually, Part 135 flight-duty-rest was dealt with specifically and extensively by industry and FAA participants in the Part 125-135 Aviation Rulemaking Committee several years ago, and regulations based upon the committee's recommendations are slowly grinding their way through the FAA-DOT rulemaking process. A notice of proposed rulemaking addressing those matters will probably appear within the next year or two for public comment . . . and after the comments are evaluated and other hurdles in the rulemaking process are cleared, a change in the applicable regulations will probably follow in due course.

It's worth mentioning that the FAA and industry have been battling over the 135 flight-duty-rest issue for well over a decade, and the results of the 125-135 ARC are as close as they have ever come to agreement . . . although that is no guarantee the FAA will follow all of the committee's recommendations. . . .

TedStryker

Oldog,

Let's be honest. On 9/11 when the Part 121 rulemaking was announced, NATA stated they "...[remain] committed to the need for a revision of the Part 135 crewmember regulations related to flight hours, duty periods and rest requirements."

ONLY 5 DAYS LATER, when Administrator Babbitt says something to the effect of "we're going to be coming up with a rule for 135 next..."

NATA comes out with another press release titled: "FAA Statement Within Part 121 Flight And Rest Rule Raises Concern For Part 135 Community."
Among other things, they whine and moan about "the agency's commitment to honoring the letter and spirit of rulemaking guidance that requires the FAA to consider the specific costs, benefits and regulatory alternatives that may be appropriate for different types of operators." (emphasis mine.)

Pilots become fatigued whether they are flying in 121 or 135 operations. NATA wants to argue that the need for "on-demand" operations should entitle them to some magical exemption from this blatant physical reality. They love to talk a good game as long as the gun isn't pointed at their head. However, when the attention turns to them all of a sudden they start whining about how much it's going to hurt Part 135 operators.

I have absolutely no confidence that any realistic proposal will see the light of day in light of this ongoing stonewalling from Part 135 operators and their lobbying mouthpiece.

atpcliff

The FAA ARC rules were in NPRM back in 2004????. They did the whole NPRM process, and then nothing happened. Heard that the FAA was too busy with the -91/-135 charter problems, and the -135 rules (and 135/121 Rest/Flight/Duty) were put on the back burner.

skybob

What does it matter if they change the rules? Judging by most of the comments on this website about 24/7 on call, we aren't following the rules now. So what will it matter if the rules change when no one follows the rules now. The FAA has been very clear that on call is not rest. So if you are violating the rules now, what do you care what they change them to. Will you suddenly become compliant?

rdneckpilot

skybob you broke the code.

minitour

Exactly. We'll still hear guys whining about how their company would go out of business if they enforced the rest regulations. You know what? Those companies should go under. If you can't afford to operate by the rules, then you just can't afford to operate.

Well said, bob.

-mini