First question!

[Stratopilot]

121, pt 117, flight instruction and you.
I posted this on another site, but no dice on a response.

A friend of mine posed an interesting question the other day and I wanted to get y'all's input.

Since all duty hours and flight time under part 117 is now "On behalf of the certificate holder" i.e. A 121carrier. Does pt 61 independent flight instruction count towards your cumulative flight hours and FDP, since under part 61 you're not operating on behalf of ANY certificate holder?

Thanks guys.

 

[z987k]

From what I've been told instruction does not count. I think there was an opinion published on this last year. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[xdashdriver]

No, it does not count. Only 121, 135 and 91K time counts.

 

[ctab5060X]

What if your carrier prohibits other commercial flying?

 

[xdashdriver]

I believe the question was a legal (FAR) one, not a company policy one. Having said that, if your company policy says you can't, you run the risk of incurring discipline if you do.

 

[derg]

You know, we do have an aviation attorney that offered to answer questions posted in this forum.

 

[xdashdriver]

.

 

[Stratopilot]

You know, we do have an aviation attorney that offered to answer questions posted in this forum.

Which is why I asked it here. If he/she could chime in that would be great, not that I don't appriciate the responses so far.

 

[Stratopilot]

I believe the question was a legal (FAR) one, not a company policy one. Having said that, if your company policy says you can't, you run the risk of incurring discipline if you do.

If part 117 doesn't apply to non-121 or 91K outside flying, then it begs the question : Does it matter anymore? The primary reason they have a restriction is to make sure you don't bust the old 121 rules which did apply to flight instruction. But since it doesn't anymore.. it's kind of a redundant policy isn't it? I suppose the only reason that they would still enforce it is in a conflict of interest scenario.

 

[xdashdriver]

I think you are right about the reason why they have the policies in the first place...old rules. It's probably not high on their priority list to change either since it doesn't gain the airline anything by allowing outside employment. Maybe they're also concerned about fatigue issues by allowing pilots to fly for someone else on their time off?

 

[Stratopilot]

But not flying while fatigued is, in the eyes of the FAA, entirely the crewmembers responsibility now, isn't it? The only thing the company is responsible for is not scheduling a flight crew member beyond thier flight times and FDP. However, it's the crewmembers job to make sure they don't over fly it. Tricky issue. Not to mention the old adage of "there is the law, and then there is the INTENT of the law." But now I'm just armchair lawyerin'.

 

[xdashdriver]

There may be civil liability issues at stake, but now I am armchair lawyering too. The fatigue thing was a guess on my part.

 

[PilotDefenseAttorney]

Sorry I have not responded sooner. It's that darn making-a-living thing that always seems to get in the way. I think that the consensus expressed so far is pretty spot on. 117 only applies to flight and duty time on behalf of the carrier. Issues of fatigue and other commercial flying (not flight instruction) can in fact be tricky. Moonlighting pilots should be particularly cautious.

 

[broncoav8r]

But just to be clear, the 100/month 1000/year limits that used to encompass all commercial flying are no longer valid and there is nothing the FAA can do if you instruct on the side any more.

 

[Stratopilot]

But just to be clear, the 100/month 1000/year limits that used to encompass all commercial flying are no longer valid and there is nothing the FAA can do if you instruct on the side any more.

Correct. I belive this is the general concensus

 

[PilotDefenseAttorney]

I would only add that according to the text of the applicable regulations, it appears that flight time acquired on behalf of multiple certificate holders (or 91k programs) must still be considered (I have not pulled up any recent cases on this, so if anyone has the inside scoop, please share). I know this may be relatively rare, but there are some scheduled folks supplementing their income by flying for on-demand carriers. Flight instruction, however, should be in the clear.