TedStryker

I'm sorry, but such a flippant and black-and-white argument is pretty ignorant of the realities of the Part 135 industry, and therefore deserves a response. First of all, it's not as clear cut as you would like it to be. The "rules" as you put them don't specifically address this situation. All we have to rely on are FAA Chief Counsel opinions that aren't worth a bucket of warm spit until someone is violated. To date I am not aware of any pilots or operators who have been violated for a "24/7 on call" scenario. The FAA is too discombobulated to address the issue.

Let me get one thing straight - I AGREE the interpretations say 24/7 on call isn't legal. I would love nothing more than for the FAA to finally come out with a clear rule prohibiting it (specifying that rest must be prospective, defining "duty," etc.) Until that day comes, just like thousands of other pilots out there, I have to do the job the way the company wants. Other than being on call 24/7 (outside scheduled days off,) I work for a good company. The alternative is pounding the pavement with the thousands of other pilots out on the street. Give me a break. I can't feed my family with standing on principle and neither can you.

Our company has been in business for 11 years and we have a lot of blue-chip clients. We're not some fly-by-night operator that's teetering on the edge of failure daily. We train our people well, pay them decently, and don't skimp on maintenance. But let's be real - if we had to put pilots on shifts so that everyone could have 10 hours of scheduled rest a day, then we'd need twice as many pilots and pay them $35K a year instead of $70K. Or, if we didn't hire anyone, we'd have to turn down a crapload of business due to lack of crew.

Where is the advantage of that? Even if we did play by the rules, there would STILL be operators skirting the regs who would come in and take the trips we couldn't do, and then we'd be put out of business anyway. You claim "oh well, you deserve to go out of business then." I say - take a look around you, pal - until ALL operators are forced to play by the same rulebook then NOBODY can afford to play by the rules. You may dismiss this as nothing more than "whining," but then again, it's always easy to take pot shots from the cheap seats, isn't it?

minitour

How many would say this exact same thing about 24/7 on call, but show up at a guy's house with a Posse while he's out scabbing a trip for a striking airline?

Just curious. I won't judge.

And?

If you can't afford to operate legally, you need to shut the doors. Or, better put, you need to be forced to shut the doors.

My question is always this. If a company can't abide by pretty simple (135 unscheduled operations rest rules are really pretty simple to understand/follow) rest regulations, then what other regulations or issues are they skipping on? Maintenance? Training? Insurance? I'd be willing to bet my ridiculous September paycheck that there's something else being ignored.

It is whining. As someone who is currently flying 135 (and looking at moving on to a different 135 carrier at the present moment - not that it matters) I'm hardly in the "cheap seats"...pal.

You're the same kind of person that even if the rules did change (and were enforced), you'd look the other way so you could "feed your family". Hey, I won't begrudge you that. If I were in a situation where I had the choice of watching my family go hungry or pretend I'm at rest, I know what I'd do...but the realities of the situation are that even in the worst of economic times, there are jobs out there. You may not enjoy flipping burgers, but sometimes a man just has to do what he has to do so the family has food, shelter and clothes on their back. That doesn't change the fact that 135 operators that don't play by the rules as written should be shut down. 121 Air Carriers would never get away with this and 135 Air Carriers shouldn't. Rationalize it all you want.

-mini

PW305

I agree with Ted here in practice, and with Mini in theory. Quite frankly, we used to be able to support 4 pilots on one airplane but those days are gone.

Of course I could say to the aircraft owner, "pony up some more $$ for salaries & sim trainings or say bye-bye to 135"... But he owns the plane because it charters when he's not using it. His 50 hours a year on it doesn't justify the expense of ownership without charter. So, there goes my job.

Bad for me but good for the industry? Guess you can decide that, but I think the cleansing should start from the bottom up and there is a real mess at the bottom which needs addressing first.

86pilot

The fact of the matter remains, 121 has been found by the FAA to not be able to operate safely, with multi crew and equipment that some of us only wished we had, in the fourteen or fifteen hours of duty time the 135 world lives with. Wouldn't logic dictate that no one could?
ATC: are you GPS equipped? Me: I'm lucky to have oil pressure. (just a joke, well maintained equipment!)

MiGBoy

I'm looking forward to a renovation of the Part-135 regulations as well.

In my humble opinion, I think that the use of Part 91 is an 'easy way out' for an operator to put someone on the road way too long at once. I recently flew a trip from Ohio, to Arkansas, to Texas, all in one day in a Caravan. Used all 8 hours of flight, and was on duty around 15 hours. When I got to Texas, I was told, "Hey, the trip home is part 91, doesn't count towards anything, so way don't you just climb back in and come home now?" If I had done that, I would have flown about 16 hours, and been on the road for over 24 hours straight, and it's LEGAL.

I told them to get me a hotel. I believe in rest.

skybob

Are we really having a discussion about "we know its not really legal, but golly gee I don't want to make any waves"? I hope this is mostly SICs. For a Captain to make this argument; WOW

86pilot

Back to the question at hand, So why is it legal for 135 and not for 121? do the powers that be think that we have some advantage that the big guys don't?

minitour

"Hey, I need to pay the bills!"



No, but really... ->

I agree, skybob...it's kinda sad, isn't it?

-mini

skybob

86pilot, it is not legal for 135. There is no different definition for rest, duty and on call. The definitions are all the same. Only the hourly regs are different. That is not to say that people don't do it all the time. And yes FSDOs ignore it alot. That doesn't make it legal or safe.
The FAA has been very clear on rest issues. We just choose not to follow the rules.

Every safety enhancement has a cost.

I don't buy the "my owner can't afford to operate legally". Aviation is not cheap. Its kind of like someone choosing to eat at a 5 star restaurant and then saying they can't afford the bill. You should have known that before you ordered.
Aviation is not cheap, never has been cheap, and never willl be cheap. If you want cheap transportation, buy a bus. I don't own an airplane because I can't afford it.
Also, would anyone here be upset if their company went out of business because another operator started a 134 and a half business on your field? You jumped thru the hoops, did the training, and paid the costs to operate a 135 and then someone comes along and operates more cheaply by skipping these costly business expenses. It doesn't mean they are unsafe. This rogue operation has very safe pilots, good mx, and a good safety record. Are you ok with what they are doing?
If you found out that your house was not up to code, even though its a great house, would you be ok with it? I would expect my contractor to build to code at least if not better. I would probably sue if he didn't. Wouldn't you?
There was another thread on this awhile back. If memory serves, there was no evidence that 24/7 on call is even remotely legal. Of course, one can always lie and say I am not really on call. My company gives me the choice to accept the flight or not at any time.
Modern technology will also make this a much easier to monitor and enforce. It won't be long before the FAA figures out they can watch Flight Tracker and watch a Captain fly all over the country all day to see exactly how long the PIC is on duty.
Will that happen, Maybe???? With all of the emphasis on fatigue within the FAA, I would hate to be the example. And it has been settled over and over that your local FSDO is not the final authority. Don't believe it. Ask your POI for a written statement that 24/7 on call is legal. Or just come on here and say which FSDO it is that allows 24/7 on call. I am sure the FAA reads this board. If they agree with you, you will never hear from them. If they disagree, I predict the operators under their watch would hear about it soon.
I have asked POIs about many things in the past. That is part of their job. If you are comfortable with the legality, just ask.
On a side note, does anyone know the difference in accident stats between turbine 121 and turbine 135?

VTcharter

If the NPRM on Duty / Flight time is even close to the final ruling, the new Part 117 spells it out. Anyone can read it...it's located in the last 20 pages of the NPRM. Here it is if your Google finger isn't working (The proposed Part 117 starts on page 124 if you don't want to read the studies)...


The definition of rest, which includes the prospective and free from call language, is spelled out as is the definition of Duty. It also clearly states that reserve, either hot standby (1 hour or less) or short call (2-3 hours) is considered duty for the intent of the regulation.

Now granted,this NPRM is aimed at the 121 world for now, but the NPRM itself expains that the FAA does not feel there is a difference between 121 scheduled, Supplemental, Flag, 135, etc, as far as fatigue is concerned and goes on to say that 135 should pay close attention because the final rule for 135 will look very close if not exactly the same as the one for 121. I think this is fairly obvious by the proposed implementation of an entirely new Duty / Rest regualtion in Part 117...this would be all encompassing and Part 121 and 135 would simply refer to 117 when it comes to duty limits.