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.
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.
I can guarantee you with 99.44% certainty that that was not a consideration.
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.
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…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.
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.
And I think I can predict the response forthcoming on your findings.
Thanks for doing the research, Greg.
So, I'd really like to see this in writing from AGC-200 (unless that's where those two lawyers work).
Yup -- getting the answer from the only source which can be counted on to be reliable.
Доверяй, но проверяй.
So did I -- I just don't have the answer yet. But I'll share it when I get it.At least Greg put forth the effort.
And we have that in the Johnstone letter.
So did I -- I just don't have the answer yet. But I'll share it when I get it.
I'll forego answering that request with the first thing I thought and just say you'll have it when it gets here, and not a moment before.Forgive me if I won't hold my breath on that.......
I'll forego answering that request with the first thing I thought and just say you'll have it when it gets here, and not a moment before.
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$$ if its turns out to be benefcial for them.
our GOM says "IAC with the provisions outlined in FAR 117 any flying that requires at least a commerical certificate (instructing check) SHALL be reported to Crew scheduling for the purpose of FAR 117 duty time/block legality calculations. ..being that a GOM is basically an FAR compliance doctrine Ill buy it.
basically they dont want to know about it but the FAA can happliy pound a violation your A$$ if its turns out to be benefcial for them.
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.
It's already been asked and answered in the Johnstone letter.
...The two guys I talked to were ALPA lawyers and I am comfortable with what they told me..
If was sent to the CC, how long does that take them to respond back?
None.Ron, out of curiosity, what issues do you have with the Johnstone Interpretation?
Not by me.I have a feeling an interpretation request has been put in to Chief Counsel
I'll have to read it again, but I don't remember the Johnstone letter addressing Part 117. Did I miss something?It's already been asked and answered in the Johnstone letter.
I'll have to read it again, but I don't remember the Johnstone letter addressing Part 117. Did I miss something?
I'll have to read it again, but I don't remember the Johnstone letter addressing Part 117. Did I miss something?
After reading that letter again, I don't see a clear answer regarding Part 117 and "other commercial flying".
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).
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.
That is because you don't want to. And that is ok.
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. .
At any rate, let us know what you find. As I said before, I am comfortable with my current understanding of the issue.
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.
at least the feds are consistent and I offer the tax code as an example of equally arcane regulations...
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.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.
I will.At any rate, let us know what you find.