30-in-7 and "Other Commercial Flying"

[C150J]

121.471 (a) No certificate holder conducting domestic operations may schedule any flight crewmember and 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) 1,000 hours in any calendar year;
(2) 100 hours in any calendar month;
(3) 30 hours in any 7 consecutive days;
(4) 8 hours between required rest periods.

From the ALPA flight time limtations book.
Q-3. A flight crewmember has flown 30 hours in a six-day period. On the sixth day, can the carrier assign the crewmember to fly a ferry flight following the completion of the revenue flying that will cause the crewmember to exceed 30 hours of flying within a seven-day period?
A-3. Yes. Ferry flights are normally conducted under Part 91, and the flight-time limitations are applicable only to Parts 121 and 135. Some carriers do apply Parts 121 and 135 to ferry and repositioning flights. If you are unsure as to whether it is Part 91 flying, you should make appropriate inquiries. However, ferry flight time under Part 91 must be counted as “other commercial flying” to determine compliance with the monthly and yearly flight-time limits. Moreover, if the ferry flight time is accumulated before attaining 30 hours of flight, then it must be counted in determining the 30-hour limitation.


How is a Part 91 maintenance flight NOT considered "other commercial flying" for 30-in-7, but "commercial flying" for every other limitation? Doesn't this fly in the face of "one level of safety?" Just because you have no passengers on board, it certainly doesn't change the fact that you're flying above and below planes full of passengers.

J.

 

[KLB]

121.471 (a) No certificate holder conducting domestic operations may schedule any flight crewmember and 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) 1,000 hours in any calendar year;
(2) 100 hours in any calendar month;
(3) 30 hours in any 7 consecutive days;
(4) 8 hours between required rest periods.

From the ALPA flight time limtations book.
Q-3. A flight crewmember has flown 30 hours in a six-day period. On the sixth day, can the carrier assign the crewmember to fly a ferry flight following the completion of the revenue flying that will cause the crewmember to exceed 30 hours of flying within a seven-day period?
A-3. Yes. Ferry flights are normally conducted under Part 91, and the flight-time limitations are applicable only to Parts 121 and 135. Some carriers do apply Parts 121 and 135 to ferry and repositioning flights. If you are unsure as to whether it is Part 91 flying, you should make appropriate inquiries. However, ferry flight time under Part 91 must be counted as “other commercial flying” to determine compliance with the monthly and yearly flight-time limits. Moreover, if the ferry flight time is accumulated before attaining 30 hours of flight, then it must be counted in determining the 30-hour limitation.


How is a Part 91 maintenance flight NOT considered "other commercial flying" for 30-in-7, but "commercial flying" for every other limitation? Doesn't this fly in the face of "one level of safety?" Just because you have no passengers on board, it certainly doesn't change the fact that you're flying above and below planes full of passengers.

J.

You're getting paid to do it also. Sounds like commercial flying to me!

 

[BajtheJino]

Alpa is wrong.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

That doesn't sound wrong to me. Except the last paragraph. If you have flown 30 hours you can not fly anymore 121 legs, you can still perform a ferry flight under part 91.

And it would be considered "other commercial flying" for every flight time limitation, not merely 30 in 7.

 

[surreal1221]

legal to start, legal to finish.

 

[C150J]

That doesn't sound wrong to me. Except the last paragraph. If you have flown 30 hours you can not fly anymore 121 legs, you can still perform a ferry flight under part 91.

And it would be considered "other commercial flying" for every flight time limitation, not merely 30 in 7.

I agree with you, as that's the current interpretation utilized by many-a-regional. HOWEVER, why is a 91 flight operated by an airline, who pays its pilots, requires a commercial certificate, and operates in and out of high-intensity airports, considered a "non-commercial operation?"

I'm asking everyone to evaluate the status quo. I presume that the intent of this is passenger safety. A Part 91 repo smashing into an A320 full of passengers due to an altitude deviation makes the same mess as two 121 flights.

 

[C150J]

That doesn't sound wrong to me. Except the last paragraph. If you have flown 30 hours you can not fly anymore 121 legs, you can still perform a ferry flight under part 91.

And it would be considered "other commercial flying" for every flight time limitation, not merely 30 in 7.

Also, the intent of the "tail-end ferry" was originally to get a plane back to base during IRREG ops. I don't think anyone intended on a carrier flying a guy 35+ hours in a 7-day sequence.

 

[KLB]

Also, the intent of the "tail-end ferry" was originally to get a plane back to base during IRREG ops. I don't think anyone intended on a carrier flying a guy 35+ hours in a 7-day sequence.

Thats the only way that I would be able to do it. It has to be an empty repo back to base. Even then I'd need approval from the CP.

 

[Maurus]

Thats the only way that I would be able to do it. It has to be an empty repo back to base. Even then I'd need approval from the CP.

Here is an interesting interpretation on the issue for for Part 135 duty times along with a definition of "other commercial time".

Other commercial flying means any nonmilitary flying as a required crewmember, other than in air transportation, for which the crewmember is paid for his or her services. See Legal Interpretation 1990-32 (Oct. 31, 1990).

I would say a ferry flight puts you over your duty time and should not be done. I don't know 121 regs all that well, but unless there is a loop hole somewhere I think it could be a problem.

 

[wheelsup]

I would say a ferry flight puts you over your duty time and should not be done. I don't know 121 regs all that well, but unless there is a loop hole somewhere I think it could be a problem.

Part 91 flights have no duty time or flight time limitations that I know of. It's a pretty large loop hole...

 

[Polar742]

I agree with you, as that's the current interpretation utilized by many-a-regional. HOWEVER, why is a 91 flight operated by an airline, who pays its pilots, requires a commercial certificate, and operates in and out of high-intensity airports, considered a "non-commercial operation?"

I'm asking everyone to evaluate the status quo. I presume that the intent of this is passenger safety. A Part 91 repo smashing into an A320 full of passengers due to an altitude deviation makes the same mess as two 121 flights.

Also, the intent of the "tail-end ferry" was originally to get a plane back to base during IRREG ops. I don't think anyone intended on a carrier flying a guy 35+ hours in a 7-day sequence.

I agree with how you're looking at this. I ask the same questions.

The aircraft is on the OpSpecs. The MEL is only valid on aircraft on OpSpecs. blah, blah, blah. We had a talk about this today coming down to PVG. I had a much better discussion with more lucid, and a greater number of, points.

I have a friend who is a Captain on a 3 man jet in 121 supplemental ops. That means with the three of them, they can have 12 hours in the seat scheduled. They had a 12 hour day scheduled with, I think, 3 sectors. Then did a Part 91 tail end ferry.

Brutal. Inhumane.

 

[Maurus]

Did you read the interpretation? The part 91 flight in the interpretation was considered duty time. The carrier was part 135 though.

Other commercial flying means any nonmilitary flying as a required
crewmember, other than in air transportation, for which the crewmember is paid for his or
her services. See Legal Interpretation 1990-32 (Oct. 31, 1990).

Sounds like it would count, but I dunno.

 

[minitour]

The aircraft is on the OpSpecs. The MEL is only valid on aircraft on OpSpecs.

Uh............what?

-mini

 

[Maurus]

Part 91 flights have no duty time or flight time limitations that I know of. It's a pretty large loop hole...

Here is another Interpretation. This one is for 121 monthly duty times and the "other commercial flying" is not even governed by the FARs in this case but it would still count toward the duty time requirements in part 121. Just something to think about.

 

[Polar742]

Uh............what?

-mini

Well, when an aircraft is on our 121 OpSpecs it means that it is operated in accordance to the operating manual, part of which is the MEL. And it is maintained per the maintenance program approved by the OpSpecs.

So, basically, if you have an airplane with an MEL item on it, not being operated under the OpSpecs of the airline, then the MEL is not a valid document. It is only approved under the approval of the POI.

I learned all of this doing delivery flights for the airline.

There may be other interpretations out there by different FSDOs, but that's how I learned it.

Why is it important?

The airplane is OPERATED and MAINTAINED within the guides of OpSpecs. I'd venture further to say that the crew is operating a flight of an air carrier, thus not part 91.

 

[minitour]

So, basically, if you have an airplane with an MEL item on it, not being operated under the OpSpecs of the airline, then the MEL is not a valid document. It is only approved under the approval of the POI.

I thought you were saying that only airplanes on Op Specs could be operated with an MEL, which isn't true (Part 91 you just get an LOA). I understand where you're at now.

Re: Operating a flight part 91 for an air carrier. I'm pretty sure that's an Op Spec, too. I don't have an Airnet GOM anymore, but I'm pretty sure we had the "may conduct certain flights under part 91" Op Spec. I'm pretty sure the certificate our plane is on has the same Op Spec, but I'm too lazy to look to confirm. Without that Op Spec, you'd have to conduct all flights under the air carrier regulations...even if you're empty and returning to a mx base for mx.

-mini

 

[Polar742]

I thought you were saying that only airplanes on Op Specs could be operated with an MEL, which isn't true (Part 91 you just get an LOA). I understand where you're at now.

-mini

Right...so the MEL must be approved.

The funny thing is it's approved to operate within the OpSpecs. When the airplane, for instance, a new airplane that hasn't gone through the conformity check, is not listed by tail number, the MEL doesn't apply.

I guess the operator could get a Part 91 approval per tail number though. That would be a big PITA though.

Exactly right about the Ferry OpSpec. The OpSpecs are just canned paragraphs that operators can choose to have or not. So AirNet may have had that and AmFlight not, for example.

 

[minitour]

Right...so the MEL must be approved.

Yes, but not only via an Op Spec. I took this statement...

The MEL is only valid on aircraft on OpSpecs.

...to imply that only OpSpecs make the MEL "valid".

I guess the operator could get a Part 91 approval per tail number though. That would be a big PITA though.

Not really. You submit some paperwork to the FSDO and they issue you a LOA. Plenty of aircraft operated strictly Part 91 with MELs.

Exactly right about the Ferry OpSpec. The OpSpecs are just canned paragraphs that operators can choose to have or not. So AirNet may have had that and AmFlight not, for example.

Yeah, I just can't remember the specific paragraph number or how it is actually worded. I believe it goes something alone the lines of So and so certificate holder is authorized to conduct certain flights under part 91. ...and then it lists the flights (reposition, mx, training, etc.). I'm just too lazy to get any references tonight. Air Force One is on!!!! "GET OFF MY PLANE!"

-mini

 

[Polar742]

Not really. You submit some paperwork to the FSDO and they issue you a LOA. Plenty of aircraft operated strictly Part 91 with MELs.
-mini

I'm familiar with the process.

But a 121 operator would have a PITA. Trust me. Manuals are a PITA no matter what in the 121 world. Even if they're not part of the operating manual.

And a 121 MEL and 91 MEL at the same operator with disagreements? Fuggedaboudit.

 

[minitour]

But a 121 operator would have a PITA. Trust me. Manuals are a PITA no matter what in the air carrier world.

Fixed it.

135 manuals = Not very much fun.

...even worse when you get to the inspection phase and the aircraft owner decides he doesn't want to spend the cash to overhaul a governor and a few other things, so you've just spent all of that time and all of those trips to the FSDO for zero.

Yeah. Manuals are a pain in the tookus.

-mini