Narrative:

Air carrier Y management is erroneously interping an far and directing a pilot to fly an assignment that is not legal. I was originally assigned a 3-DAY trip. After finishing the third leg on day #1, scheduling changed my schedule for the following day. The change included 4 legs flying and 2 legs deadheading. The new show time reduced my rest period to an 8 hour reduced rest. When I asked mr X (not the supervisor) what the reason for the change in schedule was, he said it was due to a sick call and they had no reserve pilots at all. After receiving the assignment I calculated the flight time to check for proper required rest. These calculations showed that I had been scheduled for more than 9 hours of flight time in a 24 hour period, which now required at least 9 hours for a reduced rest period. I called scheduling to inform them I would be unable to accept this assignment due to legality. After explaining that I needed 9 hours of reduced rest, not 8 as scheduled, I was xferred to a scheduling supervisor. He insisted that this was a legal assignment because they can always reduce a pilot to 8 hours, as long as they get compensatory rest, regardless of the flight time. Knowing this was incorrect, I asked to speak to an odm. The chief pilot said it was legal because the 9 hours reduced rest did not come into affect until I actually had flown and exceeded the 9 hours flight time in a 24 hour period. Even after I pointed out the 'scheduled' wording, in reference to flight and rest time, he insisted it was legal, even though he couldn't explain why. He suggested that I contact the director of the training department. Unfortunately, he was not available. As I discussed the situation with the captain I was flying this 3-DAY with, he informed me that, as scheduling rescheduled him at the beginning of the trip, they told him to make sure he received 9 hours of rest that night. He was also scheduled for more than 9 hours in a 24 hour period, but his was scheduled that way from the beginning of the trip. Therefore, they had scheduled in a 9 hour reduced rest period already. I continued to contact other instructors, pilots and union representatives for information and input. Everyone, outside of scheduling and management agreed with me that it was not a legal assignment. Without a concrete answer either way, I completed the 8 hour reduced rest, and began the second day of flying. I continued to seek confirmation one way or another. I also informed scheduling to begin looking at covering my 4TH leg that day, because I would be refusing it if I could not obtain a reliable answer as to how it was legal. I was eventually speaking with a union lawyer who is an expert in this area. Upon explaining my situation, he immediately affirmed my belief that it was not a legal assignment. He counseled that I should only finish the assignment if directed to do so by my supervisor. I also spoke with the union safety committee and council, both of whom agreed with pilot union and myself. Between legs 2 and 3, I contacted scheduling again. A scheduling supervisor told it was legal because it was calculated on actual time, not scheduled time. I was xferred to the manager of crew scheduling, who did not know anything about the situation and asked me to call back after the next leg. When I called back after leg 3, I was put on a conference call with the director of system control, crew scheduling manager, scheduling supervisor, and the assistant chief pilot and proceeded to explain the company's interpretation of the FARS is that they only have to take scheduled flight time into account to determine a required rest period, not actual time (even if it is already flown). Therefore, at the point of rescheduling, they only had to look at what I was scheduled to fly and not what I had actually flown to determine required rest. This interpretation would have me under 9 hours in a 24 hour period, and then would only need 8 hours of reduced rest. Upon finally hearing the reason, they saw this as potentially legal. I informed them that it is not a valid interpretation. The assistant chief pilot explained that they've come up against this before and air carrier's assistant poi agreed with their interpretation. I informed assistant chief pilot of my conversation with the pilot union and the proper interpretation that was achieved at the national level between union and the FAA. Assistant chief pilot stated that the company's interpretation was that it was a legal assignment and I was to complete it. He again said it was legal and I was to complete the assignment. The assignment was then completed as directed by my supervisor.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR CREW IS ORDERED TO FLY IN APPARENT NON COMPLIANCE WITH FLT TIME AND REST LIMITATIONS OF THE FAR.

Narrative: ACR Y MGMNT IS ERRONEOUSLY INTERPING AN FAR AND DIRECTING A PLT TO FLY AN ASSIGNMENT THAT IS NOT LEGAL. I WAS ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED A 3-DAY TRIP. AFTER FINISHING THE THIRD LEG ON DAY #1, SCHEDULING CHANGED MY SCHEDULE FOR THE FOLLOWING DAY. THE CHANGE INCLUDED 4 LEGS FLYING AND 2 LEGS DEADHEADING. THE NEW SHOW TIME REDUCED MY REST PERIOD TO AN 8 HR REDUCED REST. WHEN I ASKED MR X (NOT THE SUPVR) WHAT THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE IN SCHEDULE WAS, HE SAID IT WAS DUE TO A SICK CALL AND THEY HAD NO RESERVE PLTS AT ALL. AFTER RECEIVING THE ASSIGNMENT I CALCULATED THE FLT TIME TO CHK FOR PROPER REQUIRED REST. THESE CALCULATIONS SHOWED THAT I HAD BEEN SCHEDULED FOR MORE THAN 9 HRS OF FLT TIME IN A 24 HR PERIOD, WHICH NOW REQUIRED AT LEAST 9 HRS FOR A REDUCED REST PERIOD. I CALLED SCHEDULING TO INFORM THEM I WOULD BE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS ASSIGNMENT DUE TO LEGALITY. AFTER EXPLAINING THAT I NEEDED 9 HRS OF REDUCED REST, NOT 8 AS SCHEDULED, I WAS XFERRED TO A SCHEDULING SUPVR. HE INSISTED THAT THIS WAS A LEGAL ASSIGNMENT BECAUSE THEY CAN ALWAYS REDUCE A PLT TO 8 HRS, AS LONG AS THEY GET COMPENSATORY REST, REGARDLESS OF THE FLT TIME. KNOWING THIS WAS INCORRECT, I ASKED TO SPEAK TO AN ODM. THE CHIEF PLT SAID IT WAS LEGAL BECAUSE THE 9 HRS REDUCED REST DID NOT COME INTO AFFECT UNTIL I ACTUALLY HAD FLOWN AND EXCEEDED THE 9 HRS FLT TIME IN A 24 HR PERIOD. EVEN AFTER I POINTED OUT THE 'SCHEDULED' WORDING, IN REF TO FLT AND REST TIME, HE INSISTED IT WAS LEGAL, EVEN THOUGH HE COULDN'T EXPLAIN WHY. HE SUGGESTED THAT I CONTACT THE DIRECTOR OF THE TRAINING DEPT. UNFORTUNATELY, HE WAS NOT AVAILABLE. AS I DISCUSSED THE SIT WITH THE CAPT I WAS FLYING THIS 3-DAY WITH, HE INFORMED ME THAT, AS SCHEDULING RESCHEDULED HIM AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIP, THEY TOLD HIM TO MAKE SURE HE RECEIVED 9 HRS OF REST THAT NIGHT. HE WAS ALSO SCHEDULED FOR MORE THAN 9 HRS IN A 24 HR PERIOD, BUT HIS WAS SCHEDULED THAT WAY FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIP. THEREFORE, THEY HAD SCHEDULED IN A 9 HR REDUCED REST PERIOD ALREADY. I CONTINUED TO CONTACT OTHER INSTRUCTORS, PLTS AND UNION REPRESENTATIVES FOR INFO AND INPUT. EVERYONE, OUTSIDE OF SCHEDULING AND MGMNT AGREED WITH ME THAT IT WAS NOT A LEGAL ASSIGNMENT. WITHOUT A CONCRETE ANSWER EITHER WAY, I COMPLETED THE 8 HR REDUCED REST, AND BEGAN THE SECOND DAY OF FLYING. I CONTINUED TO SEEK CONFIRMATION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. I ALSO INFORMED SCHEDULING TO BEGIN LOOKING AT COVERING MY 4TH LEG THAT DAY, BECAUSE I WOULD BE REFUSING IT IF I COULD NOT OBTAIN A RELIABLE ANSWER AS TO HOW IT WAS LEGAL. I WAS EVENTUALLY SPEAKING WITH A UNION LAWYER WHO IS AN EXPERT IN THIS AREA. UPON EXPLAINING MY SIT, HE IMMEDIATELY AFFIRMED MY BELIEF THAT IT WAS NOT A LEGAL ASSIGNMENT. HE COUNSELED THAT I SHOULD ONLY FINISH THE ASSIGNMENT IF DIRECTED TO DO SO BY MY SUPVR. I ALSO SPOKE WITH THE UNION SAFETY COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL, BOTH OF WHOM AGREED WITH PLT UNION AND MYSELF. BTWN LEGS 2 AND 3, I CONTACTED SCHEDULING AGAIN. A SCHEDULING SUPVR TOLD IT WAS LEGAL BECAUSE IT WAS CALCULATED ON ACTUAL TIME, NOT SCHEDULED TIME. I WAS XFERRED TO THE MGR OF CREW SCHEDULING, WHO DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE SIT AND ASKED ME TO CALL BACK AFTER THE NEXT LEG. WHEN I CALLED BACK AFTER LEG 3, I WAS PUT ON A CONFERENCE CALL WITH THE DIRECTOR OF SYS CTL, CREW SCHEDULING MGR, SCHEDULING SUPVR, AND THE ASSISTANT CHIEF PLT AND PROCEEDED TO EXPLAIN THE COMPANY'S INTERP OF THE FARS IS THAT THEY ONLY HAVE TO TAKE SCHEDULED FLT TIME INTO ACCOUNT TO DETERMINE A REQUIRED REST PERIOD, NOT ACTUAL TIME (EVEN IF IT IS ALREADY FLOWN). THEREFORE, AT THE POINT OF RESCHEDULING, THEY ONLY HAD TO LOOK AT WHAT I WAS SCHEDULED TO FLY AND NOT WHAT I HAD ACTUALLY FLOWN TO DETERMINE REQUIRED REST. THIS INTERP WOULD HAVE ME UNDER 9 HRS IN A 24 HR PERIOD, AND THEN WOULD ONLY NEED 8 HRS OF REDUCED REST. UPON FINALLY HEARING THE REASON, THEY SAW THIS AS POTENTIALLY LEGAL. I INFORMED THEM THAT IT IS NOT A VALID INTERP. THE ASSISTANT CHIEF PLT EXPLAINED THAT THEY'VE COME UP AGAINST THIS BEFORE AND ACR'S ASSISTANT POI AGREED WITH THEIR INTERP. I INFORMED ASSISTANT CHIEF PLT OF MY CONVERSATION WITH THE PLT UNION AND THE PROPER INTERP THAT WAS ACHIEVED AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL BTWN UNION AND THE FAA. ASSISTANT CHIEF PLT STATED THAT THE COMPANY'S INTERP WAS THAT IT WAS A LEGAL ASSIGNMENT AND I WAS TO COMPLETE IT. HE AGAIN SAID IT WAS LEGAL AND I WAS TO COMPLETE THE ASSIGNMENT. THE ASSIGNMENT WAS THEN COMPLETED AS DIRECTED BY MY SUPVR.

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.