Updated: 9:32 am ET January 12, 2009
| Results - 270 entries found |
| Specifically, you question whether a non- TSO electronic flight displayImeets the requirements of § 91.205(d) for instrument flight rules operations in an aircraft with special airworthiness certificates. This section specifically addresses aircraft with standard category airworthiness certificates and does not apply to aircraft with a special (experimental) airworthiness certificate. 3 You should contact the Flight Standards District Office for your geographic area for further information ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2009/Rourke.pdf |
| May 18, 1999 Letter to Kathleen Roy from Donald Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations Division [1999-6]. However, the flight and duty time regulations pertaining to U.S. operators and crewmembers do not distinguish between "other commercial flying" conducted domestically or for a non-U.S. operator solely in a foreign country. Consistent with the section 121.471, you would not be able to accept flight time assignments from Southwest for domestic operations if your total flight time, ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2009/MacKenzie.pdf |
| Section 91.319(a) specifically prohibits operating an aircraft that has an experimental certificate for other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued, or carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. For our regulatory purposes, the FAA considers carrying cremated human remains on board the aircraft in these circumstances analogous to the carrying of property.) Although the FAA considers carrying cremated remains "carrying persons or property" for purposes of this ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2009/Harris.pdf |
| request as seeking clarification of the meaning of "known icing conditions" as that term appears in Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM) and Pilot Operating Handbooks for many general aviation aircraft. "Known icing conditions" involve instead circumstances where a reasonable pilot would expect a substantial likelihood of ice formation on the aircraft based upon all information available to that pilot. 2 The FAA will specifically evaluate all weather information available to the pilot and determine... Click here for full text: .../interps/2009/Bell.pdf |
| Pursuant to §121.709, "no certificate holder may operate an aircraft after maintenance, preventive maintenance or alterations are performed on the aircraft unless the certificate holder, or the person with whom the certificate holder arranges for the performance of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations, prepares or causes to be prepared (1) an airworthiness release; or (2) an appropriate entry in the aircraft log." 2 §121.709(b) or §135.443(b), the "certificate holder" ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2009/MacLeod.pdf |
| The rule provided for the agency to issue foreign repair station certificates "only where the Administrator finds that such repair station is necessary to provide for the maintenance, repair, or alteration of United States registered aircraft outside of the United States." This provision will ensure that foreign repair stations certificated by the FAA are needed to support U.S.-registered aircraft and would not extend U.S. resources for FAA certification of foreign repair stations that would ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/San Francisco.pdf |
| The legal conclusions below are equally pertinent to either type of document-current maintenance instructions or current inspection program. Our answer is that an operator could not be so required, and our reasoning is the same as discussed below in answer to your questions concerning required compliance with "current" (i.e., subsequently issued changes to maintenance manuals or inspection programs). If "current" in § 91.409(f)(3) and similarly worded regulations could be read to mean an ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Aircraft Maintenance.pdf |
| You enclosed two interpretations issued in 1991 discussing the medical certification requirements for a certified flight instructor (CFI) proving flight instruction for compensation. If the flight instructor does not act as PIC or required flight crewmember, then the flight instructor is not exercising any pilot privileges and requires no medical certificate. 2 instructor to possess a third-class medical certificate when engaging in flight instruction and acting as PIC or as required flight ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Murphy.pdf |
| performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator or a flight training device that is representative of the aircraft category for the instrument privilege sought- § 61.57( d) Instrument Proficiency check. ... Therefore, only a certified instrument flight instructor (CFII), who holds an instrument rating on his or her flight instructor certificate, which is... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Griffith.pdf |
| You state that the real estate development company operates the aircraft incidental to, and within the scope of, its business and that no common carriage is involved. The three parent companies of the real estate development company wish to use the aircraft to move their officials and employees for business purposes incidental to, and within the scope of their respective automotive dealership functions. You question whether the real estate development company may carry officials, employees, ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Burgess.pdf |
| The CE 525 is type certificated for single pilot operations, but it is also type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember. Its type certification data sheet specifies both the minimum pilot flightcrew of one pilot and a minimum pilot flight crew of a pilot and a copilot. A pilot certificate that indicates a CE-525 pilot type rating means that the pilot completed the practical test for the CE-525 pilot type rating with a pilot and copilot flightcrew in a Cessna 525. Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Ortiz.pdf |
| U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration NOV 1 9 2008 Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Mr. Peter Bunce General Aviation Manufacturers Association 1400 K Street, N.W., Suite 801 Washington, DC 20005-2485 Dear Mr. Bunce: This is in response to your May 6, 2008, email request for a legal interpretation regarding whether 14 C.F .R. § 61.113 allows volunteer private pilots to be reimbursed for operating expenses incurred in ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Bunce.pdf |
| U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration NOV 1 8 2008 Robert Bleadon 4334 Deer Creek Road Selma, OR 97538-9709 Dear Mr. Bleadon: Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.w. Washington, D.C. 20591 Congressman Peter DeFazio asked that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) respond to your letter of October 16 regarding your role as a Designated Pilot Examiner for light sport aircraft. Your letter states that two FAA inspectors told you that you did not ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Bleadon.pdf |
| Specifically, Mr. Muhler stated that MGS (an FAA-certificated repair station) has approved data for repair of the tray tables at issue, and that this data was obtained through the services ofa Designated Engineering Representative (DER) and documented on an FAA Form 8110- 3 (Statement of Compliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations). 2 As noted above, Mr. Muhler's letter referenced Advisory Circular 43-18 (Fabrication of Aircraft Parts by Maintenance Personnel), which provides guidance ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Ross.pdf |
| Federal Aviation Administration Memorandum Date: NOV 1 2 2008 Air Transportation Division, AFS-201 From: Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200 Subject: Legal Interpretation- 14 C.F.R. 121.309©(4) Location of Fire Extinguishers on Flight Deck-Requirements By memo dated July 10,2008, you requested a legal interpretation of 14 CFR § 121.309(c)(4) as it relates to the placement of fire extinguishers on the flight deck. INTERPRET ATION Section 121.309(c)(4) ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Davis.pdf |
| 2 You stated that Air Tran is currently being required by its Certificate Management Office (CMO) to maintain its seat belt TSO tags in accordance with the above TSO marking regulation. Moreover, the aircraft's type design that specifies the applicable TSO-authorized seat belt contemplates that all TSO requirements are met. Accordingly, Air Trans' CMO may continue to require that Air Tran maintain its seat belt tags in accordance with the requirements in 14 C.F.R. § 21.607(d). Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Horton.pdf |
| The arrangement as you described is not a fractional ownership, but rather a joint ownership agreement as defined in §91.501(c)(3). Because the aircraft in your scenario is being operated in accordance with a joint ownership agreement, §91.501(b)(6), which specifically addresses transport of company officials and guests under a joint ownership agreement, governs. 2 joint owner of the aircraft under the agreement, the subsidiary would be allowed to transport its company officials, employees, ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Lawyer.pdf |
| Since the type design for a part 25 airplane certificated for ditching includes liferafts that meet the requirements of §25.1415, operation without those liferafts, when the applicable operating rules require ditching equipment, would also violate §91.7(a), which prohibits the operation of an aircraft unless it is in airworthy condition. The operating rule reference is to a further requirement that may be applicable to an individual operation, not a recitation of particular operating rules. ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Roberts.pdf |
| U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration SEP 3 0 2008 Mrs. Leslie A. Morris P.O. Box 2195 Green Valley, AZ 85622-1295 Dear Mrs. Morris Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.w. Washington, D.C. 20591 This responds to your inquiry whether a pilot can accept a clearance from air traffic control (A TC) for a standard instrument departure procedure (SID) or an Obstacle Departure Procedure (ODP), with a non-standard climb gradient if the pilot knows that the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Morris.pdf |
| You specifically ask four questions regarding these operations: (1) Whether a server is considered a flight attendant and is subject to flight attendant training and testing provisions; (2) Whether flight attendants trained and tested to part 135 standards by a placement agency may perform flight attendant duties for an air carrier that does not possess its own training and testing program; (3) Whether servers may be placed on passenger carrying flights conducted under part 135 for ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Schehr.pdf |
| In your letter you asked whether a private pilot may participate in an airlift for a charitable, nonprofit, or community event, which complies with section 91.146, and collect reimbursement consisting of a pro rata cost of owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft for that flight, including such costs as fuel, oil, airport expenditures, and rental fees. However, section 61.113 (d) specifically allows a private pilot to act as a pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Metzinger.pdf |
| §61.195 (h) Qualifications ofthe flight instructor for training first-time flight instructor applicants. (2) Except for an instructor who meets the requirements of paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section, a flight instructor who provides training to an initial applicant for a flight instructor certificate must- (i) Meet the eligibility requirements prescribed in §61.183 of this part; (ii) HDld the appropriate flight instructor certificate and rating; (iii)Have held a flight instructor ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Troy.pdf |
| U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., SW. Washington, D.C. 20591 AUG 1 2 2008 Mr. Brent Harper Inflight Standards - Manager, Regulatory Compliance Southwest Airlines P.O. Box 36611- HDQ 9TR Dallas, Texas 75235-1611 Dear Mr. Harper: This responds to your letter dated July 1, 2008 requesting an FAA legal interpretation concerning the use of off-duty, qualified Flight Attendants, traveling on a Southwest flight, to ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Harper.pdf |
| Your facts: An aircraft owner takes an aircraft to an IA [certificated mechanic with an Inspection Authorization] for an annual inspection, the IA finds one or more airworthiness discrepancies, and the owner directs the IA to "sign off the annual with discrepancies" per 14 CFR 43.1 1(a)(5) (disapproving the aircraft for return to service) and to provide the owner with a list of discrepancies per 14 CFR 43 .11 (b). The aircraft owner may determine what is used as a maintenance record for his ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Busch.pdf |
| Specifically, you question whether a crew must fly a 3.3% climb gradient when flying an SID or DP that does not otherwise specify a climb gradient. Instrument departure procedures are preplanned instrument flight rule (IFR) procedures, which provide obstruction clearance from the terminal area to the appropriate enroute structure. (Maintaining a 3.3% climb gradient equates to operating the aircraft at a climb gradient of 200 feet per NM.) Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Arrambide.pdf |
| log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument flight conditions" and this would count for instrument currency requirements under § 61.57(c). (1) A person may log instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions. (2) An authorized instructor may log instrument time when conducting instrument flight instruction in actual instrument ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Ronald B. Levy.pdf |
| U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration AUG 1 2008 Mr. Joshua Wynne 1406 62nd Avenue North Fargo, ND 58102-6001 Dear Mr. Wynne: Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 This responds to your letter dated April 6, 2008, requesting an interpretation of section 61.57, Recent flight experience: Pilot in command, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as it pertains to instrument experience. You asked whether a newly rated instrument... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Wynne.pdf |
| As amended Paragraph (a)(3) excludes the application ofthe speed restrictions in §91.117(ai to U.S. registered aircraft operating outside the U.S., unless otherWise required by regulation ofthe foreign country in which the aircraft is operated or Annex 2 ofICAO. Therefore, U.S. registered aircraft and foreign registered aircraft are not subject to a speed restriction of 250 knots when operating below 10,000 feet AMSL when operating outside the territorial boundaries of the U.S. but in ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Clark.pdf |
| As amended, paragraph (a)(3) excludes the application of the speed restrictions in § 91.117(ai to U.S. registered aircraft operating outside the U.S., unless otherwise required by regulation of the foreign country in which the aircraft is operated or by Annex 2 ofICAO. Therefore, U.S. registered aircraft and foreign registered aircraft are not subject to a speed restriction of 250 knots when operating belo,w 10,000 feet AMSL when operating outside the territorial boundaries of the U.S. but in... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Cato.pdf |
| The Warner 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Dear Mr. Bauer: Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 This responds to your email received on February 6, 2008 requesting an FAA legal opinion concerning "whether time-sharing agreements between a corporation and an individual are permitted under the FAA regulations." In the example you provide between a company and an individual, if the flight is being provided under the individual's side ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Bauer.pdf |
| However, the following is in response to the first question you presented: whether an overnight diversion in the United States at the end of an international flight sequence allows for the continuation of the flight sequence the next day under the flag rules for flight time limitations and rest requirements. The FAA must evaluate the nature of the operation to determine which flight time limitation and rest requirements apply to a particular flight sequence. We have consistently determined ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Captain Riley.pdf |
| As amended Paragraph (a)(3) excludes the application of the speed restrictions in § 91.117(a)2 to U.S. registered aircraft operating outside the U.S., unless otherwise required by regulation ofthe foreign country in which the aircraft is operated or Annex 2 of ICAO. Therefore, U.S. registered aircraft and foreign registered aircraft are not subject to a speed restriction of250 knots when operating below 10,000 feet AMSL when operating outside the territorial boundaries of the U.S. but in ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Di Marco.pdf |
| Thus, while the holder of an IA must meet the recent experience requirements of 14 C.F.R. §65.83 in order to be permitted to exercise the privileges of his mechanic certificate, he must also meet the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 65.93 (including the incorporated requirements of § 65.91(c) (1) through (4» to renew his IA. Your letter also inquired about the possibility of using time spent building amateur-built or kit aircraft to meet the recent experience requirements for a mechanic ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Pohl.pdf |
| A certificated mechanic may perform maintenance and utilize his or her certificate number to approve for return to service products without being employed by or certificated as an FAA Repair Station under part 145. They note that, while there is no requirement to be employed by an FAA-certificated Repair Station or to hold a Repair Station certificate, some manufacturers require that persons performing NDT inspections on their products maintain additional qualifications, such as being ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Borja.pdf |
| SeeLetter from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations, to Gregory Michael, Manager, Air Transportation Division, FAA Flight Standards Service, May 8, 2001 (answering request for legal interpretation of §121.391 and defining intermediate stop as a stop where passengers remain on board); Legal Interpretation 1988-3 (Mar. 5, 1988) (defining intermediate stop as a stop where passengers remain on board); Legal Interpretation 1979-31 (June 4, 1979) (referring to intermediate stop as ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Hedlund.pdf |
| You write that Company A wholly owns Company AI, which owns an aircraft and that Company D employs the flight crew. Further, Company A charges the other companies for their use of AI's aircraft. Company D charges the other companies for the services ofthe flight crew and their expenses. Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Rudolph.pdf |
| You ask whether an agreement that begins as an interchange agreement (which the regulations define as a leasing arrangement involving two lessors, two lessees and two aircraft) could legally be converted to a time sharing agreement if there was a usage differential between the two lessees and thus could legally change the permissible formula to calculate financial charges between the parties. Thus, an interchange requires an "equal time" arrangement and allows only the specified cost ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Reese.pdf |
| In order to be airworthy, an aircraft (1) must conform to its type certificate, if and as that certificate has been modified by supplemental type certificates and by Airworthiness Directives; and (2) must be in condition for safe operation.") While most mechanical, electrical, or structural unairworthy conditions would probably implicate issues with the type design, our answer applies to the broader concept of airworthiness that includes compliance with the type certificate, including ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Witkowski.pdf |
| Although you do not specify any particular regulation in your letter, you ask whether or not, for IFR flight, the destination airport may also serve as the alternate airport when weather conditions dictate that an alternate airport is required by regulation. You state that several pilots believe that is permissible to list -- as the alternate airport - the destination airport. To the extent that an aviation safety rule requires an aircraft operator to list a second airport as an alternate ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Lavenson.pdf |
| You ask, however, whether it is appropriate to use an "additional airman", which is allowed under the international rules, for the JFK-EWR segment - a segment that loses its international flavor because the carrier drops off and picks up additional cargo at EWR. As you pointed out, on a "tech" stop at EWR, the entire first flight segment would retain its international flavor and three flight crewmembers could and would be used. The fact that the cargo operator may offload and load cargo at ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Shinn.pdf |
| The certificate holder must make available a copy of the manual, or the applicable portions of the manual (including any changes and additions), to maintenance and ground operations personnel, as well as. In addition, the manual also must set forth procedures that ensure that maintenance and ground operations personnel have the applicable portions of the manual available when performing their duties away from the principal operations base. 2 A certificate holder could include provisions in ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Winton.pdf |
| U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration MAR '1 4 2008 Mr. Robert B. Thomas Taughannock Aviation Corp. 66 Brown Rd. Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Thomas, Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 This is in response to your request for an interpretation regarding adequate sleeping facilities as prescribed by 14 C.F.R. §135.269(b)(5). You question whether a 1991 interpretation of "adequate sleeping quarters" is still in effect, as well ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Thomas.pdf |
| If the new air~arrier hires a dispatcher to write the carrier's training program for dispatchers and to develop the dispatcher competency check, you ask how can the person who has been hired to write the competency check be required to take the test. In order to comply with Section 121.422(b), another supervisory dispatcher or dispatcher ground instructor must administer the test and grade the test for the person who will serve as a dispatcher. This is true even for the dispatcher who ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Snow.pdf |
| At issue, therefore, is whether flammability testing constitutes "maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations" that must be performed in accordance with part 43. Based on the following analysis, we conclude that flammability testing is not "maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration," but rather, a finding of compliance with an applicable design standard to be made by the Administrator or an individual or organization designated by the Administrator in accordance with part 183... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Smith.pdf |
| You specifically inquire if, for the purposes of the above paragraph, a cross-country flight must include at least one leg that is more than 50 nautical miles (nm) long with a landing at a point more than 50 nm from the original point of departure. As noted above, cross-country flight time is defined as time acquired during a flight that includes a point oflanding that is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nm from the original point of departure, not the original point of any ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Sisk.pdf |
| These operations may be conducted under part 91. If an additional purpose of the flight is to transport persons to a place other than the place of origin, i.e., dual purpose flights, the flight is not considered an aerial operation. Accordingly, the operator is responsible for obtaining an airworthiness certificate for civil aircraft operations and operating the aircraft within the limits of that certificate. All scenarios assume that the aircraft is issued an experimental certificate, ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Shaw.pdf |
| To the extent that a helicopter pilot taxis the helicopter at low altitudes from one area at an airport to another, such taxi operations are considered ground operations. If the airport is not subject to an A TC tower, then such helicopter taxiing operations are treated like any other aircraft ground operations. Taxi, hover taxi, and air taxi operations are considered to be ground movements. Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Lloyd.pdf |
| You specifically inquire whether successful completion of a flight instructor practical test within the preceding 24 calendar months relieves a pilot of the requirement to complete a 14 CFR 61.56(a): Flight Review. When the individual taking a flight instructor practical test requests that the test be taken in conjunction with a biennial flight review, the activities related to the flight instructor practical test may be evaluated by the examiner for demonstrating the maneuvers and ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Levy.pdf |
| 1. Providing flight instruction while not acting as a required crewmember and without compensation (i.e., providing instruction to your spouse for a CFI certifi cate); 2. Providing flight instruction while acting as a required crewmember but without compensation (i.e., providing instruction to a spouse for a private pilot certificate) ; 3. Providing flight instruction while not acting as a required crewmember but receiving compensation (i.e., with money, gifts, or merely the benefits from ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Koepp.pdf |
| three different kinds of navigation systems, required during a cross-country flight for an instrument rating. The issue is whether either ASR or PAR can classify as a type of approach required to satisfy the requirements of a cross-country flight for an instrument rating. §6l.65(d)(2) (iii)For an instrument airplane rating, instrument training on cross-country flight procedures specific to airplanes that includes at least one cross-country flight in an airplane that is performed under IFR, ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Glaser.pdf |
| An employer may use a contract employee who is not included under that employer's FAA-mandated antidrug program to perform a safety-sensitive function only if that contract employee is included under the contractor's FAA-mandated antidrug program and is performing a safety-sensitive function on behalf of that contractor (i. While each such 121 or 135 certificate holder has to ensure the testing of all safety-sensitive employees, whether performing directly or by contract, contractor employees... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Dworkin.pdf |
| " In § 135.152(a) the language in question is "having a passenger seating configuration, excluding any required crewmember seat, of 10 to 19 seats ... In some cases, operators have chosen to remove seats, such as making a 12-seat aircraft a 9- seat aircraft, in order to avoid applicability of the regulation. However, the language of §135.411 (a)(l) which refers to "type certificated for a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of nine seats or less ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Dukats.pdf |
| o u.s. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration MAR 2 0 2008 Mr. Vince Carapellotti QA Manager - Supplier Surveillance Delta Air Lines 6119 Windflower Drive Powder Springs, Georgia 30127 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Re: Request for Interpretation Regarding Owner Fabrication of Multiple Parts Dear Mr. Carapellotti: On February 6, 2008, you requested, via E-mail, an interpretation regarding Delta Air Lines' (Delta) fabrication of parts that are used in ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2008/Carapellotti.pdf |
| TSO articles may be installed in a wide variety of aircraft however they may only be installed on an aircraft when that aircraft’s type design specifies installation of an article that meets the specific TSO. An aircraft manufacturer may deliver an aircraft in which crewmember headsets are installed as part of its type design or the manufacturer may deliver an aircraft in which the type design does not require the installation of flight crewmember headsets. Operating an aircraft using a ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Whatley.pdf |
| Answer: There are at least two kinds of Flag rest rules that require that the carrier provide a rest period to a pilot before commencing flight duty in part 121 Flag operations. To the extent that a 24-hours-off in any seven-consecutive-day rule applies (see e.g., 14 C.F.R. §§ 121.481(d), 121.483(b», that rule requires the carrier to provide the pilot a rest period before he or she commences flag flight duty. Also, intervening rest periods (i.e., rest periods required after a pilot has ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/wells.pdf |
| Title 14 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 77 sets forth the requirements to file notic,e with the FAA for proposed construction and alterations to existing structures on or near airports. 2 appropriate military service if on a military airport, the location and height of which are fixed by functional purpose; and (d) any construction or alteration for which notice is required by any other FAA regulation. Paragraph (d) excepts from the notice requirements any construction or ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Wartofsky Interp.pdf |
| U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration SEP 2 8 2IJ07 Jennifer Trock, Esquire Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1122 RE: Airship Operations Dear Ms. Trock: In an email communication dated August 17, 2007, you requested the FAA to confirm your understanding as follows: "Airships are not subject to the requirements of Part 119, 121, 135, or 136, but instead may operate under the rules of Part 91, including sightseeing and other ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Trock.pdf |
| Nonetheless, we offer the following: Ifthe carrier conducts operations under Part 121 and those operations are all-cargo or charter passenger-carrying operations, then Subpart S rules apply. Such all-cargo operations or charter passenger-carrying operations that are conducted within the 48 contiguous states are not "domestic operations" subject to Subpart Q. Such operations are "supplemental operations" (as defined in Section 119.3) and are still subject to Section 121.517 and those Subpart ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/siff.pdf |
| Paragraph (c) of this section states that no person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a Class B airspace area designed for an airport or in a VFR corridor designate through such a Class B airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph) .. Under § 91.701(a) of Title 14, the regulations of subpart H, including § 91.703, are applicable to U.S. registered civil aircraft operating outside ofthe United States and foreign civil aircraft operating within the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Shacknai interp.pdf |
| First, your requests ask whether several past FAA legal interpretations involving the rest provisions and definitions are still valid. The FAA most recently interpreted 14 C.F.R. 267(f) in a letter from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division to Michael T. Brazill, Director of Operations, Summit Jet L.L.C. dated December 19, 2005. Specifically, the FAA reiterates its definition of "rest period" as stated in that letter: "The nature of the 'daily' rest period is ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/schwarz.pdf |
| ENG media photography and reporting flights may be conducted under Part 91 pursuant to the aerial work operations, aerial photography, exception in part 119.1(e)(4)(iii) provided each person on board, in addition to the flight crewmembers, is necessary to perform the aerial work operation. The determining factor is whether the helicopter lands at a location other than the point of origin since the landing changes the nature of the operation from an aerial survey operation to a dual purpose ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Sapp-interp.pdf |
| FAR 121.613 A weather report or forecast does not satisfy th~ regulatory requiremellts of F~§ 121.613 when it contains phrases reflecting that weather conditions at thr_~estination airport at ETA may be below minimum weather conditions. The FAA has consistently provided interpretations that a weather report or forecast does not satisfy the regulatory requirements of § 121.613 when the weather report or forecast contains phrases reflecting that weather conditions at the destination airport at ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Ronald Bush.pdf |
| A pilot is scheduled for a three-hour flight, departing at 6:00am, due to arrive at 9:00am. Upon arrival at the destination, the pilot is released from obligations until 6:00pm, when he or she must return and prepare for the three-hour return flight, which is scheduled to depart at 7:00pm and arrive at the destination at 10:00 pm. Nonetheless, in either case, the carrier and the pilot must ensure that the pilot has at least 10 hours of consecutive rest (1) before a regularly assigned duty ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Ritter.pdf |
| Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, a person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category and multiengine class rating must log at least 250 hours of flight time as a pilot that consists of at least: (4) 10 hours of solo flight time in a multi engine airplane or 10 hours of flight time performing the duties of pilot in command in a multi engine airplane with an authorized instructor on the areas of operation listed in Sec. 61. 127(b)(2) of this ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Pam Am.pdf |
| U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration John G. Olshock, Chief Ground Instructor Pan Am International Flight Academy Career Pilot Division 530 W. Deer Valley Road, Ste. You specifically inquire whether "it is legal for a properly rated and current flight instructor (except for §61.57(b», and a student pilot (who is not yet rated in the airplane but receiving training) to be on board the airplane together during night hours." The issue is whether the Kortokrax ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Olshock inter1.pdf |
| u.s.DeportmenT 800Independence Ave .•S.W. of TransporTation Washington, D.C. 20591 Federal Aviation Administration MAY 4 2007 John G. Olshock, Chief Ground Instructor Pan Am International Flight Academy Career Pilot Division 530 W. Deer Valley Road, Ste. " You contend that "these sections are written to imply that the flight must be at least a total of two hours duration, consisting of a total straight-line distance bfmore than 100 nautical miles from the original point of departure." The ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Olshock inter.pdf |
| The regulations in pertinent part define "flight time" as "[p Jilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing." As with fixed-wing aircraft, flight time in a helicopter commences the moment that it moves under its own power away from its parking place for the purpose of flight- whether departure is commenced by lifting off or taxiing. Flight time ends for any helicopter operation when the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Lloyd Interp.pdf |
| You ask whether this language requires that your client engage in part 135 air ambulance operations in order to provide NVG training to other part 135 air ambulance operators. Because of the performance limitations that NVGs have on a pilot’s visual cues, Notice 8000.349 set forth a separate process for verifying part 135 operators conducting operations using NVGs, and for Part 135 operators providing NVG training. Rather, the Notice should be read as giving guidance to FAA inspectors on ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Johnson Interp.pdf |
| Moore & VanAllen PLLC 430 Davis Drive, Suite 500 P.O. Box 13706 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 RE: Request for Guidance and Interpretation Regarding "Flight Department Companies" and Part 91 Operations Dear Mr. Dymond: This responds to your letter dated December 28, 2006 that presents a scenario in which certain U.S. citizens desire to form a limited liability company ("Company") for the purpose of owning and operating a civil aircraft ("Aircraft'). You request a legal interpretation to ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/James Dymond.pdf |
| Second, you ask whether an interchange agreement under 91.501(c)(2) would allow your "network" of private plane owners to operate under 14 CFR part 91. Section 91.501 (c)(2) defines interchange agreement, however, section 91.501 (b)(6) is the operating rule governing interchange agreements. the carriage of company officials, employees and guests of the company on an airplane operated under a time sharing, interchange or joint ownership agreement as defined in paragraph (c) ofthis section." ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/hartman.pdf |
| We are assuming that you are not also a pilot employee of Customer A or B. However, we are also assuming that, at a minimum, you would be considered A’s agent for the vacation flight and as such, A acknowledges that it has “operational control” of the flight and will be held accountable for the acts and omissions of its employees and agents (i.e., you) in the operation of the vacation flight. If the lease is truly a dry lease for a vacation flight of Customer A’s employees, Customer A would ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Fabian.pdf |
| U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration MAY 13 2007 Michael J. Drongosky P.O. Box 1522 Ellicottville, NY 14731 Dear Mr. Drongosky: This responds to the question you posed in your letter of March 27,2007, regarding 14 CFR §121.471. Specifically, you believe that under § 121.471(g), a flight crewmember may exceed the applicable flight time limitations only to get back to a hublbase because the word destination in section 121.471(g) is singular, not plural, as in ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/drongosky interp.pdf |
| Federal Aviation Administration Memorandum Date: To: From: Subject: March 28, 2007 Frederick E. Tilton, MD, Federal Air Surgeon, Office of Aerospace Medicine, AAM-1 Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200 Withdrawal of an Application for Medical Certification and its Effect on the Exercise of Sport Pilot Privileges This memorandum responds -to your request for an interpretation regarding the eligibility of a person to exercise ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Dr. Tilton.pdf |
| and Whether Minor Repairs and Alterations Must be FAA-Approved Dear Mr. Loh: This is in response to your letter dated October 22,2006, in which you asked for a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) legal interpretation of "the Part 135 regulation which pertains to a 135 Operators General Maintenance Manual (part 135.21)." As noted above, however, if the repair or alteration at issue meets the regulatory definition of a minor repair or a minor alteration, FAA-approved technical data is not ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Dassault Falcon.pdf |
| This rest is required when the pilot returns to his base from a flight or series of flights. The two concerns presented by Captain Rivera are: (1) assuming a crew meets all of the requirements of Section 121.485(b), is a crew entitled to Section 121.485(b) rest if the crew flies a series of flights with fewer than three pilots before returning to the U.S?; and (2) assuming a crew meets all other requirements of Section 121.485(b), is a crew entitled to the Section 121.485(b) rest if the crew... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Burns-Interp.pdf |
| Section 135.301(b) of Subpart G states: If a pilot being checked under this subpart fails any of the required maneuvers, the person giving the check may give additional training to the pilot during the course of the check. If the pilot being checked is unable to demonstrate satisfactory performance to the person conducting the check, the certificate holder may not use the pilot, nor may the pilot serve, as a flight crewmember in operations under this part until the pilot has satisfactorily ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/Beale-Interp.pdf |
| You ask whether the activities of contract ground personnel used by USA Jet at outlying airports qualify as "handling," "loading" and "unloading," which you characterize as the type of functions that would require hazardous materials training under the October 7, 2005, rule. Further, USA Jet trains its flight crewmembers to perform all of the acceptance, loading and handling functions. In either example, if the truck driver would not be accepting, handling or loading hazardous materials, ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2007/atwood.pdf |
| 1. If a certificate holder's president is not authorized to exercise operational control under 14 C.F.R. § 135.77, must the name and title of the president be set forth in the operations specifications? If the president is listed on a certificate holder's operation specifications, whether through § 135.77 or some other requirement in compliance with FAA regulations (e.g., §§ 119.49, 119.69(a)), the certificate holder must notify the FAA when its president is substituted or replaced by another... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/winton2interp.doc |
| Modular Approach to Recurrent Training As you stated in your letter, operators may administer the required recurrent training in modules. When an operator adopts a modular approach for recurrent training, all recurrent training elements and events must be grouped into specific modules to be administered and recorded as a recurrent training curriculum. The eligibility period is a three-month period comprised of the month before the month in which training is due, the month in which training ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Winton part 135 trainingv2.doc |
| U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration oEC, 1..1 2006 Gary S. Wilson, General Manager SEI Industries Ltd. 7400 Wilson Ave. Delta, B.C. Canada V4G lE5 RE: Rotorcraft External-Load Operations - Meaning of "congested areas" Dear Mr. Wilson: This responds to your December 5, 2005 letter requesting a definition of the term "congested areas" as referred to in 14 CFR § 133.33(d). Your letter cites a previous FAA interpretation (Federal Aviation Decisions Interpretation ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Wilson-Interp.pdf |
| Prior to November 23, 2006, the U.S. did not allow flights through our territory by foreign air carriers where the PIC was over the age of 60. The prohibition on foreign air carrier operations through our territory using a PIC over the age of 60 applied even where there was no landing in the U.S. Under this new standard, the U.S. allows operations in our territory by foreign air carriers that utilize a PIC or SIC age 60 or over, provided one ofthem is under the age of 60. Please note that ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Vilven-Interp.pdf |
| The corporation has no business purpose other than operating the aircraft, and conducts all of its aircraft operations in Saudi Arabia. First, the Convention on International Civil Aviation (“Chicago Convention”) requires operating certificates to be issued by the State of the Operator. As a result, several foreign civil aviation authorities have refused to recognize part 125 operating certificates, and some countries have prohibited or limited operations by part 125 operators within their ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/USRegisteredAircraftOperatingOutsideOfUSv6.doc |
| The corporation has no business purpose other than operating the aircraft, and conducts all of its aircraft operations in Saudi Arabia. First, the Convention on International Civil Aviation (“Chicago Convention”) requires operating certificates to be issued by the State of the Operator. As a result, several foreign civil aviation authorities have refused to recognize part 125 operating certificates, and some countries have prohibited or limited operations by part 125 operators within their ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/US Registered Aircraft operating outside of USv6.doc |
| #530 Detroit, MI 48242 Dear Mr. Spitler: This responds to your letter dated July 11, 2006, requesting an interpretation of section 91.501 (b)(5) ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations as it applies to reimbursement after the organizational separation of a wholly owned subsidiary, General Motors Acceptance Corporation, "GMAC," from it's parent organization General Motors Corporation, "GM." You explained that after the separation of GM and GMAC, GM will retain a "less than 50%" ownership stake in ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Spitler-interp.pdf |
| It appears from a review of your operations specifications, that although you describe a fractional ownership program in your letter, all of Jet Linx's operations are conducted under part 135 on- demand operation rules. Under both proposed operations, "Confirmed Flight Itineraries" and "Requested Flight Itineraries," you describe operations that meet the definition of scheduled operation in 14 CFR 119.3. We view these proposed operations as scheduled operations and not authorized by your ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/walker.pdf |
| Nevertheless, you opined that manufacturer-issued service bulletins are mandatory under the regulations if they specify a particular procedure or method of doing an item required by the regulations—in this case a cylinder compression test performed during an annual or 100-hour inspection required by 14 C.F.R. part 43, appendix D. In support you stated that 14 C.F.R. § 43.13(a) “requires that it [maintenance, specifically, the compression test] be done in accordance with manufacturer’s ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/ServiceBulletinInterp1.DOC |
| The LODA authorizes noncommercial operations and allows Company A to operate the airplane without a Part 125 certificate or operations specifications (OpSpecs). ” In light of the purpose of the rule, it is helpful to clarify the meaning of “commercial operations” and “operations not involving common carriage” when determining the impact of Part 125 on Part 91 operations. Considering the definitions of “commercial operations” and “operations not involving common carriage” together, it becomes... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Response to Horta letter re Saber Cats LODAv6.DOC |
| Your client is an aircraft equipment manufacturer who desires to charge prospective purchasers for the costs incurred to fly an aircraft to a customer for demonstration. The FAA has determined that your client may charge prospective purchasers for the empty leg portion of the flight. Your client is free to charge whatever it wishes for the expenses of positioning the aircraft for the purpose of conducting a demonstration flight. Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Quinn - Deadhead Flights under 91.501(b)(3).doc |
| Mr. Macklosky expressed an opinion that if a part is fabricated for the purpose of being incorporated into a maintenance or repair activity (he referred to this as a “repair detail”), and the fabrication is done under the quality control system of the repair station performing the repair, such fabrication should be deemed to be maintenance. Therefore, the fabrication of the part is not considered maintenance; rather it is the repair performed by a certificate holder that consumes the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/PWInterpSubcontractorDrugTest1.DOC |
| Based on the foregoing, you asked whether: 1) the FAA allows a part 135 pilot to complete a recurrent line check prior to completing each applicable segment of recurrent training; and 2) the FAA allows a part 135 pilot to complete emergency, emergency drill, and hazardous materials training in a self-study environment without an instructor present for any portion of the training or testing? Section 135.321 defines recurrent training as “the training required for crewmembers to remain ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Patrick Francis - Part 135 Training Requirements.doc |
| The pertinent facts you provided are that you are a rated military pilot that serves as a co-pilot and that you have completed pilot proficiency checks in the KC-135. 14 CFR § 61.51(e)(1)(i) states in relevant part: A sport, recreational, private, or commercial pilot may log pilot-in-command time only for that flight time during which that person—is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges; We would consider you rated in the aircraft,... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/morrisdoc.DOC |
| That paragraph states that a light-sport aircraft must have “fixed or repositionable landing gear, or a hull, for aircraft intended for operation on water. The FAA notes that for the purposes of light-sport aircraft, repositionable landing gear is wheeled landing gear that allows an aircraft designed for operation on water to take off and land from a hard surface and which may be retracted on the ground to permit takeoff and landing on water. For aircraft intended for operation on water, ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Memo2.doc |
| For purposes of this response, we are assuming that you are posing questions based on facts that "require" a person to file an IFR flight plan with an alternate airport. On page 2-11, under the heading "IFR ALTERNATE MINIMUMS," the FAA states "(n)ot all airports can be used as alternate airports. As to your question about whether an airport may be listed as an alternate on an IFR flight plan, when the instrument approach procedure chart for the airport says "NA" for use as an alternate, (if... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Lloyd-Interp.pdf |
| * * * * * (d) Currency Requirements: No person may act as pilot in command of a Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopter carrying passengers unless the pilot in command has met the recency of flight experience requirements of §61.57 in an R-22 or R-44, as appropriate. We agree that, for purposes of section 61.57(b), an authorized instructor providing instruction in an aircraft is not considered a passenger with respect to the person receiving instruction, even where the person receiving the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Kortokraxinterp.doc |
| Section 91.215 does not prohibit gliders or sailplanes not equipped with transponders from operating above 10,000 feet MSL and thus above the ceiling of and outside Class B airspace. In the context of your question, subparagraph (b)(4) would prohibit an unequipped glider or sailplane from operating in the ‘wedge’ of airspace that may exist directly above Class B or Class C airspace and below 10,000 feet MSL. Further, an operation directly above Class B airspace that results in descending ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/knickerbockerinterp.doc |
| According to Blue Origin, if a launch licensee does not need a license to operate a private launch site, a launch permittee should not either. The FAA stated in the preamble that “[b]ecause a launch site operator is someone who offers a launch site to others for launch, only someone proposing such an offer need obtain a license to operate a launch site. A launch operator proposing to launch from its own launch site need only obtain a launch license because a launch license will address ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Interp2BlueO.doc |
| You inquired whether Armadillo would require a license to operate a launch site if it launched from privately owned sites that had no facilities and was not permanent. You also inquired whether Armadillo would require such a license if it were to launch from a prospective licensed launch site. For example, Sea Launch, an FAA licensee, does not require a license to operate a launch site because Sea Launch’s launch activities in the Pacific are not permanent. Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Interp2Armadillo2-06.doc |
| “[I]f a repair station holds the proposed aircraft Class 1 rating and the repair station’s Operations Specifications limit the repair station to performing work on reciprocating engine-powered aircraft, the repair station would not be able to add any turbine engine-powered aircraft to its capability list without an FAA-approved revision to its Operations Specifications. However, the repair station would be able to add other reciprocating engine-powered aircraft to its capability list after ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Interp145.215CapList1.DOC |
| Sec. 135.183 Performance requirements: Land aircraft operated over water. No person may operate a land aircraft carrying passengers over water unless-- (a) It is operated at an altitude that allows it to reach land in the case of engine failure; (b) It is necessary for takeoff or landing; (c) It is a multiengine aircraft operated at a weight that will allow it to climb, with the critical engine inoperative, at least 50 feet a minute, at an altitude of 1,000 feet above the surface; or (d) It ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/jeseninterp.doc |
| The outer areas of Class B and Class C airspace, in which the floor of the airspace do not touch the surface of the earth are not “surface areas” as used in section 91.303(c). When the floor of Class D and certain Class E airspace (designated for an airport) begins at the surface and extends upward, aerobatics are prohibited in accordance with section 91.303(c). This definition is incorrect…[T]he surface area includes airspace at each lateral boundary or floor area of Class B airspace, ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/hucker.doc |
| Each person operating an aircraft in Class C airspace must meet the following two-way radio communications requirements: Each person must establish two-way radio communications with the [emphasis supplied] ATC (including foreign ATC in the case of foreign airspace designated in the United States) providing air traffic services prior to entering that airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while within that airspace. Also in your letter you posited a situation in which a pilot ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/granbyinterp.doc |
| First, must a pilot complete the 50 hours of cross-country flight time prescribed by subsection 61.65(d)(1) prior to flying the 40 hours of actual or simulated flight time prescribed by subsection 61.65(d)(2) and thus complete 90 total hours of flight? Second, may a pilot complete the 50 hours of cross-country flight time prescribed by subsection (d)(1) as pilot in command under actual or simulated instrument conditions, prescribed by subsection (d)(2), with a flight instructor qualified to ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Gordoninterp.doc |
| for IFR flights where an alternate is required, must the pilot carry sufficient fuel to complete an approach and landing at both the destination airport and alternate airports." Obviously, the plane will not land at both airports, but the missed approach fuel used in attempting to land at the destination airport equals, for the purposes of this rule, fuel to land the airplane. As stated in the FAA's January 28, 2004 letter, sufficient fuel to complete the flight under (a)(1) includes fuel for... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Gallagher-Interp.pdf |
| The Agency relied on the carrier’s data for the month of June 1990 involving a total of 151 flights with the crew scheduled between 7:50 and 7:59 hours of flight time, of which 101 (67%) were completed in scheduled flight time and 50 (33%) exceeded scheduled flight time. Section 121.471(a)(4) states: No certificate holder conducting domestic operations may schedule any flight crewmember and no flight crewmember may accept an assignment for flight time in scheduled air transportation or in ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/February 23.doc |
| Answer 1. After a flight crewmember receives a reduced rest period under 121.471 (c), the compensatory rest period must begin not later than 24 hours after the start of the reduced rest period. You ask us to assume that a flight crewmember, who is scheduled to operate multiple flight segments in the duty period after receiving a reduced rest period, was scheduled or projected to complete all ofthose flight segments prior to the start time of the compensatory rest period. You ask is the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Earnest-interp.pdf |
| Our answer: An aircraft that is listed on the operation specifications of a certificate holder conducting flights under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 135 must be maintained under the certificate holder’s maintenance program. If non-emergency maintenance was performed on the aircraft by a person not meeting the drug and alcohol testing requirements, it would be a violation of the regulations, which could result in penalties and require corrective actions, including the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/dejoseph.doc |
| Specifically, you ask whether a training center certificated under part 142 could have a training program approved under part 121 or part 135. A part 142 training center does not hold a certificate authorizing part 121 or part 135 operations, and may not have its training programs approved in accordance with those parts. Instead, this interpretation clarifies that a part 142 training program is always a part 142 training program, even ifit is approved for use in part 121 or part 135 ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/DeJoseph-interp.pdf |
| The FAA’s general authority to regulate aircraft is set forth in § 44701 of Title 49, United States Code. To carry out this mandate the FAA has issued regulations in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). If the motorized paraglider does not meet the parameters for an ultralight vehicle as specified in § 103.1 its operation is subject to regulation under part 91 and other applicable regulations. Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/CPSC- Paragliders.doc |
| whether an air carrier operating in accordance with parts 121 or 135 is required to provide flight crewmembers with data necessary to assure that an aircraft can comply with the climb gradients specified in published instrument flight rules (IFR) departure procedures and standard instrument departure (SID) procedures; and whether pilots operating under parts 121 or 135 are required to follow a published IFR departure procedure even when Air Traffic Control (ATC) assigns a SID to a departing ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Climb Gradientv5.doc |
| I am responding to your recent request to Nick Sabatini, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), requesting clarification of the FAA’s position on the mandatory nature of service bulletins and service instructions for general aviation. In discussing the violation, the NTSB stated that “[w]hile compliance with service instructions or service bulletins may not be mandatory in the absence of an Airworthiness Directive, a manufacturer may ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Cebulainterp.doc |
| You further indicated that you plan to travel by air to Las Vegas, Nevada upon the completion of your sentence and inquired about restrictions on air travel imposed on persons recently released from prison. The Federal Aviation Administration does not have any regulation prohibiting, or otherwise limiting, recently released former prisoners from using commercial air transportation services. Further, we contacted the Transportation Security Administration, the agency responsible for aviation ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/burrellinterp.doc |
| The rule did, however, discuss the training requirements for newly hired employees or those employees transferred into a new job function. Under the “new hire or new job function” section, section 121.1005(b) provides that “(a) person who is a new hire and has not yet satisfactorily completed the required initial hazardous materials training, or a person who is changing job functions and has not received initial or recurrent training for a job function involving storage incidental to ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/atwood interp.doc |
| Can a part 121 air carrier dispatch or release a flight that involves extended overwater operations to a destination airport that is forecasting weather to be less than the authorized landing minimums at the estimated time of arrival (“ETA”)? An air carrier may dispatch an extended overwater flight to a destination airport that is forecasted to be below minimums as long as the alternate airport is forecasted to be at or above minimums. No person may allow a flight to continue to an airport ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/Anderson - Dispatch Weather Minimumsv3.DOC |
| ” You specifically asked whether a “special airport qualification” airman, who may not always be qualified in the aircraft, must count an airport qualification flight toward the flight limitation regulations. [N]o certificate holder may use any person, nor may any person serve, as pilot in command to or from an airport determined to require special airport qualifications unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months: (1) the pilot in command or second in command has made an entry to that ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/ALPA response4.doc |
| ” (57 FR 35889) The preamble went on to state that the proposed system, “would allow training centers that do not hold a part 121 or part 135 operating certificate to use approved flight simulators and approved flight training devices for airman training, testing, and checking. While both part 141 pilot schools and part 142 training centers provide training, they are regulated differently as the former rely primarily on actual aircraft and the latter rely primarily on advanced simulators and ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2006/142FTD.doc |
| 1. Whether § 121.647 mandates you consider a possible missed approach at the destination airport in your calculation of the fuel required for your aircraft. 3. If an operator does not consider the fuel required for a possible missed approach at the destination airport, would use of reserve fuel, as required under § 121.639, result in a violation? Regardless of whether you are dispatched without a designated alternate airport, you must consider a possible missed approach at the destination ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/szendrey.rtf |
| In the aftermath of the hurricane, additional airports provided various forms of assistance to the airports that suffered the worst damage. At the ACI-NA 14thAnnual Conference, FAA Associate Administrator for Airports Woodie Woodward acknowledged all of the airport operators that provided humanitarian aid and technical support to the airports most affected by Katrina. 2 Therefore, I am of the opinion that the public airports that provided assistance to other public airports in this case ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/Signed Letter to Patricia Hahn.pdf |
| 14 C.F.R. § 121.400(c)(1). Initial SIC Training A pilot may use a Level C simulator to complete initial SIC flight training if the pilot meets the aeronautical experience requirements of § 61.159. Joe may complete initial SIC flight training exclusively in a Level C simulator. Bob may use a Level C simulator to complete initial SIC flight training, and to complete the flight training portion of an initial proficiency check in which a type rating is awarded. Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/PIC Experience Requirements for Level C Checking & Testingv5.doc |
| For the purposes of assignments involving flight time, the duty period includes the total elapsed time between when the flight attendant reports for a flight assignment, as required by the air carrier, and when the flight attendant is relieved from duty by the air carrier. Under the proposal[], "duty period" is defined as the period of elapsed time between when the flight attendant reports for an assignment involving flight time, and ends when the air carrier or certificate holder releases ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/morris.rtf |
| In addition, your letter contains the following statement: "The company is saying that in supplemental operation, `legal to start-legal to finish,' meaning that if a pilot is scheduled for less than the duty time limit, but unforeseen delays cause the duty day to extend beyond the limit, he is legal to go. At the outset, we note that while the provisions in sections 121.505(b), 121.507(b) and 121.509(b) state explicit duty limits, section 121.471 does not explicitly specify a duty limit for ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/marcus.rtf |
| 2 and 3: Whether the FAA policy regarding the "one phone call exception" also applies to flight attendants and whether a flight attendant may also submit a "do not call" letter of her/his desire not to be contacted while on a rest period. Thus, as to your question whether a flight attendant may also submit a "do not call" letter of his/her desire not to be contacted while on a rest period, note that the FAA may not impose, via a letter of interpretation, a regime of "do not call" letters on ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/kolander.rtf |
| "Life Flight" refers to pilots or organizations that conduct flights characterized as "volunteer, "charity," or "humanitarian." These flights are referred to by numerous generic names, including "lifeline flights," "life flights," "mercy flights," and "angel flights." Your letter also stated that current flights for patients of charitable Life Flight organizations are conducted under part 91, but again, these types of flights are distinguishable from your proposed operations. Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/Kirwan.rtf |
| (b) If a pilot has flown 20 or more hours during any 48 consecutive hours or 24 or more hours during any 72 consecutive hours, he must be given at least 18 hours of rest before being assigned to any duty with the air carrier. Of course, if the pilot received a 24-hour rest period on the day before Day 1 (e.g., from 0001 hours to 2400 hours)2 that period of time would satisfy the 24-hour lookback rest period that is required by section 121.483 (a) and section 121.503 (c). Thus, depending on ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/Johnson.rtf |
| Your letter did not clearly distinguish operations for Belcorp from other common carriage operations for other Central Charter customers. The information you provided does not make it clear that operations for Belcorp are clearly distinguishable from Central Charters’ common carriage business and outside the scope of Central Charters’ holding out for its common carriage business. Likewise, in 1995 the FAA amended its regulations to clarify that a common carrier cannot conduct non-common ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/Howard Turner.doc |
| Question #1: Does section 91.167 require a pilot operating an aircraft under instrument flight rules (IFR) to have sufficient fuel to attempt an approach at the destination airport and then fly on to the alternate airport, with 45 minutes of fuel remaining upon arrival at the alternate? Answer #1: Section 91.1671 requires the pilot to fuel his aircraft with enough fuel to "land" at the destination airport, then fly on to the alternate and operate for 45 additional minutes. The regulation ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/gallagher.rtf |
| Please note that a "legal" flight in this letter, refers only to a flight that complies with the flight attendant duty period limitations and rest requirements. Therefore, questions concerning a pilot's flight time may substantially differ from questions concerning a flight attendant's duty time, which may include both flight time and non-flight time. Itis unclear from your scenario which flight is "this" flight since you indicate the flight attendant is scheduled for multiple flights. Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/fell.rtf |
| Answer to Question 1: The nature of rest is the same regardless of the required amount of a particular rest period, whether that rest period be the “daily” rest period, the rest period after having flown 20 or 24 hours, or the 24-consecutive-hour rest period. The 3 consecutive days of Residence reserve do not satisfy the nature of rest test for the 24-consecutive-hour rest period. When one looks back 7 days from midnight of the 9th day involving duty aloft, i.e., flight time, one does not ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/citrano121483b.DOC |
| We also understand that Summit Jet considers the “not scheduled” days as 24 consecutive hour rest periods. In addition, the nature of the 24-hour rest period is the same as the nature of the “daily” rest period. If under Summit Jet’s practice the pilot is obligated to respond to a message during the 24-hour rest period (or “not scheduled” day), thus pilots cannot use the “silent” feature in that period, that so-called “rest period” is neither uninterrupted nor continuous. Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/brazill135267f.DOC |
| Not only has the emergency already been declared by the Secretary of Homeland Security, but both the Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 and the National Response Plan contemplate the assistance of the private sector in the event of an incident of national significance. Given the nature of operations associated with Hurricane Katrina, a single, consolidated report may be submitted by each air carrier conducting emergency operations within 10 days of the last flight conducted pursuant ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/berg.rtf |
| An airplane operating under part 121 domestic rules is dispatched to a destination airport without an alternative airport, because the weather forecasted at the destination airport is clear enough that no alternative airport is required. If the weather continues to deteriorate at the destination airport and the pilot knows no alternate airport was designated, in order to safely complete a flight, the pilot must determine whether an alternate airport should be designated. As stated above, if ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/ALPAdispatch.doc |
| However, as you are aware, section 121.471(c) is structured so that a certificate holder may reduce rest requirements in paragraphs 121.471(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3). Therefore, although a certificate holder may not use section 121.471(g) to reduce rest requirements, a certificate holder may use paragraphs 121.471(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3), to reduce rest as long as compensatory rest is given during the next rest period. See October 29, 2002 Letter to James W. Johnson, from Donald P. Byrne, ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2005/ALPAComprest.doc |
| You ask whether an air carrier may break a duty period by placing crewmembers in a hotel for a period of less than eight hours, thereby effectively enabling the carrier to extend the crew's overall duty period beyond the 16 hours provided by these regulations. Section 121.503(b): Each pilot who has flown more than 8 hours during any 24 consecutive hours must be given at least 16 hours of rest before being assigned to any duty with the certificate holder. Thus, the 3 hours in the hotel in ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2004/treichler.rtf |
| Your client does not hold a U.S.-issued pilot certificate and operates a U.S.-registered civil aircraft in accord with the Federal regulations. Section 61.3(a) (1) of the Federal regulations states "when [an] aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a current pilot license issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated may be used." specific grant of validation respecting the Belgian license whereby a U.S.-registered aircraft may only be flown within Belgium by a Belgian ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2004/speciale.rtf |
| By letter dated February 8, 2001, Dr. Brattain correctly explained that "the AME authority is exercised through the airman medical certification process and applies only to determining qualifications for an Airman Medical Certificate," which is not a certificate required for holding a mechanic certificate. In conclusion, while the designation of "AME" permits a doctor to determine the medical qualifications of an airman medical certificate holder, mechanic certificate holders are not subject... Click here for full text: .../interps/2004/pohl.rtf |
| Your letter suggests that the FAA improperly issued legal interpretations of its regulations under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 121 Flight and Duty Time Limitations and Rest Requirements, without engaging in rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). D. Flight and Duty Time Regulations, Interpretation Procedures Continental also proposes that the FAA reinstate the Flight and Duty Time Regulations, Interpretation Procedures, first described and ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2004/mcCoy.rtf |
| This letter responds to your request for clarification of the rest requirements applicable to domestic operations under the Federal Aviation Regulations in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Specifically, the FAA has consistently stated that "rest" under the Federal Aviation Regulations is a continuous period of time during which the crewmember is free from all restraint by the certificate holder, including freedom from work or freedom from present responsibility for work ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2004/marcum.rtf |
| Section 1.1 defines flight time, in pertinent part, as pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing. Therefore, the flight was terminated or temporarily suspended and flight time did not occur. Therefore, the flight was temporarily suspended and flight time did not occur on the first gate departure. Click here for full text: .../interps/2004/kania.rtf |
| Although the fractional ownership program proposed in your letter differs in one key respect from the arrangements reviewed in these decisions (i.e., the person being transported would own a fractional ownership interest rather than lease a fractional term interest in the aircraft transporting them), your proposed "Aircraft Management LLC" would still be providing both an aircraft (through its sales of a fractional ownership interest in the aircraft) and crew {pilot services provided by the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2004/Grooters.rtf |
| Additionally, to the extent that your letters do not contain the date, flight number, scheduled flight time and actual flight time for the flight where a crew rest facility was placarded inoperable, please provide that information and supporting documentation to the FAA's CMO in Houston. 1. Although you assert that you were "crew" on Flight 5 on September 11, 2001, please confirm that you were a flight crewmember on that flight. Explain how you believe "flight time" should be calculated under... Click here for full text: .../interps/2003/wells.rtf |
| This responds to your telephone inquiry regarding the transferability of the existing air tour operator status under the National Park Air Tour Management Act (the Act). As we understand it, you would like to purchase an existing air tour operator and thus obtain existing air tour operator status over a national park. Once the corporation that earned the existing operator status ceases to exist, the existing operator status would also cease to exist. Click here for full text: .../interps/2003/Transferability of IOA.doc |
| In place of the flight time limitations in §§ 121.503 through 121.511, a certificate holder conducting supplemental operations may elect, to comply with the flight time limitations of §§ 121.515 and 121.521 through 121.525.... Similarly, the Baltimore-Atlanta flight segment also retains its international character, as per the textual discussion regarding intra U.S. mainland flight segments, provided that the certificate holder does not enplane cargo or passengers at Baltimore. Thus, the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2003/shinn.rtf |
| Re: Request for interpretation — FAR 107.209(d)(26)(v) and 108.229(d)(26)(v) Dear Mr. Romer: We are in receipt of your letter of January 22, 2003, wherein you request an interpretation of 14 C.F.R. §§ 107.209(d)(26)(v) and 108.229(d)(26)(v). Specifically, you ask if a felony conviction arising out of a falsely-filed state income tax return is a "disqualifying criminal offense" precluding the convicted individual from having unescorted access privileges to airport areas and aircraft. ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2003/Romer.rtf |
| The requirements for "ground instructor" are defined at 14 CFR Part 61, subpart I. Neither "appropriate supervisor" nor "appropriate ground instructor" are defined in the regulations. For instance, a flight attendant supervisor or maintenance ground instructor would not be considered "appropriate" individuals to conduct competence checks of aircraft dispatchers in the view of the FAA. When these ground instructors are chosen by their employers to conduct competency checks for aircraft ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2003/plowman.rtf |
| Specifically you ask "May a Part 125 air carrier contract with, and accept cargo for shipment from, an air cargo broker or freight forwarder that in turn holds itself out to the public as being able to arrange such transportation?" As you correctly note, section 125.11(b) prohibits certificate holders operating in accordance with part 125 from conducting any operation that results directly or indirectly from holding out to the general public to furnish transportation. The Agency already has ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2003/Norton.rtf |
| Thus, for example, under paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(1): "9 consecutive hours of rest" are required for "an assignment for flight time" for "less than 8 hours of scheduled flight time," and the 9 hours of rest for less than 8 hours of scheduled flight time may be reduced to "8 hours" of rest for "less than 8 hours of scheduled flight time." The end-of-duty-Day 2 scheduled ferry flight time must be counted in the total scheduled flight time that determines the amount of lookback rest or planned ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2003/johnson.rtf |
| We have been advised by the Fort Worth Flight Standards District Office (AFW-FSDO) that their office has not formally been requested to consider nor are they considering any form of operating restrictions at the Hillcrest Airport other than existing Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). The regulation of aircraft in flight is preempted by Federal law, and limitations on aircraft flight may only be imposed by the FAA. The FAA has preempted regulation of the altitude at which aircraft may ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2003/Baker.rtf |
| Writing on behalf of World Airways, Inc. (World), you requested an opinion regarding whether "foreign national Aer Lingus flight attendants are required to comply with World Airways' anti-drug/alcohol misuse prevention program, and must be drug tested." ” Further, you explained that “Aer Lingus utilizes those flight attendants on flights operated by World Airways for Aer Lingus. As you know, since August of 2001, the FAA's Drug Abatement Division has been investigating World's failure to test... Click here for full text: .../interps/2002/worldairways2.doc |
| Accordingly, the PIC must count 10 hours in demonstrating compliance with the daily, 30 consecutive, and 90 consecutive days aloft time limitations of section 121.521, paragraph (a) and paragraph (c) (1) and (2). In addition, as to First Officer "A," who manipulates the controls of the aircraft on a flight leg, or who is in the right seat on a flight leg, the entire aloft time for that flight leg counts. 2 A PIC, who for example might sit at the flight deck jump seat and supervise other ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2002/simpson.rtf |
| Dear Ms. Lakah: This is in response to your letter dated November 6, 2002, egarding the application of 14 CFR § 121.547 to part 119 certificate holders. Specifically, you ask whether the interpretations issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on July 17, 2001, and April 2, 2002, addressing a pilot in command's (PIC) unfettered authority to refuse admission to the cockpit to anyone requesting permission under 14 CFR § 121.547(a)(3) and (a)(4) applies to all part 119 certificate ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2002/lakah.rtf |
| Critical Air holds Air Carrier Operating Certificate Number IBUAl21E, issued November 8, 1984, by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) pursuant to 49 USCS §44705. 49 USCS §41101 requires that an air carrier may provide air transportation only if the air carrier holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by DOT under 49 USCS §41102, except as otherwise provided by law. Since Critical Air Medicine, Inc. is a Part 298 air carrier, the State of Texas, or any political ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2002/Kfir.rtf |
| I. The Issue The FPA asked that the FAA "confirm" that a pilot-in-command's (PIC) "authority to protect the integrity of the flight deck extends to denying permission to passengers to be seated aft of the flight deck if the PIC determines in good faith that their carriage presents an unacceptable risk to either the safety or security of the flight." The FPA seems to suggest that unless Federal Express retrofits the flight deck doors and, among other things, develops policies for opening, ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2002/jamesjohnson.rtf |
| To Whom It May 'Concern: This is to advise you that certain sections of Garland City Ordinances (Ordinance) have been brought to the attention of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). The regulation of aircraft in flight is preempted by Federal law, and limitations on aircraft flight may only be imposed by the FAA. The above cited section of the Ordinance pertains to aspects of aircraft flight that the FAA already regulates. Click here for full text: .../interps/2002/Garland.rtf |
| Company B will be responsible for "operational control" of all transport operations. Indeed, you clearly state that Company B will be responsible for "operational control" of all air transportation operations in support of DOE/AL. Your proposal places operational control with Company B. Further indication that Company B has operational control is found in its employment of nearly all personnel involved in the aviation-related aspects of the day-to-day operation of the flights, including the... Click here for full text: .../interps/2001/Nguyen.rtf |
| FM Response: The language proposed in the SNPRM, that the flight data recorder requirements of § 135.152 apply to aircraft registered outside the United States but placed on the U.S. operations specifications of an operator, is included in the final rule. Comments to the NPRM and SNPRM, and telephone inquiries by operators indicate to the FAA that some commenters thought that this was a proposed policy change. Further, the NPRM did not contain any proposed compliance time for aircraft ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2000/Wilson.rtf |
| In our opinion, the proposed operation must be conducted under flag operations specifications. "Flag Operation" means any scheduled operation conducted by any person operating any airplane described in paragraph (1) of this definition at the locations described in paragraph (2) of this definition. Based on the assumption that the proposed flights will constitute scheduled passenger-carrying operations, it is our opinion that those flights must be conducted in accordance with the rules ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2000/Troxell.rtf |
| Columbus Airport is surrounded by Class-D and Class-E airspace. Air Traffic Control Handbook, Order 7110.65L, PCG S-6; Aeronautical Information Manual, PCG S-6. Therefore, by this definition, aerobatic flight is not permitted within the Class D or Class E airspace at Columbus Airport. We hope that this interpretation answers your questions regarding aerobatic flight in the Class D and E airspace surrounding Columbus Airport. Click here for full text: .../interps/2000/reeves.rtf |
| You describe HLSI as a "management company" that specializes in arranging for the accomplishment of helicopter external load operations. In pertinent part, Section 133.11(a) states "No person subject to this Part may conduct rotorcraft external-load operations within the United States without, or in violation of the terms of, a Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate." Section 133.33 of the regulations authorizes the holder of a Rotorcraft External-Load Certificate to conduct external-... Click here for full text: .../interps/2000/Person.rtf |
| The applicable provisions of section 121.471 are set forth below: § 121.471 Flight time limitations and rest requirements: All flight crewmembers. b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no certificate holder conducting domestic operations may schedule a flight crewmember and no flight crew member may accept an assignment for flight time during the 24 consecutive hours preceding the scheduled completion of any flight segment without a scheduled rest period during those 24 ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2000/Johnson.rtf |
| Your contention is that the entire time should be credited as flight time because when the aircraft leaves the gate, it is "with the intention of flight," and flight does follow the de-icing procedure. Section 1.1 defines "flight time," in pertinent part, as pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing. And, all of that time is flight time, and must be credited for purposes of the flight... Click here for full text: .../interps/2000/J.Johnson.rtf |
| This is in response to your January 3 request for an interpretation concerning the transponder requirements for civil aircraft operating in Class C airspace. Section 91.215, in pertinent part, requires an operable coded radar beacon transponder for all aircraft operating in Class A, Class B, and Class C designated airspace. (1) For operation of an aircraft with an operating transponder but without an operating automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C capability, the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2000/Hemlich.rtf |
| This is in response to your recent letter in which you requested our opinion regarding the qualifications of the person who prepares a congested area plan required by section 133.33(d)(1) of the Regulations. Nor do the Regulations require that the person who prepares the plan be a full-time employee of the operator. In our opinion, the operator may hire a part-time employee to prepare and process the congested area plan. Click here for full text: .../interps/2000/D.Person.rtf |
| Your first question is whether, in regard to pushback procedures, the time from the beginning of the push (we assume by means of an external pushback or tug vehicle) until the time the aircraft taxies under its own power (i.e., total time spent in pushback) counts as flight time. Your second question is whether, in regard to de-icing procedures, the time the aircraft taxies to a de-icing pad (that is, from the gate to the de-icing pad) counts as flight time. And, all of that time is flight ... Click here for full text: .../interps/2000/Blythe.rtf |
| Your letter advises that the Aspen Air Traffic Control Tower routinely offers the Lindz 3 departure and takeoff clearances to pilots when the weather is below the minimums listed in the SID. In my view, the fact that the Air Traffic Control Tower may issue Lindz 3 departure clearances when the weather is below minimums is not particularly relevant because it is the pilot's responsibility to comply with weather requirements for the operation of aircraft, not Air Traffic Control's. The Air ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1999/Landis.rtf |
| Specifically, you ask, "During the crew rest period, may the certificate holder initiate contact with the crew to assign a trip, which is scheduled to begin “after” the crews rest period?" 14 CFR section 135.263(b) states that no certificate holder may assign any flight crewmember to any duty with the certificate holder during any required rest period. Accordingly, a certificate holder may attempt to initiate contact with a flight crewmember to assign a trip scheduled to begin after the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1999/Knight.rtf |
| Question number 1: Is the PIC obligated under the Federal Aviation Regulations as opposed to the certificate holder's requirements to do an actual passenger count to verify the manifest information? For purposes of Section 121.665, however, if the load manifest has the names of 100 passengers but the PIC notices that actually there are 110 passengers on board, then the air carrier, not the PIC, is in violation of the regulation. Response: Since the requirements to maintain an accurate load ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1999/J.W.Johnson.rtf |
| Day 3 – Rio de Janeiro to Sao Paulo for a total flight time of 1 hour; and Sao Paulo to Atlanta for a total flight time of 9 hours and 50 minutes. (a) A certificate holder conducting flag operations may schedule a pilot to fly in an airplane that has a crew of one or two pilots for eight hours or less during any 24 consecutive hours without a rest period during these eight hours. (b) If a certificate holder conducting flag operations schedules a pilot to fly more than eight hours during any ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1999/J.Johnson.rtf |
| The primary business of PacifiCorp Trans, Inc. is to provide transportation services to PacifiCorp, its parent organization. You note that employees of Scottish Power are being carried on aircraft operated by PacifiCorp Trans, Inc. on matters involving the purchase of PacifiCorp by their employer. In our opinion, it would not be acceptable for PacifiCorp or PacifiCorp Trans, Inc. to charge Scottish Power for transportation of its employees on aircraft operated by PacifiCorp Trans, Inc. Click here for full text: .../interps/1999/Duckett.rtf |
| Therefore, as the SIC operating the aircraft "solely by reference to instruments under actual or simulated instrument flight conditions," you would log that time as SIC flown in instrument conditions. (2) An airline transport pilot may log as pilot-in-command time all of the flight time while acting as pilot-in-command of an operation requiring an airline transport pilot certificate. While it is not possible for two pilots to act as PIC simultaneously, it is possible for two pilots to log ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1999/Carpenter.rtf |
| In your letter, you asked whether a pipeline patrol operation, wherein the aircraft lands to allow inspectors to investigate a suspected leak, can be conducted under Part 91 of the Regulations. Generally, those who conduct flight operations involving the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire must conduct those operations under Part 135 (121 for large aircraft). Thus, pipeline patrol operations would be excluded from Part 135 application if they were "aerial work ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1999/Bell.rtf |
| The relevant subsection appears to be FAR 61.15(c)(2), which defines a "motor vehicle action" to include suspension of a license for a cause related to operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. If the administrative suspension is a "motor vehicle action" then it is reportable under FAR 61.15(e). A single motor vehicle action does not carry adverse consequences, but under FAR 61.15(d), two motor vehicle actions within a 3-year period establishes a basis for adverse action. Click here for full text: .../interps/1998/Shomloo.rtf |
| It is anticipated that aircraft owned and operated by Fred Meyer, Inc., would be used by the Fred Meyer Challenge (a corporate entity separate from Fred Meyer, Inc.) to transport golfers and their equipment to the professional golf tournament sponsored by the Fred Meyer Challenge. Moreover, the Fred Meyer Challenge would not directly reimburse Fred Meyer, Inc., for the flights. In either case, we believe that the flights conducted by Fred Meyer, Inc., on behalf of the Fred Meyer Challenge ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1998/Satterwhite.rtf |
| Does this mean the company that owns an airplane cannot transport its employees, officials, or property under (b)(4), unlike Section 91.501(b)(5)? It is our understanding that (b)(4) contemplates employees, officials, and property of the company that operates the airplane. Query #2: It is our understanding that Section 91.501(b)(5) requires the company that owns the airplane to have an ongoing business as its primary operation other than operating the airplane. Answer: (b)(4) does not ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1997/Jung.rtf |
| Based on the information which you have provided, we are of the opinion that pilots conducting aerial surveillance duties for ACS must possess at least a commercial pilot certificate. FAR 61.118 states, in part, that a private pilot may not act as a pilot-in-command of an aircraft for compensation or hire except that a private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if the flight is only incidental to that ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1997/Grau.rtf |
| RE: Nie Citation LLC (Cessna Citation N19ER) Dear Mr. Ericsson: This is in reply to your letter of January 21, 1997, to Mr. George Thompson in which you requested our opinion regarding the regulatory consequences involved with the rental of N19ER. Attached to your letter to Mr. Thompson was your opinion letter to the aircraft owner, as well as the rental agreement and a letter, which will be sent to each rental customer. We all recognize that the determination of operational control, as it ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1997/Ericsson.rtf |
| In your letter, you requested an opinion regarding the requirement that your client, Air Surveillance Corporation (ACS), obtain a Part 135 certificate to conduct aerial surveillance and security operations. In your previous letter of March 17, 1997, you described the purpose and scope of operations proposed by ACS, including the conduct of aerial surveillance and security service using light, general aviation aircraft and ground vehicles equipped with radios, night vision devices, and other ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1997/D.Grau.rtf |
| The general rule is that, in order to provide a safe environment for the operations of disaster relief aircraft, no person may operate within an area NOTAM'd with a TFR unless one of five conditions are present. These aircraft may operate within the TFR area if they first file a flight plan with the FAA and if they operate above the altitude used by the disaster relief aircraft. Moreover, if they are authorized by the official in charge of the emergency response activity, Media aircraft may ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1997/Beckert.rtf |
| The majority owner of the registered owner is Sportco Investments, Inc.; a minority shareholder is Sportco Investments II, Inc. Sportco Investments II, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as Sportco II). Sportco II, in turn, will transport the Hockey Team and Basketball Team aboard the aircraft to out-of-town games. Click here for full text: .../interps/1996/Summerville.rtf |
| You indicate that executives of a company, which leases and operates an aircraft in its business, would like to use the aircraft from time to time for personal travel, which would include the travel of spouses and children. Under section 91.501(c)(1), a "time-sharing agreement" means an arrangement whereby a person leases his aircraft with flight crew to another person. Under section 91.23(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations, a lease of a U.S. registered larqe civil aircraft shall be in ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1996/Nutt.rtf |
| This letter is in response to your letter of December 10, 1996, which seeks a legal opinion from the FAA with respect to reimbursement for pilot expenses for an aircraft operated under Part 91.501, Time Sharing Agreement. Company "B," with which it has a time-sharing agreement, is required by its insurance contract to operate with a two-person flight crew. As you know, a time-sharing agreement is an agreement whereby an aircraft, with flight crew, is leased to another, and no charge is made... Click here for full text: .../interps/1996/Narodick.rtf |
| That section provides: No domestic air carrier may schedule a flight crewmember and no flight crewmember may accept an assignment for flight time during the 24 consecutive hours preceding the scheduled completion of any fight segment without a scheduled rest period during the 24 hours of at least the following: (1) 9 consecutive hours of rest for less than 8 hours of scheduled flight time. When a reserve pilot is assigned duty involving flight time, the 24-hour period prior to the scheduled ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1996/McCormick.rtf |
| Between the U.S. citizen trustee and Company A, the parties enter into an aircraft operating agreement, whereby Company A acquires the Falcon to operate under Part 91. Company A would have its own flight department with crew. Question 1D: Instead of an aircraft operating agreement between the U.S. trustee and Company A, the U.S. trustee enters into an aircraft operating agreement with a different company, Company B. Is this arrangement acceptable to the FAA? Answer: The companies can operate... Click here for full text: .../interps/1996/K.Jung.rtf |
| Not one of these companies, Company P, Company A, Sub B, Sub C, Sub D, and Sub E, can meet the United States citizenship requirement under FAR §47. Except for Company P, when one of these companies acquires a large and turbojet-powered multi-engine civil airplane, it intends to utilize a United States citizen trust company to register the aircraft with the FAA. Question 1: If Company A were to acquire the aircraft and through a U.S. citizen trust company, the aircraft is registered with the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1996/Jung.rtf |
| The registered owner of a large aircraft will lease the aircraft to co-leasees Corporation A and Corporation B. Corporation A is a diversified business not formed for the purpose of owning and operating the aircraft. The use of the aircraft by Corporation B will relate solely to personal use by Individual X, a majority shareholder, officer and director of Corporation A, and the sole stockholder, director and officer of Corporation B. Corporation B will not charge Individual X for his use of ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1996/Fagan.rtf |
| You describe the business activity as one where a pilot, who also happens to be a certified flight instructor (CFI), would act as a tour leader to conduct tours involving groups of light aircraft in the mountainous areas of the west, including Alaska and Western Canada. The tour would consist of the CFI tour leader flying his own aircraft, and other licensed pilots following and flying their own aircraft. However, since the individual tour leader would be receiving compensation in ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1996/Ellis.rtf |
| Stevens Aviation, Inc. Jefferson County Airport 10656 W. 120th Avenue Broomfield, Colorado 80021 Dear Mr. Clark: By letter dated May 10, 1995, and in subsequent discussions with the FAA Denver Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), you have raised certain questions regarding the interpretation of Sections 145.49 and 145.53 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The specific context of your inquiry relates to the question of whether it would be permissible under these sections for six ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1996/Clark.rtf |
| It appears that you are asking whether, under this rule, skydivers can land less than 450 feet from the center line of an active runway at Vance Brand Airport near Longmont, Colorado, when they do not have approval from the airport management to jump over or onto the airport. However, as stated in the attached letters from the City of Longmont City Manager to Mile-Hi Skydiving, skydivers presently have approval from the airport management to skydive over Vance Brand Airport and to land on ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1996/Bengston.rtf |
| You indicate that you intend to use your airplane in aerial photography and survey work, sometimes acting as the photographer yourself, and at other times either hiring a photographer or providing an "aerial platform" to be used by other photographers. You further indicate that your proposed aerial survey work would include environment assessment, wildlife and natural resources surveys, and airborne collection of air samples for meteorology studies. In the event your proposed operations may ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1995/White.rtf |
| It is the opinion of this office that you have met the requirements necessary for renewal of your IA under FAR Section 65.93(a)(2). An individual, who has held an IA for an entire year, may perform either eight major repairs, eight major alterations, or a combination of eight major repairs and major alterations and qualify for renewal under FAR Section 65.93(a)(2). By way of example, qualification for renewal under FAR Section 65.93(a)(2) could be accomplished by combining five major repairs ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1995/Rhein.rtf |
| You state that the Oregon State Department of Forestry owns and operates two twin-engine aircraft in support of its agency mission. It also makes the aircraft available to other state agencies for personnel transportation, such as the State Police, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Justice, and Department of Transportation. In my opinion, the reimbursement for the use of Forestry aircraft by other state agencies would not constitute a commercial use of the aircraft, which would... Click here for full text: .../interps/1995/Prukop.rtf |
| Speaking generally, a flight instructor acts as pilot in command when he or she is qualified to do so and there is an understanding between the instructor and the other pilot that the instructor will act as pilot in command on a flight. As you note, where one of the pilots is not qualified (e.g., is a student pilot), the other pilot (assuming that pilot is qualified) is the pilot in command, even if he or she protests to the contrary in a subsequent dispute. Also, where one of two otherwise... Click here for full text: .../interps/1995/P.Arthur.rtf |
| Owner desires to enter into a contract with an aircraft management company (Manager), under which Manager will provide all management services, maintenance, fuel, pilots, hangar, and insurance, and will operate the aircraft "for the exclusive benefit of Owner." You then indicate that the two shareholders of Owner will "capitalize" Owner, and Owner will pay Manager for its services in the aircraft operation. The proposed involvement by Manager confuses the analysis to the extent that its ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1995/Narodick.rtf |
| As currently written, FAR 61.31(e) characterizes as "high performance airplanes" both 1) airplanes of more than 200 horsepower, and 2) airplanes with retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable propeller (more commonly known as a "complex airplane"). , pertinent pages enclosed], which would amend FAR 61.31 to distinguish "high performance airplanes" [airplanes with 200 hp or more], from "complex airplanes" [airplanes with retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable propeller]... Click here for full text: .../interps/1995/Murphy.rtf |
| The renters did not intend to conduct operations for compensation or hire, and would be responsible for providing pilots to operate the aircraft, which they intended to do through a separate entity, Flying Service. Under your amended version of the proposed operation, Owner (now perhaps a misnomer) would no longer own the subject aircraft; Flying Service would be the aircraft owner. As proposed in the amended version, what would exist, in essence, is an operation where Flying Service is ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1995/K. Narodick.rtf |
| As you note, my January 4, 1989, Order of Revocation applied to "any airman pilot certificate now held by you, including Commercial Pilot Certificate No. Your appeal of that order to the NTSB stayed its effect for several years, during which you acquired an Airline Transport Pilot Certificate with several ratings, replacing your Commercial Pilot Certificate. When you received your ATP certificate, you did not retain your Commercial Pilot Certificate, but had to surrender it in order to ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1995/Hegarty.rtf |
| It has been, and continues to be, the interpretation of the FAA to require a third class medical certificate for a certificated flight instructor who is acting as pilot in command or as a required flight crewmember while giving flight instruction. A certificated flight instructor who is not acting as pilot in command or as a required flight crewmember while giving flight instruction need not possess a valid medical certificate. A certificated flight instructor who is acting as pilot in ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1995/Fretwell.rtf |
| You have asked whether a Second or Third Class medical certificate is required for a flight instructor to give flight instruction for compensation. If the flight instructor is not acting as pilot in command of the aircraft in which he or she is giving instruction for compensation, then no medical certificate is required. If on the other hand the instructor is also acting as the pilot in command of the aircraft in which the instruction for compensation is being given, the instructor must ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1995/Arthur.rtf |
| 2. The Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 transferred aviation functions of the Commerce Department to the Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA) and further authorized the CAA to issue air carrier route certificates and regulate airline fares. The Federal Aviation Administration assumed the functions of the Federal Aviation Agency, including those relating to the certification of pilots. 7. Within the FAA, the Airman Certification Branch and the Aero medical Certification Division, both located at the... Click here for full text: .../interps/1994/Wilson.rtf |
| Your letter asks whether the owners of your company, Corporate Air, a Part 121 Supplemental Air Carrier and Part 135 Air Carrier, can obtain a second Part 135 Certificate. Thus, in order for the owners of Corporate Air to obtain a second Part 135 certificate, it will be necessary for the new company to have a separate legal identity from Corporate Air. As a separate corporation, the new company would be a "person" and, thus, capable of receiving its own air carrier certificate. Click here for full text: .../interps/1994/Prophet.rtf |
| You question whether your pilot certificate is subject to revocation or suspension. Once a pilot certificate has been revoked under these circumstances, we would not entertain an application for issuance of a new pilot certificate for a period of one year after the date of revocation. If you would like to send me information relating to your conviction, which would establish that an aircraft was not involved in the offense, we would be happy to proceed with the revocation of your ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1994/Nelms.rtf |
| You requested our opinion as to whether a U.S. corporation, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a Canadian corporation, may obtain an operating certificate under Part 133 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. We have reviewed Part 133 and its regulatory history and find no prohibition against the U.S. corporation from holding a Part 133 Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate. Please contact us if we may provide you with further assistance. Click here for full text: .../interps/1994/Lane.rtf |
| In particular, you requested interpretation of the language referring to the last complete inspection under the progressive inspection program. Our review of the relevant section leads to the conclusion that the 100-hour inspection would be due within 100 hours of the techs time at the number four progressive inspection, the one completing the yearly cycle. The progressive inspection program is intended to substitute for the otherwise applicable 100-hour and annual inspection requirements. Click here for full text: .../interps/1994/Faber.rtf |
| You state that Aurora Aviation is a Part 135 Air Taxi Operator which has been approached by a local businessman who would like to place his aircraft on your company's rental list. While I do not doubt your company's desire to comply with all Part 135 requirements--hence your letter to us--I must advise that the scenario you describe is also characteristic of a classic pretext for avoidance of Part 135 responsibilities in aircraft maintenance and crewmember qualifications, e.g., an operator ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1994/Bennett.rtf |
| You address the necessity of executing a complete Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) in a non-radar environment while operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). If a feeder route to an IAF is part of the published approach procedure, it is considercd a mandatory part of the approach. Section 91.175(j) states that in ll:e case of a radar vector to a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a hold ng fix, or an approach for which the procedures specifies "no ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1994/AGC Opinion-ARC IAFs.pdf |
| In your letter you requested clarification with regard to the cross-country flight requirements for an airline transport pilot certificate in Part 61 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. As you note in your letter, the cross-country flight requirements for an instrument rating, and student, private, and commercial certificates are set forth with particularity in the relevant FARs. Whether specific flight experience is cross-country in character is a technical determination to be made the FAA... Click here for full text: .../interps/1993/Wambolt.rtf |
| Since under your proposal the partnership would be getting reimbursed for the operating expenses of the aircraft, an operating certificate would be required, unless some other regulation permits operation without such a certificate. However, the intent of Subpart F, insofar as it permits limited compensation for the operation of corporate airplanes, was to permit increased utilization of corporate airplanes beyond the usage those airplanes received on company business. You have also asked to... Click here for full text: .../interps/1993/Runge.rtf |
| This is in response to your letter of June 25, 1993 requesting the FAA's position on the sharing of flight expenses by private pilots. Section 61.118(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations states that "a private pilot may share the operating expenses of a flight with his passengers." The costs which may be shared includes only those expenses that would not have been incurred if the flight did not take place; for example, fuel and oil consumed on the flight and ramp or tie-down fees at the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1993/Meyerhoff.rtf |
| In your letter you asked whether you can transport passengers of another company on a shared expense basis. Under 61.118(b), a private pilot may share the operating expenses of a flight with his passengers. The passengers may be separately reimbursed by a customer, but the payment you receive should come from the passengers or their immediate employer. Click here for full text: .../interps/1993/Humke.rtf |
| PIC flight time may be logged by both the PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time in accordance with FAR 1.1, and the by the pilot who acts as the sole manipulator of the controls of the aircraft for which the pilot is rated under FAR 61.51. However, the two pilots may, prior to initiating the flight, agree that the safety pilot will be the PIC responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during the flight. If this is done, then the safety ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1993/Hicks.rtf |
| A company engaged in the purchase and sale of vehicles needs to transport its employees--commercial drivers--to remote locations to pick up vehicles that the company has purchased, and to drive the vehicles back to the company's lot to be sold. The distinction between the two operations is that in the first scenario the company would be deemed the operator of the flights, for its own employees, with you hired merely as a commercial pilot; whereas in the second scenario, you would be ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1993/Green.rtf |
| Private pilots making volunteer air flights involving the carriage of persons or property are in violation of Section 61.118 if they receive any reimbursement of expenses or take any tax deductions for those flights. Such an exemption would not permit the transportation of persons or property for compensation or hire, since Angel Flight would have to have the appropriate air carrier operating certificate or commercial operating certificate. It has never been the policy of the FAA to allow ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1993/Gramm.rtf |
| The new information is that FSB offers, as part of its financial services business, a number of "wholesale" financial services, including the processing of checks, drafts, and credit charges for other banks. The documents in question are bundled checks and data from West One Bank, destined for delivery to its offices in Boise, Idaho, which have been gathered by FSB incident to its contract with West One Bank to process its transit checks and present such checks to the drawee banks. In a ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1993/Clark.rtf |
| You state that you intend to perform aerial survey work beginning on May 1,1993. (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, this part does not apply to- (4) Aerial work operations, including- (iii) Aerial... As applied by the FAA in the past, this has included the counting of animal (waterfowl) populations from an aircraft. Click here for full text: .../interps/1993/Byrne.rtf |
| In addition, Ms. Laura Atkinson, Administrator & Office Manager of Cascade Medical Services, Inc., indicated in a telephone conversation with the undersigned on April 7, 1993, the following: the company has assumed that it is the operator of the subjects flights, and as such, assumes all legal liability for the operation of the flights, eg. tort liability, violations of FARs, etc.; the company has verified through the aircraft renter that insurance coverage has been in place for the subject ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1993/Atkinson.rtf |
| Because of a scarcity of pilots in McPherson, Kansas, the aircraft lessee will occasionally hire a pilot who is an employee of the certificate holder to perform Part 91 pilot service in the same aircraft. This is odd, as the aircraft lessor should have no part of a pilot service contract - unless he intends to retain operational control. 4. The lessor negotiated the pilot contract with the aircraft lessee without the pilot's knowledge. Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Witchita Flight Standards.rtf |
| If a private company leases or charters an aircraft, may it accept reimbursements for air transportation in situations where a company owning the airplane may not, or are the reimbursement rules identical for travel on corporate-owned and corporate-leased aircraft?" Your second question, with subparts, concerns reimbursements to companies for travel related to company business. The third question is "May a company accept reimbursement for travel unrelated to company business?" Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/W.Willkie.rtf |
| As we understand the facts, a pilot performs duty aloft in scheduled air transportation on each of seven consecutive days without receiving relief from all duty for at least 24 consecutive hours. (d) Each certificate holder shall relieve each flight crewmember engaged in scheduled air transportation from all further duty for at least 24 consecutive hours during any 7 consecutive days. It appears that the certificate holder may be treating 168 consecutive hours the same as 7 consecutive days... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Twomey.rtf |
| You stated that your actual total accumulated flight time at the end of day 4 was 26 hours and 29 minutes and your scheduled flight time for day 5 was 7 hours and 0 minutes. If this total is less than 30 hours, the flight crewmember may begin and complete the day's scheduled flying even if events beyond the carrier's control cause total actual flight time to exceed 30 hours. That is, if the flight crewmember's actual flight time, in this case for the first 4 days, plus the scheduled flight ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Stout.rtf |
| This is in response to your letter dated December 27, 1991, and phone conversation of December 30, 1991, requesting copies of policies or interpretations involving Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) §121.481(a) and 121.483(a). These do not include any documents which may exist in the files of the offices of the Assistant Chief Counsels in the regions. Under FOIA regulations, the costs involved in processing a request are recoverable by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Silverberg.rtf |
| (2) When, prior to the final leg of a multi-leg flight, the carrier knows that adverse weather conditions along the final leg will preclude the pilot from completing the final leg within the allowed flight time. A flight crewmember is not considered to be scheduled for flight time in excess of flight time limitations if the flights to which he is assigned are scheduled and normally terminate within the limitations, but due to circumstances beyond the control of the air carrier (such as ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Schweitzer.rtf |
| Your question was whether Public Service of Colorado should operate its helicopters under FAR Part 135 if it transports Tri-State maintenance crews to and from construction and maintenance activities along lines either jointly owned with Tri-State or owned solely by Tri-State. However, transportation of Tri-State maintenance personnel for compensation, or to exclusively Tri-State work sites, would be covered by FAR Part 135 unless otherwise excluded. Rather than the patrol exception ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Sasz.rtf |
| Essentially, the boundaries of an airport will include the outermost edges of all property used or designated for airport purposes. This may include property that is not physically designated on-site (e.g., by fencing) as airport property. The airport layout plan for an airport eligible for Federal aid under Part 150 of the FAR will show the boundaries of the airport. Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Reinschreiber.rtf |
| If, due to circumstances beyond the control of the air carrier, such as delays due to weather, the flight crewmember exceeds the time he was originally scheduled for that day, the flight crewmember is not considered to be scheduled for duty in excess of flight time limitations. Briefly stated, the FAA has consistently interpreted compliance with the "30 in 7" flight time limitation to be based primarily on a flight crewmember's actual flight hours. Given your facts, if the scheduled flight ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Reich.rtf |
| A crew consisting of two pilots and one additional flight crewmember operates a scheduled domestic flight from Los Angeles (LAX) to Portland (PDX) with a flight time of 1 hour 30 minutes. After 7 hours on the ground (not considered a rest period), the same crew operates another scheduled domestic flight from Portland (PDX) back to Los Angeles (LAX) for another 1 hour 30 minutes flight time. The crew then operates a scheduled flag flight to Panama City (MPTO) and back to Los Angeles (LAX) ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Raines.rtf |
| While airport authorities may voluntarily impose additional fire safety requirements, the FAR imposes fire safety certification requirements only upon the employees of fueling agents at certain airports. Section 139.321(e)(1) provides that at least one supervisor with each fueling agent must complete an aviation fuel training course of fire safety; § 139.321(e)(2) provides that all other employees who fuel aircraft, accept fuel shipments, or otherwise handle fuel receive at least on-the-job ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Parker.rtf |
| This is in response to your letters to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) asking for interpretations of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) pertaining to definitions of "reserve duty", "duty", and "rest". You also said that you work for a Part 121 air carrier who treats "reserve" as non-duty status, and that crew members on "reserve" status are subject to call for flight duty at all times, with duty beginning at the time they report to work. "Reserve" or "standby" status, where a ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Laurenzano.rtf |
| The operating expenses which may be shared are the direct costs associated with the subject flight. Direct expenses typically include such items as fuel and oil consumed on the flight, landing or customs fees, ramp or tie down fees at the destination airport only, and non-routine maintenance costs, i.e., emergency maintenance. Further, in this regard, operating expenses may also include rental costs, provided that all costs associated with the rental are evenly distributed among all ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Knee.rtf |
| In your letter you state that States West Airlines has declared John Wayne Airport (SNA) in Orange County and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to be "co-domiciles", meaning that flight crews can be assigned to duty at either airport. Time spent in transportation, not local in character, that an air carrier requires of a flight crewmember and provides to transport the crewmember to an airport at which he is to serve on a flight as a crewmember, or from an airport at which he was ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Johnson.rtf |
| As an example, you state that some carriers dispatch crewmembers from Washington Dulles International Airport and terminate them at Baltimore-Washington International Airport. During a phone conversation on July 1, 1992, you confirmed that the ground transportation was provided by the air carrier from Baltimore-Washington International Airport to Washington Dulles International Airport. As such, we believe it is reasonable for transportation between co-domicile airports such as Baltimore-... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/J.Johnson.rtf |
| This is in response to your May 21 letter seeking clarification regarding whether a certificated flight instructor (CFI) with a third class medical certificate may give flight instruction and act as pilot in command (PIC) for compensation. Part 61, Certification Bulletin Number 81-2, discusses the need for a valid airman medical certificate and its relationship to flight instructor certificates. While the bulletin does not specifically address the issue raised in your letter, a careful ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Helton.rtf |
| Regarding the chief instructor question, you ask whether over 300 hours of full motion, full visibility simulator time can be used to satisfy the pilot in command flight time requirements of FAR 141.35(d)(2). FAR 141.35(d)(2) makes no reference to the use of simulator time as a substitute for actual flight time. Since FAR 141.35(d)(2) does not state that simulator time can be used to meet the requirement, your simulator time may not be counted toward the 2,000 hour pilot in command ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Harper.rtf |
| The aircraft is used to transport financial documents from FSB Idaho branches to Salt Lake City for processing. On the return trip from Salt Lake City to Boise, Idaho, there is extra cargo space unutilized. I do not believe that the carriage of another financial company's cargo from Salt Lake City to Boise could fairly be said to fall within the scope of FSB's banking business. Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Gorski.rtf |
| Your second question addresses the issue of "standby" or "reserve" duty for flight crewmembers. Ozark Air Lines had a two-tiered reserve system of "standby reserve" and "backup reserve". The court held that "duty" did not include backup reserve status, and that a crewmember may be available for duty during a rest period, as long as he is not actually called to duty. Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Darbo.rtf |
| Adventures corporation We interpreted your references to Vista Balloon Adventures, Inc., as follows: Mr. Locatell is an owner and proprietor of Vista Balloon Adventures; he holds a Private Pilot Certificate; Vista Balloon Adventures operates balloons carrying passengers for compensation or hire; Mr. Locatell does not conduct the passenger-carrying operations, but he does conduct balloon operations in the Vista balloon; and his operations promote Vista Balloon Adventures, because the balloon ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Cox.rtf |
| This is in response to your letter of November 8, 1991, requesting an interpretation of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 121.471 regarding flight time limitations and the rest requirements or domestic air carriers. Under the scheduling provisions of FAR 121.471(a) and (b) no air carrier "may schedule" a flight crewmember and no flight crewmember "may accept" an assignment in excess of the flight time limitations and rest requirements under that section. If the schedule is set up by the air... Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Bergner.rtf |
| You also stated that the flight would be conducted at daytime and under VFR conditions, and that the pilot would hold a Commercial Pilot Certificate. CAREY TERASAKI General Attorney 1 In addition, Part 61 of the FAR prohibits anyone other than the holder of an Airline Transport Pilot or Commercial Pilot Certificate to act as pilot in command for compensation or hire. Because the pilot you described would hold a commercial certificate, those provisions of the FAR would be satisfied. Click here for full text: .../interps/1992/Bartholomew.rtf |
| 4. In correspondence from Mr. Walden, he states that "an interpretation of the FAR by an Assistant Chief Counsel serves as an interpretation for the Chief Counsel, and as such applies with equal force to the same issue in all the FAA regions." Does this mean that the only official or legally binding interpretations of the FAR are those issued by the Chief Counsel, region Assistant Chief Counsel or FAA attorney? By policy of the Office of the Chief Counsel, legal interpretations of the flight ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Xifo.rtf |
| In regard to your first proposition, FAR 61.15(c)(2) includes in the definition of motor vehicle action the suspension of a license to operate a motor vehicle by a state after November 29, 1990, for a cause related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, impaired, or while under the influence of alcohol or a drug. Your client's license suspension is "for a cause related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, ..." It is possible that an ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/West.rtf |
| Thank you for your letter of April 22, 1991, regarding the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) National Driver Register (NDR) Authorization Form that accompanies the FAA's application form for an airman medical certificate. The driving record information the FAA receives from the NDR will be matched with information you provide on the medical history part of the medical application, FAA Form 8500-8. Since the NDR identifies only probable matches, the FAA will verify the NDR information ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Swindler.rtf |
| (a) No domestic air carrier may schedule any flight crewmember and no flight crewmember may accept an assignment in scheduled air transportation or in other commercial flying if that crewmember's total flight time in all commercial flying will exceed8 hours between required rest periods. FAR 121.471(g) allows crewmembers to exceed flight time limitations when the flights normally terminate within the limitations, but due to circumstances beyond the control of the air carrier (such as adverse... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Sowell.rtf |
| Does an appropriately rated safety pilot have to have a high performance sign-off prior to acting as second in command (safety pilot) in a high-performance airplane? (1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown. Therefore, regarding your question, our opinion is that the safety pilot would need only a private pilot certificate with an airplane category and ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Rizner.rtf |
| Question 1. You have made several military flights of more than 50 nautical miles in a Bell Ulf-1 helicopter while holding an FAA-issued commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating (helicopter). (1) A total of 125 hours of pilot flight time, of which 50 hours are as pilot in command in cross-country flight in a powered aircraft with other than a student pilot certificate. Question 2. Can you apply your military helicopter cross-country flight time toward the cross-country ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/M.Shea.rtf |
| As § 135.63(d) of the regulation explains, one copy of the load manifest shall be carried in the aircraft while the other copy is retained by the carrier at its operations base or other approved location. Retention of a duplicate copy of the manifest outside of the aircraft avoids the risk of accidental destruction of the original and only copy of that document. As the enclosed excerpt from the rulemaking history indicates, the agency considered the administrative inconvenience associated ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Klos.rtf |
| Dear Mr. Keeler: Thank you for your letter of December 10, 1990, in which you ask for an interpretation of the Federal Aviation Regulations concerning what rules apply to flights carrying medical technicians on air ambulance return flights. We believe the enclosed interpretation of June 7, 1990, is sufficiently on point to answer fully the question you asked. If this is not the case, please feel free to contact us with any specific questions you may have. Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Keeler.rtf |
| Your letter inquired about the FAA Administrator's delegation of his authority to grant waivers under Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) section 91.903 (formerly section 91.63). In FAA Order 1100.5c, FAA Organization -- Field, paragraph 253(d)(2), the Administrator has specifically delegated his authority to grant or deny waivers of Part 91 of the FAR to each of the Regional Air Traffic Division Managers, as specified in FAA Order 7711.1. To determine whether the authority to grant waivers ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Kearns.rtf |
| Question Your question concerns the following air carrier schedule regarding flights between Mexico City and New York: 1600 - 2100 Flight time to Mexico City 2100 - 1000 Rest 1000 - 1445 Flight time to New York In paraphrased form, your question is as follows: If the flight time exceeds the 5 hours scheduled, must the rest be twice the number of hours actually flown? I.e., if the flight time exceeds the scheduled time by one hour, must the rest be twelve hours? If the flight exceeds the 5 ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Johnson.rtf |
| A flight crew was scheduled for duty aloft on the sixth day of their schedule and were scheduled to be released from duty prior to 2400 hours so they could have the seventh day (24 hour period) free of all duty for the air carrier. A flight crewmember is not considered to be scheduled for flight time in excess of flight time limitations if the flights to which he is assigned are scheduled and normally terminate within the limitations, but due to circumstances beyond the control of the air ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/J.Johnson.rtf |
| There is no Federal Aviation Regulation which per se creates a violation for operations conducted within the shaded areas of the height-velocity curve. Rather, the height-velocity curve is a factor which is considered in determining whether a particular operation is in violation of certain specific regulations. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/H.Clark.rtf |
| The preamble language discusses maintaining operational flexibility, maintaining the distinction between pressurized and un-pressurized aircraft through different oxygen supply requirements, and avoiding costly modifications on pressurized aircraft. In this situation, those aircraft must meet the same oxygen supply requirements for passengers as un-pressurized aircraft in paragraph "(a)" of Section 135.157 (paragraph "(a)" also contains requirements to comply with the pilot oxygen ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Goering.rtf |
| "Does Subpart Q, Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements: Domestic Air Carriers apply to pilots while they participate in ground school training? §121.471(e): No domestic air carrier may assign any flight crewmember and no crewmember may accept assignment to any duty with the air carrier during any required rest period." Subpart Q does not apply to pilots while they participate in ground school and simulator training unless the air carrier attempts to treat the ground training as a rest... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Goedken.rtf |
| 1. In the first example, a Nordstrom aircraft is being operated on company business, carrying company personnel or property to a company store site. A non-employee, such as a vendor, is invited by a company employee to travel on the flight, and the presence of the non-employee is within the scope of and incidental to the business of the company (i.e., the non-employee is traveling to the company store site to do business with the company). 2. In the second example, a company employee or ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Fowler.rtf |
| Under the interpretations, this regulation can be violated only if a flight crewmember performs duty aloft in air transportation on seven consecutive days without receiving at least 24 consecutive hours relief from duty during that 7 consecutive day period. However, if a flight crewmember has performed duty aloft as a flight crewmember in scheduled air transportation for 6 consecutive days without having been relieved from duty for at least 24 consecutive hours, then that flight crewmember ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Fortenberry.rtf |
| The preamble language discusses maintaining operational flexibility, maintaining the distinction between pressurized and un-pressurized aircraft through different oxygen supply requirements, and avoiding costly modifications on pressurized aircraft. The preamble language reveals additional intentions of the drafters, which is summarized, in pertinent part, as follows: 1) to require certain minimum oxygen supply requirements for those pressurized aircraft that operate above 25,000 feet MSL; ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/D.Bodlak.rtf |
| Your questions generally relate to two broad areas of concern, operation of public aircraft and operation near or over populated areas. To determine whether you are required to comply with the Federal Aviation Regulations applicable to civil aircraft, the State must first determine whether their operations constitute the use of public aircraft. If the State operates a public aircraft, it is not required to comply with certain provisions of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Clark.rtf |
| You further indicated that the aircraft was being operated primarily to transport Company personnel and that the vendor was an additional passenger, that is, that the flight was incidental to the business of the Company and was not made solely for the purpose of transporting the vendor to the Company site. Based upon the information which you have provided, it would be permissible for Nordstrom to carry a vendor on its company aircraft and charge that vendor a pro rata share of the operating... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/C.Fowler.rtf |
| No certificate holder may assign any flight crewmember to any duty with the certificate holder during any required rest period. Your second question asks if this same flight crewmember may participate in the activities previously listed during a rest period if the work was done for another company, not ABC, and whether the flight crewmember could then accept an assignment with ABC for flight operations under Part 135, at the end of the rest period. ABC, as the certificate holder, has no way ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Bodlak.rtf |
| December 13, 1991 Mr. Marc S. Bocci Assistant Corporate Counsel Nike, Inc. You have asked whether Nike can enter into a single time-sharing agreement with its Chief Executive Officer to cover a series of flights operated for him and for certain unnamed public officials for personal, non-business purposes. The regulatory history of Subpart F of Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (formerly Subpart D) indicates that those provisions relating to time-sharing contemplated that the parties... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Bocci.rtf |
| This would typically involve the owner or operator obtaining from the original part manufacturer, and providing to the contracted party, all the appropriate FAA-approved design data required to manufacture the part. That is, the owner or operator may produce, or have a contracted party produce, only one replacement part for the maintenance or alteration of the aircraft. (3) The manufacture of replacement parts by an owner or operator (or a contracted party, as allowed under the provisions ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1991/Bicks.rtf |
| Subpart D contains, among other things, provisions which allow an operator of an airplane to receive limited reimbursement for the carriage of certain persons, without an operating certificate, when common carriage is not involved. This regulation allows a company to make the specified charges for the carriage of officials, employees and guests of the company operating the airplane, or of a subsidiary or parent of such company, when such carriage is within the scope of and incidental to the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1990/Willkie.rtf |
| This is in response to your letter of September 26, 1990, concerning the crediting of military pilot flight experience toward the flight experience requirements for an Instrument Rating under FAR Section 61.65 and for a Commercial Pilot Airplane certificate under FAR 61. All of the military flight experience in question was acquired while you held an FAA Commercial Pilot Helicopter certificate. Finally, you ask whether you may credit the cross-country flight experience detailed above to the ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1990/Shea.rtf |
| However, we must caution that if a Part 91 flight is assigned by a Part 135 certificate holder, and the Part 91 flight precedes a Part 135 flight, which is also assigned by the certificate holder, then the flight time of the Part 91 flight is considered "other commercial flying”. If the Part 91 flight occurs after the Part 135 flight, the flight time of the Part 91 is not counted against the daily flight time limitations of Part 135, but will be counted against the pilot's monthly, quarterly... Click here for full text: .../interps/1990/Rowhuff.rtf |
| Section 61.118(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations states that, "a private pilot may share the operating expenses of a flight with his passengers. " As we understand your question, you want to know what expenses a private pilot may share with his passengers. The expenses that a private pilot may share are those that are directly attributable to the flight that he or she shares with their passengers. Click here for full text: .../interps/1990/Pitts.rtf |
| This is in response to your letter of April 26, 1989, requesting a legal interpretation of FAR 135.19, Emergency Operations. Upon receipt of the report required by FAR § 135.19(c), the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) charged with the overall inspection of the certificate holder will then determine the validity of such emergency and whether the deviation was necessary to meet the emergency. However, to reiterate, the validity of any emergency and whether the deviation was necessary ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1990/Naekel.rtf |
| You asked for a clarification of several FAA opinions concerning whether private pilots may act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft towing gliders. However, the glider pilot does pay a tow fee to the glider club, which provides the tow aircraft without charge to the tow pilot. that a private pilot may not serve as pilot in command of such an operation [towing gliders] even when he/she elects to forego actual monetary compensation for service as pilot in command since, as stated, the private ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1990/Lincoln.rtf |
| January 11, 1990 Mr. Ed Kelm 1136 Wellington Pasadena, CA 91103 This follows-up the two letters we sent you on December 15, 1989. We hereby confirm to you that the word "past" in sub-section (e) of Section 61.57 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. 61.57) means the same as the word "preceding" in sub-section (a) of 61.57. Sincerely, Carey W. Terasaki General Attorney Click here for full text: .../interps/1990/Kelm.rtf |
| Corporation B rents this plane and provides an employee/pilot to fly it for corporate purposes. Corporation B's use of the plane with its staff pilot for corporate purposes is a Part 91 operation. You were, however, unclear as to the actual status of the pilot provided by Corporation B. If, as assumed above, the pilot is a corporate employee, we clearly have a Part 91 operation. Click here for full text: .../interps/1990/Huber.rtf |
| Our client intends to lease one aircraft from a leasing company, and lease a second aircraft form one the eleven corporations compromising the partnership. That preamble also states, in pertinent part, that "(The) NBAA (National Business Aircraft Association) recommended changes in the applicability of Subpart D to include a fuller use of the aircraft in private carriage. ... Additionally, the FAA has consistently interpreted that the language in §91.501(b) of "parent," "subsidiary," and "... Click here for full text: .../interps/1990/Glasser.rtf |
| 1) "A cockpit crew is scheduled for a two segment trip during which the first leg's schedule time is 5 hours and 45 minutes and the second leg has a scheduled time of 2 hours, so that the schedule fulfilled the provisions of Section 121.471(a)(4), i.e. it did not exceed 8 hours between required rest periods. 2) "The second question involved a flight of 1 hour to airport A, followed by two subsequent legs of 3 hours and 3 hours and 30 minutes to airports B and C respectively, for a total ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1990/Geier.rtf |
| Your first question is, if a company were to hire a pilot to fly men and equipment, could the pilot rent the plane for the company, or would the company have to rent the plane? On the other hand, if the company were to procure a plane, and retain the pilot to transport the company personnel and equipment, this would not require a Part 135 certificate, since the pilot is not the provider of both plane and pilot services. If the company were to procure the plane and pilot, and charge passengers... Click here for full text: .../interps/1990/Ferris.rtf |
| You ask the following question: If a pilot is assigned 16 hours of continuous duty with a carrier, during which he flies less than 8 hours, can he be given a reduced rest of 8 hours at the completion of the 16 hours of continuous duty and a compensatory rest of 10 hours at his next rest period? In the Comair scenario, if a required 9 hour rest period is reduced to 8 hours, then no later than 24 hours after the commencement of the reduced rest period, a minimum compensatory rest period of 10 ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1990/Edmunds.rtf |
| In your letter, you ask if it is permissible to mount the airworthiness certificate on the side of the cockpit door facing into the cockpit so that only the flight crew can see it when the door is closed. No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section [§ 91.27] or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.28 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew. Since § 91.27(b) ... Click here for full text: .../interps/1990/Ceruzzi.rtf |
9:32 am ET January 12, 2009