Delta TA

According to Endeavor, and in fact the FAA itself, there are now two CONFLICTING interpretations of the 30 min extension. How does that work? The earlier one stated that a signed release qualified for up to 30 minutes, now the McFadden interpretation states the opposite.

So which interpretation applies?
 
Here's what the union put out, I did edit some specific parts bc of sensitive info:

"In reference to question / answer 4 — 30-minute FDP Extensions: The "union" does agree that the current interpretation by the FAA regarding 30-minute extensions is correct. The Company does not need to explicitly obtain concurrence from the PIC for the FDP extension up to 30-minutes. Though concurrence is required, it comes implicit with the 117.5 Fit for Duty certification (signing of the release). This 30-minute extension allows for minor delays that are experienced throughout the day. The 30-minute extensions do have implications under 14 CFR 117.19, so be aware of the impact.

2. In reference to question / answer 4 — 31 - 120 minute FDP Extensions: The pilot and the Company must agree “together” to extend an FDP. Unlike the contention of the Company, the decision to extend the FDP is not solely related to the legality of the extension. In fact, as described by the FAA in all of its materials leading up to the 117 rule implementation and in subsequent clarifications, the concurrence requirement to extend the FDP is two-fold. The purpose of the concurrence requirement is to ensure the legality of the extension AND to ensure the pilots are Fit for Duty. The punitive policy the Company is implementing to assign a “UNA” when a pilot chooses to not accept an FDP extension flies in the face of the intentions of this new regulation. As you are aware, a UNA currently factors into the Company attendance policy and could ultimately result in punitive action. This being said, we have not been advised as to the entirety of the Company’s policy on this matter. We would find it to be wholly unacceptable if it is the Company’s intention to arbitrarily assess an attendance occurrence solely for refusing an FDP extension.

That said, it is the "union" opinion that any refusal of an extension must be based on the premise for which Part 117 was enacted – to mitigate crewmember fatigue. A pilot should not just arbitrarily refuse an assignment that is otherwise in compliance with Part 117. Any refusal must be based on the pilot’s individual assessment of his/her Fit for Duty in accordance with 117.5. It is the suggestion of the "union" that should you feel pressured into accepting an FDP extension or that accepting an FDP extension may compromise safety, please fill out an ASAP. It is also the recommendation of the "union" that in the event you are not Fit for Duty as contemplated by 117.5, do not accept the FDP extension. By accepting an FDP extension when you are either fatigued or not fit for duty, you are in violation of 14 CFR 117.5 and 14 CFR 117.19."
 
So, what would the Colgan 3407 families think of Rev Bedford's company's interpretation of the rule? Especially since he twisted their words, thoughts, and actions at his latest propaganda session before congress. Sounds like someone needs to leak this stuff to the Buffalo News.
 
cencal83406 said:
According to Endeavor, and in fact the FAA itself, there are now two CONFLICTING interpretations of the 30 min extension. How does that work? The earlier one stated that a signed release qualified for up to 30 minutes, now the McFadden interpretation states the opposite.

So which interpretation applies?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the one that has the latest date stamp on it. I know our company is no longer going with the "signed release = extension" since the LATEST interpretation says you have to concur at the time of the extension. By the previous reasoning, I should be able to call in fatigued if I see I have 8 hours of rest and a 10 hour duty day with 4 legs the next day. I reasonably know full well I'll be too tired to complete the assignment, but I can't call in fatigued since I can't know how I will feel AT THE TIME.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Your new MEC chair is an absolutely top notch individual. Pleasure to meet him last week at the Exec Board. He made a few remarks in the plenary session about unity among pilots and defending the profession that almost brought a tear to my eye. Hold on to that guy. He's there for the right reasons.
Click to expand...

And he's one of the main reasons I'm turning optimistic. I hope everyone else sees that. He knows his stuff, and he's got a good feel for the pilot group in general. As soon as the vote was over, he immediately started mending fences and building a relationship with "no" voters.
 
kellwolf said:
And he's one of the main reasons I'm turning optimistic. I hope everyone else sees that. He knows his stuff, and he's got a good feel for the pilot group in general. As soon as the vote was over, he immediately started mending fences and building a relationship with "no" voters.
Click to expand...
God, it sounds too good to be true... he's not a double agent is he? Quickly, he may be a witch!
 
Here's the rest of the above email for those interested in reading. It deals with being REA from dhing to flying on the last leg of the day.

"In reference to question / answer 7 — FDP End Times: Pilots may have segments added to their day so long as the segments are added to their schedule prior to the end of their original FDP (ie before block in of their last scheduled flight). This flying must be within the Table B limits and cannot pre-suppose an FDP extension. For reserve pilots, the "union" and the Company entered into a verbal agreement in January 2014. This agreement stipulated that a pilot on reserve may be assigned additional flying during the last segment of an assignment and be allowed to operate the additional segments, as long as they are within the Table B limits. This was agreed to at the time because there was at least an expectation that a reserve pilot could be assigned additional segments during the remainder of the last day of any assignment. As you are all well aware, no pilot is required to remain contactable to the Company during an assignment, except for reserve pilots following the last leg of the assignment. The "union" and the Company are currently awaiting a clarification by the FAA as to this point. We were informed that we should receive an interpretation by late July, 2014. The Company contends that the March 20, 2014 interpretation by the FAA clarifies this situation in their favor. The "union" disagrees. This being said, this area of the regulation is a gray one. In the meantime, therefore, we do not recommend that a pilot refuse such an assignment. If a pilot has a question regarding an assignment’s legality, please contact the MOD for guidance. Please note the time, date and to whom you speak with. If still directed to fly the assignment, please file an ASAP.

Pilots who have flying removed during their flight day due to cancellations, etc., may be assigned additional flying up to and including the Table B limits. This was clarified in the March 20, 2014, interpretation by the FAA. This was likely interpreted in this manner because there was an expectation by the pilot to do additional flying during the day, but because of the cancellations, there was no flying immediately available. This does not mean that the Company can add flying to a Pilots schedule after they have arrived at their planned end-point for the day as advertised by the Company in their memos.

4. In reference to question / answer 8 — DHD and Additional Flying: The Company is extrapolating an answer from question 8 that was not specifically answered by the FAA. The Company’s reference to this answer is incorrect as the FAA did not provide an answer to the question. Very specifically, the FAA responds that a Pilot may be assigned to a DHD after blocking in on their FDP, not what is posited by the Company that the Pilot may fly the DHD. It is a wholly separate response and an incorrect assumption by the Company. Legal rest will be necessary before any additional assignments whereby the crewmember will be the operating pilot. Our position in this matter is consistent to #3 above. We disagree that the Company may assign a crewmember who has completed his original FDP to operate a later flight on which he was originally scheduled to deadhead. In order for the crewmember to operate the DH as a flying pilot, the assignment must be made to their schedule prior to the end of his/her original FDP and must still not violate Table B limits. Again as above, this is a gray area so pending an interpretation; we do not recommend that a pilot refuse such an assignment. If a pilot has a question regarding an assignment’s legality, please contact the MOD for guidance. Please note the time, date and to whom you speak with. If still directed to fly the assignment, please file an ASAP.

5. In response to question / answer 5 — FDP Start Times: The Company is implementing a procedure due to technical challenges with their technology provider. This policy adds addition duty / FDP minutes to a Pilot schedule even though the Pilot is “not on duty”. This affects your ability to bid a legal schedule and puts into question the Company’s tracking of your duty time. It is the recommendation of the "union" that if they add these minutes to a 30+ hour layover, you escalate to your CP and include the "union" Should they not correct the schedule, please file a grievance."

Don't mean to troll, I just thought I'd share what my employer's interpretation of this is.
 
Based on the APF analysis.... it appears this LOA is a dismal failure in representing safety and the true will of the pilot group.

Major airlines shouldn't be doing CDOs. They should be getting enough credit to highly discourage 30 hour layovers.
 
BobDDuck said:
CDOs tend to go VERY senior at major airlines.
Click to expand...

I find that hard to believe. After doing them for 8 months total here, I never want to touch them again. We even used to get a minimum ground time. Now there is no requirement so it's entirely possible not to see the back of a hotel-room door.
 
cencal83406 said:
I find that hard to believe. After doing them for 8 months total here, I never want to touch them again. We even used to get a minimum ground time. Now there is no requirement so it's entirely possible not to see the back of a hotel-room door.
Click to expand...

Which Part 117 regs are you reading that in? Perhaps you should look again.
 
Rocketman99 said:
Which Part 117 regs are you reading that in? Perhaps you should look again.
Click to expand...

I don't have a copy of the new contract, and I'm too senior to be bothered by them but:

'99 agreement (PCL): 5 hours minimum ground time, 6 if notified less than 48 or 24 hours.

2011 JCBA: no minimum ground time.

No idea how 117 changes it but I am not a night-shift kinda guy, so any night flying with less than 10 hours between flying is too short on ground time.
 
cencal83406 said:
I find that hard to believe. After doing them for 8 months total here, I never want to touch them again. We even used to get a minimum ground time. Now there is no requirement so it's entirely possible not to see the back of a hotel-room door.
Click to expand...
CDO 's are extremely senior at airways. Do 3 a week and credit in the mid 80s. Takes 15 years to hold them in CLT apparently
 
L-16B said:
CDO 's are extremely senior at airways. Do 3 a week and credit in the mid 80s. Takes 15 years to hold them in CLT apparently
Click to expand...

That's cool, but as arrogant as it sounds, I really don't want to fashion jack squat after USAirways PWA or method of doing business.

I do love and appreciate their jumpseat policy, however.

CDO's would be a complete step backwards because we're thinking "best case scenario" and the company will think "the pilots agreed to it, maximize utilization while minimizing costs".

When I left Skyway, I was happy to be out of the grip of an operation which thought continuous duty overnights were a reasonable method of "scheduling with safety".

Do not want and what may be cultural acceptable at other airlines I reserve the right to feel is unacceptable at my own.

Nope. Not sorry to those that feel otherwise.
 
cencal83406 said:
I find that hard to believe.
Click to expand...

That's because you don't know good CDO work rules. I'm in the top 25% in seat at my airline, and I can barely hold CDO reserve. When you can fly 150 hours per year, make 80 hours per month, and never even be at the airport when management is there, life is good. CDOs are like a part time job that pays a full time major airline salary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top