|
|
||
|
||
| Author: True Date: 10/12/2021 10:45:22 PM +1/-1 Show Orig. Msg (this window) Or In New Window | ||
but when an operator tries to get around it due to infrequent and unpredictable flying the feds tightened with language of constraint and standby duty and responsibility to report for duty at any time etc. all wrapped in to .267 language. The Reg are generally pretty clear and functional just not so when some wanker decides to do an end run via interpretation which is only the province of FAA Legal in DC, and even they get it wrong at times due to their detachment from the field and lack of practical experience and connection to it. |
||
| Reply Return-To-Index Display Full Msg Thread Rules of Engagement Terms of Use | ||
|
|
||
|
||
 One more time: FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+0/-2 to 99% of HAA operations! 10/11/2021 11:48:03 AM
 One more time: FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+3/-0 Hmmm.... 10/11/2021 12:13:36 PM
One more time: FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+0/-2 To 99% Of HAA Operations 10/11/2021 12:21:59 PM
One more time: FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+0/-5 You nerds 10/11/2021 1:10:08 PM
Four Weeks!! If your schedule changes day to night inside of a 4 week
+0/-4 period, you CANNOT use 135.267(c) 10/11/2021 1:56:40 PM
FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+0/-0 GetReal 10/11/2021 2:13:37 PM
FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+0/-0 (b) Just limits The Amount Of 10/11/2021 2:28:39 PM
not quite right.
+0/-0 Anonymous 10/11/2021 3:53:12 PM
Youi realize that (b) is the foundation for (d).
+0/-0 (b) and (d) are paired together 10/11/2021 3:14:05 PM
There is absolutely no reason for an HAA operator to use (c) anyway
+0/-0 None at all! 10/11/2021 3:32:16 PM
I incorrectly said increases from 8 hrs to 10rs, but I meant
+1/-0 from 8 hrs to 16 hrs. 10/11/2021 4:19:54 PM
I incorrectly said increases from 8 hrs to 10rs, but I meant
+0/-0 You Can Amass 8 Hours Of Flying 10/11/2021 4:54:31 PM
correct, but under (c), you can exceed it in the (NT)
+0/-0 24 hour window 10/11/2021 6:31:18 PM
correct, but under (c), you can exceed it in the
+0/-0 You Cannot Exceed It Without 10/11/2021 7:04:48 PM
One more time: FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+0/-0 cheap 10/11/2021 8:01:09 PM
One more time: FAR 135.267(c) is NOT applicable
+2/-0 In other 10/11/2021 9:07:51 PM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c) (NT)
+1/-1 Anonymous 10/12/2021 6:03:40 AM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c)
+1/-1 True 10/12/2021 10:45:22 PM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c)
+2/-0 Anonymous 10/13/2021 2:37:17 PM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c)
+0/-0 Yeup 10/13/2021 4:18:25 PM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c)
+0/-0 Duh! 10/13/2021 9:33:34 AM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c)
+0/-0 That’s 10/26/2021 7:11:12 PM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c)
+0/-0 That’s 10/26/2021 7:11:44 PM
On-call is duty, so itncan be regularly assigned under (c)
+0/-0 That Is Why The Letters From 10/26/2021 7:26:12 PM
|
