Originally Posted by flapshalfspeed

If your AC was inoperable--and unable to satisfactorily maintain temperature to your desired range--then the hotel does not qualify as suitable accomodations under 117.

Guys--if your AC doesn't work to your desire, if the power goes out, or if the hotel is noisy enough it wakes you up w/o an 8-hour block of undisturbed rest, you are violating a FAR by staying there and reporting to work/flying the next day.

It drives me insane how so many of these glad-happy yes-men IAH newbie Captains/FOs will literally sleep in a barn if only the company asks them to, in accomodations that clearly violate 117 and showing up to work after clearly not getting appropriate rest.

Would you accept an approach to an ILS when the ATIS states a visibility less than the required value (outside the FAF)??? Would you takeoff with an open write-up/EICAS fault displayed and unaddressed without calling maintenance/grounding the plane??? Would you accept an assignment that violates 117 FDP limits???

If something in your hotel (like no electricity/air conditioning that does not maintain temperature/etc.) violates 117 definitions of suitable accomodations, you are violating a FAR--no different than if you violate any other FAR.

Call Crew Tracking and be firm and direct--"my a/c isn't working, this hotel doesn't meet the requirements of FAR 117, I am not staying here find me another hotel." I have done this 3-4 times--you just have to be firm, direct, and to the point.

Do not ask--demand another hotel and tell them you'll have to file an ASAP if they insist on marking you "in rest" in a hotel without an operative, functioning climate control system.

It's time to end the downward spiral of crappier hotels--have more respect for yourself and what you do, guys. You're insulting the victims of Colgan 3407 and other crashes by staying in dumps without functional air conditioning.