Narrative:

During the past 18 days, I have flown a schedule that requires a reduced rest period. The reduced rest period is designed into the schedule. The following is an example: flying schedule is within a 24 hour period, day 1 begins at 12:00 O'clock noon, day 2 ends at 11:15 a.M. Day 1 scheduled flying: 4:20. Day 2 scheduled flying 4:25. Total both days = 8:45 'scheduled.' not only myself, but others flying same schedule are over on day 1 by 24 mins over schedule! Now this actual flying combined with the 'scheduled flying' of day 2 exceeds 9 hours flying in a 24 hour period, requiring a reduced rest period of 9 hours. The chief pilot contends the 8 hour reduced rest is legal because the flying was 'scheduled' less than 9 hours, regardless of what actual flying occurred. His response is the 'air traffic area legal advice,' additionally the FAA poi will not pursue the matter so, no problem. This is not what I learned when taking my ATP check ride in 1984 from an FAA FSDO inspector. I believe an 8 hour reduced rest is not correct, but that of a 9 hour reduced rest is required. I'm subject to company rule and if I take the 9 hour rest and believe the 8 hour rest is a violation. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter tried to convince analyst that his interpretation of the far was the only one. He claims to know an FAA inspector who made primary input into the latest far revisions who claims that the intent was not the same as the final result. He refuses to admit that the printed word carries more weight than his interpretation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR BELIEVES THAT HIS REDUCED CREW REST ASSIGNMENT WAS ILLEGAL.

Narrative: DURING THE PAST 18 DAYS, I HAVE FLOWN A SCHEDULE THAT REQUIRES A REDUCED REST PERIOD. THE REDUCED REST PERIOD IS DESIGNED INTO THE SCHEDULE. THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXAMPLE: FLYING SCHEDULE IS WITHIN A 24 HR PERIOD, DAY 1 BEGINS AT 12:00 O'CLOCK NOON, DAY 2 ENDS AT 11:15 A.M. DAY 1 SCHEDULED FLYING: 4:20. DAY 2 SCHEDULED FLYING 4:25. TOTAL BOTH DAYS = 8:45 'SCHEDULED.' NOT ONLY MYSELF, BUT OTHERS FLYING SAME SCHEDULE ARE OVER ON DAY 1 BY 24 MINS OVER SCHEDULE! NOW THIS ACTUAL FLYING COMBINED WITH THE 'SCHEDULED FLYING' OF DAY 2 EXCEEDS 9 HRS FLYING IN A 24 HR PERIOD, REQUIRING A REDUCED REST PERIOD OF 9 HRS. THE CHIEF PLT CONTENDS THE 8 HR REDUCED REST IS LEGAL BECAUSE THE FLYING WAS 'SCHEDULED' LESS THAN 9 HRS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT ACTUAL FLYING OCCURRED. HIS RESPONSE IS THE 'ATA LEGAL ADVICE,' ADDITIONALLY THE FAA POI WILL NOT PURSUE THE MATTER SO, NO PROB. THIS IS NOT WHAT I LEARNED WHEN TAKING MY ATP CHK RIDE IN 1984 FROM AN FAA FSDO INSPECTOR. I BELIEVE AN 8 HR REDUCED REST IS NOT CORRECT, BUT THAT OF A 9 HR REDUCED REST IS REQUIRED. I'M SUBJECT TO COMPANY RULE AND IF I TAKE THE 9 HR REST AND BELIEVE THE 8 HR REST IS A VIOLATION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR TRIED TO CONVINCE ANALYST THAT HIS INTERP OF THE FAR WAS THE ONLY ONE. HE CLAIMS TO KNOW AN FAA INSPECTOR WHO MADE PRIMARY INPUT INTO THE LATEST FAR REVISIONS WHO CLAIMS THAT THE INTENT WAS NOT THE SAME AS THE FINAL RESULT. HE REFUSES TO ADMIT THAT THE PRINTED WORD CARRIES MORE WT THAN HIS INTERP.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.