Narrative:

This is a 30-hour in 7 days flight time limitation issue. On aug/xa/05 a WX related field closure at bna forced a diversion to sdf to refuel and wait for the reopening of bna. As is normally done in diversion sits; scheduling changed my sequence to reflect a 3-LEG day instead of the original 2-LEG day. The original 2-DAY sequence scheduled was: lax to bna; and bna to lga. The modified sequence was: lax to sdf; sdf to bna; and bna to lga. The change in the sequence caused a situation where I would exceed 30 hours of flying in a 7 day period on the leg from bna to lga; so I anticipated that when I arrived in bna I would be removed from the sequence. I had that expectation based on a previous experience with the 30/7 far in aug/04. In the aug/04 situation; I was on the third day of a 4-DAY trip and I was scheduled to fly into ord with a follow-on leg to the west coast. I believe the destination was lax. When I arrived in ord; I found that I had been removed from the trip and was to deadhead back to lga. I called scheduling to inquire as to why the sequence had changed. The scheduler told me that flight delays in my previous leg created a situation where I would exceed the 30/7 flight time limitation on the ord-lax leg; therefore; I had to be removed from the trip. I noted to the scheduler that I had begun the day legal to fly the ord-lax leg and that it was my understanding that overfly on the previous leg would not make me illegal. The scheduler told me that I was wrong; and that the company's interpretation of the 30/7 far was that a pilot could not start another leg; if that leg was to cause the pilot to exceed 30/7. Given the vast attention on a different FAA limitation; domestic duty day; during that timeframe and the fact that the point had been emphasized that a crew member could not depart an airport if the planned flight time would cause him to exceed the duty day FARS; I accepted the scheduler's or the company's interpretation of the 30/7 far. When I arrived in bna on aug/xa/05; I checked my sequence expecting to find that I had been removed from the bna-lga leg. When I found that I had not been removed; I called scheduling. In this case; the scheduler informed me that since I was legal when I started my duty day; I was legal to fly the bna-lga leg. Based on my previous experience; I insisted that she was wrong -- that the company's interpretation of the 30/7 far was that a pilot could not begin a leg if that leg would cause him to exceed the 30/7 far. She put me on hold and spoke with the manager on duty about the issue. She returned to inform me that the manager on duty supported her position that I was legal to fly the leg. Now I was confused; scheduling's interpretation of the 30/7 far in aug/05 was in complete conflict with scheduling's position in aug/04. Angry passenger delayed for several hours and sitting impatiently in the lobby were obviously eager to board and depart while I debated FARS with the scheduler -- not my interpretation of an far; but the company's conflicting interpretation of the FARS. As I sat on hold; I realized that both interps served the company's interests in the situation in which they were applied. Since it appeared that on one of these 2 occasions scheduling was not motivated to apply the far in accordance with the FAA's intent; I was unsure which interpretation to accept. I felt I could not trust scheduling's motivations and I did not want to document an far violation. Had I been deceived in aug/04 or was I being deceived now? I knew the 30/7 far was a scheduling limitation; not an actual flight limitation. But the issue is -- when does a scheduled flight become an actual flight? -- When the pilot reports for duty? When the aircraft departs on the first leg of the day? When the aircraft departs on each leg independently? In aug/04; scheduling's position was that a flight became actual when that specific flight departed the gate. In aug/05; scheduling's position was that a scheduled flight became an actual flight when the pilot reported for work. It seemed to me that the aug/04 interpretation -- a scheduled flight became an actual flight when that particular flight departed the gate -- was more consistent with the application of other FARS. I read the far as quoted in part I and clearly; the far could be interpreted either way. But what was the FAA's intent? The intent could not have been for far application to be inconsistent and conflicting. I told the scheduler that I would not fly the leg unless I received a message from the company specifically stating that the company's interpretation of the 30/7 far was that I was legal to fly the bna-lga leg. I received the following from the manager on duty: 'aug/xa/05: first officer xxxxx; yyyyy zzzzz; manager of operations for crew schedule regarding your 30/7 issue...once you begin your duty period legally; and subsequent overfly puts you over 30/7; you are legal to continue said duty period both contractually as well as based on far limitations and the company's interpretation of said limitations. In this instance on sequence; you were legal to start your day. While the diversion placed you into an over 30/7; since you were legal to start the duty day; you are legal to finish. If you have any further questions or concerns; please feel free to contact either myself; the chief pilot on duty; or your union. Regards; yyyyyy zzzzzz/manager of operations/crew schedule.' since the flight manual part I gives the manager on duty the authority/authorized to make 'on the scene' decisions regarding flight time limitation issues and since I thought it unfair to the passenger to further delay the flight while I verified with the chief pilot on duty and the pilot group and manager on duty's decision; I returned to the cockpit to fly the bna-lga leg.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD80 FO QUESTIONS COMPANY'S INTERP OF FLT TIME AND DUTY TIME LIMITATIONS WHEN A DIVERSION ON HIS LAST DAY'S FLYING PROJECTS THE FINAL LEG OF HIS SCHEDULED SEQUENCE TO RESULT IN MORE THAN 30 HRS ALOFT IN 7 CONSECUTIVE DAYS.

Narrative: THIS IS A 30-HR IN 7 DAYS FLT TIME LIMITATION ISSUE. ON AUG/XA/05 A WX RELATED FIELD CLOSURE AT BNA FORCED A DIVERSION TO SDF TO REFUEL AND WAIT FOR THE REOPENING OF BNA. AS IS NORMALLY DONE IN DIVERSION SITS; SCHEDULING CHANGED MY SEQUENCE TO REFLECT A 3-LEG DAY INSTEAD OF THE ORIGINAL 2-LEG DAY. THE ORIGINAL 2-DAY SEQUENCE SCHEDULED WAS: LAX TO BNA; AND BNA TO LGA. THE MODIFIED SEQUENCE WAS: LAX TO SDF; SDF TO BNA; AND BNA TO LGA. THE CHANGE IN THE SEQUENCE CAUSED A SITUATION WHERE I WOULD EXCEED 30 HRS OF FLYING IN A 7 DAY PERIOD ON THE LEG FROM BNA TO LGA; SO I ANTICIPATED THAT WHEN I ARRIVED IN BNA I WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE SEQUENCE. I HAD THAT EXPECTATION BASED ON A PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH THE 30/7 FAR IN AUG/04. IN THE AUG/04 SIT; I WAS ON THE THIRD DAY OF A 4-DAY TRIP AND I WAS SCHEDULED TO FLY INTO ORD WITH A FOLLOW-ON LEG TO THE WEST COAST. I BELIEVE THE DEST WAS LAX. WHEN I ARRIVED IN ORD; I FOUND THAT I HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE TRIP AND WAS TO DEADHEAD BACK TO LGA. I CALLED SCHEDULING TO INQUIRE AS TO WHY THE SEQUENCE HAD CHANGED. THE SCHEDULER TOLD ME THAT FLT DELAYS IN MY PREVIOUS LEG CREATED A SITUATION WHERE I WOULD EXCEED THE 30/7 FLT TIME LIMITATION ON THE ORD-LAX LEG; THEREFORE; I HAD TO BE REMOVED FROM THE TRIP. I NOTED TO THE SCHEDULER THAT I HAD BEGUN THE DAY LEGAL TO FLY THE ORD-LAX LEG AND THAT IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT OVERFLY ON THE PREVIOUS LEG WOULD NOT MAKE ME ILLEGAL. THE SCHEDULER TOLD ME THAT I WAS WRONG; AND THAT THE COMPANY'S INTERP OF THE 30/7 FAR WAS THAT A PLT COULD NOT START ANOTHER LEG; IF THAT LEG WAS TO CAUSE THE PLT TO EXCEED 30/7. GIVEN THE VAST ATTN ON A DIFFERENT FAA LIMITATION; DOMESTIC DUTY DAY; DURING THAT TIMEFRAME AND THE FACT THAT THE POINT HAD BEEN EMPHASIZED THAT A CREW MEMBER COULD NOT DEPART AN ARPT IF THE PLANNED FLT TIME WOULD CAUSE HIM TO EXCEED THE DUTY DAY FARS; I ACCEPTED THE SCHEDULER'S OR THE COMPANY'S INTERP OF THE 30/7 FAR. WHEN I ARRIVED IN BNA ON AUG/XA/05; I CHKED MY SEQUENCE EXPECTING TO FIND THAT I HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE BNA-LGA LEG. WHEN I FOUND THAT I HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED; I CALLED SCHEDULING. IN THIS CASE; THE SCHEDULER INFORMED ME THAT SINCE I WAS LEGAL WHEN I STARTED MY DUTY DAY; I WAS LEGAL TO FLY THE BNA-LGA LEG. BASED ON MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE; I INSISTED THAT SHE WAS WRONG -- THAT THE COMPANY'S INTERP OF THE 30/7 FAR WAS THAT A PLT COULD NOT BEGIN A LEG IF THAT LEG WOULD CAUSE HIM TO EXCEED THE 30/7 FAR. SHE PUT ME ON HOLD AND SPOKE WITH THE MGR ON DUTY ABOUT THE ISSUE. SHE RETURNED TO INFORM ME THAT THE MGR ON DUTY SUPPORTED HER POS THAT I WAS LEGAL TO FLY THE LEG. NOW I WAS CONFUSED; SCHEDULING'S INTERP OF THE 30/7 FAR IN AUG/05 WAS IN COMPLETE CONFLICT WITH SCHEDULING'S POS IN AUG/04. ANGRY PAX DELAYED FOR SEVERAL HRS AND SITTING IMPATIENTLY IN THE LOBBY WERE OBVIOUSLY EAGER TO BOARD AND DEPART WHILE I DEBATED FARS WITH THE SCHEDULER -- NOT MY INTERP OF AN FAR; BUT THE COMPANY'S CONFLICTING INTERP OF THE FARS. AS I SAT ON HOLD; I REALIZED THAT BOTH INTERPS SERVED THE COMPANY'S INTERESTS IN THE SIT IN WHICH THEY WERE APPLIED. SINCE IT APPEARED THAT ON ONE OF THESE 2 OCCASIONS SCHEDULING WAS NOT MOTIVATED TO APPLY THE FAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAA'S INTENT; I WAS UNSURE WHICH INTERP TO ACCEPT. I FELT I COULD NOT TRUST SCHEDULING'S MOTIVATIONS AND I DID NOT WANT TO DOCUMENT AN FAR VIOLATION. HAD I BEEN DECEIVED IN AUG/04 OR WAS I BEING DECEIVED NOW? I KNEW THE 30/7 FAR WAS A SCHEDULING LIMITATION; NOT AN ACTUAL FLT LIMITATION. BUT THE ISSUE IS -- WHEN DOES A SCHEDULED FLT BECOME AN ACTUAL FLT? -- WHEN THE PLT RPTS FOR DUTY? WHEN THE ACFT DEPARTS ON THE FIRST LEG OF THE DAY? WHEN THE ACFT DEPARTS ON EACH LEG INDEPENDENTLY? IN AUG/04; SCHEDULING'S POS WAS THAT A FLT BECAME ACTUAL WHEN THAT SPECIFIC FLT DEPARTED THE GATE. IN AUG/05; SCHEDULING'S POS WAS THAT A SCHEDULED FLT BECAME AN ACTUAL FLT WHEN THE PLT RPTED FOR WORK. IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THE AUG/04 INTERP -- A SCHEDULED FLT BECAME AN ACTUAL FLT WHEN THAT PARTICULAR FLT DEPARTED THE GATE -- WAS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICATION OF OTHER FARS. I READ THE FAR AS QUOTED IN PART I AND CLRLY; THE FAR COULD BE INTERPED EITHER WAY. BUT WHAT WAS THE FAA'S INTENT? THE INTENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOR FAR APPLICATION TO BE INCONSISTENT AND CONFLICTING. I TOLD THE SCHEDULER THAT I WOULD NOT FLY THE LEG UNLESS I RECEIVED A MESSAGE FROM THE COMPANY SPECIFICALLY STATING THAT THE COMPANY'S INTERP OF THE 30/7 FAR WAS THAT I WAS LEGAL TO FLY THE BNA-LGA LEG. I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING FROM THE MGR ON DUTY: 'AUG/XA/05: FO XXXXX; YYYYY ZZZZZ; MGR OF OPS FOR CREW SCHEDULE REGARDING YOUR 30/7 ISSUE...ONCE YOU BEGIN YOUR DUTY PERIOD LEGALLY; AND SUBSEQUENT OVERFLY PUTS YOU OVER 30/7; YOU ARE LEGAL TO CONTINUE SAID DUTY PERIOD BOTH CONTRACTUALLY AS WELL AS BASED ON FAR LIMITATIONS AND THE COMPANY'S INTERP OF SAID LIMITATIONS. IN THIS INSTANCE ON SEQUENCE; YOU WERE LEGAL TO START YOUR DAY. WHILE THE DIVERSION PLACED YOU INTO AN OVER 30/7; SINCE YOU WERE LEGAL TO START THE DUTY DAY; YOU ARE LEGAL TO FINISH. IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS; PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT EITHER MYSELF; THE CHIEF PLT ON DUTY; OR YOUR UNION. REGARDS; YYYYYY ZZZZZZ/MGR OF OPS/CREW SCHEDULE.' SINCE THE FLT MANUAL PART I GIVES THE MGR ON DUTY THE AUTH TO MAKE 'ON THE SCENE' DECISIONS REGARDING FLT TIME LIMITATION ISSUES AND SINCE I THOUGHT IT UNFAIR TO THE PAX TO FURTHER DELAY THE FLT WHILE I VERIFIED WITH THE CHIEF PLT ON DUTY AND THE PLT GROUP AND MGR ON DUTY'S DECISION; I RETURNED TO THE COCKPIT TO FLY THE BNA-LGA LEG.

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.