121, 117, 91, yada yada yada

CFI A&P

CFI A&P

Exploring the world one toilet at a time.
A question for the experts out there in JC...,

I'm looking for some clarification on the limitations of what a 121 pilot can or can not do outside of their 121 flying. Obviously flying for another 121 or 135 carrier would probably be a problem due to the conflict of interest, but what would be permitted? Before someone says it, yes each company has different policies, but I'm looking for FAA info. A quick search of the Chief Counsel interpretations doesn't have anything relating to this specific subject yet.

When you post your answers, could you also post the link(s) to the sources? Thanks.
 
Hey man,

It's been addressed, sort of, in this section of the forum. Look for "first question". I posted it a few weeks ago.

Long story short, the answer is "Yes, but proceed with caution."
 
Indeed, the flight time/duty time issue has been addressed here and by the FAA chief counsel. If your question is concerning additional legal restrictions imposed by the FAA on flying for other carriers or other purposes, I am not aware of any specific restrictions. To some extent, I think such rules are unlikely in that they may cross certain constitutional lines. However, existing regulations give the FAA a pretty good case to enforce unreasonable activities. You're just not going to be able to spend 20 hours a day in air unless you own a floating bed - lol.
 
Thanks, I saw that but I was looking for specific sources on it, other than "that's the general consensus".

In short, I'm trying to see what the FAA will allow me to do outside of the 121 world. Company policies vary and I'll cross that bridge when it comes but for now interested in if I can flight instruct/ ferry/ contract without violating a regulation.
 
Here's something to think about when considering outside flying.

Sure, the new 117 regs got rid of certain restrictions that the 121 rest and duty rules had in place, however, you are now required to verify that you are fit for duty prior to each FDP and each flight.

This to me seems a lot like a 91.3 catch all for the new 117. Sure you can flight instruct today... but you showed up for your primary job and something happens... think the FAA is going to look the other way?
 
PilotDefenseAttorney said:
Indeed, the flight time/duty time issue has been addressed here and by the FAA chief counsel. If your question is concerning additional legal restrictions imposed by the FAA on flying for other carriers or other purposes, I am not aware of any specific restrictions. To some extent, I think such rules are unlikely in that they may cross certain constitutional lines. However, existing regulations give the FAA a pretty good case to enforce unreasonable activities. You're just not going to be able to spend 20 hours a day in air unless you own a floating bed - lol.
Click to expand...
My employer still requires that we give it 100.0% of our commercial flying, even in the "post-121" era of fatigue rules. As far as I've found out, waivers are exceptionally rare.
 
CFI A&P said:
Thanks, I saw that but I was looking for specific sources on it, other than "that's the general consensus".

In short, I'm trying to see what the FAA will allow me to do outside of the 121 world. Company policies vary and I'll cross that bridge when it comes but for now interested in if I can flight instruct/ ferry/ contract without violating a regulation.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, sometimes the best you can hope for is a definite maybe. Until the facts and circumstances surrounding each flight or combination of flights can be taken into account there is no way to provide the cut and dried answer you are looking for. The changes to 117 appear to have given you more discretion in deciding what you can do but the other side of the coin is that the FAA now seems to have more discretion in how they evaluate your decisions in that regard. As someone earlier observed, it may not be determined that you were in violation until after something bad happens. Of course, the fact that something bad happened may then itself be used as evidence for a "careless or reckless" violation - whether the result of fatigue or some other issue. It is also not unheard of for violations of company policy - even if not technically regulatory - to become negative evidence in court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top