Part 121 time and Part 91 Flight Instruction

I wonder if the pilot pay scales have anything to do with this. Flight instructing is one of the few jobs you can work in with an early airline schedule to make a living in the first few years.
 
Henning said:
I wonder if the pilot pay scales have anything to do with this. Flight instructing is one of the few jobs you can work in with an early airline schedule to make a living in the first few years.
Click to expand...

I can guarantee you with 99.44% certainty that that was not a consideration.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ok, I think I finally have a handle on this. First off, 121.471 applies to cargo operations only. It has no bearing on 117 at all. The reference for that is 121.470.

On to the 117 part.

117.1 says, basically, that part 117 applies to all PASSENGER 121 operations. It supersedes any Flight Time/Duty Time limitations published in Part 121.

So, what about the Johnstone Interpretation dated February 3, 2015, you may ask (Ron)? If you carefully parse it, it covers two different areas. Paragraph 2 deals with 121 operations NOT covered by 117 and Paragraph 3 covers 121 operations that ARE covered by 117. 2 separate issues. 2 separate interpretations.

So, I am convinced that ALPA's interpretation regarding this issue and published in their document regarding flight time limits and rest requirements is accurate.

Bottom line? Commercial flying done outside of 121 Passenger or 91K does not count against the 1,000 hours cumulative flight time restrictions of part 117.

This is based on extensive discussions with the two lawyers that were primarily responsible for drafting the 117 regulations.
Click to expand...

Nice work.

And I think I can predict the response forthcoming on your findings. ;)
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ok, I think I finally have a handle on this. First off, 121.471 applies to cargo operations only. It has no bearing on 117 at all. The reference for that is 121.470.

On to the 117 part.

117.1 says, basically, that part 117 applies to all PASSENGER 121 operations. It supersedes any Flight Time/Duty Time limitations published in Part 121.

So, what about the Johnstone Interpretation dated February 3, 2015, you may ask (Ron)? If you carefully parse it, it covers two different areas. Paragraph 2 deals with 121 operations NOT covered by 117 and Paragraph 3 covers 121 operations that ARE covered by 117. 2 separate issues. 2 separate interpretations.

So, I am convinced that ALPA's interpretation regarding this issue and published in their document regarding flight time limits and rest requirements is accurate.

Bottom line? Commercial flying done outside of 121 Passenger or 91K does not count against the 1,000 hours cumulative flight time restrictions of part 117.

This is based on extensive discussions with the two lawyers that were primarily responsible for drafting the 117 regulations.
Click to expand...
Thanks for doing the research, Greg. Were those two lawyers in AFS-200 or AGC-200? If you think about it, the interpretation under discussion would allow Part 121 pilots to fly a 4-day trip for their airline, and then on their three days off…
· Fly someone’s corporate jet halfway around the world and back
· Give 8 hours a day of flight training at the local flight school
· Do 10 hours a day of pipeline patrol
· Haul jumpers in a Twin Otter from sunrise to sunset
…and then come back to work on Day 8 without counting all that flying on their “days off” against their Part 117 168-hour limits. OTOH, all that flying would count under 121.471 as interpreted by the Chief Counsel in those letters.

I’ve read the regs and the preamble to Part 117, and other than military flying, the preamble says only that “personal flying” is excluded from the limits. I don’t see the flying activities I listed above as being “personal flying.” Can you see cargo pilots being barred from such activity while passenger pilots are allowed? If so, then from a safety perspective, it would appear to make a mockery of the intent of Part 117.

So, I'd really like to see this in writing from AGC-200 (unless that's where those two lawyers work).
 
The "cargo carve out" was a last minute revision to the Part 117 regulation due to heavy lobbying by FedEx and UPS. The original Part 117 included all 121 operations.
 
Ron, yes that is exactly what that means EXCEPT for the fact that one would not be employed by a passenger 121 outfit and a 121 freight outfit at the same time. Remember that 121.471 applies to 121 freight only.

The two guys I talked to were ALPA lawyers and I am comfortable with what they told me. If you want to pursue it, knock yourself out but to me the Johnstone letter is crystal clear in my mind that it addresses two separate issues.
 
Last edited:
And to address your issue about cargo pilots being exempt, yes that is exactly the case. That is why 121.470 471 and 472 still exist.
 
Last edited:
Yup -- getting the answer from the only source which can be counted on to be reliable.

Доверяй, но проверяй.
 
our GOM says "IAC with the provisions outlined in FAR 117 any flying that requires at least a commerical certificate (instructing check) SHALL be reported to Crew scheduling for the purpose of FAR 117 duty time/block legality calculations. ..being that a GOM is basically an FAR compliance doctrine Ill buy it.

basically they dont want to know about it but the FAA can happliy pound a violation your A$$ if its turns out to be benefcial for them.
 
taters said:
our GOM says "IAC with the provisions outlined in FAR 117 any flying that requires at least a commerical certificate (instructing check) SHALL be reported to Crew scheduling for the purpose of FAR 117 duty time/block legality calculations. ..being that a GOM is basically an FAR compliance doctrine Ill buy it.

basically they dont want to know about it but the FAA can happliy pound a violation your A$$ if its turns out to be benefcial for them.
Click to expand...

A GOM can be more restrictive than the regulations if the operator desires. It cannot be less restrictive unless the company is granted a waiver.
 
taters said:
our GOM says "IAC with the provisions outlined in FAR 117 any flying that requires at least a commerical certificate (instructing check) SHALL be reported to Crew scheduling for the purpose of FAR 117 duty time/block legality calculations. ..being that a GOM is basically an FAR compliance doctrine Ill buy it.

basically they dont want to know about it but the FAA can happliy pound a violation your A$$ if its turns out to be benefcial for them.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling an interpretation request has been put in to Chief Counsel, there is at least one prior Levy letter in the interpretation archives.
 
Henning said:
I have a feeling an interpretation request has been put in to Chief Counsel, there is at least one prior Levy letter in the interpretation archives.
Click to expand...

Is that the same Levy that has been on this board telling people not to write to the Chief Counsel???:dunno:

And why would he need an interpretation on a rule that clearly does not apply to him? :dunno:
 
If was sent to the CC, how long does that take them to respond back?
 
Ron Levy said:
I'll have to read it again, but I don't remember the Johnstone letter addressing Part 117. Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

It only mentions "117" in the Subject line, paragraph 1, paragraph 3, and paragraph 4. :rolleyes:

First sentence:" This letter is in response to your July 21, 2014 letter and November 7 email requesting an interpretation of the meaning of "other commercial flying" as it relates to part 121 and part 117 flight and duty rules."

So I'd say you missed something. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
After reading that letter again, I don't see a clear answer regarding Part 117 and "other commercial flying". The paragraph about Part 117 only discusses how ground instruction relates to Part 117. So I'll wait for my answer from the FAA, specifically, an Inspector I work with on FAASTeam issues whose primary job is POI for a 121 carrier (which means he ought to know the FAA's position on this issue). I don't expect it will take four months to get a response from him.
 
Ron Levy said:
After reading that letter again, I don't see a clear answer regarding Part 117 and "other commercial flying".
Click to expand...

That is because you don't want to. And that is ok.

So I'll wait for my answer from the FAA, specifically, an Inspector I work with on FAASTeam issues whose primary job is POI for a 121 carrier (which means he ought to know the FAA's position on this issue).
Click to expand...

Ron, I find this statement extremely hilarious, coming from you. You would take the word of someone not associated with the Chief Counsel's office. It is SO unlike you. :yes::D

At any rate, let us know what you find. As I said before, I am comfortable with my current understanding of the issue.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
That is because you don't want to. And that is ok.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:


Greg Bockelman said:
Ron, I find this statement extremely hilarious, coming from you. You would take the word of someone not associated with the Chief Counsel's office. It is SO unlike you. :yes::D.
Click to expand...

He likes to chastise posters if they mention "An FAA Inspector told me....."

Greg Bockelman said:
At any rate, let us know what you find. As I said before, I am comfortable with my current understanding of the issue.
Click to expand...

We won't . This, like so many times before will die on the vine.......
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
After reading that letter again, I don't see a clear answer regarding Part 117 and "other commercial flying". The paragraph about Part 117 only discusses how ground instruction relates to Part 117. So I'll wait for my answer from the FAA, specifically, an Inspector I work with on FAASTeam issues whose primary job is POI for a 121 carrier (which means he ought to know the FAA's position on this issue). I don't expect it will take four months to get a response from him.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to your FAASteam PM, he's not a AC POI.
 
Last edited:
Clark1961 said:
at least the feds are consistent and I offer the tax code as an example of equally arcane regulations...
Click to expand...

The tax code is a model of clarity and it's legal staff are paragons of logic and excellent, customer friendly, management compared to the the FARs and FAA law clerk group.


Seriously!
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ron, I find this statement extremely hilarious, coming from you. You would take the word of someone not associated with the Chief Counsel's office. It is SO unlike you. :yes::D
Click to expand...
I would take his word that it is what the POI's have been told by their bosses, and I would believe what he says about the source of that information. Of course, absent a specific interpretation from the Chief Counsel's office, there's no way to know for sure what the legality is. But since it is those POI's who would be the people who would take action on this issue, I would certainly take that as a lot more reliable than what ALPA's in-house lawyers say as to what the FAA actually will do about pilots subject to Part 117 doing "other commercial flying" on their off-days. After all, it won't get to the lawyers if an Inspector doesn't write it up, so I'd think that the POI's think would be an air carrier pilot's main concern.

At any rate, let us know what you find.
Click to expand...
I will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top