Narrative:

I was acting as first officer on a supplemental cargo charter. We were getting close to our duty limit of 16 hours when one last charter was booked with our company. The freight was scheduled to arrive on time for us to be legal to make the flight. When we found out the freight was going to be late, the captain called company to notify them of our duty time limit. The company took no action over the next 1 hour. The freight arrived and we (crew) determined that we would not be legal because our duty time. The captain felt that he would be fired if he did not make the trip. We decided to use a 'company practice' of taking ourselves 'off duty' during the time we waited for the freight. This practice stops the 'duty clock' so a crew could actually be with the airplane for more than 16 hours. It is the company's opinion that this practice is perfectly legal and has been used in the industry for yrs. I think that this most certainly is a 'grey area' that must be addressed by the FAA. My recommendation of corrective action: the FAA has got to look at the present flight duty time limitations and change them to rules that actually promote safety. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter has solved his part of this problem. At the time of the report, he was on 'furlough' from a major air carrier and is now back to work. He believes that the company that he is complaining about is a good company, one that is trying to make a buck. The reporter believes that an FAA aci has agreed to the 'company policy' of taking oneself 'off duty' in order to stretch the day. The reporter is also concerned with the practice of flying revenue under far part 121, then flying non revenue flts under part 91 in the same extended duty period.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR FO COMPLAINS ABOUT HIS COMPANY'S 'CREATIVE SCHEDULING.'

Narrative: I WAS ACTING AS FO ON A SUPPLEMENTAL CARGO CHARTER. WE WERE GETTING CLOSE TO OUR DUTY LIMIT OF 16 HRS WHEN ONE LAST CHARTER WAS BOOKED WITH OUR COMPANY. THE FREIGHT WAS SCHEDULED TO ARRIVE ON TIME FOR US TO BE LEGAL TO MAKE THE FLT. WHEN WE FOUND OUT THE FREIGHT WAS GOING TO BE LATE, THE CAPT CALLED COMPANY TO NOTIFY THEM OF OUR DUTY TIME LIMIT. THE COMPANY TOOK NO ACTION OVER THE NEXT 1 HR. THE FREIGHT ARRIVED AND WE (CREW) DETERMINED THAT WE WOULD NOT BE LEGAL BECAUSE OUR DUTY TIME. THE CAPT FELT THAT HE WOULD BE FIRED IF HE DID NOT MAKE THE TRIP. WE DECIDED TO USE A 'COMPANY PRACTICE' OF TAKING OURSELVES 'OFF DUTY' DURING THE TIME WE WAITED FOR THE FREIGHT. THIS PRACTICE STOPS THE 'DUTY CLOCK' SO A CREW COULD ACTUALLY BE WITH THE AIRPLANE FOR MORE THAN 16 HRS. IT IS THE COMPANY'S OPINION THAT THIS PRACTICE IS PERFECTLY LEGAL AND HAS BEEN USED IN THE INDUSTRY FOR YRS. I THINK THAT THIS MOST CERTAINLY IS A 'GREY AREA' THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED BY THE FAA. MY RECOMMENDATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION: THE FAA HAS GOT TO LOOK AT THE PRESENT FLT DUTY TIME LIMITATIONS AND CHANGE THEM TO RULES THAT ACTUALLY PROMOTE SAFETY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR HAS SOLVED HIS PART OF THIS PROB. AT THE TIME OF THE RPT, HE WAS ON 'FURLOUGH' FROM A MAJOR ACR AND IS NOW BACK TO WORK. HE BELIEVES THAT THE COMPANY THAT HE IS COMPLAINING ABOUT IS A GOOD COMPANY, ONE THAT IS TRYING TO MAKE A BUCK. THE RPTR BELIEVES THAT AN FAA ACI HAS AGREED TO THE 'COMPANY POLICY' OF TAKING ONESELF 'OFF DUTY' IN ORDER TO STRETCH THE DAY. THE RPTR IS ALSO CONCERNED WITH THE PRACTICE OF FLYING REVENUE UNDER FAR PART 121, THEN FLYING NON REVENUE FLTS UNDER PART 91 IN THE SAME EXTENDED DUTY PERIOD.

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.