Click here to close
New Message Alert
List Entire Thread
Msg ID: 2676315 Where in any regulation or interpretation does it say this +0/-0     
Author:regarding Part 135 flight planning?
1/13/2021 8:45:12 AM
In a recent memo, someone is claiming that there is confusion and misunderstanding between the "flight assignment" and the "duty assignment" are where most of the issues seem to stem from with management. He warns your pilot may be in jeopardy. So here's the question: Where does any regulation or FAA interpretation does it say this? "ALL planning MUST be done so that you can complete the "flight assignment" within your 14-hour "Duty Period Assignment," as well as ALL known "directives" or "duties" assigned by the Certificate Holder." Here is the misinformation being communicated: Not "all" planning Just the portion that will be conducted under Part 135. For instance, if you conclude Part 135 flying and operational Part 91, you are no longer restricted to a 14 hour duty day. Tail-end Part 91 repositions are and have been authorized by the FAA for decades. Nothing in the regulations require a pilot to plan a round trip back to base Pare 135, or to include in that planning all administrative tasks after the flight landed. Nothing. A pilot can operate Part 91 after the Part 135 legs conclude, unless any medical crewmembers are still aboard, as the FARs considered them the same as paying passengers.


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676317 Where in any regulation or interpretation does it say this +3/-0     
Author:Ok
1/13/2021 9:05:45 AM

Reply to: 2676315



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676318 "Flight Assignment" is a thing. "14-hour Duty Assignment" is not +5/-0     
Author:That's the only confusion here
1/13/2021 9:15:39 AM

Reply to: 2676315
A Part 135 pilot must complete a Part 135 flight assignment within 14 hours of starting his duty, but under FAR 135.267(d), there is no such thing as a 14-hour Duty Assignment. Your duty assignment can be as long or as short as whatever. You can be on duty for 24 hours without violating FAR 135.267(d). You just can't plan a Part 135 Flight Assignment past 14 hours. You can plan to end a Part 135 flight assignment within 14-hours, and continue with non-Part 135 tasks thereafter for as long as needed or desired. You are still on duty, just not on required rest. Rest starts once you finish all work of the Certificate Holder and are prospectively assigned rest. Nothing mandates a pilot be scheduled for rest after 14-hours. What is mandated is that he can't plan to operate an aircraft under Part 135 past 14-hours


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676319 "Flight Assignment" is a thing. "14-hour Duty Assignment" is not +1/-1     
Author:philofthenorth
1/13/2021 9:29:22 AM

Reply to: 2676318

Ask your POI.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676321 POI s would abide by FAA interpretations: Slater (2015) (NT) +0/-0     
Author:and Converse-RedWingAeroplane (2012)
1/13/2021 9:39:45 AM

Reply to: 2676319


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676331 POI s would abide by FAA interpretations: Slater (2015) +0/-0     
Author:And POIs
1/13/2021 10:50:21 AM

Reply to: 2676321

don't get to make up their own interpretations.  That is left to Legal in DC.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676334 Kidd 2017 TRUMPS your Slater 2015 still.... +0/-0     
Author:FAA Genera Counsel has already ruled
1/13/2021 10:57:41 AM

Reply to: 2676331

And the union is following that direct guidance



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676346 Except Kidd 2017 doesn't say anything to support tryout notion that (NT) +1/-0     
Author:Tail-end Part 91 ops are not ALLOWED
1/13/2021 11:43:51 AM

Reply to: 2676334


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676349 Not anything to do with the letter you reference from Union..... (NT) +1/-0     
Author:Quit whining Mayors.
1/13/2021 11:46:08 AM

Reply to: 2676346


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2677648 Except Kidd 2017 doesn't say anything to support tryout notion that +0/-0     
Author:Allowed,
1/25/2021 1:41:03 PM

Reply to: 2676346

not allowed, maybe, yes, no, and so on.

You guys are engaging in circular arguments of the thinnest sort; not to say the FAA doesn't.  

If you are concerned about the legality of any >14 undertaking just say you're too tired, put the helicopter to bed, and get a room.  If your company wants to get nastty take it to the FAA. 

Don't have the stones for it?  You need a new line of work.  Don't ever be hesitant to push any concern up the ladder, it's what the ladder is for.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676386 Exactly, and since ther isn't any other FAA interpretation (NT) +0/-0     
Author:dealing with tail-end Part 91 ops ....
1/13/2021 2:42:06 PM

Reply to: 2676331


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676387 Exactly, and since ther isn't any other FAA interpretation (NT) +0/-0     
Author:dealing with tail-end Part 91 ops ....
1/13/2021 2:42:08 PM

Reply to: 2676331


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676390 POI s would abide by FAA interpretations: Slater (2015) +0/-0     
Author:POI POS
1/13/2021 2:55:53 PM

Reply to: 2676331

POIs don't get to make up their own interpretations.

POIs put their own spin on regulations quite regularly in some districts.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676330 "Flight Assignment" is a thing. "14-hour Duty Assignment" is not +1/-0     
Author:Yeah, sure.
1/13/2021 10:48:38 AM

Reply to: 2676318

The all powerful "careless and reckless" can come to play so be mindful of what is prudent, and what is not prudent.

There are a few Catch 22s in the FARs.  

Best place to start?  A full understanding of Part 1, front to back.  That sets the basis for your understanding of each word in each reg, hopefully!



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676352 “DUTY PERIOD” is defined as starting and finishing work for certificate +0/-0     
Author:holder. Nothing in 135 regs LIMITING it
1/13/2021 11:52:31 AM

Reply to: 2676336
The DUTY PERIOD is a clock that runs until you are put on rest, regardless of the type of work performed. Moping the floor for the Certificate Holder is duty, but the FARs don't say you must stop ar 14 hours. The just say that you can't plan to fly a Part 135 flight assignment unless you can look back from the planned completion of that flight assignment (not the mopping the floor afterwards) and saw 10 hour of regulatory rest. A DUTY PERIOD ASSIGNMENT is the part not define!


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676350 So you are now speculating on arbitrary terms? IOWs, tber (NT) +0/-0     
Author:Isn't anything supporting it directly
1/13/2021 11:46:10 AM

Reply to: 2676330


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676351 So you are saying “Duty Period” is NOT defined in FARs or GOM? (NT) +0/-0     
Author:You can’t be that ignorant
1/13/2021 11:47:01 AM

Reply to: 2676350


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676353 Shiw everyone in the GARs where is defines a  +0/-0     
Author:"Duty Period Assignment"
1/13/2021 11:55:22 AM

Reply to: 2676351
I'll wait


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676376 Obviously FAR! (NT) +0/-0     
Author:Anonymous
1/13/2021 1:43:14 PM

Reply to: 2676356


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676358 How do you “Shiw” anyone, anything? (NT) +0/-0     
Author:Maybe this is the problem for you
1/13/2021 12:03:26 PM

Reply to: 2676353


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676371 *Show, obviously. If you are so either to read thing int FAR that aren't s (NT) +0/-0     
Author:You should have figured that out easily
1/13/2021 1:33:08 PM

Reply to: 2676358


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676383 *eager. *into (NT) +0/-0     
Author:Anonymous
1/13/2021 2:31:57 PM

Reply to: 2676371


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676325 FAR’s very clearly define distinct differences between flight assignment (NT) +0/-0     
Author:and DUTY PERIOD...read much?
1/13/2021 10:14:48 AM

Reply to: 2676315


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676354 Right! And nowhere does it limit a DUTY PERIOD to 14hrs (NT) +0/-0     
Author:It limits a FLIGHT ASSIGNMENT
1/13/2021 11:57:33 AM

Reply to: 2676325


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676364 Wrong. GOM and FAR along with several legal interpa for “planning” purposes +1/-0     
Author:Not to mention if
1/13/2021 12:23:48 PM

Reply to: 2676354

You exceed 14 hours the FAA ramp check will require you can prove that you "planned" to complete the flight assignment within "14 hours." If you can't, welcome the violation.

24-10=14.....Mary doesn't change and neither does your being WRONG all the time Mr Mayors....



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676373 Not a single FAR or interpretation says that! None.  +0/-0     
Author:Post them if otherwise!
1/13/2021 1:38:05 PM

Reply to: 2676364
A certificate holder is not barred by the FAA (FARs) from Part 91 operation after 14 hrs, having pilot perform other duties after 14 hrs, overnighting other than home base, or anything else when it doesn't involve a Part 135 flight assignment, that can be planned to end ANYWHERE


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676380 If a pilot shows he ended his Part 135 segments within 14 hrs (NT) +0/-0     
Author:he is not in violation of 135.267
1/13/2021 1:58:14 PM

Reply to: 2676364


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676382 Agreed. Again, you miss the point (NT) +0/-0     
Author:Ignorant or stupid...only 1
1/13/2021 2:06:19 PM

Reply to: 2676380


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676384 What point? That you will be violated for NOT violating (NT) +0/-0     
Author:the FARs? Was that your point?
1/13/2021 2:34:09 PM

Reply to: 2676382


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2677111 Wrong. GOM and FAR along with several legal interpa for “planning” purposes +0/-0     
Author:Have
1/20/2021 8:53:36 AM

Reply to: 2676364

had three ramp checks in over 50 years of flying.  They were all courteous and nothing came of them but they all happened when I least suspected them so having one's ducks in line is definitely worth it.  On one the fellow asked what my filed IFR alternate had been.  His comment was, "that's reasonable" so don't think they can't figure things out.  Just sayin'.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676327 If not on rest, but acting on directive of certificate holder are you still (NT) +0/-0     
Author:On duty? Simple yes or no
1/13/2021 10:18:53 AM

Reply to: 2676315


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676355 Yes, but not limited to 14 hours. Just doesn't count as REST +0/-0     
Author:Just can't plan to Part 135 after 14 hrs
1/13/2021 11:59:48 AM

Reply to: 2676327
Part 91 is not Part 135


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676357 Yes, but not limited to 14 hours. Just doesn't count as REST (NT) +0/-0     
Author:FAA says start 135, end 135
1/13/2021 12:02:45 PM

Reply to: 2676355


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676374 No it doesn't, what it says is start a flight assignment 135, end it 135. (NT) +0/-0     
Author:But deny tail end Part 91 reassignment
1/13/2021 1:40:38 PM

Reply to: 2676357


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676375 Ie, see Slater 2015 (NT) +0/-0     
Author:Anonymous
1/13/2021 1:41:47 PM

Reply to: 2676374


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676329 Where in any regulation or interpretation does it say this +2/-0     
Author:If you
1/13/2021 10:45:29 AM

Reply to: 2676315

are sporting enough to just do what you proffer then do it if your operator has no objection. 

Know this please:  If the FAA decide they don't like what you do/did they will get involved.  Nothing like having a bunch of beurocrats digging in to things.  That's when you'll wish there were more specific guidance on it and not just 'interpretations'.

My approach is to read the rules, don't read in to them.  Whatever that means to you and your operator is what is going to spell your not getting in to a contest with the Feds.  Remember, the Feds have big teeth, and they print all the money they want (on our backs).



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676359 Using your advice, reading the rules DON'T demand a pilot fly back to base, (NT) +0/-0     
Author:deadhead, or can't Part 91 after 14 hrs
1/13/2021 12:05:56 PM

Reply to: 2676329


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676405 Using your advice, reading the rules DON'T demand a pilot fly back to base, +1/-0     
Author:You bring up
1/13/2021 3:55:39 PM

Reply to: 2676359

a critical point, that being just because a rule does or does not say something does not mean one choice or the other is available to be exercised.  I know, wishy-washy, but it isn't when you have to defend yourself.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676407 Someone is saying it VIOLATES regulations. That's cut and dry +0/-0     
Author:falsehoods. Regs don't say you must
1/13/2021 4:09:42 PM

Reply to: 2676405
plan to end your duty day at or before the 14th hour of duty. 5h3ybsimply say you cannot plan to operate aircraft under Part 135 part the 14th hour of duty. You can PLAN anything after that, including a taxi ride back to base, a drive back, a walk back, an overnight somewhere, a deadhead flight back, or a Part 91 reposition back. To be Part 91, you cannot have your medical crewmembers aboard, as they successfully lobbied the FAA to have them be considered equal to paying passengers, not company non-revenue passengers. There is no duty day limitations for Part 91 operation in the FARs. Youncan plan (flight assignment) point A to B to C and end the Part 135 assignment at C, then take a Part 91 flight assignment back to point A, just like any other Part 91 operator!


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676531 Someone is saying it VIOLATES regulations. That's cut and dry +0/-0     
Author:I'm
1/14/2021 3:26:26 PM

Reply to: 2676407

getting the idea you may be offerring the idea that person who goes over 14 under Part 91 can work another 2-3, maybe 5 hours. 

Let's say that individual got up two hours before reporting for duty, did his 14, then some Part 91, on behalf of his employer, or possibly at the direction or insistence of his or her employer, and, voila, there comes some incident or hopefully not an accident.  Don't think the FAA will not look at fatigue and possibly operating in a careless or reckless manner as a result, and they CAN make it stick.

Just because under this rule and that one we think some things are just fine that may not be the case.  Ya have to look at all regs with due respect of what is undertaken.

Whew.  Apologies, way too long. 



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676784 Part 91 Corporate gigs often exceed 14hrs in a day (NT) +0/-0     
Author:operating that way for decades!
1/17/2021 12:19:48 AM

Reply to: 2676531


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676467 Where in any regulation or interpretation does it say this +0/-0     
Author:SENTENCE OF THE DAY
1/14/2021 1:47:38 AM

Reply to: 2676329

"Read the rules, don't read into them."

Thank You.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676360 24 - 10 = 14 hrs for PART 135 ops, not PART 91 kos (NT) +0/-0     
Author:See Slater (2015)
1/13/2021 12:07:49 PM

Reply to: 2676341


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676370 Cite them! (NT) +0/-0     
Author:You never do!
1/13/2021 1:28:59 PM

Reply to: 2676365


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676406 24 - 10 = 14 hrs for PART 135 ops, not PART 91 kos +0/-0     
Author:True,
1/13/2021 3:57:54 PM

Reply to: 2676360

it doesn't say one can mix 135 with 91 on the end.   

Pushing this subject is always tough because 14+ hours of wakefulness has been proven as something that starts to border on fatigue.  Don't think the Feds won't bring it up, and consider it, and if they are convinced it played a part, you'll wind up  dealing with it especially if there is an incident or accident.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676446 Why would it need to say you can mix them?? (NT) +0/-0     
Author:Why can't you is the question!
1/13/2021 9:37:55 PM

Reply to: 2676406


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676445 Feds do what they want and leave you +0/-0     
Author:to pick up the pieces
1/13/2021 9:32:14 PM

Reply to: 2676315

Favorite line from a ramp check as I quoted him the regs.  He says no thats not what it says, so I whip out the book and read it to him.  He again denies it and takes the book from me and reads the reg.  Now for the beauitiful part, he hands me back the book and says "that may be what it says but that is not what it means and you should know better".  Seriously, how do you deal with someone like that?

Bottom line, sell hamburgers at a fast food joint, the managers are smarter than the feds.  Its cheaper and less risky and the worse they can do is fire you.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676447 You call their boss and ask WTH FARs are universally applied. (NT) +0/-0     
Author:Not subject to individual fifedomes
1/13/2021 9:46:07 PM

Reply to: 2676445


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676460 You call their boss and ask WTH FARs are universally applied. +0/-0     
Author:OG
1/13/2021 10:47:50 PM

Reply to: 2676447

In looking at this thread it seems someone may be confusing flight assignment and duty assignment with with the flight and duty assignments required under operational control. The pilot has oerational control when it comes to flight assignment. In other words, the planning for a specific flight is the responsibility of the pilot. Duty assignment is a major responsibility of the operator insuring the crew assigned is current, legal, properly trained, and properly equipped to complete required duties. 

I may be reading into what is being said in this post.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676480 Slater (2015), Converse-RedWingAeroplane (2012) (NT) +0/-0     
Author:Anonymous
1/14/2021 8:26:59 AM

Reply to: 2676463


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676481 Part 91 Flight assignment after Part 135 Flight Assignment (NT) +0/-0     
Author:First before 14 hrs, second wherever
1/14/2021 8:29:52 AM

Reply to: 2676460


Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676533 Feds do what they want and leave you +1/-0     
Author:No one
1/14/2021 3:37:48 PM

Reply to: 2676445

wants to get in to a phissing contest with a Fed but you can request clarification and I suggest you don't do it at any level lower than FAA Legal in DC. 

No one likes having things ratcheted up but DC are the only ones who can say "what it means", period.  POIs are not allowed to interpret. 

It also indicates your willingness to sort things out. 

We have to live with them, they have to live with us.  Use the system, if others don't like it, tough, that's the way things work.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676536 Where in any regulation or interpretation does it say this +1/-1     
Author:Oooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh.......
1/14/2021 4:09:00 PM

Reply to: 2676315

not this one again.

I'm convinced the reason this keeps coming up is the ever ongoing change of personnel in the FAA and Operator management.

Probably the single most booooooooooorinnnnnnnnnngggggggg subject in the universe, or cosmos, take ya pick.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676787 yeah +0/-0     
Author:Anonymous
1/17/2021 1:09:21 AM

Reply to: 2676536

if i were a chief pilot interviewing people, i'd ask them to explain this. if they couldn't, out the door they'd go. most simple thing in the universe. but people pretend not to understand it for different reasons, some because of laziness, some because of gung-ho-iness. those that really don't understand it are too stupid to be out flying hot metal and flammable liquids over the heads of their fellow citizens.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2676788 oh and let me save u the trouble +0/-0     
Author:Anonymous
1/17/2021 1:10:46 AM

Reply to: 2676787

i'm not a chief pilot and i don't interview people, which is a good thing for me and for people. and you're glad i'm not and i'm glad i'm not. see i just saved you a sm*rt*ss reply post. consider it my hanukkah gift to you, a little late.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2677309 yeah +0/-0     
Author:Really?
1/21/2021 3:28:36 PM

Reply to: 2676787

Glad I don't work anywhere near you.

Most helpful little lad aren't you?

Try something positive for a change.



Return-To-Index  
 
Msg ID: 2677808 yeah. yeah.  +0/-0     
Author:Anonymous
1/26/2021 10:49:43 PM

Reply to: 2677309

really. really really. 



Return-To-Index