Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) Federal Aviation..., 1988 WL 1517416...

© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

1988 WL 1517416 (D.O.T.)

Department of Transportation (D.O.T.)

Federal Aviation Administration

Legal Interpretation

Interpretation 1988-18

September 21, 1988

Manager, Flight Standards Division, ANM-200, attention Ansel McAllaster

*1 This is in response to your request that we provide an interpretation of FAR, Part, Section 121.711 which requires air 

carriers to record all “en route” contact between the air carrier and its pilots. Specifically, you inquired as to whether §

121.711 requires air carriers to record all communications from push-back to block-in or whether it requires only airborne 

communications.

The issue is whether pushing-back, taxiing, and blocking-in are activities within the scope of the definition of “en route.”

Specifically, whether “en route” includes any ground activity before take-off or after touch down? For the following reasons 

we conclude that “en route” means from the time of lift-off to the time of touch down:

1) The most recent CFR, Part, Section 121.711 does not clarify this issue because it does not contain a definition of “en 

route.” However, past definitions of “en route” indicate that the aircraft had to be airborne before it was considered “en 

route.” Prior to 1965, the code contained a definition of “en route” which read:

“En route means the entire flight from the point of origination to the point of termination, including intermediate stops” (14 

CFR 41.5 (1964)).

Incorporated within the above definition of “en route” is the idea that the aircraft must be engaged in “flight.” No matter how 

one defines “flight,” the connotation is that the object must literally be flying through the air. Since “en route” is 

encompassed within the concept of “flight,” it logically follows that aircraft “en route” must literally be airborne, thereby 

eliminating any ground activity from the definition of “en route.”

2) Past definitions of “route” indicate that the redactors intended an aircraft to be airborne before it was considered “en 

route.” Prior to 1965 the code contained specific language with respect to the definition of “ “route” which read:

“A route is the airspace on either side of a course or courses joining those points on the surface of the earth between which 

the air carrier is authorized to conduct scheduled operations.” (14 CFR 41.5 (1964)).

The above definition limits “route” to “airspace” joining points on the surface. “Airspace,” by itself, eliminates the idea that a 

“route” can be anything but airborne travel. Additionally, had the redactors intended “ “route” to include ground activity, they 

would not have enacted the article including the imaginary points on the surface. Clearly, the redactors intended the surface

points to be lift-off and touch down thereby eliminating the idea that “route” included ground activity. Had the redactors 

intended “ “route” to encompass all ground activity, the language of the article would have explicitly embodied several points 

of reference on the surface instead of only the points on either side of a course. Clearly, an aircraft cannot pass through only 

two points on the surface if it taxis from the gate to the runway and from the runway to the gate.

*2 3) Interpretations of surrounding code articles indicate that the redactors intended “en route” to include only airborne 

activities. A well settled principle of statutory or codal interpretation is that every word or phrase must be given effect. If an 

interpretation renders words or phrases meaningless, it is presumed to be incorrect. The idea is that the redactors would never 

enact language which was extraneous or useless. Additionally, words or phrases should be construed, unless the context 

otherwise requires, in accordance with the definition of the same or similar terms used in other articles. This creates a 

presumption that the same word or phrase appearing in several code articles retains the same meaning throughout. Thus, if 

the meaning of a word or phrase is obvious in one code article, it is presumed to retain the same meaning in an ambiguous 

code article, absent specific language to the contrary.
Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) Federal Aviation..., 1988 WL 1517416...

© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

The Code is pervaded with regulations wherein the meaning of “en route” is unambiguous. The expression frequently appears 

within a series of aircraft surface and airborne activities. In several instances “en route” is surrounded by the terms “takeoff”

and “landing” (c.f., FARS 121.311, 23.1045, 25.25, 25.101, 25.699, 25.1045, 125.211, 125.287, 127.63, 127.109, 135.293, 

175.320). For example, Part, Section 121.311 states in pertinent part:

(a) No person may operate an aircraft unless they are available during the takeoff, en route flight, and 

landing ...

If the interpretation of these sections were construed to include every activity from push-back to block-in, then both “takeoff”

and “landing” would be extraneous to the regulation. To give meaning to the terms “takeoff” and ““landing,” within the 

scheme of these sections, both must fall outside the meaning of “en route.” Clearly, the redactors intended that “en route” was 

the period between takeoff and landing thereby excluding all ground activity. To construe “en route” otherwise would render 

the language of “takeoff” and ““landing” extraneous, clearly unintended by the redactors.

Premised upon the idea that the redactors intended “en route” to have the same meaning from one section of the code to 

another, one can only infer that “en route” in Part, Section 121.711 takes on the same meaning as it has in other related 

articles. Most of the articles which incorporate the term “en route” can only be construed to mean airborne activities, thus, 

clarifying that “en route” is the point from liftoff to touch down.

For the aforementioned reasons, a carrier is in compliance with § 121.711 if recordation commences at lift-off and ends at 

touch down.

John H. Cassady

Assistant Chief Counsel

Regulations and Enforcement Division, AGC-200

1988 WL 1517416 (D.O.T.)

End of Document © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.