Part 121 time and Part 91 Flight Instruction

Ron Levy said:
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.
l.
Click to expand...

This directly contradicts what you said earlier:

jonnyjetprop said:
I'll take a dive into the pool of opinion.

When flight and duty times were under 121, any flying for compensation was considered to go against your 121 limits. There was plenty of chief consul opinions on this.

On January 4, 2014, 121 flight and duty times fall under 117, not 121 for passenger operations. FAR 117 is very clear in what counts toward the limits. Only 121, 135 or 91K counts. I have asked our CMO and they concur with this assessment. Yes, I know it is up to the chief consuls office to generate a formal opinion.

What this does not change is if your company specifically prohibits outside commercial flying.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
The Chief Counsel letter to Johnstone on point is dated February 2015 -- a year after the change to Part 117. I'd say your "CMO" needs to talk it over with the FAA Chief Counsel's office before advising company personnel to act contrary to that FAA letter.
Click to expand...


I'd say you need to give it up. :rolleyes:
 
RotorAndWing said:
It should be John Sibole. And he's not a AC POI. He is however an ASAP Manager.
Click to expand...
Guess I misunderstood what he told me. But since he's down here regularly at Piedmont's HQ I suspect he works with the POI and knows what the FAA's position is.
 
I chaired an ASAP meeting this morning and we fell on this topic accidently during a break...the FAA Voting member advised "your damn right it counts"
 
Update: The question was sent on to AFS-220, which is the office in Flight Standards responsible for this Part of the regulations.
 
Ron Levy said:
:dunno: I'll check on it. However, if it got shuffled to AGC-200, it could be four months.
Click to expand...

But Ron...I thought you had all of these "inside contacts" with AFS, AGC, ABCDEFG, Agent 88 and Agent 99 plus the super decoder ring???

What happened? They're not taking your calls anymore? :rolleyes2:
 
So....................................Any updates on this? :wink2:
 
Here's the response from AFS-220:

Other commercial flying does not apply to part 117, however pilots must report fit for duty and attest to that for each segment (117.5). Other commercial flying will count towards limitations in 121.471.

Also from the Part 117 Final Rule, I. Overview of Final Rule:

“This final rule addresses fatigue risk in several ways. The underlying philosophy if the rule is that no single element of the rule mitigates the risk of fatigue to an acceptable level; rather, the FAA had adopted a system approach, whereby both the carrier and the pilot accept responsibility for mitigating fatigue. The carrier provides an environment that permits sufficient sleep and recover periods, and the crewmembers take advantage of that environment. Both parties must meet their respective responsibilities in order to adequately protect the flying public.”

“1. Fitness for Duty
This rule places a joint responsibility on the certificate holder and each flightcrew member. In order for the flightcrew member to report for an FDP properly rested, the certificate holder must provide the flightcrew member with a meaningful rest opportunity that will allow the flightcrew member to get the roper amount of sleep. Likewise, the flightcrew member bears the responsibility of actually sleeping during the rest opportunity provided by the certificate holder instead of using that time to do other things. The consequence of a flightcrew member reporting for duty without being properly rested is that he or she is prohibited from beginning or continuing an FDP until he or she is properly rested.”

The certificate holder should be covering these items in its annual Fatigue Risk Management Plan (FRMP) training. Some operators limit other commercial flying to none (Piedmont) and it appears that Southwest limits other commercial flying to 15 hours a month.
Click to expand...
So for you folks flying under Part 117, check your certificate holder's FRMP to see what the rules are for you.
 
Ron Levy said:
You've seen everything I got other than references to two legal interpretations already mentioned earlier and the Part 117 preamble from the FR. If you want more, ask AFS-220.
Click to expand...

Jeez Ron, how difficult would it be for you to scan in or cut/paste the entire document?

:dunno:
 
The key takeaway is flight instructing hours don't factor into 117 hour limits. Fit for duty applies regardless of what activities you engage during your time off, whether it be golf, flight instructing or knitting.
 
LDJones said:
The key takeaway is flight instructing hours don't factor into 117 hour limits.
Click to expand...
Those flight instructing hours may, or may not, factor into your Part 117 requirements -- apparently they do at both Piedmont and Southwest, to mention the two Chet cited. So, you have to check your company's FRMP to find out what the rules are for you at your company.
 
Ron Levy said:
Those flight instructing hours may, or may not, factor into your Part 117 requirements -- apparently they do at both Piedmont and Southwest, to mention the two Chet cited. So, you have to check your company's FRMP to find out what the rules are for you at your company.
Click to expand...

No, they may affect compliance with airline policy, but not 117. The FAA just said so.
 
Ron Levy said:
Those flight instructing hours may, or may not, factor into your Part 117 requirements -- apparently they do at both Piedmont and Southwest, to mention the two Chet cited. So, you have to check your company's FRMP to find out what the rules are for you at your company.
Click to expand...

Ron, that is the wrong way to look at it because it isn't 117 that controls in that case. It is company policy, or OPSPECS, if you will. There is nothing that says a company can't go beyond what is required in the FARs.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ron, that is the wrong way to look at it because it isn't 117 that controls in that case. It is company policy, or OPSPECS, if you will. There is nothing that says a company can't go beyond what is required in the FARs.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I misunderstand, but I gather that the FRMP is required by the FAA, and becomes as much a part of the enforceable rules as other documents the company develops like the FOM, deviations from which can result in enforcement actions. In a similar vein, you folks at United do Cat IIIc ILS's, but are limited to 300 RVR by your FOM. If you went into zero RVR, you would be subject to enforcement action for violating the FAA-approved FOM even though by the published mins Cat IIIc has no RVR requirement. But perhaps that's a misunderstanding on my part.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Perhaps I misunderstand, but I gather that the FRMP is required by the FAA, and becomes as much a part of the enforceable rules as other documents the company develops like the FOM, deviations from which can result in enforcement actions.
Click to expand...

FRMS

FRMP


Ron Levy said:
In a similar vein, you folks at United do Cat IIIc ILS's, but are limited to 300 RVR by your FOM. If you went into zero RVR, you would be subject to enforcement action for violating the FAA-approved FOM even though by the published mins Cat IIIc has no RVR requirement. But perhaps that's a misunderstanding on my part.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have a misunderstanding.

Reduced landing minimums are prescribed in OpSpecs, not the FOM.

And you can't have an enforcement based upon a manual or OpSpec violation. Enforcements are only in violating regulations.
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
And you can't have an enforcement based upon a manual or OpSpec violation. Enforcements are only in violating regulations.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that there is a regulation requiring 121/135 pilots to abide by approved FOM's and Ops Specs. See 14 CFR 119.5(g) and 119.7. Am I wrong?
 
Ron Levy said:
I was under the impression that there is a regulation requiring 121/135 pilots to abide by approved FOM's and Ops Specs. See 14 CFR 119.5(g) and 119.7. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

If you have an OpSpec, say C078 that requires the operator to use standard take off minimums, and the PIC decides to take off with lower than standard minimums, the violation will be 14 CFR Part 91.175, not OpSpec C078.

Or..........The GOM says all pilots shall wear Rockport model A5643 black leather shoes. On a line observation an ASI sees the Captain wearing brown ET Wright shoes. Can the Captain be violated by the FAA for not complying with the GOM?

What parts of an operations manual (GOM) are accepted and which parts are approved? What is the difference between accepted and approved?

Manuals are not regulations, they are documents that direct the operator in how to comply with regulations.
 
Last edited:
Wearing brown shoes with a black uniform would certainly be a fashion faux pas, if not a clear regulatory violation.
 
If you fly for an airline its really simple: Look at your FOM and use that guidance.

At my employer, outside commercial flying was not allowed due to the prior time limits. It took a year, but the rules were eventually relaxed to match 117, and now I can go legitimately instruct or do other part 91 (non 91k) work in my free time if I want.
 
Immelman said:
If you fly for an airline its really simple: Look at your FOM and use that guidance.

At my employer, outside commercial flying was not allowed due to the prior time limits. It took a year, but the rules were eventually relaxed to match 117, and now I can go legitimately instruct or do other part 91 (non 91k) work in my free time if I want.
Click to expand...

Same story at my company. They officially announced in late February that outside flight instruction was no longer considered commercial flying, making it officially permitted.

I think they may be recognizing that making more instructors available might help the pilot shortage at least a little!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top