Narrative:

Upon receiving/reviewing flight paperwork 1:30 prior to departure; noted a non-normal flight route; and abnormally long flight time (6+09). Pairing is normally schedule for 5+40 block time. Contacted dispatch to receive a flight briefing; they reiterated the lengthy routing was due to enroute WX as well as ETOPS alternate airport weather consideration. At that time; I asked if dispatch was planning on using the same route to return; as that may infringe upon far 121.483a (two-pilots plus an additional crewmember limited to 12 hours of flying in a 24 consecutive hour period). Dispatch stated they weren't sure (as they were trying to coordinate 'other' flight delay problems at the same time as my briefing). Dispatch said they didn't think about that; and that they appreciated the 'heads up'. I then called crew scheduler right away and made him aware of the possibility of a 12/24 problem. He responded by saying it hadn't been loaded into crew tracking system yet and that he would check it out and keeps an eye on it. Due to enroute turbulence; aircraft speed was limited to M.78 (flight planned at M.80) over roughly 40% of the flight; therefore increasing the overall block time to 6+39 at block in at the destination. Preparing for a quick turnaround; the captain reviewed the return flight planning paperwork; finding the reverse course on the abnormally long route with a flight time projected at 6+03. Discussions between the flight crew ensued between the flight crew regarding the far 12 hour limitation. I contacted crew scheduling right away and let him know that we were not willing to accept this assignment; as it would exceed the far. He stated that the regulation was based on 'planned' block (via the pairings); not actual block time for the day. I asked to speak with his supervisor. He responded by accepting my request to speak to the supervisor; as he would 'get him on the phone'. I was placed on hold for approximately 3 minutes; at which time the scheduler relayed; '...the supervisor says there are provisions in the contract to allow a 3 pilot crew to take the flight; therefore he is ordering us to take the return flight to our home base'. (Note: the contract deals only with duty-time; not far's; I was a bit confused) I subsequently called chief pilot on his cell phone and got voicemail; I did not leave a message - the greeting was generic and I wasn't sure I had the correct number. Shortly thereafter; on the local agent's duty cell; the chief pilot called and we briefly spoke of the situation. He understood the situation and that the scheduling supervisor had ordered us to take the flight; the chief pilot ordered us to take the return flight. Seeing as there is only 1 flight/week on this route and that it would cause undue delay to the passengers and crew; and costs involved in passenger and crew accommodation and/or rebooking; it is understandable that management would want the aircraft to return as planned. As this is already a diurnal turn for a heavy crew; the workload is high enough; especially on the return leg with the middle of the night departure; and local/enroute weather conditions. It is rare that due to such extreme weather that the flight/crew are planned for the abnormal route and flight time. I feel that in such case(s); the burden should not be placed upon the crew to complete the mission for purely financial gain on the part of the company; by keeping the schedule; regardless of what conditions the crew may face. Taking 'strained' interpretations of the far's; and making the crew fly now/grieve later is unacceptable. The company was given a 'heads up' prior to departure (dispatch; crew scheduling). Company (crew scheduler; senior director crew scheduling; chief pilot) was again notified of the impending far violation amid the pairing; and the crews' wishes to not continue the flight. Understanding that there are cases where an 'operational issue' amid a flight day/pairing causes either a 2 or 3 pilot crew to exceed the 8 or 12 in 24 hour rule(s); this was stretching it; as the company was well aware of weather; route; flight/block time(s); and far's....prior to departure...yet chose to put on-time performance and revenue generation before safety. Diurnal operation; augmented crew; abnormal routing; extended flight time; enroute/ETOPS alternate and destination weather issues. I; as the captain; made the company very aware of the issue we were up against. The crew was not supported in this operation. Luckily; all were well rested prior to initially reporting for the flight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Three B767-300 pilots were ordered to fly a return leg on an international trip which would put the crew over 12 flight hours in 24. The Company knew prior to departure that the problem would exist.

Narrative: Upon receiving/reviewing flight paperwork 1:30 prior to departure; noted a non-normal flight route; and abnormally long FLIGHT time (6+09). Pairing is normally schedule for 5+40 BLOCK time. Contacted Dispatch to receive a flight briefing; they reiterated the lengthy routing was due to enroute WX as well as ETOPS alternate airport weather consideration. At that time; I asked IF Dispatch was planning on using the same route to return; as that may infringe upon FAR 121.483a (two-pilots plus an additional crewmember limited to 12 hours of flying in a 24 consecutive hour period). Dispatch stated they weren't sure (as they were trying to coordinate 'other' flight delay problems at the same time as my briefing). Dispatch said they didn't think about that; and that they appreciated the 'heads up'. I then called Crew Scheduler right away and made him aware of the possibility of a 12/24 problem. He responded by saying it hadn't been loaded into Crew Tracking System yet and that he would check it out and keeps an eye on it. Due to enroute turbulence; aircraft speed was limited to M.78 (flight planned at M.80) over roughly 40% of the flight; therefore increasing the overall block time to 6+39 at block in at the destination. Preparing for a quick turnaround; the Captain reviewed the return flight planning paperwork; finding the reverse course on the abnormally long route with a flight time projected at 6+03. Discussions between the flight crew ensued between the flight crew regarding the FAR 12 hour limitation. I contacted Crew Scheduling right away and let him know that we were not willing to accept this assignment; as it would exceed the FAR. He stated that the regulation was based on 'Planned' block (via the pairings); not actual block time for the day. I asked to speak with his supervisor. He responded by accepting my request to speak to the Supervisor; as he would 'get him on the phone'. I was placed on hold for approximately 3 minutes; at which time the scheduler relayed; '...the supervisor says there are provisions in the CONTRACT to allow a 3 pilot crew to take the flight; therefore he is ordering us to take the return flight to our home base'. (Note: the CONTRACT deals only with DUTY-TIME; not FAR's; I was a bit confused) I subsequently called Chief Pilot on his cell phone and got voicemail; I did not leave a message - the greeting was generic and I wasn't sure I had the correct number. Shortly thereafter; on the local agent's duty cell; the Chief Pilot called and we briefly spoke of the situation. He understood the situation and that the Scheduling Supervisor had ordered us to take the flight; The Chief Pilot ordered us to take the return flight. Seeing as there is only 1 flight/week on this route and that it would cause undue delay to the passengers and crew; and costs involved in passenger and crew accommodation and/or rebooking; it is understandable that Management would want the aircraft to return as planned. As this is already a diurnal turn for a heavy crew; the workload is high enough; especially on the return leg with the middle of the night departure; and local/enroute weather conditions. It is RARE that due to such extreme weather that the flight/crew are planned for the abnormal route and flight time. I feel that in such case(s); the burden should NOT be placed upon the crew to complete the mission for purely financial gain on the part of the company; by keeping the schedule; regardless of what conditions the crew may face. Taking 'strained' interpretations of the FAR's; and making the crew FLY NOW/GRIEVE LATER is unacceptable. The Company was given a 'heads up' prior to departure (Dispatch; Crew Scheduling). Company (Crew Scheduler; Senior Director Crew Scheduling; Chief Pilot) was AGAIN notified of the impending FAR violation amid the pairing; and the crews' wishes to not continue the flight. Understanding that there are cases where an 'operational issue' amid a flight day/pairing causes either a 2 or 3 pilot crew to exceed the 8 or 12 in 24 hour rule(s); this was STRETCHING IT; as the company was WELL AWARE of WEATHER; ROUTE; FLIGHT/BLOCK TIME(s); and FAR's....PRIOR TO DEPARTURE...yet chose to put ON-TIME PERFORMANCE and REVENUE GENERATION before SAFETY. Diurnal operation; augmented crew; abnormal routing; extended flight time; enroute/ETOPS alternate and destination weather issues. I; as the Captain; made the company VERY AWARE of the issue we were up against. The crew was NOT SUPPORTED in this operation. Luckily; all were well rested prior to initially reporting for the flight.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.