121.471, et al - survey for part 121 pilots

seagull

Well-Known Member
There is a general requirement regarding flight/duty regulations that the air carrier cannot schedule you in violation of those. A corollary to those regulations is that no crewmember may accept an assignment in violation for those. Referencing the second portion, regarding crewmember shared responsibility, does your carrier publish this requirement in one of your manuals or provide the information in another way to you? How would you answer the following ATOS question for your airline, if asked specifically where this is documented by your company?

"Check that the Certificate Holder conducting domestic operations has in its manual instruction and information so that no flight crewmember may accept an assignment for flight time in scheduled air transportation or in other commercial flying, if that crewmember's total flight time in all commercial flying will exceed 1,000 hours in any calendar year."

I am curious to see how this is handled throughout the industry, as there seems to be a wide variance from the small sampling I've seen so far.
 
Yes, they do publish it in our Flight Operations Manual.

Don't have the manual anymore, or I could pull it off the web, but I know it's in ours. Specifically stating duty limitations in 7, 30, and yearly requirements.
 
It's in our FOM. They even incorporated a handy-dandy flow chart.

It's already been through the IOSA deal too....
 
DL- In the FOM. I'm pretty sure that almost all 121 carriers have it in the FOM somewhere.
 
Put it this way.... find me a carrier where it is not in their FOM (because they wont have a certificate!) It is checked for compliance in the certification & then anytime they wish to revise that section of the FOM - check faa.gov under the air carrier section has lots of information.
 
Put it this way.... find me a carrier where it is not in their FOM (because they wont have a certificate!) It is checked for compliance in the certification & then anytime they wish to revise that section of the FOM - check faa.gov under the air carrier section has lots of information.

I'd look up ATOS, then figure that seagull is in a position that he is preparing for an audit at a large, well-known airline.

Just a hunch....
 
Polar

Well put, and not too far off the mark. It is not necessarily a matter of being compliant, but I am interested in how the various operators are choosing to be compliant. There are a lot of ways to accomplish this and meet the required standards. Is putting the actual regulations in the FOM the best way to make it happen when the pilot CBA has limits that are significantly lower than the regulation, for example? While the FOM is one possible location, it is far from the only one.

So far, here, the FOM seems to be the place of choice, but then, do the carriers mentioned so far have CBA's that are significantly more restrictive? I am sure DL does, but they still use the FOM. What about the others?
 
Our CBA is more restrictive than the law (Thank God), and it is reflected in the FOM.

The FOM, in a text statement reflects that crew members are responsible for knowing the CBA and FAR limits. It also states that the contracted scheduling system reflects the CBA and FAR limits.

Like all other FOMs, the FAR requirements are listed, and in cases where the CBA is more restrictive, the CBA limits are listed.
 
Yes, but rarely. 5Y does most of the supplemental work (what's left of it anyway...:rolleyes:) Our CBA doesn't make a distinction, so the FOM, from what I read, doesn't either.

The book is a common book between the two carriers, and with the rather large discrepancies between work rules at both carriers, they lean towards the more liberal rules of 5Y.

But, all the caveats with unassigned pilots and all are in the book too, but not covered under the CBA.
 
Back
Top