Narrative:

On jul/wed/03, I was scheduled to operate flight from mdpc to atl. The inbound flight operated under flag rules from cle-mdpc, our check in time was XA00 local. After boarding the outbound flight a maintenance issue developed. It was later decided another aircraft would ferry in from ewr and we would operate the flight live to atl. I advised the dispatcher that my crew (front end) would be illegal to dispatch after XM30 local time. The dispatcher said this was a flag flight and duty time was not limiting. I reminded him this flight was supplemental, not flag and he said he'd call me back. I called my chief pilot and asked him to ensure this flight dispatched legally, he said he would. It should be noted this flight could not operate flag to atl according to our operations specifications. My crew left the airport to get lunch and I called to get an update on our legality. My chief pilot had consulted our director of operations and did not understand my concern. I explained that our gom clearly states no crew of 2 pilots shall exceed 16 hours of duty and that the FARS supplemental rules support that. The chief pilot cited 121.471(G) 'legal to start, legal to finish.' this rule applies to domestic operation and refers only to flight time and not duty. I disagreed with this interpretation and asked him to facsimile me a letter signed by him, stating we were legal to accept this trip. After this confusing call, I contacted our flight crew training administer who was very knowledgeable in this subject area. He did not feel this was a legal operation, agreeing 121.471(G) applied to domestic operations, did not address duty and as clarified by the 'whitlow letter' this was not legal. I asked him to intervene since I was in a 3RD world country with very limited communication ability. He said he would intervene, and I called him later. The administrator said the 'director of operations' was very angry and in a conversation with the 'director of operations' and chief pilot it was said that, 'I had better watch my step,' meaning my job was on the line if I did not accept this flight. I consulted with my first officer and we decided we were not yet fatigued (long days are the norm, here) and decided the operation was safe to continue. We however, disagreed with the company's interps and methods. We landed safely without event in atl XA57 local and went off duty at XS12 local. That is a long duty day with a crew of 2 in a supplemental operation. This airline is understaffed and has a 'director of operations' who enjoys making creative interps of the FARS. I have 2 young children and felt pressured to accept this flight despite my reservations, since I felt my job was threatened in what could be the worst economic conditions this industry has ever faced. It is made clear here that there are thousands in line for our position. I have decided in the future, now that I have been able to research the facts I will not accept this type of assignment again. There needs to be a reliable and available service to pilots which would be able to give advice on far matters and create some type of quick settlements between pilots and management. Either that, or an ATP certificate should require 18 months of law school for its issuance.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 2-MAN CREW WAS INTIMIDATED INTO ACCEPTING AN ILLEGAL ASSIGNMENT THAT THE ACR DIRECTOR OF OPS DECLARED LEGAL. THE DUTY DAY WAS 18 HRS 12 MINS.

Narrative: ON JUL/WED/03, I WAS SCHEDULED TO OPERATE FLT FROM MDPC TO ATL. THE INBOUND FLT OPERATED UNDER FLAG RULES FROM CLE-MDPC, OUR CHK IN TIME WAS XA00 LCL. AFTER BOARDING THE OUTBOUND FLT A MAINT ISSUE DEVELOPED. IT WAS LATER DECIDED ANOTHER ACFT WOULD FERRY IN FROM EWR AND WE WOULD OPERATE THE FLT LIVE TO ATL. I ADVISED THE DISPATCHER THAT MY CREW (FRONT END) WOULD BE ILLEGAL TO DISPATCH AFTER XM30 LCL TIME. THE DISPATCHER SAID THIS WAS A FLAG FLT AND DUTY TIME WAS NOT LIMITING. I REMINDED HIM THIS FLT WAS SUPPLEMENTAL, NOT FLAG AND HE SAID HE'D CALL ME BACK. I CALLED MY CHIEF PLT AND ASKED HIM TO ENSURE THIS FLT DISPATCHED LEGALLY, HE SAID HE WOULD. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THIS FLT COULD NOT OPERATE FLAG TO ATL ACCORDING TO OUR OPS SPECS. MY CREW LEFT THE ARPT TO GET LUNCH AND I CALLED TO GET AN UPDATE ON OUR LEGALITY. MY CHIEF PLT HAD CONSULTED OUR DIRECTOR OF OPS AND DID NOT UNDERSTAND MY CONCERN. I EXPLAINED THAT OUR GOM CLRLY STATES NO CREW OF 2 PLTS SHALL EXCEED 16 HRS OF DUTY AND THAT THE FARS SUPPLEMENTAL RULES SUPPORT THAT. THE CHIEF PLT CITED 121.471(G) 'LEGAL TO START, LEGAL TO FINISH.' THIS RULE APPLIES TO DOMESTIC OP AND REFERS ONLY TO FLT TIME AND NOT DUTY. I DISAGREED WITH THIS INTERP AND ASKED HIM TO FAX ME A LETTER SIGNED BY HIM, STATING WE WERE LEGAL TO ACCEPT THIS TRIP. AFTER THIS CONFUSING CALL, I CONTACTED OUR FLT CREW TRAINING ADMINISTER WHO WAS VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THIS SUBJECT AREA. HE DID NOT FEEL THIS WAS A LEGAL OP, AGREEING 121.471(G) APPLIED TO DOMESTIC OPS, DID NOT ADDRESS DUTY AND AS CLARIFIED BY THE 'WHITLOW LETTER' THIS WAS NOT LEGAL. I ASKED HIM TO INTERVENE SINCE I WAS IN A 3RD WORLD COUNTRY WITH VERY LIMITED COM ABILITY. HE SAID HE WOULD INTERVENE, AND I CALLED HIM LATER. THE ADMINISTRATOR SAID THE 'DIRECTOR OF OPS' WAS VERY ANGRY AND IN A CONVERSATION WITH THE 'DIRECTOR OF OPS' AND CHIEF PLT IT WAS SAID THAT, 'I HAD BETTER WATCH MY STEP,' MEANING MY JOB WAS ON THE LINE IF I DID NOT ACCEPT THIS FLT. I CONSULTED WITH MY FO AND WE DECIDED WE WERE NOT YET FATIGUED (LONG DAYS ARE THE NORM, HERE) AND DECIDED THE OP WAS SAFE TO CONTINUE. WE HOWEVER, DISAGREED WITH THE COMPANY'S INTERPS AND METHODS. WE LANDED SAFELY WITHOUT EVENT IN ATL XA57 LCL AND WENT OFF DUTY AT XS12 LCL. THAT IS A LONG DUTY DAY WITH A CREW OF 2 IN A SUPPLEMENTAL OP. THIS AIRLINE IS UNDERSTAFFED AND HAS A 'DIRECTOR OF OPS' WHO ENJOYS MAKING CREATIVE INTERPS OF THE FARS. I HAVE 2 YOUNG CHILDREN AND FELT PRESSURED TO ACCEPT THIS FLT DESPITE MY RESERVATIONS, SINCE I FELT MY JOB WAS THREATENED IN WHAT COULD BE THE WORST ECONOMIC CONDITIONS THIS INDUSTRY HAS EVER FACED. IT IS MADE CLR HERE THAT THERE ARE THOUSANDS IN LINE FOR OUR POS. I HAVE DECIDED IN THE FUTURE, NOW THAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO RESEARCH THE FACTS I WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS TYPE OF ASSIGNMENT AGAIN. THERE NEEDS TO BE A RELIABLE AND AVAILABLE SVC TO PLTS WHICH WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE ADVICE ON FAR MATTERS AND CREATE SOME TYPE OF QUICK SETTLEMENTS BTWN PLTS AND MGMNT. EITHER THAT, OR AN ATP CERTIFICATE SHOULD REQUIRE 18 MONTHS OF LAW SCHOOL FOR ITS ISSUANCE.

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.