Mr. James Baxter
P. 0. Box 250578
San Francisco, CA 94125

Dear Mr. Baxter:

Thank you for your inquiry requesting an interpretation of rest and duty regulations in conjunction with non-flight assignments by the air carrier. Due to the loss of personnel over the past year and the urgency of other regulatory matters, we have been delayed in answering your inquiry. We thank you for your patience.

Your inquiry revolves around the definitions of "rest' and "duty" and the relationship between ground assignments and flight time duty. Interpretations of what constitutes "rest" or "duty" are the same under Part 121 or 135. The FAA has consistently interpreted "rest' as a continuous period of time during which the crewmember is free from all restraint by the certificate holder. This includes freedom from work and freedom from responsibility for work should the occasion arise. The FAA has also consistently interpreted "duty" to mean actual work for an air carrier or the present responsibility for work should the occasion arise. (Letter from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division, to Assistant Chief Counsel. AGL-7, dated July 5, 1991, letter from Donald P. Byrne to R.C. McConnick, dated June 25, 1996.)

You provided three situations in which you questioned whether the crewmember's assignment constituted "duty time." I will respond to your question regarding a reserve pilot's status first, as the rules here are plain. You inquired whether a crewmember who had flown for 3 days in a row, was on reserve a fourth day but did not fly, and then was scheduled to fly another four days, is legal. Under the definitions stated above, this pilot would be in violation of Section 135.265(d). Reserve duty is not rest, as the type of reserve duty you described requires that the crewmember be available to fly, should the opportunity arise. In this specific scenario, the crewmember would have been without rest for 8 days. While the crewmember could have flown for two days after the reserve day, on the 7th day the crewmember must be given the required rest before another flying assignment. Section 135.265(d) states that a crewmember must be relieved "from all further duty for a least 24 consecutive hours during any 7 consecutive days." It is possible for a crewmember to be scheduled on reserve for 7 days and not be in violation of the regulation as long as the crewmember does not fly (Letter from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division, to B. Stephen Fortenberry, dated June 24, 1991.) However, once the crewmember takes a flight in Part 135 operations, the rest requirements activate in order to ensure that the crewmember has had sufficient rest prior to the flight. Thus, if the crewmember has not had a scheduled rest period during the previous 7 days, the air carrier and crewmember could be held in violation of Part 135 265(d)

In your second and third situation you inquire whether ground school or a Crew Resource Management course would be considered duty. Again, duty must be thought of in relation to required rest. The FAA would not hold an air carrier or a crewmember in violation of Section 135265(d) if a crewmember was scheduled for 7 days or a month of ground school, CRM training or any other kind of ground assignment. As long as crewmembers are on the ground, they are not in violation of a rest and duty regulation. However, once again, once that crewmember takes a flight, rest regulations activate. At that time, if the crewmember had been in ground school for the previous 7 days, that crewmember would be in violation of Section 135.265(d) as he had not received the required 24 hours of rest in a consecutive 7-day period. An air carrier can schedule a crewmember to any kind of duty it desires for 6 consecutive days, but on the 7th day rest regulations will affect any flying assignment.

Since "rest" requires that a crewmember be free from all work obligations, ground school or CRM training would not qualify as "rest" once a crewmember initiates a flight. While it is not "duty," in the sense of flight duty, it is also not "rest."

Additionally, if a crewmember operates an aircraft with insufficient rest, a certificate holder or crewmember could be charged with a careless or reckless violation under Section 91.13. In a prior interpretation the FAA has stated that the "lack of rest of the pilot is certainly a circumstance which could endanger others, and it is not necessary that the situation devolve into actual endangerment for there to be a violation of FAR 91.13." (Letter from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations and Enforcement Division, to David Bodlak, dated October 28, 1991.)

This interpretation was prepared by Terry Turner, reviewed by Joseph Conte, Manager of the Operations Law Branch and concurred with by the Air Transportation Division of Flight Standards Service. We hope this interpretation will be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division