10/17/2014 15:08 8472947498 FAA GLRC

U.S. :OEPARTMENT OF TRANSl'ORTATION OFFICE OF liEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN THE MATTER OF

**T~NS** NORTH AVIATION, LTD. (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. (FAA

- 2013-46)

AGENCY'S CLOSING BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS Trans North Aviation, Ltd. (hereinafter Trans North) is an on demand air taxi that operates under a 14 C.P.R. part 135 Air Carrier Certificate with required Operation Specifications. 

### Mr. Ronald Schaberg is the President and at all the times mentioned herein the Director ofOperations for Trans North. This case involves the violation of 14 

### CXR. part 267(d) On January 15,2013, a Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty was sent to Trans North stating that they had violated the rest requirements of 14 C.F.R. part 135. 267(d) which requires a pilot 

### in command to have ten hours ofrest 

### in the preceding 24hom: look back period from the tinle ofcompletion ofthe assignment and assessing a civil penalty of $7500.00 dollars ifTrans North did not appeal the Final Notice. They appealed admitting all a.!legations ofthe Complaint except they denied that the Trans North's and their assigned pilot, 

### Mr. Didier, did not provide for at least 10 consecutive hours ofrest during the 24 hour period that preceded the planned completion time oftile fl.ight assignment on PAGE 05/1810/17/2014 15:08 8472947498 FAA GLRC PAGE 07/18

November 28, 2011. A hearing was held on July 23, 2013. This briefis the closing the a.rgument for the hearing. On or about November 26, 2011, Mr. Schaberg, accepted an assignment to provide an air ambulance flight to transport a hospital patient from West Palm Beach, Florida Airport (airport identifier KPBI) to Chicago Executive Airport (identifier KPWK) in 111inois. After receiving the assignment he contacted one ofTrans North's pilots on November 26, 20ll, Mr. Didier, and gave him verbal instruction to fly aixcraft N4599F a Cessna Model CE 340 to West Palm Beach, Florida, pick up a hospital patient and then fly to Chicago Executive Airport in Illinois with the patient. He was to be accompanied on the trip by a paramedic, Maynard Blodgett, who would care for the patient on the return trip (Tr. pgs. 210-212). At the time ofreceiving the assigmnent, Mr. Schaberg testi:fied he used a computer site for flight planning to review on the computer program a flight plan. for the trip and determined whether it would be safe and in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations to perform. this assignment with Mr. Didier as Pilot In Command. The initial plan included a flight to West Palm Beach onNovember 27, 2011, an overnight stay, fuel stops·and picking up and transporting the patient on a late morning flight to Chicago Executive Airport on November 

### 28, 201 L Schaberg identified this as his plan "A" for the trip during his testimony (Tr. pgs. 

### 21 8"226) 1• Pilot Didier did take offfrom Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and began his flight to West Palm Beach Airport On November 27, 20ll. During the flight, the pDot discovered that there was a failure ofthe attitude indicator on the aircraft and he landed at the Cravvfordville, IndianaAirport (identifier KCFJ). He notified Mr. Schaberg that he would be unable to complete the assignment and flight to West Palm Beach with the aircraft 

### ifit could not be

1 Duriug this testimony Mr. Schaberg was referring to Exhibit R-1 which was a printed recreation ofwhat he said he did to prepare for the flight under ''Plan A" however thi1 document was prepared on July 21, 2013. The document was prepared in summer weather, the flight was to take place at lhe end ofNovember 20 11. D1e Judge accepted it into evidence for a limited purpose over objections bythe Administmtor. Tho Judge stated it would be

**u.~ed** to only show the procedures required to prepare a flight plan. Mr. Schaber failed to print out either the fiight plan for l'lau. A or plan B. 210/17/2014 15:08 8472947498 FAA GLRC

fixed. Mr. Schaberg attempted to find another part to replace the failed part but was not able to- 

### Mr. Schaberg decided to dispatch another aircraft ownedby the Company to fly to Crawfordville that would allow Pilot Didier and the Paramedic to complete the assignment u.sing an another aircraft. Mr. Schaberg contacted his Assistant ChiefPilot, Quentin Levitte, to fly the aircraft owned by the Trans North, a PiperNavaho Chieftain N59773, from Oshkosh to Crawfordville with another PilotAndrew Wolf, a Col:nmercial Pilot, multi engine rated but who had no experience in a Navaho. Mr. Wolfflew th.e Navaho aircraft from Oshkosh to Crawfordville with Levitte instructing him and familiarizing 

### him with the aircraft during the flight. 

### Mr- Wolfwas told that he would fly the Part 91 flights2 from CrawfordviJle to West Palm Beach the next day withDidier and Blodgett onboard. Pilot Didier would pick up the patient in the early afternoon and he would fly the patientback to Chicago Executive after a fuel stop. 

### Mr. Schaberg called this his plan "B" after the failure ofthe attitude indicator onthe first aircraft. He stated that he again checked the flight plan on the computer and determined that the flight could be flovm within all ofthe Part 135 rules including pilot flight and rest times. Plan "B'' now had the aircraft flying from Crawfordville to West Palm Beach with the return flight beginning early afternoon rather than late morning as originally planned (Tr.pgs.224-232) Other than his testimony, Mr. Schaberg had no other proofthat he had reviewed these flight plans or that they had been checked- For Plan B he testified that the flight could be safely flown since atthe end ofthe planned completion ofthe assignment Pilot Didier would have still met his I0 hours ofrest. There would have been l 01/2 hours ofrest time at the completion ofthe assignment (Tr. pgs 224-229). Mr. Schaberg knew at that time that the rest time requirement of 135.267(d) was being cut close and that almost any delay in this flight would result in a violation ofthe I0 hour rest period.

'A Part 91 flight is a flight flown under 14 C.F.R. Part 91 rules when the flight is not being flown for compensation or hire in air transportation and may be arepositioning flight as this one wa..•:;. 

### 3 PAGE 08/1810/17/2014 15:08 8472947498 FAA GLRC

On November 28,2011, Pilot Wolfwas to fly the early morning Part 91 flight to West Palm Beach from Crawfordville. However, Pilot Didierflew that leg with a stop for fuel. Both Pilot Andrew Wolfand Paramedic Blodgett stated duxing telephonic i.nterviews with the Federal Aviation Safety Inspector investigating the accident, that in fact Pilot Didier flew all four flights on November 28, 2011 (See Agency Exhibits A-7 and A-13). Pilot Didier was also listed as PIC on all filed and activated IFRflight plans (filed by Didier) on November 28,2011 (See Exhibit A-10). Didier flew the flight from Crawfordvii!e to West Palm Beach with. a stop at PerryHouston County Airport (KPXE), Perry, Georgia, for fuel, and then flew to WestPalm Beach to pi.ck up the patient The Aircraft arrived at West Palm Beach to pick up the patient at 2:54p.m. EST, however the ambulance carrying the patient and his wife did not arrive at the agreed upon tim.e (according 

### to the Schaberg plan B 1:20 -125:p.m. CST on Nov. 28)3 When the aircraft landed at West Palm Beach the flight was already almost one halfhour late then theplanned time 

### in. Plan B. PAGE 09/18

Schaberg became aware ofa delay when the aircraft was on the ground since he testified that he called Lauren Smith in the office to inquire about the flight and she responded that they were running a little bit late because the ambulance was "lost" (Tr. 231 ). Outing questioning Mr. Schaberg stated he did notknow the time he received th.e information and that he never checked again onthe flight and did notreceive confirmation that 

### it had taken offeven though he admitted teA;ting D.idier about hotels and transportation at Chicago El\ecutive (Palwaukee) while the airc(aft was on the ground inJessup. He again denied knowing what time that was (Tr pgs. 245-246) Since the ''schedule" for plan B only had a one halfhour cushion oftime before the 10 hour rest period would come intojeopardy ofbeing violated, 

### it was the duty ofthe
' Schabergdid all ofhis plaJ)ning in CST even though the flight would be traveling into EST while the Flight Aware record is mostly in EST. 410/17/2014 15:08 FAA GLRC

Director ofOperations to recalculate the actual planned completion time ofthe flight based on the specific condii:ion that existed onthat day to determine whether a flight should be commenced. In fact the ambulance arrived two and halfto three hours later then the original planned time. The one halfhour ofdelayed arrival at West Palm Bea,ch would have compromised the ten hour rest period and changed the planned completion time ofthe flight. It was at this time that Schaberg should have taken measures to ensure that the flight could be accomplished safely without violation ofthe 10 hour rest period basedupon the actual conditions onthat day at that time or make other arrangements for the patient. The Aviation Safety Inspector assigned to investigate the accident for violations ofthe Federal Aviation. Regulations governing Partl35 operations gathered and reviewed the evidence for any such violations (Tr. Pages 65

- 66) 

### ANAJ_,YSIS Pilot Didier's rest ended when he came on duty at 6:00a.m. CST (7:00 EST) at Crawfordville Airport on November 28,2011. Didier took offfrom West Palm Beach at 5:53p.m. EST and flew to Jessup-Wayne County Airport (KJES), Georgia, for fuel and after fueling at Jessup he departed for the final segment ofthe assignment with an intended destination ofChicago Executive Airport (KPWK). The aircraft ran out offuel and crashedjust short ofthe Chicago Executive Airport (KPWK) at 10:39 p.m. CST, killing ti.J.e two passengers and Pilot Didier. The two survivors were Pilot Andrew Wolf and the Paramedic Mr. Maynard Blodgett, Looking at the 24 hour look back period using 10:39 p.m. CST onNovember 28, 2011, as the beginning ofthe 24 hour look back we find that Didier was in his scheduled a rest period at that time on the November 27, 2011. We then determine the number hours of rest 

### by looking forward to the time whenthat rest came to an end at which was at 6:00 a.m. CST on the 28'"' the Aviation Safety Inspector determined that Pilot Didier had only

5 PAGE 10/1810/17/2014 15:08 8472947498 FAA GLRC

7.3**hour~** ofrest in the preceding 24 hours in violation ofthe 10 hour rule preceding the completion ofthe assignment. (Tr. 81 to 102)(See Agency Exhibit A-ll) 14 C.P.R. § 135.267. Flight time limitations and rest requirements: Unscheduled one-and two pilot crews in (b) states the number ofhours that may be flown in any 24 consecutive hours may not exceed 8 hours for a flight crew consisting ofone pilot. This case is about 135.267(d) that states as follows: "(d) Each assignment under paragraph (b) ofthis section mustprovide for at least 10 consecutive hours ofrest during the 24 hour peri.od that precedes the planned completion time ofthe assignment." These rules were enacted to provide protection against acute short-term fatigue for crewmembers and ensure safety ofthe flights (See Flight Time limitation and Rest Requirements, 50 Fed. Reg. 29306, July 18, 1985). While subsection 135(c) allows for a crewmembers flight time to exceed flight time limits during a regularly assigned duty period ofno more than 14 hours, it still requires that it mustbe preceded bythe 10 hours ofrest and in addition must be followed immediately by lOhours ofrest( See 135.267(c) (!)) PAGE ll/18

While reviewing the evidence the Aviation Safety Inspector realized that there was a violation ofthe 10 hour rest period by Pilot Didier. To verify tl1i.s discovery, the ASI reviewed the Load Manifests she found inthe wrecked aircraft (Agency Ex. A-8) prepared by the pilot with times recorded 

### in Central Standard Time. She also reviewed the JfR which were really an estimate ofthe time ofdeparture and was given in UTC or ZULU time. The second document that she reviewed was Flight Aware with times for departure and arrival recorded mostly in Eastern Stan.dard Time with the time ofthe crash recorded in CST (Agency Ex. A-ll). Flight Aware is a computer generated record relying on Air Traffic Control input as to the times ofdeparture and the times ofarrival. She also reviewed the IFR which were really an estimate ofthe time ofdeparture and was given inUTC or ZULU time and also give an estimate ofthe time the flight would take.

610/17/2014 15:08 8472947498 FAA GLRC

The ASI reconciled the time differences ofthe ofthe first two documents and found that they agreed in general with regard to the times when the aircraft had begun the flights and when it had landed. There were a few minutes ofdifference inthe two sources because one ofthem was based onthe pilots records and one ofthem, Flight Aware, were based on actual Air Traffic Control computer records. TI1e aircraft arrived in West Palm Beach at 2:54p.m. EST (1 :54 CST) onNovember 28, 2011, almost a halfhour late from Schaberg's Plan "B" that had the aircraft scheduled to meetthe ambulance with the patient at (1 :20-1:25 estimated time for planB CST) according to 

### Mr. Schaberg for pick up ofthe patient and in reality did not depart until 5:53 EST toJessup, Georgia for fuel and did not depart Jessup until 7:36p.m. EST with the completion ofthe flight at 10:39 CST (ll :39 EST)
. The ASI found that Pilot Didier had 16.7 duty hours and only 7.3 rest hours in the 24 hour look back period hence violating the required 10 hours ofrest regulation 135.267(d) Even ifDidier 

### had not flown the first two legs ofthe flight he still would have been charged with duty hours since "deadbeading" to perform flights under 135 is not considered rest time since he is still being required to do so by the operator. The Evidence obtained by the Agency proves that Trans North Aviation, LTD and Pilot Didier violated the required rest time of: 10 hours by almostthree hours. Trans North failed to recalculate and prepare a new flight plan when changed conditions occurred due to a delay to determine ifthe flight from Palm Beachto Chicago Executive couldbe safely performed within therest limitations imposed by 14 C.F.R. 267 (d) (Tr. pg. 132- 136). Because ofthe delay Trans North alleged that the flight could still be performed under the exception peo:nitted in 135.267(e) which states: 14 C.F.R. § 267(e) When a flight crewmember has exceeded the daily flight time limitations in this secti.on, because ofcircumstances beyond the control ofthe certi:ficate 7 PAGE 12/1810/17/2014 15:08 8472947498 FAA GLRC PAGE 13/18

holder or flight crewmember (such as adverse weather conditions), that flight crewmember must have a rest period before being assigned or accepting an assignment for flight time ofat least • (1) 

### ll consecutive hours ofrest ifthe flight time is exceeded by not more than 30 minutes; (2) 12 consecutive hours ofrest ifthe flight time limitation is exceeded by more than 30 minutes, but not more than 60 minutes. (3) 16 hours ofrest ifthe flight time limitation is exceeded by more than 60 minutes.
Tbis regttlation speaks to pilots who have exceeded the daily 

### flight time limitations and the rest is proactive requiring additiooal rest afterwards. It does excuse the required 10 hours ofrest in required in l35.267(d). 

### ARGUMENT When 

### it was discovered that the patient pick up had been delayed it should have been determined at what point the flight could no longer be flown safely by Pilot Didier. i.e. at whattime would the plarmed completion ofthe flight take place considering all ofthe factors and conditions. The Whitlow letter 4(interpretation :2000) provides "look back" rest is computed by actual expected flight time and taxi bl time, based onthe specific conditions that exist onthe day to determine the planned arrival times for purposes of determining whether a flight should be comme11ced. Mr. Schaberg did not do any flight planning for the last leg ofthat flight which he is required to do when there are changed circumstances that require a newplanned completion time ofthe flight. While the aircraft was still onthe ground there were other options for the 135 operator could to take into consideration in. order not to violate the rest rule. On the ground there was no emergency. While the flight crewkuew the condition ofthe patient (critical) it does not relieve the 135 operator orpilot from his duty and vigilance to comply with th.e rules. Once he found

4 The Whitlow letter is an**interpretatio~** offlight and duty times and rest requirements issued in a letter in answer to scenarios presented by airman to the FAA in 2000. Upheld in the 2001 ATA et. al v. FAA. 810/17/2014 15:08 8472947498 FAA GLRC

that there 

### was a delay he had a duty to once again do a flight plan to determine ifhe could complete the assignment within the rules and ifhe could not to inform tbe patient or his wife that the flight could not 

### be flown. Agency Exhibit A-2 the operation specifications Paragraph 008 b. states: "(1) The certificate holder retains all responsibility for the operational control of aircraft operations, and thus for the safety ofeach flight conducted under this certificate and operations specifications, including the actions ofall direct employees and agents ofthe certificate holder. (2) Tbis responsibility is not transferable to any other person or entity. (3) The certificate holder's responsibility for operational control supersedes any agreement, contract, understanding or agreement, either oral or written, expressed or implied, between any person or entity." Mr. Schaberg had the responsibility to ensure that the flight could be accomplished .in a safe marrner in accordance withthe 

### FAA 135 Regulations. He failed to do so. Specifically ifwhen the information is factored in, it is known or should be known that anival based upon the actual expected flight time will not result 

### in at least eighthour of look-back rest upon arrival, then. the flight may not depart (See Whitlow Letter). The operations specifications states the Elements ofOperational Control in Paragraph d. These elements include (l)(b) CrewrnemberRequirements including currently trained and or tested, qualified, 

### and holds the appropriate 

### airman and medical certificates, to conduct flights for 

### the certificate holder under 

### Part 135 including required rest. (Agency Exhibit A-2)
There have been a continuous stream of.interpretation. ofthe fllgbt and rest time starting even before the infamous James Whitlow letter in 2000 but even that letter was challenged by ATA et. al v. federal Aviation Administration. That letter is based upon questionsregarding flight and rest times under 14 C.F.R. 12L471. The requests were made by a Captain Rubin who gave several scenarios au.d requested an answer as to whether the outcome ofthe sceuado would. be a violation ofthe tegulation. While the letter itselfis about the 121.471 rules its decisions have beeu used to interpret the !35 9 PAGE 14/1810/17/2014 15:08 8472947498 FAA GLRC

regulations also. The letter was challenged in the United States Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia in ATA ct. 

### a1 v. Federal Aviation Administration. In that opinion the Judge noted in a footnote (Page 2 footnote l) that "The flight time limitation rules applicable to "major scheduled air carriers" and "other airlines operating large transport category airplanes" are contained in Part 1:2.1 ofthe FAR. T11e flight time limitation rules applicable to scheduled air carriers operating airplanes of30 or fewer seats and air taxi operations are contaip,ed in Part 135 ofthe FAR. The substance ofthe rules in Parts 121 and 135 is essentially the same and the rules are likewise interpreted". A number ofinterpretations of 135 rules have used the guidance provided in the Whitlow letter of2000 to answer the questions posed. Whenthe Aviation Safety Inspector was asked about one of the Legal Interpretations as to whether the delay of the patient was uoforeseeable she answered yes but that it was not foreseen beyond tbeir control. They could control whether their flight was going to depart or not. When asked on cross examination she was asked "And the condition ofthat patient may be a factor in whether 

### or not to continue on with the flight or not, wouldn't it? A. As a pilot, I wouldn't, the passenger orthe patient wouldn't be a determination ifthe flight should go or not." The testimony goes onwith the ASI stating they should worry about the weather, time on duty fuel all that kind ofstuff, notthe passenger. She went on to say a passenger that critical. should be staying on. tb.e ground, not in an airplane (Tr. Pgs.!SS-170), We haveto remember this ASI is someone 

### with extensive knowledge and experience in aircraft. She has a double major college degree in aviation, Regional Airline pilot experience, Flight School pilot, Flight Instructor and ll years as a Safety Inspector. She knows the risks that are inherent in any flight. The interpretation that Respondent's Attorney was alluding to during this testimony was an interpretation letter to Mr. Kidd issued on Nov. 13, 2012 (after the accident) that asked about flight delays for a 135 cenificate holders, unscheduled cargo and passenger, and describes various delays for reason "beyond the control ofthe certificate holder" and asks ifthe flights can continue would they be violating 135, 10 PAGE 15/1810/17/2014 15:08 8472947498 FAA GLRC

267(d). The answer goes on to say that in a previous decision that the key to the applicability of 135-267(d) is in the final phrase 

### 'plannedcompletion' ofthe assignment. But then goes on to say th.e flight may nevertheless be conducted even though crew duty time may extend beyond 14 hours. So ittalks about planned completion then reverts to "crew duty time" not rest time in a 24 hourperiod. Last sentence in the interpretation says "However we emphasize that in order for th.e circumstances-beyond-the-control-of-the-certificate-holder doctrine to apply, the original 2002 completion time must have been realistically scheduled." Was the 

### last leg ever realisti.cally scheduled; -no- 

### it was never scheduled at alL The one that Schaberg claims to have reviewed (Plan B) was reviewed on the 27111 , the day before 

### this flight and it onlyhad a built in cushion ofone halfhour. Realistic?- no. After the two and one halfhour delay, the planned completiontime had to be recalculated" Shortly after this interpretation was released, another interpretation came out that gave evenmore clarity to the rest requirement. On December 19, 2012 (again after the flight in question) in a letter to Captain Peter WH!ums, the

### FAA stated: In a Legal Interpretation from Rebecca B. MacPherson to Patrick Ryan (February23, 2006) we stated, "prior interpretations applying section 121.47l(g)to scheduled flight time limit in section 121.471 (a)(4) articulate the safety rationale that underpins 

### the rule. The Agency has said that flights may exceed the flight time limits in a narrowly drawn context, namely:

a The delay results from circumstances beyond the control ofthe carrier; and b. The carrier's original schedule is realistic
.

.. . . Thus the FAA emphasizes that the rule only applies to flight limitations. 

### In 2000, the 

### FAA "i.ssued a seminal interpretation known as the Whitlow Letter The Whitlow Letter clarified that the circumstancesbeyond-the-control-of-the-certificate"ho)der only applies to the scheduling 11 PAGE 15/1810/17/2014 15:08 8472947498 FAA GLRC



### offlight time and does not apply to rest periods. Thus the Whitlow Letter determined the circumstances beyond the control ofthe certificate holder would not permit a flight crewmember to take offon aflight segment ifthe flight crewmember knows, prior to takeoffthat completing the flight segment would infringe on a required rest period." See, 

### Legal Interpretation :from Rebecca B. 

### MacPherson to Mr. James Johnson (Nov. 5, 2012). 

### Anyone would be sympathetic to an elderly critically 

### illpatient wanting to 

### get closer to home. However we must consider the safety ofeveryone including the pilot, the otherfour souls on board the aircraft and the people on the ground ifwe are to operate safe system oftransportation. Wherefore, the Federal Aviation Administration respectfully request the Judge to affirm a $7500.00 

### civil penalty against Trans 

### North Aviation LTD. 

### Respectfully submitted,



# ~~b~;w~ Attorney Office 

### ofthe Regional 

### Counsel

**~AA** Great Lakes 

### Region Des Plaines, IL 

### 60018 (847) 294"7208 (direct) (847) 294-7313 (main) Fax(847)Z94-7498

12 PAGE 17/1810/17/2014 15:08 8472947498 FAA GLRC PAGE 18/18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing was served via overnight mail and fax to the Judge and facsimile and overnight mail to Mr. Barnett, Ill, Esq. Respondents Representative at the following addresses and facsimile numbers: Original and One Copy:

One Copy: Judge Richard C. Goodwin Hearing Docket Office ofHearings M20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. EastBuilding Ground Floor Room El2-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 Fax 202"366-7536 Charles 

### R. Barnett, Ill Counsel for Respondent Barnett & Borth, LLC 800 Waukegan Road, Ste. 200 Glenview, IL 60025 Fax (815) 356-7042

Dated this 5th day ofSeptember, 2013.



# ~-g;J~ FAA Great Lakes10/17/2014 15:12 8472947498 FAA GLRC PAGE 02/1710/17/2014 15:12 8472947498 FAA GLRC PAGE 03/17

**u.s.~Jeportmenr** OfllonsporrotiQn 600 **tm:t'!:!pendenc~** A VI:!., SW.

**W:.u;l-lin~lon.** D.C. 20591 federalAvla!!on Adrniriotrallon 

### NOV 2 0 

## 2000 Captain Richard D. Rubin, Chainnan Allied Pilots Association 

### I4600 TrinityBoulevard Suite 500 Fott Worth, Texas 76155-2512 Dear Captain Rubin: 

### This is inresponse to yourrecent letterto 

### me, ofSeptember26, 2000, concerning various questions that have arisen as a result ofthe implementation ofchanges to the pilot reserve system at American Airlines. Your questions are based on the flight time 

### and rest regulations that 

### are applicable to domestic operations. The facts, situations and questions that you present are setforth below. 

### ! have also responded to each question separately below.

**Fact~:** A crew is assigned reserve standby dutycommencing

### at 060(). Thl'"y are then called at 

### 0900 to check in for a flight assignment at 

### .1100. End ofR.ost ROJ?ott at Release at Sched. Rest Look-back Rest Day l 0600 l!OO 2!00 10:00 9:00 Day2 0700 0700 1700 12:00 !0:¢0 In the above example, assume that the crew was assigned to three segments with a total ofless than 8 hours offlying in ea.ch duty period and that the scheduled block-in ofthe last flight ofeach day is 15 minutes prior torelease. This original sehedule does not require compensatoryrest. 

### 1note, preliminarily, thatyour letter states that I should assume that the flight crew "was assigned to three segments with a total ofless than 8 hours offlying in each dutyperiod." I assume that bythat statementyou mean "less than a tota,l 8 hours ofscheduled 

### flight time forthethree flight segments, on both Day 1 and Day2.'' Based on that assumption, the regulations that I 

### will apply arethose that require a minimum of9 consecutive hours ofscheduled rest (section l21.47l(b)(I)) that may be reduced to a minimum of8 hours with a minimum ofI0 hours compensatory rest that must begin 110 later than 24 hours after the commencement10/17/2014 15:12 8472947498 FAA GLRC



### -2- 

### of thereduced rest (section 121A71 ( c

### )(I)(the "reduced/compensatory rest" exception)). I 

### have also made other assumptiom or clarifications that are 

### described in my responses below. Situation 1: On 

### Day !,.all 

### goes according to plan 

### on the ftrst two segments. However, 

### after leaving the gate on the 

### third segment, the crew encounters 

### an unanticipated ground delay that results in only an 8 

### hour, 45 

### minutes look-back rest period upon termination at destination. I. 

### Is compensatory restnowrequired upon landing? Response: You do 

### not provide specific details on what is 

### the

**t~Jmination** 

### time ofthe last flight segment. (I 

### assume that by "tennination at destination" you mean the "tennination ofthe last flight segment.'") However, you state, above, that the flight 

### crew would only receive an 

### 8 

### hours and 45 

### minutes look-back rest period, I 

### therefore assume that the termination ofthat last flight segment, based on 

### the other factual details you provide above, was at 

### 2115. Lookingback 

### 24 hours from 

### 21 I5 

### on Day 

### 1to 

### 2115 on the day priorto Day 

### I, one finds only 

### 8 and 

### three quarters consecutive hours ofrest 

### in the period 2!15 

### (ofthe day priorto Day 1) 

### to 

### 0600 hours (on 

### Day l)" The only situation in which acettificate-holder may reduce the minimum 

### 9 hourrequired rest period is 

### to utilize the ''reduced/compensatory rest" exception that allows certificate holders the flexibility to adjust sc)ledulcd rests in 

### the event of!ate arrivals. Thus, a certificate holder may reduce the required scheduled rest so that one finds a minimum look-back rest of8 consecutive hours on termination ofthe last flight segment, as well as provide the required compensatory rest. In your scenario, the certificate holder could reduce 

### the required minimum 9 

### consecutive 

### hours of scheduled rest to 

### 8 and three-quarters hours. 1 

### However, the certificate holdermust also provide the flight crewmember with a compensatory rest period of

### at least 

### 10 

### hours 

### that must begin no later 

### than 24 

### hours after conunencement oftherc!duced rest period. In your scenario, that compensatoiY rest must begin at 2115 on Day 1, since the reduced rest begins at 2115 on-the day 

### before Day 1.

1 I note

**th~t** the

**ccrtifi~te** holder collfd red.ulle the

**.~;chedule<f** rest to a minimum ofS hours. PAGE 04/1710/17/2014 15:12 8472947498 FAA GLRC



### 2. In the case ofa ground delay prior to take-off, would tbe crew and certificate holderbe correct in using planned flight time and 

### taxi-in time 

### in determining the scheduled arrival time'? · Response: The FAA (equires the crew and the certificate holde(to use the actual expected flight time and taxi-in time, based on the specific conditions that exist on the day, to detenninethe scheduled arrival tim.e for purposes ofdetermining whether a flight should be commenced. for example, ifan airline has published a flight time ofthree hours, but knows that the actual time the fiight will take is four hours because ofweathe(, ground delays, etc., then the FAA 

### requires the canier to use four hours fur pm:poses·ofcalculating the arrival time. On th.e other hand, 

### ifthe air carriet has scheduled a flight for three hours, but on the day 

### in question, 

### it is reasonable to conclude that flight 

### time would only be two and

## a halfhours, the carrier may use two and a halfhours 

### to calculate the arrival time. 3. Ifthe ground delay continues to the point that the look-back rest is reduced below 8 hours, can the crew continue? Ifso, what are the rest requirements upon arrival? Response: The flight

### may not take offif

### the look'-back rest period is reduced to less than 8hours. There must be at least an eight-hour lookback rest period. The eight-hour miliimum· reduced rest may not be further reduced under any circumstance. 4. 

### Ifa ground delay, that would result 

### in a late arrival that would not provide at least 8 hour.; oflook-back rest is known by the certificate holder and/or crew prior to gate departure, can the crew depart legally based upon the published scheduled flight time? Response: No. As stated above, the F M requires the crew and tbe certificate holder to use the actual expected flight 

### time and taxi-in time, based on the specific conditions that exist on 

### the day, 

### to detennine the scheduled arrival time for purposes ofdetermining whether a flight should be conunenced, Ifthe actual expected flight time is longer than the can:ier originally calculated in detennlning the scheduled aui.val time, then the actual expected flight time must be used in determining the look-back rest period. PAGE 05/1710/17/2014 15:12 8472947498 FAA GLRC PAGE 05/17

-4- 

### Situation 2. On Day I, the crew is late inbound on the second segment which results in not being able to leave the gate on the third and last segment on time. As a 

### result, the look-back would now provide 8hours and 45 

### minutes rest in

### the previous 24,

### based on the scheduled duration ofthe final segment. 

### 1. Is compensatory rest now required upon arrival? Response: Yes. Compensatory 

### rest would 

### be required upon 

### arrival at the third destination. See the discussion in my response to question 

### 1of Situation 

### 1above. 2. 

### Ifthe crew were further delayed so that they could not departtoprovide at 

### least 

### 8 hours oflook-backrest upon arrival, could they depart legally? Response: No. If, when using the actual expected flight time, the cattier cannot find at least 8 hours oflook-back rest upon arrival, then the flight may not depart, under the 

### FAA regulations. See myresponse to question 

### 3 ofSituation 1

### above. 

### 3.

**Ifthe~e** 

### is a known ground stop for the destination ofthe 

### ftn.al segment, which would result in look-back rest ofonly 

### 7hours 

### and 45 minutes, 

### can the crew legally leave the gate? 

### Ifthey are offthe gate when the ground s!erp 

### occurs, can they continue? Response: 

### Ifit is known, orreasonably should be known, that the flight time will be extended because ofground stops at the destination airport, then this information must be included in determiningthe actual expected flight 

### time. If, when this information is factored in, it

### is known or should be known that arrival based upon the actual expected 

### tJight 

### time wHl not result in at least 8hours oflook-back rest, then the 

### flight may not leave the gate. Ifthe !light 

### is away from the gate, but is notyet in the alr, then the flight 

### may not take off. Ifthe ground stops at the destination airport do not become known until afterthe flight is in the air, the 

### FAA will not, as a matter ofenforcementpolicy, take enforcement action against the fligbt 

### crcvvmember orthe certificate holder for a violation ofthe regulations, provided the ground stops at 

### the destination aitport are 

### an unforeseen delay beyond the control ofthe certificate bolder and the full, required minimum reduced rest and the compensatory rest are given at the completion ofthe flight segment.10/17/2014 15:12 8472947498 FAA GLRC



### -5- 4. Should the scheduled arrival time in 3 above be based upon published scheduled flight time orflight planned duration (flight timeplus taxi 

### time)? Response: Arrival time in 

### 3 above should be based on flight planned dru:ation, i.e., the-actual eiqJected 

### flight time based on the conditions existing on the day 

### In question. Also, I am not surewhat you mean by 

### "published scheduled flight time." 

### If you mean scheduled flight time as published in the Official Airline Guide (OAG), 

### such flight 

### time may be unrealistically high. Sometimes a certificate holdermight overestimate the duration of

### a flight 

### in ordertohave 'some cushion 

### in the schedule and be able to report an on-time arrival. The actual realistic flight time (block to blocktime) may be less than such "published scheduled 

### flight time" in. the OAG.

. 

### 5. Would the reason for the crew being late on the second flight (beyond 

### !he control ofthe air canier or not) have any bearing onthe rest requirement? Response: I assume that your question is whether section 121.471(g) (th.e "circumstancesbeyond the corltrol ofthe ccttificate holder'' exception) excuses a rest violation. No. That exception applies only to the scheduling offlight time. 

### 1t is inapplicable to, and does not excuse, a violation ofa rest requiremef!t. Also see myresponse to question 1 ofSituation 1 in which I discuss th.e use ofthe"reduced/compensatoryrest" exception, its pOipose, and compliance with its tenns. PAGE 07/17



### Situatiou 3: On Day l,one ofthe can-ier's hubs is impacted by 

### a weather system in the morning. As a result, the carrier decides to 

### delay all remaining departure times that day outofthe hub_ l. Ifa 

### departure so delayed 

### would result io a crew having look-backrest of less than 9 hours, would compensatory rest be required? Response: Yes. (l

### assume that the look-back rest, which is less than 9 honrs, would stili be at

### least 8 hours.) 2. Ifthe delay resulted in 

### a cxew having look-back rest 

### of!ess than 8 hours, could a crew legally depart? Response; No. The FAAwould considefthis flight to be in violation ofthe regulations.10/17/2014 15:12 8472947498 FAA GLRC



### Situation 4. The crew and air carrier know, priorto departure, that forecast winds orenroute weather arc resulting in a flightplan for that segment 

### that exceeds the normal duration published in

### the carrier's schedules. 1. Can the crew legally depart 

### ifthe scheduled arrival time based on the flight plan would encroach upon 

### or delay 

### the required 

### start of

### a .compensatory rest period? Response: I assume 

### that the questions for 

### Situation 4 relate to Day 1and to thelast 

### flight segment. 

### I 

### am not sure

### what you mean by "published in 

### the catrier's schedules." See my response to question4 in Situation 3 above. Ifyou mean that the crew and certificate holder know, priortotake-off, that en

### route weather conditions will result in the 

### flight takinglonger than expected, then my answer is as follows. Even ifthe 

### eXpected termination ofthe last flight segment would allow a minimum 8 consecutive hoUJ:"S look-back testperiod, ifthe crew and certificate holder expect, prior

### to take-off, that the flight will infringe on therequired start 

### of the compensatory rest period, the crew may .not legally depart. Thus, although the actual flight time might exceed flight 

### time limits and although exceedmg flight 

### time limits in these circumstances would be allowed under the 

### "circumstances beyond tile control ofthe certificate holder" exception,

**tl~at** 

### exception does not
**pe~mit** 

### anencroachment on 

### reduced rest 

### or compensatory rest 

### below the minimums 

### specified in the regulations. 2. Ifthe origi1tal cre>'Vl'nember's schedule did notrequire compensatozy re-st, 

### would compensatory restbe

### required 

### ifthe scheduled arrival based 

### upon the flight plan information resulted in the crewmember having less than 9 hours oflook-backrest upon arrival? Response: If, upon termination ofthe last 

### flig]rt segment, the look-back rest 

### was acrualiy less than 9hours, then compensatory rest isrequired regardless 

### ofthe scheduled arrival. 3. If

### the original ctewmember's 

### schedule did not require compensatory rest, 

### would the crewmembsrbe legal to depart ifthe scheduled arrival based

### upon the flight plan i:nfonnatlonresulted in the crewmemberhaving less than 8 hours oflook-back rest upon arrival? Response: No. If, atthe time ofdeparture, 

### it is calculated that a

### pilot will have less than 8hours oflook-back rest upon tennination ofthe last flight 

### segment, then the flight may not take off. The intention to give PAGE 08/1710/17/2014 16:12 8472947498 FAA GLRC

-7- compensatory rest may not

### be used to permit a pilot to take a flight when 

### it is known at 

### the beginning of

### the flight that the pilot

### will have less than 8 hours oflook-backrest upon termination ofthe last flight segment. 

### I hope these 

### responses will 

### be helpful 

### to you. Sincerely,

James W. Whitlow Deputy ChiefCounsel PAGE 09/1710/17/2014 15:12 FAA GLRC PAGE 10/17

u.s. **Oeportme~t** ofTronspor!atloll Federal AVIation Administration Office ofthe Chief Counsel 800 lndependencs Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 DEC 19 2012 CaptainPeter Willums 222 

### Karen Ave., Unit 604 

### Las Vegas, NV 89109 

### This letterrespondsto your 

### request for a legal interpretation concerningthe application of 14 C.F.R. § 121.471(a)(4), which provides in pertinent part tba.t IJO flight crewmember may accept an assignmentforflight time in domestic scheduled air **tra~Jsportation** o.r in other commercial flying if thatcrewmember's total flight time in 

### all commercial flying will exceed 8 hours between required restperiods. In this context, your letter also deals with the application ofthe circumstanccs-beyond-thc-control-of-the-certificatc-holder rule found in § 121.471 (g) as discussed below. You question a situationwhere you were scheduled for a Las Vegas (LAS)- Grruld Rapids (GRR)round-trip of7hours and 35 minutes. 

### Three

**ho~m>** prior to departure, you were notified thatthe weather at GRR at the scheduled arrival time would require the addition ofan alternate airport to the dispatch release. Due to high ambient temperatures in LAS, the additional fuel required for the alternate would exceed the take-off performance capability for tbc operation. As a result, dispatch added a fuel stop in Des Moines (DSM). The recalculated round-trip flight time wouldbe 8hours and 20 minutes due to the fuel stop. You initially refu.sed th.e assignment as given bythe dispatcher, saying thatitwould exceed the limitation in. § 121.47l(a)(4). You then received a phone call a few minutes later from the Director ofOperations, who relayed his positionthatthe weather conditions 

### in GRR fell within the "circumstances beyond the control" el(ceptionfound in § l21.47l(g}, which provides: (g) A flight crev.mem.ber is not considered te> be scheduled for flight time in el(cess offlight tirue limitati.ons ifthe flights to which he is assigned are scheduled and non:aaliy tenninate within thelimitations, but due to circumstances beyond the control ofthe certificate holder (such as adverse weather co1.1ditions), are not at the time ofdeparture expected to reach their destination within tbe scheduled time. After additional discussions with your ChiefPilot and the Senior VP ofFlight Operations, who also toldyou that the tlight would be legal based on the circumstances caused bythe weather in GRR, you accepted

**a~Jd** operatedtbe flight, which resulted in an10/17/2014 15:12 8472947498 FAA GLRC PAGE 11/17



### actual round-trip time of8hours and 17 minutes, Forthe reasons explained below, you operated a legal flight 

### In a Legal Interpretation from Rebecca B. MacPhersonto patrickM. 

### Ryan (February 23, 2006) we stated, "(p)rior interpretations applying section 121.47l(g) to the 

### scheduled flight 

### tim.e limit in 

### section 12l.47l(a)(4) articulate the safety rationale 

### fuat underpins tbe rule. The Agencyhas said 

### that flights 

### may exceedthe flight time limitsin anarrowly drawn 

### context, namely: a. The delay results from circurostances beyondtb.e control ofthe carrier; and b. The air 

### earner's original schedule 

### is realistic. 

### See, Feb. 9, 1993 

### Letter to DavidS. Parent, from Donald P. 

### Byrne, Assista:ot Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division [1993-3]." Thus, "an air earner will notbe found to be in violation of the limits on scheduled flight 

### time ifthe aircarrier's schedule is based on realistic assumptions about the circumstances / ofthe flight, 

### andthe delay is due to circvmstances truly unforeseeable or beyond the ai:r ca:rrier's control." 

### See, Legal

### Intexpretation from R&beccaMac!'herson to Kevin. McCabe (March I0, 2011) and cases cited therein 1• 

### The Agency generally considers delays due to air

### traffic control (A!C), adverse weather, or mechanical problems, as the incidents that qualify as circumstances beyond the control ofthe carrier andjustify the reliefafforded by 

### application ofthe rule. The FAA emphasi7.es that

### the rule only applies to flight time limitations. In 2000, tbe FAA "issued a seminal interpretation known as the Whitlow Lettei. The 

### Whitlow Letter 

### clarifiedthat the circumstances-beyond-the,contro!-of-the--certificate-holder exception in § 

### 121.47l(g) applies only to the scheduling offlight time and does not apply to rest periods. Thus, the 

### Whitlow Letter 

### dete:rmined that circumstances beyond the control of the certificate bolder would not 

### permit a llight 

### crewmemberto take offon a flight 

### segment 

### ifthe 

### flight crewmemberknows, prior to takeoff, that completing the flight segment would irrli:iugc ou, arequired rest period." 

### See, Legal Interpretation from RebeccaB. MacPherson to 

### Mr. James Johnson (Nov, 5, 2012). Based 

### on your letter, the circumstances son:onnding the rescheduling ofthe LAS-GR:R. round-trip flight 

### seem to present an isolated, unanticipated weather-related reason for exceedingthe scheduled flight 

### time for the LAS-GR:R.round-trip. Although the high 1 See e.g. Legal Interpretation 1990-25 (accepting United's statistics showing that approximately 67 percent offlights during a single month that were completed within the scheduled flight time, as representative of realistic scheduling); Legal Interpretation !991·8 (<JXPlainingthat after an audit ofUnited's scheduled and actual flight times for winter and summerPacitlc operntions,

**~** app<ared that United's flights operated within the scheduled time 

### approximately 85 percent to 9$ pcrcent ofthe time, which in the agency's view, demonstra,ted thatUnited was scheduling realistically). 2 Lette, to Captain Richard D.

**~ubin** .fromJames W. Whitlow, Deputy ChiefCQunsel (Nov. 20,2000). 

### 210/17/2014 15:12 8472947498 FAA GLRC PAGE 12/17

ambient temperatures in LAS impacted the operation ofthe flight, thereason

**fo~** that impact was the additional fuel required bythe designation ofan alternate airport due to the weather in GRR. There are no facts presented in yourletter to indicate that the flight frequently operates in excess ofthe scheduled time. Also, your letter does not allege that any rest requirements 

### were infringed by the 

### flight in question. 

### As such, so long 

### as you knew prior to takeoffon each segment ofthe scheduled flight that your restrequirements would not

### be infiinged,

### under§ 121.471(g), you would not be consideredto be scheduled forflight time in excess of flight 

### time limitations iftheflight would normally operate and terminate within the limitations of§ 12l.47l(a)(4). 

### We appreciate your patience and trust thatthe above responds to your concerns. 

### Ifyou need furth.er assistance, please contact my staffat (202) 267-3073. 

### This letterh!lS been prepared byRobert H. Frenzel, Manager, Operations Law Brooch, Office ofthe Chief Colll.lsel and coordinated withthe

### Air Transportation and Aircraft Maintenance Divisions ofFlight Standards Service. Sincerely,
Rebecca B. acPherson Assistant ChiefCounsel for International 

### Law, Legislation and :Regulations, AGC-200

}10/17/2014 15:12 8472947498

Jason M. Kidd 7201 NorthviewDrive Brookfield, OH 44403 Dear 

### Mr. Kidd: FAA GLRC

Office ofthe Chfef Caunsgr 800 lnds!Jentlence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 PAGE 13/17

This is 

### inresponse to your July 12, 2012\etterposing a number ofquestions about 14 C.P.R. part 135 operatingrules. Flight, Dutv. and Rest Questions Qtlestion 1: Phone Calls DIU'ing

### a RestPeriod For your first question, you ask whetbeJ; a certificate bolder can require a ffight crewrnemberto answer a phone call 

### from the certificateholderduring a restperiod. 

### During a restperiod, a crewm.embermust be free from allrestraint by the certificate holder
.1 Ifa crewmember is 

### required to answer thephone by the certificate holder, then that crewmember

### is not

### free from all restraint. 

### Thus, that flight crewmember

### is not on 

### a valid 

### restperiod. · Accordingly, a certificate holder cannotrequire a flight crewmemberto answer aphone call during a rest period. Wenote, however,

### that the FAAhas a "one phone call"policy 

### that ugenerally allows a certificate holderto initiate one phone call during (a] crewmember'srest

**period.~ 2**  Ifthe crewmember
**volun:ta~ily** chooses to answer this phonecall,thenthe FAA doesnot view the 

### call as disruptive 

### and brealdng the restperiod.3 However, we emphasize that in order for the "onephone call" policyto apply,the crewmembercannot be required to answerthe certificate holder's phone 

### call, butmust instead rulSWer the phone onhis own, volition. Question 2: ll:ffect ofDelays Foryour next question, youpose the following scenario. Apart 135 certificate holder operates unscheduled cargo and passenger **ope~ations**pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 135.267(d). 

### That certificate holder schedules 

### its flightcrewto be 

### inrest from 2200z until 0800z. theflightcrew is then scheduledto 

### starta duty assigoment thatis supposed to begin at

**0800:~:** and 

### end at 2100z. The duty assignment consists ofthree flight segJllents, eachof

### which is scheduled to be 3 hours long.
1Letter to GleDn Jimenez ft= RebeceaMoCl'llorson, Al:sistantCb.iefCounseliOrRegulations (June 9,2011). "M

. 'Id. l10/17/2014 15:12 8472947498 FAA GLRC

Thefirst flight segment is scheduled to depart at 0930z;the second segmwtis scheduled to depart at 1300>.:; and the fiual segment is scheduled to depart at l800z. PAGE 14/17

You then list a numberofdelays that couldhappen duringthe flightcrew's assigned dutyday. The delays specifiedin your letter consist of (1)late-arriving passengexs orcargo; (2) en-:t:oute fligbl: delays dueto low visibility; (3} a diversion due to a mechanicalfullure; and ( 4) a delayed 

### takeoffclearancefrom 

### airintffic control. -Each ofthese delays would result 

### in the flightcrew 

### finishing its dutyclay after 2100z. You 

### ask whetherthese delays would resultin the llightcrew violating the rest requirement of§ 

### 135.267( d) 

### lfthat flightcrew finishes all three flight segments 

### ofits originally-scheduled duty day. Subsection l35.267(d)requires that an assignment "must provide for at lel!.'lt 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 2-hhourperiod that precedes theplanned completion time ofthe 1 assignment." In, aprevious interp(etation, the 

### FAA emphasized 

### that "[t]he key to the applicability of§ l35267(d) 

### is inthe 

### final phrase
**'plann~d**completion time ofthe assignment.'''"' 

### Inthat interpretation, the FAA concluded

### that ifa crewmember is realistically scheduled toreceive 10 hours ofrest ina 24-hourperiod, 

### then. "if the originalplmming is upset for reasons beyondthe control ofthe [certificate holder}, 

### the flight maynevertheless be conducted, 

### even though 

### crew duty

### time may llXtend beyond 14 houxs" 

### in a 24-hour period.5 The 

### FAAhaspreviously stated that delays due to airtraffic control, mechanical problems, or adverse weather could constitute circumstancesthat 

### are beyond the control ofthe certificate holder.6 

### Inaddition, the 

### FAAhas stated that delays due to late-arrivingpassengers orcargo could also constitute circumstances 

### that 

### are beyond the control ofthe 

### certincate holder. 7 Accordingly, the delays specified 

### inyourquestion (late-arrivingpassengers or cargo, low visibility, mechanical failure, and delayedtakeoffclearance) could constitute circumstances that are beyondthe control ofthe certificateholder that would pennitthe tli.ghtcrew to 

### finish its duty day afterthe originally-planned 2100zcompletiontime. H:owever, we empbasizethat 

### inorder for the circumstances-beyond-the-control-of-the-cerlificate-holderdoctrine to apply, the original 21OOz completiontime musthave beenrealistically scheduled.8 Navigatjon and QJ.artDatabases Questions 

### 3 and 

### 4: PiJot,PedormedUpdates onAvio11ic Devices Two questions youpose concernpilotpedOrmed Updates to aetonautical iPionnation avionic devices. First you ask whether thepilot ofan

### aircl:aftoperated underpart 13

### 5may update a GPS and/orFMS navigation database (such as the Collins FMS-3000, GNS500 series or G1 000). Second, you ask whether the samepilotmay update 

### the charts displayed electronically on a· Multifunction Display, suchas theJeppesen approach chm;ts onthe Collins Proline 21. Because 4 Letter to Kevin Wilson from DonaldP. B)lrne, Assistl!nt ChlcfCOllliSel ofRegulatiollll and EnforcementDivision )Mar. 30, 1992) (quotingand emphasizing aportionoftheregulatory tel<:! from § l35.267{d)).

Id. SeealsoLctrer toM:dwss from DonaldP.Byrne (Aug. 30, 1993). ' See Letterto William E. Banks,Jr. from R.:be=MaoPhoTSon {Mar. 18. 200.9) (citingpr.Wous legal interpnotations). ; Bee Letterto Kevin Wilsouand LettertoMJ:. Ros.'.

See Letter to Kevio WilsOll. 210/17/2014 15:12 8472947498 FAA GLRC PAGE 15/17

both ofthese questions 

### deal witharulethat theFAA is cunently finalizing, we cannot answer these questions atthis time. fustead, we will answerthese questions 

### in a sepruate letteronce the pertinentrulen1aking bssconcluded. Weight and Ba1ance Computations Question S: Load ManifestDuplicate Foryourneldquestion, you state that 14 C.F.R. § l35.63(c)requires you toprepare a load m;mifest before 

### eaclJ. takeoff. You askwhether a copy ofthis loadl!Uini:festmust 

### be leftwiththe certificateholder and/or departure aitport

### persowel orwhether itis sufficientto keep the only copy ofthe load manifeston boardthe aircraft. Subsection 135.63(c)

**req~** the certificate 

### holder ofamultiengine aircraftto prepare aload 

### manifest in duplicate containinginformation concerning the loading of 

### the aircraft. Pursuant to § 135.63(d), the pilot-in-command must cattythe loadmanifestinthe 

### aircraftto its destination. and the certificateholder mustthen keep the load manifest for atleast 3() days at its ptincipa1 operations base, or at anotherlocation used bythe certificate holder and approved bythe FAA. When§ 135.63 

### was originallyproposed it included arequiren1entthatthepilot-in-command arrange atthe takeoffairport for acopyofthe 

### load, manif'eStto beretained ina suitable place at that aliport.9 However, this partof theproposed rule 

### was withdrawn in response to coJDDJ.ents.

### w As such, § 135.63 does not specify whatmustbe done

### with the duplicate oftheloadmanifest. While§ l35.63(d) doesnot specify howthe duplicate copy ofthe load manifest should be handled,the FAA advises 'certificate holders to incorporate procedures 

### intheiroperations' manuals for the disposition of

### the duplicatecopy. 11 The certificate holder should woJ:kwith its principal operations inspectorto develop suchprocedures_ This isbecause the duplicate copy of the load manifest couldprovide valuable information to investigators regardingpassengers, creWlllembers, an.d aiwraft

### weigl:rtandlmlance if there is an accident andthe load manifest earnedon-board the aireraft is destroyed. 12 EnforcementAction Question 6: Manual

### thatViolaksFAARegulations Foryournext question, you pose a scenario inwhich anoperntor 

### bas submitted a required mallllal containingproceduresthat violate FAAregulations. You ask wheth.er 

### in

### that scenario the FAAwouldhold :o:esponsible: (l)the certificate holderfor submitting and enforcing improper procedures; and (2) the cre-wmemberfor complyingwith companyprocedures that violate FAA regulations. ' 9 See 42FR43490, 435!5 (Aug.29, 1977). 10 Soe 43 Fed. Reg. 46742,46764 (Oct. !0, 1978); Lclt<!:to StanleyL.Bernstein from
**~becca** MaoPh=on (Nov. 13, 2009); Letter to NettieDickerson, from EdwordP. Faherman,Acting Assistant ChiefCoUIISel (Nov. 5, !980). " SeeI..ettor to Stanely Bernstein. · u Jd. 310/17/2014 15:12 8472947498 FAA GLRC PAGE 15/17



### Anyone who violates FAAregulations could be subjectto 

### anenforcement action. In 

### order to actuallydetermine who would be

### heldresponsible by the FMinyour scenario, we wouldneed additional details concerningthe companyprocedures that 

### violate F .1\.A

### regulations. Operation Specifications C055 

### andA097 You also ask a number ofquestions about operation specifications (OpSpecs) C055 sndA097. Your questions aboutthese OpSpecs lU"e

### policy questious, and as such, 

### we have refexred themto the AFS-200 program office. We appreciate yourpatience 

### and qugt that 

### the above :responds to your concerns. 

### If you need further assistance, please contactmy staff

### at (202) 267·3073. This 

### response was prepared by 

### Viola

### Pando and Alex Zektser, Attorneys, Regulations Division ofthc Office ofthe Chief Counsel, and coordinated with

### the Air

### Transportation Division of flight Standards Semcc. 

### Sincerely,



# P-r~ RebeccaB. MacPherson Assistant ChiefCounsel forRegulations, AGC-200



### 4PAGE 17/17 10/17/2014 15:12 8472947498 FAA GLRC

CERTIF1CATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies thatthe foregoing was served via overnightmail and fax to the Judge andfacsimile and overnight mail to Mr. Barnett, IU, Esq. Respondents Representative atthe following addresses and facsimile numbers: Original and One Copy:

One Copy: Judge Richard C. Goodwin Hearing Docket Office ofBearings M20 1200NewJerseyAvenue, S.E. EastBuildingGroundFl.oor RoomEl2-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 Fax 202-366· 7536 Charles R. Barnett, HI Counsel for Respondent Barnett & Borth, LLC 800Waukegan Road, Ste. 200 Glenview, IL 60025 Fax (815) 356-7042
Datedthis 5th day ofSeptember, 2013. 

# ~}li~ FAA Great Lakes