The warping of intent: FAR 117

jtrain609 said:
I don't think he realizes that @SpiceWeasel didn't go to another regional to upgrade, he went to a real airline.

Unlike me, I'm complete scum for not having any loyalty to my airline that furloughed me once and then started parking airplanes.
Click to expand...

I was trying to be funny but fell flat.
Regionals aren't the only place where pilots can be treated poorly.
 
Blackhawk said:
I was trying to be funny but fell flat.
Regionals aren't the only place where pilots can be treated poorly.
Click to expand...

It's truly disappointing that it is the case. Bottom line is you always have to watch your certificate first. That never changes from the day you first set foot in a trainer.
 
SpiceWeasel said:
Exactly what I've written. He expressed dismay that the FO cannot refuse or accept an extension, because the arbitration and the 117 language talks PIC.

This is why I brought this up. My dismay is directly correlated to the email about the FSM grievance. The company's position is that they will replace the CA with pay. The FO can bang out fatigued and lose PTO.
Click to expand...

Again, it's not automatic that the FO loses PTO. The company pays the vast majority, and if it were due to delays, etc. it would almost certainly be company paid.

But that being said, I get your point.
 
tbstanto said:
Here was a recent "unforeseen" delay...

We were about ready to push and I called clearance to give them a heads up to start working on a release time to our destination airport. They came back and said that the destination airport had issued a ground stop due to weather and it would be in effect for 90 minutes.

We had already accepted a 2 hour extension and were going to be using the majority of it, but this ground stop would mean that we would land about 75 minutes past the end of our extension. At that point, we were at the gate, the door was open, and the jetbridge was connected. We knew of the delay, and in our opinion, it was no longer "unforeseen". We could clearly see that if we pushed, we would land well after our extension ran out.

The company's version of unforeseen and ours is evidently very different, as they said to just ignore the ground stop and push...thus making any further delays unforeseen and we could complete the trip.
Click to expand...


The Company's version of unforeseen is completely inaccurate in this scenario. Take a look at the Part 117 Clarification Document from 5 March 2013. The specific reference is on page 14173, under a subsection titled: "Flight Duty Period Extensions".

From the text:

Turning to ALPA’s example, the
certificate holder has a high degree of
confidence, before takeoff, that the
destination airport will be hit by a
typhoon. As discussed above, in order
to utilize the post-takeoff FDP
extension, the flightcrew and certificate
holder have to have a reasonable
expectation, prior to takeoff, that they
will complete the flight segment within
the pertinent FDP limit. Because the
certificate holder in this example has a
high degree of confidence that the
destination airport will be hit by a
typhoon, that certificate holder does not
have a reasonable expectation that the
flight segment will be completed as
scheduled. Accordingly, the certificate
holder would need to utilize a pretakeoff
FDP extension in order for the
flightcrew in this example to exceed the
pertinent FDP limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top