117 WOCL Question

Bandit_Driver

Bandit_Driver

Gold Member
On day 1 a pilot is delayed and has to fly into the WOCL period. The remaining 3 legs are schedule in the WOCL period over the up coming nights.

Am I correct in thinking that the 4th WOCL flight is illegal under 117 or because the first one wasn't scheduled it doesn't count.
 
The fourth one is now illegal because the first day was delayed.
So first day does count as a continuous nighttime operation even though it was not scheduled into the wocl originally.

If the fdps are scheduled as split duty with the required 3 hrs rest period/2 hr sleep opportunity during the fdp then you can do 5 cnos.
 
Thanks. Glad I'm not the only one that thinks that way.

However, Just found out it is a legal trip as the first one was not a scheduled WOCL so it does not count.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Interesting, but what intrigues me is the following:
Section 117.27 states that "no certificate holder may schedule and no flightcrew member may accept more than three consecutive flight duty periods that infringe on the window of circadian low"
Click to expand...

Emphesis is on the bold section. They cannot schedule you, and it says you also cannot accept. It seems like a 2 part to me when you read it.
 
I agree but it is all about the word SCHEDULE apparently and it states in the interpretation if you are delayed into WOCL it isn't scheduled WOCL and doesn't count and doesn't count. ALPA agrees it is a legal to fly it...
 
89-LX said:
Interesting, but what intrigues me is the following:


Emphesis is on the bold section. They cannot schedule you, and it says you also cannot accept. It seems like a 2 part to me when you read it.
Click to expand...


89 I was initially thinking the same thing. And to piggy back on what Bandit was saying, I believe this excerpt from the document specifically states the exception,

"Thus, based on the plain language of§ 117.27, if a certificate holder does not schedule an FDP to infringe on the WOCL, that FDP would not count as a WOCL-infringing FDP for purposes of§ 117.27 even if the FDP winds up ultimately infringing on the WOCL during actual operations. "

To me it says if it was realistically scheduled to not infringe on the WOCL but still does unexpectedly, they say we can essentially pretend it never happened, and any further consideration of 117.27 and any of its language or finer points doesn't apply.

This definitely wasn't the answer I was expecting. Thanks again Bandit.
 
giddy said:
89 I was initially thinking the same thing. And to piggy back on what Bandit was saying, I believe this excerpt from the document specifically states the exception,

"Thus, based on the plain language of§ 117.27, if a certificate holder does not schedule an FDP to infringe on the WOCL, that FDP would not count as a WOCL-infringing FDP for purposes of§ 117.27 even if the FDP winds up ultimately infringing on the WOCL during actual operations. "

To me it says if it was realistically scheduled to not infringe on the WOCL but still does unexpectedly, they say we can essentially pretend it never happened, and any further consideration of 117.27 and any of its language or finer points doesn't apply.

This definitely wasn't the answer I was expecting. Thanks again Bandit.
Click to expand...

Giddy, you're welcome. It wasn't the answer I was expecting either. Seems like a weakening of 117 by the FAA in my personal opinion. I would imagine company's may close this loophole by doing it through the CBA's. I am not sure how they come up with this stuff. They some how think that if it wasn't scheduled you will be less tired. Like my body knows any any difference. All it is know it is damn late. To me this is the same kind of thinking that allowed the cargo cutouts, as if freight dawgs are somehow immune to fatigue...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top