The warping of intent: FAR 117

SpiceWeasel said:
The biggest problem now is the precedent the arbitrator set. CA


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.
Click to expand...
I might be reading way to into this issue but I think it's also a function of negotiations. We now have to use capital to argue this issue we could have used in another area. Hopefully the company does not use this over a pilots head. If so then we will have major safety issues and that is something that is quite hard to put a $ amount on. I fully expect the management team and managers in charge of dealing with this issue understand that safety is priority number one and indirectly making this a pay issue will be disastrous in the long term.
 
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...

Quit complaining. Didn't you get the fast upgrade you wanted? Did you think there were no strings attached??
 
Blackhawk said:
Nope. Sometimes you get what you get.
Click to expand...
Well he didn't get the fast upgrade. If anything he's not going to upgrade for quite a long time. This is a serious issue of our company reads the letter of the law. If they maintain their current practice this shouldn't be an issue and your comment does not help the situation.
 
SpiceWeasel said:
Come on man... Read the reg: your CA isn't making the call for the crew, he's making the call for himself. He cannot accept or reject an extension on behalf of the FO because the reg isn't for the crew, it's for the CA. At least that's how accepting / rejecting extensions is being interpreted by a company. The FO is left only with a fatigue call. So, the CA can refuse the extension (but not be fatigued yet), the FO unless calling fatigued would remain on the pairing.
Click to expand...

If you want to read the reg like that, or have the company apply it like that , then read into the reg a little further. Under § 117.19.a.1, as you posted, "The pilot in command and the certificate holder may extend the maximum flight duty period permitted in Tables B or C of this part up to 2 hours. ". No where does it allow an FO to take an extension.

Under the regulations, it's not talking about refusing an extension, it's talking about taking an extension. So looking into the regulations, only a captain may TAKE an extension. No where in the regulations does it even allow a first officer to take an extension, so FO's by law are limited by table B.

And as far as unforeseen circumstances are concerned, it's true that the FAA has not clarified that. I refused an extension when scheduling asked me over 8 hours in advance when we knew we would go over the FDP for the day, including the 9 hours of block for the day. I ended up having a lengthy conversation with the CP about it. It wasn't for disciplinary action, but I wrote it up with the way the scheduler treated me on the phone. He just wanted to get some details. He agreed that a scheduler shouldn't be asking for an extension 8 hours in advance of needing it, especially when we were in domicile and a schedule change could have been made. But he also said it's the companys discretion. Scheduling tried to blame it on maintenance in the morning before the first flight of 5 for the day, when I saw it as weather that added up all day long which was forecast and foreseen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top