CALL TO ACTION: Support a rewrite of Part 135 duty and rest rules

Inverted

Inverted

mmmmmm wine
NJASAP, the NetJets union our PAC is focusing efforts this week to get changes made to Part 135, specifically duty and rest rules. Even if you don't fly for Part 135, I think you can see that this would be beneficial for everyone in aviation so please, take a moment and voice your concern so we can get this on the ballot this week.

PLEASE CALL and EMAIL your Senators TODAY: Support Inhofe #3643 Amendment to HR 636

This week, and most likely Wednesday, Sen. James Inhofe is expected to introduce Amendment #3643 to HR636 during a floor session of the Senate that calls for the creation of an FAA Advisory Rulemaking Committee tasked with updating pilot duty and rest rules for those crewmembers who fly on behalf of FAR Part 135 operators. The rules under which we currently operate have not been updated in more than 60 years, and the time for an update in NOW.
Please EMAIL AND CALL your senators to support this Amendment to HR 636.

Look up you elected Senators HERE:
http://whoismyrepresentative.com/

Suggested email:

Subject: Please Support Inhofe #3643 Amendment to HR636

Body:

As a constituent and professional pilot, I am writing today to encourage you to support the Inhofe #3643 Amendment to HR 636, which is scheduled to be considered on the Senate floor this week. This commonsense amendment addresses outdated, arbitrary flight duty and rest rules within the business and fractional aviation communities that have not been updated in more than 60 years. More specifically, the amendment will create an FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee comprised of industry representatives, business aviation pilots, and fatigue experts who will help determine proper pilot flight duty and rest rules using a science-based approach.

Pilots, like me, who fly in charter and fractional aviation need your support for this pragmatic amendment. The need to examine 60-year-old rules is indisputable as they impact the safety of my aircraft, passengers, fellow crewmembers and the entire National Airspace System. Please support the Inhofe #3643 Amendment.



Suggested Call Script:

"As a constituent and professional pilot, I am calling today to encourage my U.S. Senator to support the Inhofe #3643 Amendment to HR 636, which is scheduled to be considered on the Senate floor this week. This commonsense amendment addresses outdated, arbitrary flight duty and rest rules within the business and fractional aviation communities that have not been updated in more than 60 years. More specifically, the amendment will create an FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee comprised of industry representatives, business aviation pilots, and fatigue experts who will help determine proper pilot flight duty and rest rules using a science-based approach.

Pilots who fly in charter and fractional aviation, like me, need our Senators' support for this pragmatic amendment. The need to examine 60-year-old rules is indisputable as they impact the safety of my aircraft, passengers, fellow crewmembers and the entire National Airspace System. Please support the Inhofe #3643 Amendment."
 
Assigned rest doesn't necessarily mean rested....

Stirring the pot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'll stir the pot some more: I don't see this going anywhere. Think of all the vested interests behind not adding extra costs to 135 travel. Literally every blue chip company in America would be against this.
 
Guys it takes 30 seconds and it will possibly get an amendment to create a committee to address these issues. Inhofe from an aviation standpoint Has introduced two pilots bill of rights. If you do nothing, nothing will change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I see one for the amendments (3458) already attached is calling for an additional secondary barrier between the cabin an cockpit door on aircraft over 75 seats.

Agreed that if 121 cargo was left out before, 135 is even less of a concern to the FAA. How often is already discussed that the FAA turns a blind eye to the 24hr on call even when all the legal counsel letters show its illegal.
 
Capt. Chaos said:
I see one for the amendments (3458) already attached is calling for an additional secondary barrier between the cabin an cockpit door on aircraft over 75 seats.

Agreed that if 121 cargo was left out before, 135 is even less of a concern to the FAA. How often is already discussed that the FAA turns a blind eye to the 24hr on call even when all the legal counsel letters show its illegal.
Click to expand...
Haha, no kidding. How about a bill to just enforce the rules already in place!

And that security barrier is retarded.
 
Inverted said:
An ATP is not required. what are you talking about?
Click to expand...
For multi engine 135 scheduled pax ops a ATP is required. Some how that same Navajo that just a multi commercial for freight or charter pax needs a guy to go through the new 121 ATP hoops to fly it on a schedule.
 
Interesting. Is having an ATP a huge issue? Is scheduled 135 having that big of an issue with the ATP rule?
 
Inverted said:
A rewrite would surely take the fact that current rules aren't enforced into account.
Click to expand...
A re-write does what exactly? You get a set of new regs so the 135 shops have something new to BS their way around and the Feds continue to ignore? It surprises me that your union doesn't have better things to spend money on. I wish the bill the best, but why not get at the root of the problem before putting another band aid on it?
 
You're surprised that the group that represents the pilots for the largest private jet operator on the planet doesn't have an interest in fixing something that hasn't been changed in 60 years for the betterment of the industry? Instead of taking 30 seconds to show support to have this stuff get noticed on Capitol Hill, you would rather trash the union and remark about how they can spend money elsewhere?

Lots of assumptions in here, the support to have this noticed goes beyond just making new rules that won't get enforced. You think that we don't recognize that the FAA doesn't enforce these rules? THATS WHY IT NEEDS A REWRITE.
 
Inverted said:
Interesting. Is having an ATP a huge issue? Is scheduled 135 having that big of an issue with the ATP rule?
Click to expand...

Well, actually, yes. It is a bit of an issue - I have mine, but from a company standpoint, the cost of finding ATP rated pilots went through the rough, and promotion from within was basically made unlikely for folks who don't already have one. It's a huge expense for an operator flying Navajos or something around with pax to take on.
 
Well I'm not sure why NetJets would even remotely care about trying to change the ATP rule so Navajo operators can hire non ATP rated pilots. Duty and rest rules cover everyone, and it's a much larger issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top