Narrative:

When tallying my actual flight times for the past six days; and before beginning a trip for the next day I discovered that I would exceed 30 hours in a 7 day period if I accepted my trip for the preceding day. Upon this discovery; I contacted crew scheduling via the phone to inform them of this issue and to also verify the flight time that I used for my computation. After speaking with both a scheduler and a supervisor; I was informed from them that I would indeed exceed 30 hours in a 7 day period; however this was legal to do so because 'I was legal to start the trip; so I would be legal to finish.' I informed them that I disagreed with this argument or interpretation and I still did not believe that I was legal to accept the trip from the next day. They continued to repeat 'legal to start; legal to finish; and I explained again that that did not apply until I was instructed to contact the chief pilot if I would not fly the trip. I was able to reach the chief pilot again via the phone and it was evident that he had already spoken with crew scheduling because the only answer I received in regards to this situation was 'legal to start; legal to finish.' at this point I again explained the entire situation to verify that there was absolutely no confusion to this matter. The chief pilot explained to me that he understood the situation; however for future reference; 'as long as you are not scheduled to break any flight time regulations at the beginning of the month; you were legal to fly no matter how many hours you acquired due to delays; weather; etc.' essentially his viewpoint was that you would never have to look back or compare your times once you started your month's schedule. Although I did not feel that this was the correct explanation to this regulation; I reluctantly flew the trip that next day as it became evident that if I did not accept it I would face disciplinary action or possibly be fired for insubordination. In order to correct this issue from arising again; I would ask that more training be done for all parties: myself; scheduling; and management to reduce the confusion and misinterpretation I met when bringing this situation to their attention. Also; regulations that protect the pilot when standing up against management alone would make to easier to speak out when he or she believes something is wrong.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN EMB145 PLT IS ORDERED BY HIS ACR TO FLY EVEN AFTER ALL PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGED THAT TO DO SO WOULD VIOLATE THE 30 HRS IN 7 DAYS REGULATION.

Narrative: WHEN TALLYING MY ACTUAL FLT TIMES FOR THE PAST SIX DAYS; AND BEFORE BEGINNING A TRIP FOR THE NEXT DAY I DISCOVERED THAT I WOULD EXCEED 30 HRS IN A 7 DAY PERIOD IF I ACCEPTED MY TRIP FOR THE PRECEDING DAY. UPON THIS DISCOVERY; I CONTACTED CREW SCHEDULING VIA THE PHONE TO INFORM THEM OF THIS ISSUE AND TO ALSO VERIFY THE FLT TIME THAT I USED FOR MY COMPUTATION. AFTER SPEAKING WITH BOTH A SCHEDULER AND A SUPVR; I WAS INFORMED FROM THEM THAT I WOULD INDEED EXCEED 30 HRS IN A 7 DAY PERIOD; HOWEVER THIS WAS LEGAL TO DO SO BECAUSE 'I WAS LEGAL TO START THE TRIP; SO I WOULD BE LEGAL TO FINISH.' I INFORMED THEM THAT I DISAGREED WITH THIS ARGUMENT OR INTERPRETATION AND I STILL DID NOT BELIEVE THAT I WAS LEGAL TO ACCEPT THE TRIP FROM THE NEXT DAY. THEY CONTINUED TO REPEAT 'LEGAL TO START; LEGAL TO FINISH; AND I EXPLAINED AGAIN THAT THAT DID NOT APPLY UNTIL I WAS INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT THE CHIEF PLT IF I WOULD NOT FLY THE TRIP. I WAS ABLE TO REACH THE CHIEF PLT AGAIN VIA THE PHONE AND IT WAS EVIDENT THAT HE HAD ALREADY SPOKEN WITH CREW SCHEDULING BECAUSE THE ONLY ANSWER I RECEIVED IN REGARDS TO THIS SIT WAS 'LEGAL TO START; LEGAL TO FINISH.' AT THIS POINT I AGAIN EXPLAINED THE ENTIRE SIT TO VERIFY THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO CONFUSION TO THIS MATTER. THE CHIEF PLT EXPLAINED TO ME THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE SIT; HOWEVER FOR FUTURE REFERENCE; 'AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT SCHEDULED TO BREAK ANY FLT TIME REGULATIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MONTH; YOU WERE LEGAL TO FLY NO MATTER HOW MANY HOURS YOU ACQUIRED DUE TO DELAYS; WEATHER; ETC.' ESSENTIALLY HIS VIEWPOINT WAS THAT YOU WOULD NEVER HAVE TO LOOK BACK OR COMPARE YOUR TIMES ONCE YOU STARTED YOUR MONTH'S SCHEDULE. ALTHOUGH I DID NOT FEEL THAT THIS WAS THE CORRECT EXPLANATION TO THIS REGULATION; I RELUCTANTLY FLEW THE TRIP THAT NEXT DAY AS IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT IF I DID NOT ACCEPT IT I WOULD FACE DISCIPLINARY ACTION OR POSSIBLY BE FIRED FOR INSUBORDINATION. IN ORDER TO CORRECT THIS ISSUE FROM ARISING AGAIN; I WOULD ASK THAT MORE TRAINING BE DONE FOR ALL PARTIES: MYSELF; SCHEDULING; AND MANAGEMENT TO REDUCE THE CONFUSION AND MISINTERPRETATION I MET WHEN BRINGING THIS SIT TO THEIR ATTENTION. ALSO; REGULATIONS THAT PROTECT THE PLT WHEN STANDING UP AGAINST MANAGEMENT ALONE WOULD MAKE TO EASIER TO SPEAK OUT WHEN HE OR SHE BELIEVES SOMETHING IS WRONG.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.