Narrative:

The 'rules' cited by the company were in conflict with crew understanding and physical condition. After returning to hnl at XA47 GMT with an FMC problem; I called scheduling to discuss duty time issues for the remainder of the day. I was concerned that I would land in ZZZ1 or ZZZ2 with more than 8.0 hours of flight time and would exceed duty time limitations. I was reassured by the scheduling manager that this was not the case. I was told that because the FMC problem was an issue beyond the control of the company I could be scheduled to fly longer than 8.0 hours. I said I also thought that fatigue would be a factor even if it was legal. I was told to go look at the fom and regulations. I went back to the aircraft and the maintenance computer person wanted to discuss the in-flight indications and problems. Both the first officer and I spent time with the mechanic trying to make sense out of the FMC problem. The passenger remained on the aircraft while maintenance checked out the computer because the agents did not want to have them go through the agriculture inspection again. They were not happy. The flight attendants worked hard the entire time we were on the ground to get the plane reserviced and to accommodate the passenger. Another very distracting problem was the APU bleed air was not working so an air cart was required at the gate. The sound of the air cart was very loud throughout the entire ground time. I tried to call someone in flight operations to clarify the duty time issue. No one was in the office. I tried to call the manager of scheduling back twice and she was on the phone. We were told by maintenance the aircraft was ready to go. The first officer and flight attendant crew agreed to depart for ZZZ and discuss the duty time problem enroute. We departed honolulu. We took off over 3 hours late and had no further problem with the FMC. Enroute the first officer and I read through the fom and found references to duty time issues: 1. The fom says ETOPS will be conducted under either flag or supplemental air carrier rules with a note that says non-ETOPS segments of ETOPS flight are governed by domestic air carrier rules. Another section directly addresses the issue of returning to hnl and then flying to the mainland with a stop then on to ZZZ2 and exceeding 8.0 hours of flight time (as a result of 'circumstances beyond the control of the company' such as a maintenance delay). After reading the above information and comparing it to FARS 121.471 and 121.481 (B) (C) we were not clear what we were legal to do. I asked for a patch through commercial radio to talk to dispatch about the issue. The dispatcher on duty clarified that we would not exceed 8.0 hours of flight time upon landing at ZZZ and said we were legal to continue onto ZZZ2. I said I still was not clear but that we would take the flight from ZZZ to ZZZ2. We were not exceeding our contract duty time limits and had received confirmation from three sources from the company (fom; scheduling; and dispatch) about the interpretation of regulations. We landed in ZZZ2 at XK02 GMT. I was exhausted. Even if the regulations were not exceeded; I was not thinking clearly. I had been awake for 23 hours. The 2.0 hours in flight with the FMC problem was draining. It was a complex; ambiguous problem not fitting into any checklist or previously trained scenario. I was on the ground for an hour and a half and talked with mechanics; passenger; and scheduling trying to work out problems before we departed again for ZZZ. The flight back to honolulu from ZZZ2 and ZZZ was uneventful but a blur. Even though the flights were uneventful; the level of safety due to situational awareness; decision making ability; communications and workload management was compromised. I found myself lapsing into a daze. Fortunately we had a pilot jumpseater for the trip from ZZZ to ZZZ2 who contributed to keeping the situational awareness at a higher level.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter had little information beyond that included in the narrative. The company continues to believe that the assignment was legal and that position has been upheld by their poi. There has been no attempt to make the language by which the decision was made more user friendly as suggested by the reporter.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-700 FLT CREW QUESTIONS LEGALITY OF OCEANIC FLT ASSIGNMENT FOLLOWING A RETURN TO DEP STATION FOR FMC MAINTENANCE.

Narrative: THE 'RULES' CITED BY THE COMPANY WERE IN CONFLICT WITH CREW UNDERSTANDING AND PHYSICAL CONDITION. AFTER RETURNING TO HNL AT XA47 GMT WITH AN FMC PROBLEM; I CALLED SCHEDULING TO DISCUSS DUTY TIME ISSUES FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE DAY. I WAS CONCERNED THAT I WOULD LAND IN ZZZ1 OR ZZZ2 WITH MORE THAN 8.0 HOURS OF FLIGHT TIME AND WOULD EXCEED DUTY TIME LIMITATIONS. I WAS REASSURED BY THE SCHEDULING MANAGER THAT THIS WAS NOT THE CASE. I WAS TOLD THAT BECAUSE THE FMC PROBLEM WAS AN ISSUE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE COMPANY I COULD BE SCHEDULED TO FLY LONGER THAN 8.0 HOURS. I SAID I ALSO THOUGHT THAT FATIGUE WOULD BE A FACTOR EVEN IF IT WAS LEGAL. I WAS TOLD TO GO LOOK AT THE FOM AND REGULATIONS. I WENT BACK TO THE AIRCRAFT AND THE MAINTENANCE COMPUTER PERSON WANTED TO DISCUSS THE IN-FLIGHT INDICATIONS AND PROBLEMS. BOTH THE FIRST OFFICER AND I SPENT TIME WITH THE MECHANIC TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OUT OF THE FMC PROBLEM. THE PAX REMAINED ON THE AIRCRAFT WHILE MAINTENANCE CHECKED OUT THE COMPUTER BECAUSE THE AGENTS DID NOT WANT TO HAVE THEM GO THROUGH THE AGRICULTURE INSPECTION AGAIN. THEY WERE NOT HAPPY. THE FLIGHT ATTENDANTS WORKED HARD THE ENTIRE TIME WE WERE ON THE GROUND TO GET THE PLANE RESERVICED AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE PAX. ANOTHER VERY DISTRACTING PROBLEM WAS THE APU BLEED AIR WAS NOT WORKING SO AN AIR CART WAS REQUIRED AT THE GATE. THE SOUND OF THE AIR CART WAS VERY LOUD THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE GROUND TIME. I TRIED TO CALL SOMEONE IN FLIGHT OPERATIONS TO CLARIFY THE DUTY TIME ISSUE. NO ONE WAS IN THE OFFICE. I TRIED TO CALL THE MANAGER OF SCHEDULING BACK TWICE AND SHE WAS ON THE PHONE. WE WERE TOLD BY MAINTENANCE THE AIRCRAFT WAS READY TO GO. THE FIRST OFFICER AND FLIGHT ATTENDANT CREW AGREED TO DEPART FOR ZZZ AND DISCUSS THE DUTY TIME PROBLEM ENROUTE. WE DEPARTED HONOLULU. WE TOOK OFF OVER 3 HOURS LATE AND HAD NO FURTHER PROBLEM WITH THE FMC. ENROUTE THE FIRST OFFICER AND I READ THROUGH THE FOM AND FOUND REFERENCES TO DUTY TIME ISSUES: 1. THE FOM SAYS ETOPS WILL BE CONDUCTED UNDER EITHER FLAG OR SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIER RULES WITH A NOTE THAT SAYS NON-ETOPS SEGMENTS OF ETOPS FLIGHT ARE GOVERNED BY DOMESTIC AIR CARRIER RULES. ANOTHER SECTION DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF RETURNING TO HNL AND THEN FLYING TO THE MAINLAND WITH A STOP THEN ON TO ZZZ2 AND EXCEEDING 8.0 HOURS OF FLIGHT TIME (AS A RESULT OF 'CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE COMPANY' SUCH AS A MAINTENANCE DELAY). AFTER READING THE ABOVE INFORMATION AND COMPARING IT TO FARS 121.471 AND 121.481 (B) (C) WE WERE NOT CLEAR WHAT WE WERE LEGAL TO DO. I ASKED FOR A PATCH THROUGH COMMERCIAL RADIO TO TALK TO DISPATCH ABOUT THE ISSUE. THE DISPATCHER ON DUTY CLARIFIED THAT WE WOULD NOT EXCEED 8.0 HOURS OF FLIGHT TIME UPON LANDING AT ZZZ AND SAID WE WERE LEGAL TO CONTINUE ONTO ZZZ2. I SAID I STILL WAS NOT CLEAR BUT THAT WE WOULD TAKE THE FLIGHT FROM ZZZ TO ZZZ2. WE WERE NOT EXCEEDING OUR CONTRACT DUTY TIME LIMITS AND HAD RECEIVED CONFIRMATION FROM THREE SOURCES FROM THE COMPANY (FOM; SCHEDULING; AND DISPATCH) ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATIONS. WE LANDED IN ZZZ2 AT XK02 GMT. I WAS EXHAUSTED. EVEN IF THE REGULATIONS WERE NOT EXCEEDED; I WAS NOT THINKING CLEARLY. I HAD BEEN AWAKE FOR 23 HOURS. THE 2.0 HOURS IN FLIGHT WITH THE FMC PROBLEM WAS DRAINING. IT WAS A COMPLEX; AMBIGUOUS PROBLEM NOT FITTING INTO ANY CHECKLIST OR PREVIOUSLY TRAINED SCENARIO. I WAS ON THE GROUND FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF AND TALKED WITH MECHANICS; PAX; AND SCHEDULING TRYING TO WORK OUT PROBLEMS BEFORE WE DEPARTED AGAIN FOR ZZZ. THE FLIGHT BACK TO HONOLULU FROM ZZZ2 AND ZZZ WAS UNEVENTFUL BUT A BLUR. EVEN THOUGH THE FLIGHTS WERE UNEVENTFUL; THE LEVEL OF SAFETY DUE TO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS; DECISION MAKING ABILITY; COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKLOAD MANAGEMENT WAS COMPROMISED. I FOUND MYSELF LAPSING INTO A DAZE. FORTUNATELY WE HAD A PILOT JUMPSEATER FOR THE TRIP FROM ZZZ TO ZZZ2 WHO CONTRIBUTED TO KEEPING THE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS AT A HIGHER LEVEL.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE REPORTER HAD LITTLE INFORMATION BEYOND THAT INCLUDED IN THE NARRATIVE. THE COMPANY CONTINUES TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSIGNMENT WAS LEGAL AND THAT POSITION HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THEIR POI. THERE HAS BEEN NO ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE LANGUAGE BY WHICH THE DECISION WAS MADE MORE USER FRIENDLY AS SUGGESTED BY THE REPORTER.

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.