How is FAR 117 transition going

[scoreboardII]

Everything that I have heard is that the PIC needs to approve any extension of any length (and may, later, rescind such extension should events warrant). Certainly if there was verbage to support otherwise, managements would be all over it.

Nu

At our place this is being interpreted that before flight we sign saying we are good to go, there is no specific statement saying you will be extending your day, which I think is wrong.

 

[waveflyer]

30-7 f^cked my schedule at SWA all the time

I'll gladly trade one for the other for selfish reasons-

But remember- .73 is an amazing rig
Amazing

Had to say that-

Remember these regs are more science based and inline with the rest of the world
(Ie: only bubble boys weren't laughing at how ridiculous our old regs were)
Duty time is common f^cking sense to me- Rest shouldn't be based on block time- it's duty time that makes you tired- We do plenty of work while not stacking up block time- rarely is duty time accumulated in a restful lazy boy

 

[scoreboardII]

I agree, I am liking this new rest rule better than the old, but just pointing out a pitfall, that admittedly will only impact the high time flier, which is not me.

 

[NuGuy]

At our place this is being interpreted that before flight we sign saying we are good to go, there is no specific statement saying you will be extending your day, which I think is wrong.

Agree. Interpretation at different shops are all over the map on this. I've heard stories that some at the regionals that failure to extend is being treated punitively (removal from the trip and sent down the fatigue track).

The FAA was pretty clear on this. Extensions are only to be used for extraordinary circumstances, and not an everyday scheduling boondoggle that the "reduced rest" became under 121. Carriers need to report all >30 min extensions and explain how they're going to mitigate them in the future. It was equally clear that strong arming extensions is a no-go.

But here's the tricky wicket: If someone bends a wheel while on an extension, the NTSB is going to be in their stuff because they agreed to it. There were no real extensions under Whitlow, you were legal or you weren't. The extension language provides rope for crews in a way Whitlow never did.

Nu

 

[livin'thesim]

NuGuy-

I think they only have to implement a solution for things within their control. If you extend in flight due to unforseen holding due to low RVR airport closure, they need only report that it was due to circumstances beyond their control.

Another instance would be an airport closure due to an accident on the runway.

Sudden squall line t-storms forcing substantial deviation would be another.

All must be reported, but there is no requirement for mitigation if it is not within the control of the cert holder. However, if the weather could reasonably have been forseen, then they are possibly in violation.

 

[MECH]

That is simply saying in designing the actual final rule, the FAA thought providing a 30 minute buffer for each FDP was appropriate and reasonable. They are supporting their decision process as opposed to what was published in the NPRM.

However, the actual mechanism of extending the FDP for ANY length of time, up to and including 2 hours, requires both the PIC and the company's approval.

Section 117.19 delineates the exact mechanism of this extension:

? 117.19 Flight duty period extensions.​

​

​

​

​

(a) For augmented and unaugmented operations, if unforeseen operational​

circumstances arise prior to takeoff:​

(1) 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.​

Note that it does NOT say in 117.19.a.1 is that the certificate holder may extend the maximum flight duty period permitted in Tables B or C of this part up to 30 minutes.

Nor does the 117 interpretation published by the FAA in the Federal Register support your viewpoint.

Everything that I have heard is that the PIC needs to approve any extension of any length (and may, later, rescind such extension should events warrant). Certainly if there was verbage to support otherwise, managements would be all over it.

Nu

I agree with you on what 117.19 says. But like every law in this country it is all up to the interpretation. The preamble of this and any FAR is how the FAA interprets the law. In this case the FAA has superficially stated that companies have a 30 minute window that does not require PIC concurance.

How each company interprets this will vary. But given time they will all take advantage of the FAAs interpretation.

But this does not stop the crew from shutting the flight down due to Fatigue at any point.

 

[scoreboardII]

I agree with you on what 117.19 says. But like every law in this country it is all up to the interpretation. The preamble of this and any FAR is how the FAA interprets the law. In this case the FAA has superficially stated that companies have a 30 minute window that does not require PIC concurance.

How each company interprets this will vary. But given time they will all take advantage of the FAAs interpretation.

But this does not stop the crew from shutting the flight down due to Fatigue at any point.

30 minute window of unlimited, up to two hours and while they need your approval for that, they are taking it here as, if you don't say no, you are saying yes.

 

[NuGuy]

Until the FAA decides to interpret it, the text of the reg is clear.

Nu

 

[PBRstreetgang]

I agree with you on what 117.19 says. But like every law in this country it is all up to the interpretation. The preamble of this and any FAR is how the FAA interprets the law. In this case the FAA has superficially stated that companies have a 30 minute window that does not require PIC concurance.

How each company interprets this will vary. But given time they will all take advantage of the FAAs interpretation.


But this does not stop the crew from shutting the flight down due to Fatigue at any point.

Companies, pilots and any other individuals subject to the entire CFR catalog do not interpret, they comply. Courts and the creating agency are the only ones who can interpret.

 

[MECH]

Companies, pilots and any other individuals subject to the entire CFR catalog do not interpret, they comply. Courts and the creating agency are the only ones who can interpret.

I don't disagree that the agency that created the law can interpret it. The FAA does this in many different ways from preambles, 8900 guidance, op specs, Safo's, etc.

That is exactly what the FAA has done in this case. They used the preamble to tell airlines and flight crews what their interpretation of this rule is. The preamble was basically answering question from stake holders on how they were supposed to comply with the new law. In this case the FAA's interpretation of the 30 minute extension was made very clear(item 6 in the preamble).

 

[igneousy2]

If punitive action was ever actually taken, I would file an Air 21 complaint, which WHEN you won would give you a pretty good "return" since you would also be entitled to punitive damages, not to mention all of your attorney fees. This is just hot air as usual, trying to intimidate the regional guys. It wouldn't go very far at a major, as most have been around the block once or twice, and have finally saved enough money, that we would have an attorney on retainer before the chief pilot got home that night.

 

[scoreboardII]

If punitive action was ever actually taken, I would file an Air 21 complaint, which WHEN you won would give you a pretty good "return" since you would also be entitled to punitive damages, not to mention all of your attorney fees. This is just hot air as usual, trying to intimidate the regional guys. It wouldn't go very far at a major, as most have been around the block once or twice, and have finally saved enough money, that we would have an attorney on retainer before the chief pilot got home that night.

I like the idea, but my understanding is OSHA has little to less than zero say on aviation stuff for pilots. Example, try filing an AIR21 on noise in the cockpit, heck, even during a walk around. Yet, OSHA protects rampers from the same noise. I only know this from dealings with the national OSHA air safety rep, and he pretty much said, the FAA was responsible for anything inside or around the big metal tube in regards to pilots.

 

[ackattacker]

Agree. Interpretation at different shops are all over the map on this. I've heard stories that some at the regionals that failure to extend is being treated punitively (removal from the trip and sent down the fatigue track).

The FAA was pretty clear on this. Extensions are only to be used for extraordinary circumstances, and not an everyday scheduling boondoggle that the "reduced rest" became under 121. Carriers need to report all >30 min extensions and explain how they're going to mitigate them in the future. It was equally clear that strong arming extensions is a no-go.

But here's the tricky wicket: If someone bends a wheel while on an extension, the NTSB is going to be in their stuff because they agreed to it. There were no real extensions under Whitlow, you were legal or you weren't. The extension language provides rope for crews in a way Whitlow never did.

Nu

Nu it's not just at regionals. At Airways we receive a message saying that if a pilot is unable to accept an extension, it requires a fatigue report. I don't think that reaches the level of "strong arming" since the fatigue policy is fairly generous. But it does require the paperwork, it's not a simple matter of "not accepting" cause you're not feeling the love.

 

[NuGuy]

Nu it's not just at regionals. At Airways we receive a message saying that if a pilot is unable to accept an extension, it requires a fatigue report. I don't think that reaches the level of "strong arming" since the fatigue policy is fairly generous. But it does require the paperwork, it's not a simple matter of "not accepting" cause you're not feeling the love.

That's interesting. Assuming before 117 you had some kind of duty restrictions more restrictive than just the plain FARs, did the company require you to file a fatigue report if you walked because of contractual limits?

Nu

 

[dicko]

30 minute window of unlimited, up to two hours and while they need your approval for that, they are taking it here as, if you don't say no, you are saying yes.

I've tried asking Wave this question but he seems to be having difficulty with it -

Has SWAPA (or Flt Ops.) given any guidance as to how an extension refusal is handled ? If the F.O. doesn't want to extend is it handled using a fatigue call ? Is there any difference between the PIC refusing to extend and the F.O. ?

There's been a version of this rule in place overseas for some time. However, it was considered a "Commanders prerogative" to extend. In practice it required a joint decision between all of the flight deck crew before an extension could take place. My guess is that our new rule was meant to function in the same way, but it's becoming perverted into an assumption that we'll continue.

 

[waveflyer]

To be fair, I haven't cared enough to look it up-

Fatigue policy is always there- but I'm trying to understand what extension you'd get that you'd have an issue with?
Give a real world example- a reroute that flies longer than scheduled?- or longer than max duty per the chart based on start time at home base? Or just your scheduled day that happens to go longer?

Ultimately I'm not that worried about being extended if it's legal bc I'm probably getting paid$. And if I'm on the road, I want the $ most times- 1/3 of the time or more I'm getting paid to go home in which case extend me to the max if it gets me there-

It just doesn't seem like it'll apply that much here

 

[dicko]

To be fair, I haven't cared enough to look it up-

Fatigue policy is always there- but I'm trying to understand what extension you'd get that you'd have an issue with?
Give a real world example- a reroute that flies longer than scheduled?- or longer than max duty per the chart based on start time at home base? Or just your scheduled day that happens to go longer?

Ultimately I'm not that worried about being extended if it's legal bc I'm probably getting paid$. And if I'm on the road, I want the $ most times- 1/3 of the time or more I'm getting paid to go home in which case extend me to the max if it gets me there-

It just doesn't seem like it'll apply that much here

"Look it up" ........ ?

Thanks for answering the question. Actually you didn't, but we'll call it answered anyway. You aren't necessarily fatigued because you choose not to extend your FDP. Is the PIC required to call fatigue if he declines ? 117 makes no mention of fatigue in relation to an extension.

Hopefully SWAPA and ALPA will clarify the crew concept with regard to this rule.

 

[booo]

Ah. Fatigue. If the Captain is tired and refuses the extension, does it apply to the entire crew? Can the F/O say he's good to go and continue? Can the Captain then override the F/O's decision to continue, claiming the F/O is just trying to suck it up to make a connection home that night, but in "objective observation" shut him down for continuing beyond his useful conscientiousness? What if the F/A's are beyond acceptable (for whatever reason that can be claimed on being too tired to continue).

I need an answer! Have to answer up tomorrow.

 

[GogglesPisano]

Ah. Fatigue. If the Captain is tired and refuses the extension, does it apply to the entire crew? Can the F/O say he's good to go and continue? Can the Captain then override the F/O's decision to continue, claiming the F/O is just trying to suck it up to make a connection home that night, but in "objective observation" shut him down for continuing beyond his useful conscientiousness? What if the F/A's are beyond acceptable (for whatever reason that can be claimed on being too tired to continue).

I need an answer! Have to answer up tomorrow.

Shirley, you can't be serious.