Narrative:

Operating for a regional airline under far part 135 scheduled operations. The following incident that we the flight crew experienced pertains to pilot flight time limitations and rest requirements for scheduled operations: far 135.265. We reported to duty at XA00 hours, and were scheduled for a normal shift which ended at XB00 hours. A total of 10.3 hours. Duty. We had appropriate rest when we reported for duty. However, because of WX, poor visibility at our final destination, our final flight for that shift could not be completed. The flight was delayed then finally canceled. Therefore, we could not complete the scheduled crew swap. As a result, we were assigned by dispatch and accepted to complete a double shift. The second (evening) shift had an off duty time of xx hours, which would have given us 8.5 hours rest within 24 hours. Acceptable under the FARS as reduced rest of 8 hours. However, as we reached the end of the scheduled shift that evening, the WX (visibility) was varying: up to acceptable approach minimums and then decreasing. The last flight was delayed for WX. But at xx hours the visibility improved for a departure. The flight was boarded and loaded. Then, just at the time to pull away from the gate, we were informed that the visibility was no longer legal. We could not depart. In this instance we were legal to start thus legal to finish because of WX. Now, at this point the suggestion was now proposed to fly the passenger to another airport nearby the original destination, then allowing the passenger to drive home at their expense. We pursued this option. We used the same flight number as scheduled, but because of WX, changed the destination airport. The question now is, was this a mistake because it was not our original scheduled flight destination. The flight number was kept but we changed the destination due to WX. The flight was completed, we departed at xx hours with an arrival at xx hours. If this was not an approved practice with respect to the new destination airport, the off duty of xx hours would not have given the appropriate rest period within 24 hours. (Less than 8 hours.) our target hour that day was xx hours. Even if we exceeded that time flying to the original destination, due to WX we would have been legal. Because we were legal to start and legal to finish. The gray area is over the fact that the destination was changed, which extended our duty time and thus resulted in less than 8 hours of rest within 24 hours. Did this alter the legal to start, legal to finish factor? If yes, then we unintentionally had not respected far 135.265. This question prompted us to complete and submit this NASA report. Hoping this vagueness in regulation interpretation can be made known to other flcs. Supplemental information from acn 298473: however, we then repositioned the airplane under part 91 to our base. This resulted in another 15 min flight and an extra 1 1/2 hour duty time. Though at the time we operated under the factor that we were legal when we started that day, and the delay was due to WX, we were therefore legal to finish. However, in retrospect I believe that our repositioning of the airplane under part 91, though not a part 135 passenger revenue flight, was not correct because it still affected our duty time under part 135. We did have more than 8 hours of rest before reporting for work on our next scheduled shift. I feel that this is a possible gray area in interpretation of part 135.265 regulation. See callback for acn 298472: reporter stated that he has discussed this duty incident with other company pilots and the chief pilot and learned that there was no violation of the FARS. He believes that the way the far for duty time is worded that in respect to the rest periods they could be shortened beyond good reasonableness due to WX delays. However, he recognizes that if the flight time is not exceeded, or a corresponding rest period lengthened, the amount of rest is dependent on the 24 hour period before the duty or commencing after the duty prior to the next assignment. Of course, this would also have to consider the 7 day and monthly total flight times. He requested to put on the 'call back' mailing list.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN LTT OPERATING UNDER FAR 135 ARE CONCERNED ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLT AND DUTY REST LIMITATIONS DUE TO EXTENSIVE WX DELAYS.

Narrative: OPERATING FOR A REGIONAL AIRLINE UNDER FAR PART 135 SCHEDULED OPS. THE FOLLOWING INCIDENT THAT WE THE FLC EXPERIENCED PERTAINS TO PLT FLT TIME LIMITATIONS AND REST REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHEDULED OPS: FAR 135.265. WE RPTED TO DUTY AT XA00 HRS, AND WERE SCHEDULED FOR A NORMAL SHIFT WHICH ENDED AT XB00 HRS. A TOTAL OF 10.3 HRS. DUTY. WE HAD APPROPRIATE REST WHEN WE RPTED FOR DUTY. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF WX, POOR VISIBILITY AT OUR FINAL DEST, OUR FINAL FLT FOR THAT SHIFT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED. THE FLT WAS DELAYED THEN FINALLY CANCELED. THEREFORE, WE COULD NOT COMPLETE THE SCHEDULED CREW SWAP. AS A RESULT, WE WERE ASSIGNED BY DISPATCH AND ACCEPTED TO COMPLETE A DOUBLE SHIFT. THE SECOND (EVENING) SHIFT HAD AN OFF DUTY TIME OF XX HRS, WHICH WOULD HAVE GIVEN US 8.5 HRS REST WITHIN 24 HRS. ACCEPTABLE UNDER THE FARS AS REDUCED REST OF 8 HRS. HOWEVER, AS WE REACHED THE END OF THE SCHEDULED SHIFT THAT EVENING, THE WX (VISIBILITY) WAS VARYING: UP TO ACCEPTABLE APCH MINIMUMS AND THEN DECREASING. THE LAST FLT WAS DELAYED FOR WX. BUT AT XX HRS THE VISIBILITY IMPROVED FOR A DEP. THE FLT WAS BOARDED AND LOADED. THEN, JUST AT THE TIME TO PULL AWAY FROM THE GATE, WE WERE INFORMED THAT THE VISIBILITY WAS NO LONGER LEGAL. WE COULD NOT DEPART. IN THIS INSTANCE WE WERE LEGAL TO START THUS LEGAL TO FINISH BECAUSE OF WX. NOW, AT THIS POINT THE SUGGESTION WAS NOW PROPOSED TO FLY THE PAX TO ANOTHER ARPT NEARBY THE ORIGINAL DEST, THEN ALLOWING THE PAX TO DRIVE HOME AT THEIR EXPENSE. WE PURSUED THIS OPTION. WE USED THE SAME FLT NUMBER AS SCHEDULED, BUT BECAUSE OF WX, CHANGED THE DEST ARPT. THE QUESTION NOW IS, WAS THIS A MISTAKE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT OUR ORIGINAL SCHEDULED FLT DEST. THE FLT NUMBER WAS KEPT BUT WE CHANGED THE DEST DUE TO WX. THE FLT WAS COMPLETED, WE DEPARTED AT XX HRS WITH AN ARR AT XX HRS. IF THIS WAS NOT AN APPROVED PRACTICE WITH RESPECT TO THE NEW DEST ARPT, THE OFF DUTY OF XX HRS WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN THE APPROPRIATE REST PERIOD WITHIN 24 HRS. (LESS THAN 8 HRS.) OUR TARGET HR THAT DAY WAS XX HRS. EVEN IF WE EXCEEDED THAT TIME FLYING TO THE ORIGINAL DEST, DUE TO WX WE WOULD HAVE BEEN LEGAL. BECAUSE WE WERE LEGAL TO START AND LEGAL TO FINISH. THE GRAY AREA IS OVER THE FACT THAT THE DEST WAS CHANGED, WHICH EXTENDED OUR DUTY TIME AND THUS RESULTED IN LESS THAN 8 HRS OF REST WITHIN 24 HRS. DID THIS ALTER THE LEGAL TO START, LEGAL TO FINISH FACTOR? IF YES, THEN WE UNINTENTIONALLY HAD NOT RESPECTED FAR 135.265. THIS QUESTION PROMPTED US TO COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS NASA RPT. HOPING THIS VAGUENESS IN REG INTERP CAN BE MADE KNOWN TO OTHER FLCS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 298473: HOWEVER, WE THEN REPOSITIONED THE AIRPLANE UNDER PART 91 TO OUR BASE. THIS RESULTED IN ANOTHER 15 MIN FLT AND AN EXTRA 1 1/2 HR DUTY TIME. THOUGH AT THE TIME WE OPERATED UNDER THE FACTOR THAT WE WERE LEGAL WHEN WE STARTED THAT DAY, AND THE DELAY WAS DUE TO WX, WE WERE THEREFORE LEGAL TO FINISH. HOWEVER, IN RETROSPECT I BELIEVE THAT OUR REPOSITIONING OF THE AIRPLANE UNDER PART 91, THOUGH NOT A PART 135 PAX REVENUE FLT, WAS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE IT STILL AFFECTED OUR DUTY TIME UNDER PART 135. WE DID HAVE MORE THAN 8 HRS OF REST BEFORE RPTING FOR WORK ON OUR NEXT SCHEDULED SHIFT. I FEEL THAT THIS IS A POSSIBLE GRAY AREA IN INTERP OF PART 135.265 REG. SEE CALLBACK FOR ACN 298472: RPTR STATED THAT HE HAS DISCUSSED THIS DUTY INCIDENT WITH OTHER COMPANY PLTS AND THE CHIEF PLT AND LEARNED THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE FARS. HE BELIEVES THAT THE WAY THE FAR FOR DUTY TIME IS WORDED THAT IN RESPECT TO THE REST PERIODS THEY COULD BE SHORTENED BEYOND GOOD REASONABLENESS DUE TO WX DELAYS. HOWEVER, HE RECOGNIZES THAT IF THE FLT TIME IS NOT EXCEEDED, OR A CORRESPONDING REST PERIOD LENGTHENED, THE AMOUNT OF REST IS DEPENDENT ON THE 24 HR PERIOD BEFORE THE DUTY OR COMMENCING AFTER THE DUTY PRIOR TO THE NEXT ASSIGNMENT. OF COURSE, THIS WOULD ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER THE 7 DAY AND MONTHLY TOTAL FLT TIMES. HE REQUESTED TO PUT ON THE 'CALL BACK' MAILING LIST.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.