Narrative:

I was flying a daily night freight trip sequence mci-msp-fwa-msp-mci during the week of dec/xa/00. After I arrived in fwa at XA20Z on dec/fri/00, the crew scheduler told me that I had 'busted 8 hours,' meaning that I had exceeded the far 121 supplemental limitation of 8 hours of flight time in a 24-hour period by 24 mins. I had actually been scheduled for 8 hours 50 mins of flying in the scheduled 24-hour period when I began the trip in mci at XC28Z. This situation was caused by the previous day's departure being 1 hour 50 mins late. The work environment was bitterly cold WX with snow and ice. Cold fronts were passing through the area during the entire week, and at least 1 or more of the airports had deicing and loading delays each day. Duty days had approached 16 hours each day because of delays and my previous 2 layovers were the minimum 8 hour type that only resulted in 5 hours of sleep each day. I was fatigued at the end of the duty period when I was trying to calculate when to check-in for the next duty day. I had delayed the check-in time from XC20Z until XD30Z for an XE30Z departure on dec/thu/00 to get a minimum 8 hour layover. However, I had not considered the 8 hours of flight time limitation in my calculation. Crew scheduling had not caught the error either. The time limitation could have been complied with by delaying the departure until XE15Z, just 45 mins later, and that would have been some extra rest that I could have used. I am finding that the enforcement of these crew duty and rest limitation rules is being misdirected and the rules are not really accomplishing what was intended. In this case, my airline can self-disclose this violation, then the airline escapes any enforcement action and I end up with the violation. Then the airline just keeps exceeding the limits without any motivation to keep the individual pilots out of trouble. Rather than placing the burden of compliance on the company (with their well rested crew schedule organization and a crew management computer program), the entire burden effectively ends up on the back of a tired pilot who just wants to go to bed at the end of a long day. The situation is even more bizarre when I consider that under far 121 crew duty and rest rules there would not be a violation. I could be scheduled for over 8 hours of flying in a 24-hour period by providing a compensatory rest period at the end of my duty period. The supplemental section of far 121 was evidently not revised the last time the duty and rest limitations were revised. The other loophole is that I could ferry the aircraft under far 91 without any duty limitations, and my airline uses that loophole all the time.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B727 CAPT WAS INFORMED BY COMPANY CREW SCHEDULER THAT HE EXCEEDED MAX FLT TIME THE PREVIOUS DAY.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING A DAILY NIGHT FREIGHT TRIP SEQUENCE MCI-MSP-FWA-MSP-MCI DURING THE WK OF DEC/XA/00. AFTER I ARRIVED IN FWA AT XA20Z ON DEC/FRI/00, THE CREW SCHEDULER TOLD ME THAT I HAD 'BUSTED 8 HRS,' MEANING THAT I HAD EXCEEDED THE FAR 121 SUPPLEMENTAL LIMITATION OF 8 HRS OF FLT TIME IN A 24-HR PERIOD BY 24 MINS. I HAD ACTUALLY BEEN SCHEDULED FOR 8 HRS 50 MINS OF FLYING IN THE SCHEDULED 24-HR PERIOD WHEN I BEGAN THE TRIP IN MCI AT XC28Z. THIS SIT WAS CAUSED BY THE PREVIOUS DAY'S DEP BEING 1 HR 50 MINS LATE. THE WORK ENVIRONMENT WAS BITTERLY COLD WX WITH SNOW AND ICE. COLD FRONTS WERE PASSING THROUGH THE AREA DURING THE ENTIRE WK, AND AT LEAST 1 OR MORE OF THE ARPTS HAD DEICING AND LOADING DELAYS EACH DAY. DUTY DAYS HAD APCHED 16 HRS EACH DAY BECAUSE OF DELAYS AND MY PREVIOUS 2 LAYOVERS WERE THE MINIMUM 8 HR TYPE THAT ONLY RESULTED IN 5 HRS OF SLEEP EACH DAY. I WAS FATIGUED AT THE END OF THE DUTY PERIOD WHEN I WAS TRYING TO CALCULATE WHEN TO CHK-IN FOR THE NEXT DUTY DAY. I HAD DELAYED THE CHK-IN TIME FROM XC20Z UNTIL XD30Z FOR AN XE30Z DEP ON DEC/THU/00 TO GET A MINIMUM 8 HR LAYOVER. HOWEVER, I HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE 8 HRS OF FLT TIME LIMITATION IN MY CALCULATION. CREW SCHEDULING HAD NOT CAUGHT THE ERROR EITHER. THE TIME LIMITATION COULD HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY DELAYING THE DEP UNTIL XE15Z, JUST 45 MINS LATER, AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOME EXTRA REST THAT I COULD HAVE USED. I AM FINDING THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE CREW DUTY AND REST LIMITATION RULES IS BEING MISDIRECTED AND THE RULES ARE NOT REALLY ACCOMPLISHING WHAT WAS INTENDED. IN THIS CASE, MY AIRLINE CAN SELF-DISCLOSE THIS VIOLATION, THEN THE AIRLINE ESCAPES ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION AND I END UP WITH THE VIOLATION. THEN THE AIRLINE JUST KEEPS EXCEEDING THE LIMITS WITHOUT ANY MOTIVATION TO KEEP THE INDIVIDUAL PLTS OUT OF TROUBLE. RATHER THAN PLACING THE BURDEN OF COMPLIANCE ON THE COMPANY (WITH THEIR WELL RESTED CREW SCHEDULE ORGANIZATION AND A CREW MGMNT COMPUTER PROGRAM), THE ENTIRE BURDEN EFFECTIVELY ENDS UP ON THE BACK OF A TIRED PLT WHO JUST WANTS TO GO TO BED AT THE END OF A LONG DAY. THE SIT IS EVEN MORE BIZARRE WHEN I CONSIDER THAT UNDER FAR 121 CREW DUTY AND REST RULES THERE WOULD NOT BE A VIOLATION. I COULD BE SCHEDULED FOR OVER 8 HRS OF FLYING IN A 24-HR PERIOD BY PROVIDING A COMPENSATORY REST PERIOD AT THE END OF MY DUTY PERIOD. THE SUPPLEMENTAL SECTION OF FAR 121 WAS EVIDENTLY NOT REVISED THE LAST TIME THE DUTY AND REST LIMITATIONS WERE REVISED. THE OTHER LOOPHOLE IS THAT I COULD FERRY THE ACFT UNDER FAR 91 WITHOUT ANY DUTY LIMITATIONS, AND MY AIRLINE USES THAT LOOPHOLE ALL THE TIME.

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.