Remsen 2016

Page 1

U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation . ,
Administration ·
JUN 16.2·01&
Richard D. Remsen
Dear Mr. Remsen:
Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20591

This is in response to your February 15, 2016 letter asking whether, in a flightcrew of three pilots, 14 C.F.R. part 117 requires a landing pilot to "take a break during a certain period of the flight regardless of his personal choice."

Your letter cites the Nelson interpretation issued on September 3, 2015, which addresses a four-person crew. You state the provisions of the regulations that set forth requirements for in-flight rest apply more suitably to :flightcrews of four pilots, rather than three. You also state captains often assign a particular break to the pilot who will be landing the aircraft, yet the pilot landing rarely volunteers to choose the "last break.>' Based on these factors, you ask whether the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) intends to require a landing pilot to take a break, notwithstanding personal choice or the perceived need for a break. The answer is yes; the regulations require the landing pilot to take a break close to the time he or she will be landing the aitcraft.

As you know, part 117 contains a set of flight, duty, and rest regulations that apply to all part 121 passenger operations, as well as certain operations under pait 91 .1 These rules limit the length of a flightcrew member's daily flight duty period (FDP). Daily FDP limits for augmented operations, as described in your request for interpretation, are codified at§ 117.17 and Table C. Specifically, § 117.17(c)(l) prnhibits certificate holders from assigning, and flightcrew members from accepting, an assignment unless two consecutive hours in the second half of the FDP are available for in-flight rest for the pilot who flies the aircraft during landing. Table C includes a chart distinguishing between three- and four-pilot compositions, to provide higher maximum FDPs for crews of four pilots. As explained in the FAA's preamble adopting the provisions of Table C, the maximum FDPs permissible for three-pilot crews are distinct from the maximums applicable to four-pilot crews because, "in a three-pilot crew, each pilot spends more time piloting the aircraft." 77 Fed. Reg. 330, 368 (Jan. 4, 2012). Tlu·ee-pilot crews spend less time resting; therefore, Table C sets f01th lower FDP limits for such crews. This distinction between three~ and four-pilot crews in Table C indicates the provisions of § 117.17 (c )( 1) are not more suitable for four-pilot crews, but rather demonstrates the 1 14 C.F.R. § 117.1.

Page 2

FAA' s consideration for different compositions of flightcrews. The FAA addressed both types of flightcrew compositions in its rule, and explained its rationale for the distinction in the preamble that describes the requirements.

As the FAA stated in its 2012 adoption of the changes to§ 117.17(c)(l), the section allows air carriers flexibility with scheduling flight segments for augmented FDPs, while ensuring the landing flightcrew member receives at least two hours of continuous rest close to the time he or she will be landing the aircraft. The Nelson interpretation to which your letter refers is consistent with this description. Regardless of whether the landing pilot is part of a tlu·ee- or four-pilot crew, and regardless of his or her personal choice, the landing pilot must have an opportunity for rest that is consistent with the plain language of 117.17(c)(l) and Table C.

We appreciate your patience and trust that the above responds to your concerns. If you need further assistance, please contact my staff at (202) 267-3073. This letter has been prepared by Katie Inman and Robert H. Frenzel, Manager, Operations Law Branch, Office of the Chief Counsel and coordinated with the Air Transportation Division of Flight Standards Service.

Sincerely,

~~~

Lorelei Peter

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200

Page 3

i~ial'i<. V·l. Bury Deputy Chief Counsel

Office of the Chief Counsel
800 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20591

Feb 15, 2016

Subject .. P~ 11?' ~17(c)(l) Interpretation R~garding .In:Flight Rest for an A~~ented Crew

Dear Mr. Bury~

The Nelson Legal interpretation letter of Sept. 3~ 2015 only addresses a 4 pilot crew. The problem I have.seen below occurs mostly on a 3 pit ot crew. Flights with 4 pilots seem to naturally fit better into the

FAR.

111e FAR says the break must be navailable n during the last half of the flight for the pilot landing. Numerous Capt's are now assigning a particular break to the pilot landing. I have rarely seen the pilot landing voluntarily choose the "last break" during my 28 years of augmented crew --"-·- -· J -- - -experie:uce ~ ·.. ·And..to,accompHsfrthis·; the Capt'is-mmally splitting up the break of the 3rd crew . member~ again something we have not done in the past. Is it the FAA's intent to require a landing pllot to take a break during a certain period of the flight regardless of his personal choice?

Thank.you, ; ' ... ~

Page 4

U.S. Deportmenl

ot Tronsporto tfon

FedGl'al Aviation

AdmTnislrafion

S£P 3 2015

Todd Nelson

Office of the Ct\let Counsel

I

800 Independence Ave .. s.w.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Subject: Pa.rt 117 .17 Interpretation Regarding Jn-Flight Rest for an Augmented Crew

Dear l'vfr. Nelson:

This letter is provided in response to your April 12, 2015 1-equest for a legal inte.rprctatiou regarding in-flight rest for an augmented crew. The provision at issue is 14 CFR § 117.17. The regulation states that ''two consecutive hours in the second half of the flight duty period [must beJ RVallabfe for in-flight rest for the pilot flying the aircraft during landing." l4C.F.R. § 117.17(c)(l). In addition>"nlnetyconsecut.lve.minutes [for in-flight rest must be) available,'~ for the p ilot perfonnlng monitoring duties during landing. § 117.17(c)(2).

lo your request for interp.."e1ation, you asked a variety of questions about a si11gle scen~o i:o which an augniented orew of fol.ll' is sche-Ouled to operat~ a flight from Newark, NJ (EWR.) to Mumbai, !ndia (BOM). The fligb:t time is scheduled at 15 hours in length and the flightcrew has determined~ during the pre-flight briefiog, that two rest breaks will be taken in. flight. Each break amounts to 6 ~3 0 hours in length nnd each flightcrew member is offered the oppol!lunity to choose which break he or she wishes to take. We will asslu.ne; for the purposes of this inte.tpretation,. that one rest break happens in the first half of·the flight, and the sooond happens during the secotld half of the flight We wlll also assume that the 15 hour flight ls the entire flight duty period ("F.D.P'1). Your questions will be answered Vl th.e below paragraphs.

L The first question you asked il'l; ''Giveo the above scenario. i~ the flying ci:ew required to t<lke the second ofthe two breaks in order to comply with FAR l 17.l7(c)?,.

The answer is yes, for those flightcrew mcmbe~ who are flying the plane during lauding. That tliglrt.crew m~ber would have to take; the second bre.'lk, altho\\gh it would n ot have to be the full 6 bo\\rs and 30 minutes ~-only the two consecutive h ours are required by the rule for the individual flying the plane during landing. If rhe flightcrew :member is mcm.ito.ring the ~aft during landing, ninety minutes are required durjng th1; cow:se of the flight and the break could be taken at any point ' .

Page 5

2. The second question you asked is: "Does the term 'available' m; vsed in FAR 117.17 require the crcvvmember to in fact be on break for the time outlined in FAR 117.17?» The m1sweri~ yes. The preamble to the .final r.ul.e establ~shing § J 17.17(c)(l) aud (2) specifically states that this section "tequire... two hours of i~flight rest in the second half of the l<'DP for the pilot who will be flying the aircraft dunng landing. ,.t 3. Tb~ third question.you asked is: "If the fly.Ing cre>'Vmembers do not act'ti.ally take any rest opportunities during the second half of the fiiglft, are they operating in violation of FAR 117.17?,, The crn\.'llilember would be operating in violation of§ 117.17(c)(l) and (2) asswuing the .flightcrew members at issue are those who are operating the landing. According to the :plajn language of 'the rule, if rhe carrier provided rest o_ppoqunities ai1d the flying creVl.'lllember did not talce any test opportunities, the flying c:i:ewmember would not be 1>ermitte<l to accept an assignment. As Ion.gas the carrier provided the rest opportunity, the carriei· is not in vi<>lation. If the carrier did. l~ot provide.the rest. 9pportunity but makes the assignment available to that crew member, then the carrier is in violation of § 117.17(c)(l) and (2).

We appreciate your patience and tnist that the above responds to your concerns. lf you need farther assistance,..please contact our office at (202) 267-3073. Th.is letter was prepared by Courtney Freeman, an attorney mthe Regulations Division of the Office of the· Chief Co,unsel, and coordinated with the Air Transportation Di vision of Flight Standards Service.

Sincerely, ')

of<h-l_~~~

Lorelei Peter

Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200 1 Flightcrew Member Puty atJd 'Rest Requirements, 'l7 'FR 3.30-01 at 6 J, emphasis added.