View Single Post
Old 01-28-2025 | 05:15 AM
  #3087  
Verdell
Line Holder
 
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 375
Default

Originally Posted by DWC CAP10 USAF
Here is the paraphrase of the response I got back.

1) this has been talked aboud industry wide for years

2) the purpose of RAP is to be able to assign a FDP without having to first give an intervening rest period. Said another way, assign an FDP without giving the notice as required under the definition of LC reserve.

3) Why include "reserve" in the requirements of 117.25(b)? If 117.25(b) could preclude the assignment of an FDP during an otherwise legal SC RAP, then requiring 30/168 before starting the RAP becomes redundant.

4) The Hryniw letter doesn't provide any clarificaiton outside the exisit text of the regulation. No other legal interpretations (they he knows of) have been released since the Hyrniw letter. A few years back the FAA stated they were no longer in the 117 "interpretation business" and that while they would potentially respond to individual questions, they were no longer going to publish answers for the industry as a whole.

5) He did say he would forward my question to ALPA National FT/DT Chair to see if they have any additioanl info from that level.

If I hear back with any additional info from the National Commitee, I'll post here.
Interesting, but still ambiguous reponse. I take particular issue with #3. There is a perfectly good (well, not good for pilots) reason to assign a legal RAP that is not useful for an FDP.... that would be for a DH-only duty period into 30 hours rest.

Thanks again for chasing this. I'm still wondering if I should follow up the STS response I got when I was assigned a reserve trip because they skipped the pilot ahead of me on account of this exact issue. They were legal for the RAP but (according to 2 schedulers and my first STS response) not legal for the FDP due to 30/168.
Reply