Narrative:

A flight occurred from sba airport to lax airport. Upon arrival at lax, the WX conditions were below required landing limitations as set per far and company procedures. Therefore, our flight held over jesta intersection for about 45 mins. At this time, I proceeded to the alternate airport, psp. Upon arrival at psp, I noticed I may have a flight time limitation conflict. I called crew scheduling to inform them that I thought I would exceed 30 in 7 flight time limitation. They informed me that their computer did not alert of a 30 in 7 scheduling conflict and that due to unforeseen WX, that the sba flts scheduled later in the day were legal. I informed them that it still appeared that there was a flight time scheduling problem, but I was again informed there was no 30 in 7 problem. I noticed that crew scheduling remarked in my flight sequence record, that the leg causing the suspected far deviation, was a diverted flight. This would then indicate that the schedule fell under the special provision of the regulation, due to unforeseen conditions beyond the control of the operator, that the schedule was scheduled to be completed under the flight time limitation, but due to the diverted flight, it would take me over the 30 in 7 limitation. After completing the schedule, and reviewing the current far, it is still unclr as to the clarity of the far concerning the 30 hours in 7 consecutive days limitation and how unforeseen WX can affect the flight time. The WX that day in lax was very unpredictable as the foggy conditions moved in and out over the airport boundary all day long. The schedule was legal until the last leg and the WX variations all day created confusion as to whether the schedule would go over. I believe it needs to be made more clear in the regulations as to the meaning of unforeseen conditions allowing this limitation to be exceeded. The regulations are very clear as to overflying 8 hours in a 24 consecutive hour period, therefore, this part of the regulation needs to be very specific to clear up the confusion in interpreting the intention of this rule. In the future, more parties will be involved to avoid any unintentional misinterp of this far regulation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN SF340 ACR PIC INDICATES HIS CONFUSION OF HOW THE UNFORESEEN WX FACTORS IN THE '8 IN 24' RULING APPLIES TO THE '30 IN 7' RULING AS WELL AT LAX, CA.

Narrative: A FLT OCCURRED FROM SBA ARPT TO LAX ARPT. UPON ARR AT LAX, THE WX CONDITIONS WERE BELOW REQUIRED LNDG LIMITATIONS AS SET PER FAR AND COMPANY PROCS. THEREFORE, OUR FLT HELD OVER JESTA INTXN FOR ABOUT 45 MINS. AT THIS TIME, I PROCEEDED TO THE ALTERNATE ARPT, PSP. UPON ARR AT PSP, I NOTICED I MAY HAVE A FLT TIME LIMITATION CONFLICT. I CALLED CREW SCHEDULING TO INFORM THEM THAT I THOUGHT I WOULD EXCEED 30 IN 7 FLT TIME LIMITATION. THEY INFORMED ME THAT THEIR COMPUTER DID NOT ALERT OF A 30 IN 7 SCHEDULING CONFLICT AND THAT DUE TO UNFORESEEN WX, THAT THE SBA FLTS SCHEDULED LATER IN THE DAY WERE LEGAL. I INFORMED THEM THAT IT STILL APPEARED THAT THERE WAS A FLT TIME SCHEDULING PROB, BUT I WAS AGAIN INFORMED THERE WAS NO 30 IN 7 PROB. I NOTICED THAT CREW SCHEDULING REMARKED IN MY FLT SEQUENCE RECORD, THAT THE LEG CAUSING THE SUSPECTED FAR DEV, WAS A DIVERTED FLT. THIS WOULD THEN INDICATE THAT THE SCHEDULE FELL UNDER THE SPECIAL PROVISION OF THE REG, DUE TO UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS BEYOND THE CTL OF THE OPERATOR, THAT THE SCHEDULE WAS SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED UNDER THE FLT TIME LIMITATION, BUT DUE TO THE DIVERTED FLT, IT WOULD TAKE ME OVER THE 30 IN 7 LIMITATION. AFTER COMPLETING THE SCHEDULE, AND REVIEWING THE CURRENT FAR, IT IS STILL UNCLR AS TO THE CLARITY OF THE FAR CONCERNING THE 30 HRS IN 7 CONSECUTIVE DAYS LIMITATION AND HOW UNFORESEEN WX CAN AFFECT THE FLT TIME. THE WX THAT DAY IN LAX WAS VERY UNPREDICTABLE AS THE FOGGY CONDITIONS MOVED IN AND OUT OVER THE ARPT BOUNDARY ALL DAY LONG. THE SCHEDULE WAS LEGAL UNTIL THE LAST LEG AND THE WX VARIATIONS ALL DAY CREATED CONFUSION AS TO WHETHER THE SCHEDULE WOULD GO OVER. I BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE MADE MORE CLR IN THE REGS AS TO THE MEANING OF UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS ALLOWING THIS LIMITATION TO BE EXCEEDED. THE REGS ARE VERY CLR AS TO OVERFLYING 8 HRS IN A 24 CONSECUTIVE HR PERIOD, THEREFORE, THIS PART OF THE REG NEEDS TO BE VERY SPECIFIC TO CLR UP THE CONFUSION IN INTERPRETING THE INTENTION OF THIS RULE. IN THE FUTURE, MORE PARTIES WILL BE INVOLVED TO AVOID ANY UNINTENTIONAL MISINTERP OF THIS FAR REG.

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.