It gets kind of sticky as an HAA flight is defined as going to pick up a patient, dropping off a patient, and returning home with the crew.  HAA flights are 135 operations.  Could be read into many different ways however most good operators will not push the issue of flying paat 14 hours. No sense in sticking anyone's neck out there. Leave the aircraft at the pad and resume tomorrow or let someone else pick up the aircraft. 

It's a real bad idea to fly past 14 hours, or without properrest. Who is saying otherwise? 

It's all fun until you bend, or break the aircraft. Or worse. Automatically fatigue, and poor adm will be cited. If not more.

With 135 by 14 hours duty time. And If factors outside your control presented unforeseen delay. But it would be hard to justify if you weren't already in the air on your last leg when your 14 hour duty day ran out.

But really, is it a good idea?

Is, But really, is it a good idea?
Is it?

this is all based on your 14 hour scheduled duty day period and has nothing to do with 91 or 135 "flightassignment" which is why you have ALWAYs been wrong on this. Duty assignment vs. flight assignment. That part 91 repo flight is a directive of the certificate holder and is therefore subject to the 135 duty rules and why it's still part of your duty period. This is the FAA who has said and continues to say this! Stop trying to cherry pick things and only certain rulings that have proven to have been superseded and clarified by the FAA.

Remember when you said you can't be forced to follow part 135 weather rules on the reposition flight....how did that work?

The other part of this and most part that you fail to understand is that no one said you can't extend your duty period past 14 hours for certain circumstances. This Is a planning issue for duty day, not a flight assignment issue. You seem to have probkem understanding words and what they mean and when to use them. It will come for you someday I hope. In the meantime take notes and watch the Union continue to be right as they have been this whole time. Why? Because their info comes straight from the FAA, not AMC.  

Heres another one. Write this down. You will be able to extend part 135 duty out to 16 hours soon. 14-16 hour extentions solely for repositioning the aircraft back to its "home base." Extensions will be limited on how many a pilot can have in a given duty cycle to deter companies from takinh advantage of the rule. 14 will be the planning requirement. if it gets extended after lifiting it will be able to go out to 16 to get back to "home base." 16 will be a HARD number and you won't be able to lift on a subsequent leg if you can't be back at home base and dutied out an 16. Which includes poat flight and admin duties. Mark it down and screenshot this. You will see it soon. 

How about this. YOU, personally request a "new" legal ruling from the FAA and post it to shut us all up.....has to be YOUR request and not the usual misleading or irrelevant ruling you normally post on here only to be debunked by several people.

We will wait.

135.267 allows for an extension of flight times within a 14 hour maximum 14-hour duty period. It does NOT permit the extension of the duty period. (Moody - Lorelei Peter ACCR) August 22, 2017

Enroute delays can be an exception such as ATC, weather or maintenance(enroute).

The FAA has specified in the above cited letter, that the exception for delays only apply to the last enroute leg.

Excerpts from Tripony Lorelei Peter letter July 10 2018

All commercial flying is included in duty. 

Lorelei (specific HAA legal ruling by the way) confirms that the 14 hour rule is a planning except for thone circumstances outside of control. it clearly states "reasoanbly antcicpate" conclusion of the flight assignment within the 14 hour "duty period." Do you have a duty day limit if you don't fly? of course. Without debate. So stop trying to mix the two incorrectly. Your duty period is based on your restraint from the certificate holder and when your rest period starts and ends. Any directive including admin, post flight, etc are directives and is considered part of your duty period by the FAA, so it has to be included in planning. You are so off it's crazy.

No one said you can't fly part 91 Without the crew, but you are still under the part 135 duty period you reported for and have yet to be properly released from and therefore must comply with duty period rules under 135. 

of your operator (assuming AMC) states you must comply with 135 rules for all legs of the flight, why would there be this magical exemption for duty time only. Hmmmm....

SERVED!

"And virtually NO HAA operators (that I can find) uses FAR 135.267(d) to schedule its pilot's, as just about ALL of them, (including AMC if that's who you are talking about), schedules its pilot's with alternating day/night shift schedules over the course of a 4 week period. (see Moody-SevenBar 2017, and New 2013) So, there is no magical exemption to the fictitious DUTY requirement you have created, since there is NO DUTY restrictions under FAR 135.267(d)."

 

AMC pilots do work regularly assigned duty periods under 135.267(c) and not a "rolling 24 hour clock" under 135.267(b). An operation is either (b) or (c). AMC has somehow had this loophole of failing to designate in their GOM but it will be fixed soon as the FAA is stepping in to take a closer look. (Since their pilots work regularly assigned shifts, they operate under (c).) 

 

 

The Union produced the ruling at every membership and cited the specific legal interpretations at them to the membership....wait...you didn't attend ANY membership meetings or board meetings because you are afraid to show your face and you know you are wrong, AGAIN. So, you have already been given that information and the citations yet you still "think" you are correct. It's not the FACTS we are debating, it's your port little "FEELINGs" and insecurities.

The Union requested and received a legal ruling. been posted multiple times. Still waiting on yours? Go ahead. We will all wait. 

until YOU provide ame post a legal ruling with your name on it and a Relevant and direct resposne, the conversation is over because we are ALL tired of you being wrong and trying to defend your snowflake feelings. The Union challenged AMC to this according to their letter, as well. Yet, every other operator conducts themselves in accordance with the exact guidance the Union puts out but somehow everyone else but YOU is wrong. Laughable. 

ball is in your court. Step up Or step off. We will all wait.

What the FAA is saying, in essence, is that if you don't have paying customers or paid cargo on board, they are not terribly interested in how your company might be barely skirting rest requirements. But you should care, if you are repositioning part 91 after a 14 hour duty day. Is it a good idea? Even if it was quasi legal, Is it a good idea?

That repo flight is still duty because it's a directive of certificate holder and you are not free from ALL restraint

For your insecurities

If it existed!

It doesn't because you are MAKING STUFF UP

Check AMC's guidance to with what Union is putting out. Option A, B, and C ALL require all duties and assignments completed (not just flight) within 14 hours....seems like AMC as a company is following the Union guidance now it's just time to reel in the rogue managers IM (SW), SR (SW), and BC (SE).

Slater 2015:

For flights operated under part 135, the required rest times as provided in§§ 135.263 through 135.271 would apply to any part 91 flights that occur before or between any flight segments, but not to part 91 flights that take place after flight segments. However, the part 91 flights would not be considered rest, so the applicable rest requirements would need to be met prior to assigning a flightcrew member to additional part 135 duty and flight time.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2015/Slater%20-%20(2015)%20Legal%20Interpretation.pdf

And, here is the Final Rule Preamble to Subpart L, explaining that when medical crewmembers and patients are not on-board, it is not an HAA operation and Subpart L is not applicable [Bold text and highlight added for emphasis]:

D. Rules Applicable to Helicopter Air Ambulance Operations

This final rule establishes several new requirements for certificate holders conducting helicopter air ambulance operations. It changes the applicability section of part 135 (§ 135.1) to require some operations that have been conducted under part 91 to be conducted under part 135. Additionally, this rule establishes new equipment, operations, and training rules for certificate holders conducting air ambulance operations which are codified in new subpart L, §§ 135.601– 135.621.

1. Applicability of Part 135 Rules to Helicopter Air Ambulance Operations (§§ 135.1, 135.267, 135.271, 135.601)

The FAA proposed requiring that all helicopter air ambulance operations with medical personnel on board be conducted under part 135 operating rules. Flights to pick up a patient, the patient transport leg, and the flight returning to base after the patient is dropped off, or other flights with a patient or medical personnel on board would be conducted under part 135. The FAA received many comments from organizations and individuals supporting and opposing this proposal. Comments addressed the FAA’s accident analysis which formed the basis of the regulatory evaluation; whether part 135 is the appropriate part of the regulations for this change and whether repositioning flights should continue to be operated under part 91; potential limitations on operations; flight and duty questions; and how the FAA defined flights to be conducted under part 135. These comments are addressed in detail below. 

Definition of Medical Personnel

The NPRM defined ‘‘medical personnel’’ as ‘‘persons with medical training, including, but not limited to a flight physician, a flight nurse, or a flight paramedic, who are carried aboard a helicopter during helicopter air ambulance operations in order to provide medical care.’’ With this rule, any flights for medical transportation that carry a patient or medical personnel must now be conducted under part 135 rules.

NEMSPA suggested a change in the definition of medical personnel to ‘‘medical personnel means persons approved by State or Federal EMS regulations who are carried aboard a helicopter during helicopter air ambulance operations in order to provide onboard medical care.’’ AMOA requested a change in the proposed definition of medical personnel to ‘‘persons who are carried aboard a helicopter during helicopter air ambulance operations in order to provide onboard medical care’’ because the rule would limit the types of medical professionals often transported and could confuse the rule.

The FAA clarifies that this definition is intended to be applied broadly to individuals who might be carried aboard to provide care. Requiring medical personnel to be approved under State or Federal EMS regulations may result in preventing people currently performing these functions from performing them any longer, because they may be licensed medical professionals but not certified under state or federal EMS regulation. For example, a nurse might be certified to practice by the State board of nursing, but not under a State’s EMS regulations. Limiting the definition to this certification could also have the unintentional result of allowing operators to use medical caregivers who are not specifically certified under State or Federal EMS regulations. As a result, these individuals would not be included in the definition and thus the operator could avoid the part 135 requirements.

Additionally, we note that the definition of medical personnel proposed in the NPRM referenced ‘‘persons with medical training, including but not limited to a flight physician, a flight nurse, or a flight paramedic. . . .’’ (See 75 FR 62621) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the definition does not apply to those persons only. Any person with medical training who is ‘‘carried aboard a helicopter during helicopter air ambulance operations in order to provide medical care’’ would fall into the definition of medical personnel. The FAA notes that it made a nonsubstantive change to the definition of ‘‘medical personnel’’ to clarify that the definition could apply to a single person as well as to a group.

Accident Analysis

AMOA and PHI contended that the FAA’s accident analysis used to justify placing more operations under part 135 was flawed because it categorized flights as occurring under part 91 when, in fact, many were conducted under part 135 rules. Both organizations cited a 1992 memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the NTSB and the FAA that established how air ambulance accidents would be categorized. Pursuant to the MOU, the NTSB categorized accidents involving air medical flights without a patient on board as part 91 accidents. These commenters maintained that many of the accidents categorized as occurring under part 91 actually happened when the helicopter was operating under part 135 rules even though no patient was on board. HAI commented that its members that conduct air medical operations ‘‘currently operate to the requirements of OpSpec A021, which are higher than current part 135 weather minimums, on any leg of a patient transport flight whenever medical personnel are on board. . . .’’

The NTSB noted in its comment that, as detailed in its Special Investigation Report on Emergency Medical Services Operations, 32 of the 41 helicopter air ambulance accidents investigated by the NTSB occurred while the aircraft was operating under the flight rules specified in part 91.

The FAA acknowledges that the commenters correctly described the way accidents are categorized under the MOU. In light of the information received from the commenters, the FAA reviewed the accidents cited in the NPRM to determine whether the accidents categorized as part 91 accidents were properly used to justify changes to the rule. The NPRM categorized 33 accidents (out of the 135 helicopter air ambulance accidents cited) as occurring during part 91 operations which were given as support for including those operations in part 135.

The FAA determined that 17 of those 33 accidents occurred while the helicopters were flying in weather minimums below those proposed and that will be required under § 135.609, accounting for 42 deaths. Although some operations were conducted under part 135, these flights were operated below the weather minimums for helicopter air ambulance operations proposed in the NPRM. Therefore, the accidents may have been prevented had these helicopters been operating under the stricter rules adopted here and are properly included in justifying this rule.6

Relationship Between Parts 91 and 135

AMOA, Air Evac EMS Inc. (Air Evac EMS), AAMS, NEMSPA, and PHI were among commenters that said that applying part 135 regulations to operations traditionally considered to be under part 91 is inconsistent with the current regulatory framework and could introduce confusion. Instead, these commenters said changes to enhance safety requirements for these operations should be made by amending part 91, not part 135. This would ensure the continuity and applicability of the current rules.

The NTSB supported the proposal and stated that it would likely meet the intent of Safety Recommendation A–06– 12. However, it also stated that the list of flights conducted under part 135 must be as complete as possible and should include maintenance flights, training flights, helicopter positioning flights performed without medical crewmembers on board, and other operations that would not be required to be conducted under part 135 under this rule.

The commenters are correct that, as discussed in the NPRM, currently nonpatient-carrying legs of helicopter air ambulance operations may be conducted under part 91. The FAA, through this rule, is requiring legs with medical personnel onboard to be conducted under part 135. The primary reason for this change is to protect medical personnel by ensuring that those flights are conducted under the more stringent operating rules of part 135. As noted by the NTSB, medical personnel ‘‘cannot be expected to meaningfully participate in the decision-making process to enhance flight safety or to significantly contribute to operational control of the flight.’’ Accordingly, the FAA determined that medical personnel deserve the same safety protections that part 135 provides to patients on helicopter air ambulance flights.

Additionally, the FAA is not changing the rule language to provide a more extensive list of flights that must be conducted under part 135. As discussed above, the rule is clear that if medical personnel or a patient are on board the aircraft and the flight is conducted for medical transportation, then it must be conducted under part 135. The nonexclusive list is intended to emphasize that the traditional three-legged helicopter air ambulance flight (base to pick-up site, pick-up site to drop-off site, drop-off site to base) must now be conducted under part 135.

Further, the FAA does not anticipate that the placement of these rules in part 135 rather than in part 91 will cause confusion for certificate holders. It is clear that these rules only apply to part 119 certificate holders authorized to conduct helicopter air ambulance operations under part 135. Part 135 is a logical place for the regulations affecting this population.

The FAA received several comments about this rule’s impact on helicopter air ambulance operations. First, AMOA, Air Evac EMS, AAMS, NEMSPA, and PHI commented on the need for flexibility from the part 135 requirements during the repositioning leg for training purposes. They have traditionally used this leg for training newly hired second pilots on instrument approach procedures and stated that they cannot do the same kind of training when operating under part 135 rules as they can when operating under part 91 rules because the pilot in training would not be able to manipulate the controls. Commenters were concerned this proposal could significantly inhibit IFR operations by helicopter air ambulance operators. Second, HAI commented that a requirement to conduct helicopter air ambulance operations under part 135 would prevent operators from using GPS approaches certified for part 91 operations.

The FAA has determined that applying part 135 rules will have only a limited effect on training. Operators may continue training pilots on instrument approaches during flights with no passengers, medical personnel, or patients on board. The FAA has determined that the safety benefits of this rule outweigh the fact that certificate holders may need to conduct additional training flights.

The FAA finds HAI’s concern about limitations on GPS approaches to be unwarranted. All instrument approaches are designed and certified to part 97 Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) requirements. Use of these approaches is not restricted to flights conducted under certain operating rules. They can be used by an operator conducting flights under part 91, 121, or 135.

The NTSB also stated that although part 91 may provide additional ‘‘operational flexibilities due to decreased visual flight rules (VFR) weather minimums and no flight crew rest requirements’’ it believes that these benefits ‘‘are greatly overshadowed by the increased risk that such operations have historically posed.’’

Additionally, the FAA acknowledges that certificate holders may not be able to conduct certain operations because of the more stringent part 135 requirements. For example, the weather minimums may be below part 135 standards, but would have been acceptable for a part 91 operation. Similarly, additional part 135 flights may mean that a flightcrew member reaches flight time limitations more quickly. Nevertheless, the FAA has determined that these restrictions are appropriate given the increased safety of operations that are expected as a result of this regulation. However, the FAA is not extending this regulation to flights conducted without medical personnel onboard. The FAA has determined that such an extension would go beyond the stated rationale of providing additional protections to the medical personnel and passengers onboard the helicopter.

Air Methods commented that operators should follow the weather minimums specified in A021, which are more stringent than the baseline part 135 weather minimums. The FAA agrees and, as discussed later, is adopting those weather minimums into part 135 regulations applicable to helicopter air ambulance operations.

Flight and Duty Time Limitations (Proposed §§ 135.267 and 135.271)

As discussed in the NPRM, one impact of requiring flights traditionally conducted under part 91 to be conducted under part 135 is that these flights will now count toward a pilot’s flight time limitations. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed adding language to §§ 135.267 and 135.271 to clarify that helicopter air ambulance operations conducted under part 135 must be included in a pilot’s flight time.

Members of ACCT support including pilot duty time limitations in the change to require more helicopter air ambulance flights to be conducted under part 135. The Advanced Life Support and Emergency Response Team agreed with requiring flight time for a part 135 operation when medical personnel are on board to count toward a pilot’s daily flight time limitations and stated it already operates under this policy.

PHI, AMOA, and Air Evac EMS commented that the current flight time and duty limitations in § 135.267 should not be altered. PHI believes the proposal is inconsistent with FAA regulatory structure and discriminates against the helicopter air ambulance industry without justification. AMOA does not agree with adoption of § 135.267(g).

PHI also commented that there currently are no part 135 regulations that prevent a pilot from flying while fatigued. The commenter said that the pertinent regulation resides in part 91, part 135 operators must comply with part 91, and that current rest and duty requirements do not guarantee that a pilot will not be fatigued, even if complying with the regulations. Air Evac EMS commented that §§ 91.13 and 135.69(a) afford sufficient protection and claimed that the best measure against pilot fatigue is the pilot knowing when to decline a flight request and appropriate oversight.

AMOA and Air Methods claimed that no accidents as a result of crew rest issues were cited to support this proposal and its change is a profound shift in the agency’s regulatory structure that would cause pilots to rush to stay within the prescribed duty period. PHI and AMOA recommended retaining the current requirements until the FAA has reviewed all part 135 pilot rest requirements.

PHI and numerous other commenters requested flexibility for pilot rest requirements under circumstances beyond the control of the pilot or operator.

The FAA did not propose any substantive changes to §§ 135.267 and 135.271 flight time and rest requirements but instead added language to those sections to clarify ‘‘flight time’’ as a term that includes any helicopter air ambulance operation as defined in § 135.601. As established by this rule, all helicopter air ambulance operations with medical personnel or patients on board must be conducted under part 135. The provisions of §§ 135.267 and 135.271 would therefore apply to the helicopter air ambulance operations previously conducted under part 91. [emphasis added]

In the final rule, the FAA did not add the proposed references to helicopter air ambulance operations in §§ 135.267 and 135.271 because they are redundant with the amendments to § 135.1. Any operation that must be completed under part 135 must comply with the applicable flight and duty time limitations of part 135, and this action does not eliminate this requirement. As commenters noted, §§ 91.13 and 135.69 provide some safeguards, but the FAA has determined that the flight time limitations and rest requirements of part 135, subpart F, are the rules to follow to prevent pilot fatigue.

The FAA also notes that it received several comments about whether circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder would permit exceeding the flight time limitations in § 135.267. The FAA believes that these comments mirror those submitted to the FAA in response to a draft legal interpretation published for comment that addresses this issue. See Docket No. FAA–2010–1259 (Dec. 23, 2010). The FAA advises commenters that it issued a withdrawal of the referenced interpretation in the same docket on November 7, 2013 (79 FR 66865) and is not taking any action in this rule. To do so would be outside the scope of the rule because the issue presented in the draft legal interpretation is one that was not addressed in the NPRM.

... besides A, B, or C!   And it isn't UNSAFE to condiser them!

Because their POI doesn't understand the regs. The FAA has started scrutinizing and things will change soon.

Then get out.  Geez, stand up for what you believe you know and quit whining here.

is responsibility for work = duty.  On a pager means on duty whether the boss likes it or not.