| Msg ID: 2690392 |
duty time +0/-10
|
| Author:Frozen2
5/27/2021 12:27:56 AM |
Hello Gents,
Just completed a 15 hour duty time by doing the old 135 , oh oh running out of time lets switch to part 91 and fly the rest. seems as if I remember back a while that this may be a bit illegal but couldn't find the reg to cover it. |
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690399 |
We don't have that issue here +14/-0
|
| Author:HAA pilot in NM
5/27/2021 8:11:23 AM Reply to: 2690392 |
Our flights almost always consist of flying in Roswell area, and White Sands area. Frequentley we find that we cannot account for two hours of more of our flight. Special dispensation is available from FAA regarding "operating in an Alien environment". The government has known since 1947 that time can be warped by extra-terrestrial activities in the vicinity. That being said, however, I do seem to suffer after effects of probing; my butt hurts. |
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690406 |
It's not illegal unless you did it with neutral crew and/or (NT) +1/-2
|
| Author:paying passengers (ie, For Hire)
5/27/2021 9:28:04 AM Reply to: 2690392 |
|
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690410 |
It's not illegal unless you did it with neutral crew and/or +0/-1
|
| Author:What
5/27/2021 9:48:33 AM Reply to: 2690406 |
Fake news |
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690433 |
It's not illegal unless you did it with *medical* crew and/or (NT) +0/-0
|
| Author:Anonymous
5/27/2021 1:36:18 PM Reply to: 2690406 |
|
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690455 |
There aren't any specific reg's that cover that, +0/-0
|
| Author:it's a really gray area.
5/27/2021 5:51:11 PM Reply to: 2690392 |
Lot's of opinions but no definitive guidance. I wouldn't worry about it. |
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690467 |
There is plenty of definitive guidance. PART 91 is Part 91 +0/-0
|
| Author:& not Part 135! Definitely, there is no:
5/27/2021 8:14:44 PM Reply to: 2690455 |
Part 135.267(d) duty period limitations. None! There is 24 hour look back for 10 hour rest requirement for planning Part 135 flight legs. There is no similar requirement for Part 91 Ops. You can operate Part 91 after Part 135 without rest requirements. See Slater 2015. |
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690468 |
Except when you read the legal interpretation and guidance from (NT) +0/-0
|
| Author:The FAA and Chief General Counsel
5/27/2021 8:46:57 PM Reply to: 2690467 |
|
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690470 |
All for FAR 135.267(c) not FAR 135.267(d) +0/-0
|
| Author:Anonymous
5/27/2021 9:03:51 PM Reply to: 2690468 |
|
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690474 |
Have you even read the FAR’s (NT) +0/-0
|
| Author:Like the words
5/27/2021 9:47:51 PM Reply to: 2690470 |
|
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690478 |
Have you even read the FAR’s +0/-0
|
| Author:philofthenorth
5/27/2021 11:07:55 PM Reply to: 2690474 |
Has anyone here ever run up against the Feds on the issue? Been violated? Been told it's OK? |
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690489 |
Yes, here is a case: +0/-0
|
| Author:Anonymous
5/28/2021 9:05:44 AM Reply to: 2690478 |
Note, they were cited because theybdid not gove the pilot adequate REST for his next FAR 135 flight assignment, not because he exceeded any DUTY limitation. That's because the Part 91 operation did not demand a required REST period beforehand (because it was Part 91), but the one he came back for did (because it was Part 135). He didn't have the 10 hours of look-back in 24 he needed.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc |
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690517 |
I have, but I enjoy whipping morons into (NT) +0/-0
|
| Author:a frenzy. Thanks
5/28/2021 12:59:29 PM Reply to: 2690474 |
|
|
|
Return-To-Index |
