New Part 135 Rules At Least A Year Away

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. -- With the publication of new Part 135 rules at least a year away, one regional air cargo carrier, Ameriflight, is seeking an exemption from the current rules in order to fly an Embraer [ERJ] Brasilia fully-loaded.

The Regional Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA) has been working for the last two years to update the Part 135 rules so that its members can fly larger and more modern aircraft. The current rules, adopted in 1978, limit the payload on a Part 135 aircraft to 7,500 pounds. An industry advisory committee has recommended that the payload limit be increased to 18,000 pounds.

The advisory committee will make its final recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) by July 30. The FAA will probably take at least six months to review the re-write of the entire Part 135 rules, which not only include cargo operations, but also commuter airlines, charter brokers, micro jets and fractional ownership, said Katherine Perfetti, the FAA specialist who has shepherded the advisory panel for the last two years. The panel has suggested some 200 changes for the FAA to consider. Once the FAA completes its work, the Department of Transportation will spend a minimum of 90 days reviewing the recommendations. The Office of Management and Budget then has 90 days to review the changes before the document is published for public comment.

There are several routes that portions of the new code, including seeking an exemption, can be implemented before the rule writing process is completed, Perfetti told the RACCA members assembled for the third annual meeting last week in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Citing the draft recommendations that hikes the payload limit, Los Angeles-based Ameriflight in late March asked that the FAA to permit it to fly its seven Brasilias with about 630 additional pounds. The additional weight will be at the plane's stated 8,100-pounds capacity and will also exceed the 7,500-weight limitation. Ameriflight's petition specifically notes that it is not seeking the thousands of extra pounds that would be permitted under the proposed Part 135 rule change.

The March filing is an appeal of a similar petition that was filed in January but was quickly rejected by the FAA. The first petition cited the likelihood of the advisory committee proposing the weight change. The appeal is based on the fact that the advisory group did indeed make the recommendation along with suggested safety and maintenance improvements.

In the appeal, Ameriflight's John Hazlet, director of operations, pointed out that the carrier will be implementing equipment, maintenance and training program that meets Part 121 standards, which exceeds the committee's recommendations.

In addition, Hazlet notes that Ameriflight has at times flown the Brasilias with a greater total weight because of high fuel loads on long flights when the planes were loaded to the 7,500-pound mark. Ameriflight has flown the planes for more than 18,000 hours with a perfect safety record. "So clearly there is no safety issue," Hazlet wrote in his appeal.

Prior to the official comment period, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) filed an objection to Ameriflight's request. The pilot's union contends that the "one level of safety" mandated 10 years ago, when most Part 135 airlines were force to seek Part 121 certification, is endangered with the proposed hike in weight limits. ALPA was the only dissenting vote on the proposal in the advisory committee.

"If adopted, it will create another level of safety within the regulations that allows cargo carriers to operate their aircraft well below the safety level of Part 121," ALPA wrote in its filing.

The FAA did not receive any additional comments on the Ameriflight petition during the comment period that ended June 6.

Addressing the RACCA members, Perfetti said she could not comment on the Ameriflight petition. "The test of an exemption is that it is in the public interest and that it is unique. If it covers a broad segment of the market, it may be part of the rule making process."

RACCA made "very good augments" to boost the weight limit, she added. The proponents have made strong safety and public interest arguments.

At the same time, she said, the FAA needs to weigh the issues raised by ALPA. In addition, the agency needs to consider that some carriers have followed the course of advancing to Part 121 carriers in order to fly larger airplanes. "We have to be able to fully explain why we are not favoring one group over another," Perfetti said.

Flight and Duty

The proposed Part 135 revision includes new regulations to assure the pilots have adequate rest periods before flying. Perfetti said the final FAA proposal might be radically different from how the carriers are now operating. She asked that the carriers select either a table outlining work hours for scheduled flights or a scheduling wheel for pilots who work on "pop up" unscheduled runs and then apply it to their current schedule. The FAA wants the industry's feedback during the comment period as to just how these scheduling tools and new rules will work in the real world.

"The documentation will be different and may be burdensome," said Jeanne Cook, chief pilot for Bankair and a member of the advisory committee. "It remains to be seen. You will want to look for these documentation requirements when it is finally published."

Cook advised the RACCA members to ask, "'Can I live with it? Can it work for my segment of the business?' It does solve many of the abuse scenarios and it will provide a crew that is rested. You should take a positive attitude toward this. When you read this it will be strange and overwhelming, but read it and see if you can do something with this. It will provide a rested crew, if they rest. Economics will be a consideration, but don't automatically discard it because it is different or overwhelming."

The advisory committee proposal does not change the amount of flying or resting now required. Pilots will still need a minimum of 10 hours rest and can fly no more than 10 hours in a 14-hour duty day. The major difference, Cook said, is that it provides a protected rest period. If a carrier interrupts the pilot's rest period there are stiff "time" penalties, as much 48 hours continuous rest, so the body can adjust, Cook said.

>>FAA Docket: FAA-05-20109. Contacts: John Hazlet, Ameriflight, (818) 847-0000; Katherine Perfetti, FAA, (202) 493-4876; Jeanne Cook, Bankair, (803) 822-8832.<<