Narrative:

In sum: reporter believes that his air carrier's poor flight crew resources planning causes flight crew scheduling to violate far 121.485. Specifically; this reporter was scheduled to have for 24+18 rest period following an arrival from an international trip. The reporter believes that his air carrier may not contact him with another assignment during that rest period because the far removes him from all duty. However; approximately 9 hours prior to the rest period's termination; the scheduling department called with another assignment for later that day; thus moving his next planned trip up by 24 hours. The reporter contended with the crew scheduler that he was not required to take the trip because having been contacted by scheduling his mandatory far scheduled rest period was violated. However; the scheduler xferred the reporter to a supervisor who coerced him into taking the trip and furthermore punished him by putting the reporter in a reserve status for the remainder of the month. The reporter believes that his rest period should have started over again. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that based on the exact wording of far 121.485 he is unsure whether his company is prohibited by this regulation from contacting him in order to assign a trip outside of his rest period. He feels that in this and other instances the air carrier has abused crew rest with rescheduled assignments on the edge of complying with the far.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B747-400 PLT BELIEVES HIS ACR MAY BE VIOLATING FAR 121.485 CREW REST REQUIREMENTS.

Narrative: IN SUM: RPTR BELIEVES THAT HIS ACR'S POOR FLT CREW RESOURCES PLANNING CAUSES FLT CREW SCHEDULING TO VIOLATE FAR 121.485. SPECIFICALLY; THIS RPTR WAS SCHEDULED TO HAVE FOR 24+18 REST PERIOD FOLLOWING AN ARR FROM AN INTL TRIP. THE RPTR BELIEVES THAT HIS ACR MAY NOT CONTACT HIM WITH ANOTHER ASSIGNMENT DURING THAT REST PERIOD BECAUSE THE FAR REMOVES HIM FROM ALL DUTY. HOWEVER; APPROX 9 HRS PRIOR TO THE REST PERIOD'S TERMINATION; THE SCHEDULING DEPT CALLED WITH ANOTHER ASSIGNMENT FOR LATER THAT DAY; THUS MOVING HIS NEXT PLANNED TRIP UP BY 24 HRS. THE RPTR CONTENDED WITH THE CREW SCHEDULER THAT HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE THE TRIP BECAUSE HAVING BEEN CONTACTED BY SCHEDULING HIS MANDATORY FAR SCHEDULED REST PERIOD WAS VIOLATED. HOWEVER; THE SCHEDULER XFERRED THE RPTR TO A SUPVR WHO COERCED HIM INTO TAKING THE TRIP AND FURTHERMORE PUNISHED HIM BY PUTTING THE RPTR IN A RESERVE STATUS FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE MONTH. THE RPTR BELIEVES THAT HIS REST PERIOD SHOULD HAVE STARTED OVER AGAIN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT BASED ON THE EXACT WORDING OF FAR 121.485 HE IS UNSURE WHETHER HIS COMPANY IS PROHIBITED BY THIS REG FROM CONTACTING HIM IN ORDER TO ASSIGN A TRIP OUTSIDE OF HIS REST PERIOD. HE FEELS THAT IN THIS AND OTHER INSTANCES THE ACR HAS ABUSED CREW REST WITH RESCHEDULED ASSIGNMENTS ON THE EDGE OF COMPLYING WITH THE FAR.

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.