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

Yes, that's exactly what I'm implying. Knowing about both of those unsafe practices yet still going to work at an operator that does either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CFI A&P said:
Yes, that's exactly what I'm implying. Knowing about both of those unsafe practices yet still going to work at an operator that does either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Wow, very interesting take. Maybe nobody should take a job because airplanes are dangerous huh? So the cargo carve out, it is legal, is it safe? Operating 24/7 on call but only doing daytime out and back trips spanning a few hours of actual work, is it legal, is it safe?

Going to work for somebody that operates illegally is way different than working hard for a company that does it legally, I cannot believe you make that comparison.
 
Inverted said:
We work 12 hour days at least, every day while we are on tour, no consideration for fatigue, no consideration for circadian rhythm, and no consideration for time zone changes.
Click to expand...

You said it not me. For me, that's a great way to describe a former employer.

Earlier you ask why people are bringing up ATP and parking twins when this thread is about 135. Now you mention the cargo carve out. How is 121 cargo related to 135 ?
 
Last edited:
CFI A&P said:
You said it not me. For me, that's a great way to describe a former employer.

Earlier you ask why people are bringing up ATP and parking twins when this thread is about 135. Now you mention the cargo carve out. How is 121 cargo related to 135 ?
Click to expand...

It's duty and rest, 121 cargo is dealing with unfair duty and rest. Part 135 hasn't seen a duty and rest regulatory change ever.

And the quote above is describing the regs. I can call in fatigued whenever I want. What I'm saying is that there is nothing that the company has to do with regard to the stuff I mentioned above as far as legal compliance.

A company can legally work you 14/10 until you're blue in the face, or one of your 13 days per calendar quarter comes up, whichever comes first. Again if you think the regs are sufficient, then that's your choice.
 
I just don't understand pilots some times. Why are y'all arguing against a committee to look at the regs and see what can be fixed? Anybody that flies 135, which I did a long time ago, knows the regs are lip service and broken.

Take a look at what can be fixed and implemented and it'll make all of our jobs safer.

Email submitted.
 
Inverted said:
It isn't about adding another reg, in fact it isn't an addition. For like the 5th time, this is merely the forming of a committee to examine duty and rest rules, and bring a necessary change.

I don't think you guys understand about how companies skirt these regs. They don't shirt them on paper at all. Go look at duty/rest logs at a given company that keeps pilots on call 24/7. They will likely show that the time you were on rest when in fact you were on call. This isn't as simple as merely changing clock times in the FARs, this needs to go much farther. The way you report for duty, the way you are put on rest, the way companies prove this and comply. These are all the core concepts of why a change is necessary.

I am happy if you guys work for operators that only work you 8 hours a day, that is very impressive, but it is not the norm. We work 12 hour days at least, every day while we are on tour, no consideration for fatigue, no consideration for circadian rhythm, and no consideration for time zone changes. All perfectly legal, and if the pilots don't stop it by calling in fatigued, we can be ran right into making a possibly fatal mistake. We are implementing fatigue mitigation software here which is a first for a large 135 operator, and that's a great step in the right direction, but it is unique to our operation. We follow the regs and I am willing to bet we follow the regs farther than most companies, but we work hard for it. Having some science applied to 135 operations, or some better rest penalties against the company for the longer you are on duty etc. might not be a bad idea. That is what everyone should want for the industry.
Click to expand...
Simply defining what is rest and what is duty would be a massive improvement. It would be a start.

First 135 I worked at considered any company contact as duty if you weren't flying or pre-flight/post-flight. Followed the rule conservatively. Second company, "hey, we need to show you as rest starting at this time instead". :rolleyes:
 
Yep, the big freight company with Ameri in it was quite loose on duty and rest as far as definitions go. My second company? Hooolay crap did they just make up stuff as they went. They said the regs allows the company one phone call to you on rest and you are obligated to answer. Huh??!?

It needs to be defined, and the letters of interpretations need to be incorporated into the regs, as well as looking for ways to improve safety. It is depressing to see pilots argue against it.
 
The quickest way to get the rules to change or at least get the companies to follow the rules, is for pilots to stop flying for them. If we want better working conditions, we need to collectively stop flying for crummy operators. That of course will never happen as people need turbine time.
 
Everyone says that the quickest way to change this is to stop working for companies that don't follow the regs. While that is true in the short term, we all realize this is an unrealistic expectation as there will always be new pilots that need to build hours, or pilots with multiple infractions, drug charges, DUIs, felony charges etc. that can't go work anywhere else. There are also pilots that simply think the regs are wrong and don't want them followed or changed. We have seen a little bit of that in here, and if you want a real good look, go to PPW and read any thread regarding USAJet.

The long term solution is to make the regs clear and defined so there is no "grey" area, there is no clever wording in order to skirt the regs, that there is action against those who don't follow the regs. We need that, the industry needs that, and it is looonnnnnng overdue.

It isn't a matter of the FAA enforcing current regulations, it's about current regulations being so loose, that companies can just forge the information, which is blatenly illegal. Even if you were to whistle blow these companies to the FAA, all they have to do is show them the logs that state the crews were on rest, when in fact they were on duty.

Lots of companies do the right thing, lots of companies do close to the right thing. But a large portion do it terribly and illegally. I think we need to bring everyone on the same playing field, if we have to follow the regs, so should Joes charter company across the street.
 
Technically the rules don't need to change. The FAA has interpreted their meaning and they are clear. I think they should codify the definition of rest, but that's me.

The important thing is for pilots to actually know the rules and follow them, company be damned. If that means you have to walk, you walk. Stop being a bunch of babies and stand up for yourselves.

With that said, I'm open to the regs being looked at by a committee. Why not?
 
Inverted said:
Cool, so let's do absolutely nothing. :bang:
Click to expand...

Do you think the current 135 rules (if followed correctly) is safe? I been doing 135 for the past 7 years, and I have no problem with the current regulations. As a Chief Pilot for a 135 company, we can now have two crews for a 24 hour period with a 14 hour duty day.

If we reduce the 14 hour Duty day to say 10 hours, Do you think that it should be the norm for a 135 company to have three crews for a 24 hour period instead of two? Keep in mind, that when we do actually fly, the flights are usually less than 4 hours, and usually less than a few flights per week. Even when a crewmember is on Duty at night for example, they can be at home sleeping since we rarely fly nights.

The problem I see with new rules being implemented, is they forget about the small operator like us where it places huge burdens on us, when the intent of the rule is to fight fatigue at places that actually do fatigue their pilots because they are doing freight or regular scheduled routes.
 
Inverted said:
Cool, so let's do absolutely nothing. :bang:
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with what you're saying, but this is exactly what we (pilots) are (or are not) doing which is nothing. So the FAA doesn't enforce it. So what? That doesn't absolve us as pilots of the responsibility to follow the regs. If the company is operating illegally, either have the guts to say no or leave. It really is quite that simple.
 
averettpilot said:
I tend to agree with what you're saying, but this is exactly what we (pilots) are (or are not) doing which is nothing. So the FAA doesn't enforce it. So what? That doesn't absolve us as pilots of the responsibility to follow the regs. If the company is operating illegally, either have the guts to say no or leave. It really is quite that simple.
Click to expand...

No, it's not that simple. I did just that at VNY. I'll never have another job at VNY because of it. And the worst part, everyone there knows the operation I did that at is a d-bag operator. I tried for two years to get back into charter work there, with zero luck.
 
mshunter said:
No, it's not that simple. I did just that at VNY. I'll never have another job at VNY because of it. And the worst part, everyone there knows the operation I did that at is a d-bag operator. I tried for two years to get back into charter work there, with zero luck.
Click to expand...
Sorry that happened to you. You did the right thing and you're better for it. Perhaps time to move or find a new segment of the industry to work in. I've been through it too in the Phoenix area and was fortunate to have a good contact at the company I'm at now who does it right. Probably won't last forever (not the company doing it right, just in general), and when that day comes I'll look for new work and if I can't find another company who follows the regs, then I'll have to go elsewhere, find a new segment (most likely airlines), or leave aviation. I've done it before, have no problem doing it again.

Again, sorry for your rotten luck. Yes, the FAA should absolutely enforce, but it's a team effort and the buck stops at the PIC. Either we ALL start taking that seriously (like you apparently do) or what's it all worth? Good luck, sincerely.
 
averettpilot said:
Sorry that happened to you. You did the right thing and you're better for it. Perhaps time to move or find a new segment of the industry to work in. I've been through it too in the Phoenix area and was fortunate to have a good contact at the company I'm at now who does it right. Probably won't last forever (not the company doing it right, just in general), and when that day comes I'll look for new work and if I can't find another company who follows the regs, then I'll have to go elsewhere, find a new segment (most likely airlines), or leave aviation. I've done it before, have no problem doing it again.

Again, sorry for your rotten luck. Yes, the FAA should absolutely enforce, but it's a team effort and the buck stops at the PIC. Either we ALL start taking that seriously (like you apparently do) or what's it all worth? Good luck, sincerely.
Click to expand...

I've been back at work for three years now. With a transcon commute, and a schedule. Thanks though. I don't need luck, I just need to not eff up.;)
 
Inverted said:
Again if you think the regs are sufficient, then that's your choice.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't the regs, the problem is the enforcement of the regs. It has been said every time this topic comes up, and then everyone chimes in about how it works at their shop, says "what's the problem?" followed by telling stories of working for a dirt bag operator, completely ignores the big picture and the conversation fades away when the next big news story surfaces.

Sure, form a committee that will review the regs and propose changes - what's the time line for that 2, 3, 5, 10 years before that happens? A high profile fatal accident might speed it up but not likely. I'm all for enforcement action against operators for blatantly violating regulations but it'll never happen. Personally, before this committee forms and develops a 135 rest revision, I think we are going to see a tremendous amount of FAA resources focused on UAS/ UAV/ drones/ quadcopters and all the hazards those devices are creating.

The biggest tool for prevention of a problem is education. Educate the masses about 135 rest, poor rest practices and encourage people to not work at said operators.
 
Last edited:
If the FAA enforces with regards to operators then they will also have to enforce with regards to pilots. Something about an operator may not assign and a pilot may not accept or some such...

We're not clean here in this people. Yes, education is certainly the key. The next step is for all pilots to grow a backbone on this subject since the likelihood of a 135 union doesn't exist.

Since it's not likely that operators won't be made an example of, perhaps a few pilots should. Maybe then we'll stop working for the dirt bags and pay attention to what we're supposed to be doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top