FAR 135.267 question

Box hauler

Well-Known Member
So while working for a 135 operator, I ( and many other on this site) have been told by our chain of command that 24 hour per day on call is legal or a gray area. I found a letter of interpretation on the FAA website that clearly states that 24 hour per day on call is a violation of rest requirements under 135.267. So my question is if a company is clearly breaking a regulation could it make a training contract invalid?

Here is the letter I found

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...3/masterson - (2013) legal interpretation.pdf
 
Has your company been known to go after people for not fulfilling a training contract? If not, I wouldn't worry about it and when you interview of a job just explain the situation. It may even be looked at be the interviewee as a plus.

On a side note. If they changed the regs for air ambulance ops I would work 24 hour shifts over a 12 hour shift. More days off.
 
I would show them the letter and tell them "DUCES BITCHES!"

But you need some sort of proof of 24hr on call status first.
 
@Box hauler

If your operation doesn't keep a log sheet classifying and specifically stating periods of duty / rest / on-call, you will never win. The operator knows it and the FSDO does too. As well as it is a catch 22, if you admit to being on call 24/7 you are just as guilty for accepting a flight assignment without properly assigned rest.

You should also find these other letters of interpretation: Moody, Brazill, Bodlak & Berry. Those all discuss every possible misinterpretation of rest and duty.
 
Let's just say it would make the case interesting if the company pursued it. Whether it invalidates the contract will depend on what else the contract says, how the contract was performed, state law on employment contracts and other variables that preclude a cut and dried answer.
 
That is a slippery slope.....because you are willingly accepting 24/7 on call as a employee which means you are knowingly flying illegal with out ample rest.

Derek
 
Companies who do 24/7 really have nothing to worry about despite the small stack of letters from the FAA saying it's illegal.

A) as previously mentioned, no pilot is going to rat them out because by doing so you're admitting you took an assignment you knew was legal. Even if you had the cojones to do that, you'd likely end up with at least a suspension, and the company would get a slap on the wrist and continue doing it.

B) the POIs of these companies may as well be in bed with them as they continue to tolerate it. Make no mistake, there are some great POIs out there, but there are also many who let a LOT slide at their carriers for a variety of reasons. Until a company has a POI who actually forces them to, you know, follow the law, they have zero incentive to not take advantage of their crews.

C) management of these carriers seems to almost delight in telling pilots they'll be on call 24/7. They'll explain how "everyone does it" and "this business wouldn't be competitive with the normal rest rules". A lot of young and/or eager pilots will happily jump at the opportunity, maybe thinking "well hell, I'll be making money on a trip while Brand X is on rest!", unfortunately contributing to the problem. If you're a member at PPW there's a member who actively recruits in damn near every thread for pilots for a certain Michigan-based carrier who utilizes 24/7 on call. I think the guy has pulled out every excuse I can imagine to justify it, and I think what's worse is he actually believes a lot of it.
 
Companies who do 24/7 really have nothing to worry about despite the small stack of letters from the FAA saying it's illegal.

A) as previously mentioned, no pilot is going to rat them out because by doing so you're admitting you took an assignment you knew was legal. Even if you had the cojones to do that, you'd likely end up with at least a suspension, and the company would get a slap on the wrist and continue doing it.

B) the POIs of these companies may as well be in bed with them as they continue to tolerate it. Make no mistake, there are some great POIs out there, but there are also many who let a LOT slide at their carriers for a variety of reasons. Until a company has a POI who actually forces them to, you know, follow the law, they have zero incentive to not take advantage of their crews.

C) management of these carriers seems to almost delight in telling pilots they'll be on call 24/7. They'll explain how "everyone does it" and "this business wouldn't be competitive with the normal rest rules". A lot of young and/or eager pilots will happily jump at the opportunity, maybe thinking "well hell, I'll be making money on a trip while Brand X is on rest!", unfortunately contributing to the problem. If you're a member at PPW there's a member who actively recruits in damn near every thread for pilots for a certain Michigan-based carrier who utilizes 24/7 on call. I think the guy has pulled out every excuse I can imagine to justify it, and I think what's worse is he actually believes a lot of it.

Randy is a good guy, its just a shame that he drinks the kool aid.

Derek
 
You can send an anon tip to the feds if you're so inclined. They tend to investigate precise accusations.
 
What kind of lawyer would one speak to regarding an issue related to this?
Ideally, one who deals with employment contract and aviation issues. Absent the availability of both (in the same firm, at least), I'd favor the aviation guy because of the special regulatory issues. Employment, while often a specialty, is usually within the range of most general practices.
 
I tend to agree with Midlife Flyer in that this could make for a very interesting case. Basically, a contract for something that is illegal is void ab initio (from the beginning). Would that be the case here? Maybe. Would the entire contract be interpreted as incorporating the 24/7 provision? Hmmmmm. A careful evaluation of the contract by an aviation attorney with contract experience will give you a pretty good idea of the likely outcome; only a court will give you a definitive answer. Good luck.
 
Back
Top