MrSuupafly

Nope. You'd need an intervening rest. You cannot exceed 8 in 24 unless you have an intervening rest of doulbe your block time or 9 hrs, whichever is greater. In your senario you'd need a 9 hrs rest when you blocked in from SLC before heading to SMF.

Haywood JB

Am I misreading this, but I thought that if we were extended into that 8 in 24, they were required to give us double the block time off, so at a minimum, some 16+ off....

Purple Nugget

Anyone who comes from the regional land is familiar with the term, "Legal to start, legal to finish." Or good old FAR 121.471(g). "The Excusal Provision"

For those that doubt the legality, or are reading this for the first time, I highly recommend going onto the ALPA website, Clicking the e-Library link, then the "Engineering & Air Safety Library", and reading the document titled, "Flight Time Limitations & Rest Requirements Guide."

ALPA has done a very good job of describing this in Section V, The Excusal Provision. And then again in section VIII, Supplemental Operations. Here is a snippet...

"Q-85. Do the supplemental rules allow a flight crewmember to exceed his/her scheduled flight time for circumstances beyond the control of the air carrier?

A-85. Yes. Unlike the domestic rules (FAR 121.471(g)), the supplemental
rules do not contain a specific provision that allows a flight crewmember to exceed the flight time limitations if the extension is due to circumstances beyond the control of the air carrier. However, the FAA by interpretation has applied FAR 121.471(g) to the supplemental rule"

fdx727pilot

Respectfully disagree, In the example, they had an intervening 11 hr rest in SLC (more than 9 hrs and double their previous block time of 4:05.) They are now right at 8 hr, but have not exceeded it. They are legal to depart for SMF, but will need a long layover there. The key is they had the required intervening rest period, and have not yet exceeded 8 hr in 24, but are only scheduled to.

2cylinderdriver

I agree with your logic, but in this case you are in Domicile and know you are projected to exceed 8n24. The Company needs to remove you from the SMF trip in this example. I have had it done more than once.

If are an LAX crew, in this example they could continue to the layover point or base whichever is first. This is another reason you will see the increase in the LAX crews day turning MEM and IND. There is no requirement to remove crews in MEM or IND when they fall into a situation as described by RedEye. Take a look at the LAX pairings, they are flying 6-7.5 hours a day and will most certainly reach 8n24 problems with ATC and weather.

As a side note, crews need to pay special attention to the way trips are now being paid. The days of TAFB paying Domestically are quickly coming to an end because we settled for a new Trip Rig but did not change any of the other rigs...so the Company will drive everything away from the TAFB trips.

fdx727pilot

I concur that the company would probably remove the crew from the trip as a precaution, just to get away from the required long (16+ hrs) layover in SMF. As I mentioned, that situation used to come up frequently on the 10 when they were doing west coast turns. Just saying that they would not have to. The flights have met all the requirement of Section 12.C.2.b., which allows flying more than 8 in 24. Say if the crew was scheduled already for a 25 hr layover in SMF, they would still be legal to press and keep the scheduled return flight the next day.

Lipout1

Can someone explain to me the "examples" at the bottom of the page of this article, specifically the top line (block 4+00, rest block, 3+30, Tm-what does that mean?, block 4+00). Is this 11+30 block hours scheduled in 24?

MrSuupafly

Here's my logic for my statement above. You cannot be "scheduled" to exceed 8 in 24 without an intervening rest. In the example above you were "scheduled" to block 3:55 from SLC to MEM and then 4:10 from MEM to SMF. That's a "scheduled" block of 8:05 without an intervening rest.