submission - Independent Pilots Association

Letter:FAA Interpretation of FAR l2l.47l - 4 Jun7999
hours during any 7 consecutive days." It is possible for a crewnember to be
scheduled on reserve for 7 days and not be in violation ofthe regulation as long
as the crewmember does not fly (Letter from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief
Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division, to B. Stephen Fortenberry,
dated June24,1991.) However, once the crewmember takes a flight in Part 135
operations, the rest requirements activate in order to ensure that the
ciewmember has had iufficient rest prior to the flight. Thus, if the crewmember
has not had a scheduled rest period during the previous 7 days, the air carrier
and crewmember could be held in violation of Part 135 265(d)
In your second and third situation you inquire whether ground school or a Crew
Resource Management course lvould be considered duty. Again, duty must be
thought of in relation to required rest. The FAA would not hold an ait canier or
a crei',mernber in violation of Section 135265(d) if a crev"rnember was
scheduled for 7 days or a month of ground school, CRM training or any other
kind of gound assignrnent. As long as crewrnembefs afe on the glound, they are
not in violation of a rest and duty regulation. However, once again, once that
crewmember takes a flight, rest regulations activate. At that time, if the
crewmember had been in ground school for the previous 7 days, that
crewmember would be in violation of Section 135.265{d) as he had not received
the required 24 hours of rest in a consecutive 7-day period. An air carrier can
schedule a crewlnember to any kind of dull it desires for 6 consecutive days, but
on the 7th day rest regulations will affect any flying assignment.
Since "Iest" requires that a crewmember be free from all work obligations,
ground school or CRM training would not qualiff as "rost" once a crewrnember
initiates a flight. While it is not "düty," in the sense of flight duty, it is also not
t'rgst. "
Additionally, if a crewmember operates anaitctaft with insufficient rest, a
certificate holder or crewmember could be charged with a careless or reckless
violation under Section 91.13.In a prior interpretation the FAA has stated that
the "lack of rest of the pilot is certainly a circumstance which could endanger
others, and it is not necessary that the situ¿tion devolve into actual
endangerment for there to be a violation of FAR 91.13." (Letter from Donald P.
Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enlorcement Division, to
David Bodlak, dated October 28,lÐ1.)
This interpretation \À/as prepared b¡'Terry Turner, reviewed by Joseph Conte,
Manager of the Operations Law Branch and concurred with by the Air
Transportation Division of Flight Standards Service. We hope this interpretation
will be of assistance to you.
Sincereiy,
Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Page2 of 3