Being punished for calling in fatigued.
06-12-2019, 08:37 AM
#81
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
This is false. I had an incident last week where I got a reroute that showed me getting in 9 minutes before having to extend. When I looked closer at rotation, I realized they had the flight attendants were scheduled for a 20 minute turn. Obviously our reroute went into the extension. I called crew tracking and the 24 hour ALPA line. I was told by both that it was a legal reroute and I wasn't rerouted into an extension but delayed into an extension.
I actually believe the post about looking for people to make examples of. I called in fatigue one time years ago and ended up getting calls from 2 duty pilots and a chief pilot. The chief pilot was threatening my pay even though there was no legit threat as I was content getting paid for what I actually did (my call was at end of rotation when I was rerouted to fly instead of deadhead). Fatiguing out is absolutely more hassle than continuing.
I actually believe the post about looking for people to make examples of. I called in fatigue one time years ago and ended up getting calls from 2 duty pilots and a chief pilot. The chief pilot was threatening my pay even though there was no legit threat as I was content getting paid for what I actually did (my call was at end of rotation when I was rerouted to fly instead of deadhead). Fatiguing out is absolutely more hassle than continuing.
Originally Posted by notEnuf
Which you chose to extend into. My point was the reroute can’t be scheduled into the extension. In your case the 20 min turn was not realistic and could be argued was an illegal assignment because of the known delay. You should have stated you will not extend because there is no realistic estimate of the length of your duty, therefore no way to ensure you will be adequately fit for the undefined duty.
For hockey: It appears that the operative phrase is that you were 'rerouted' and THEN (yeah right) into the extension.
For Enuf: At what time does a delay for a turn become 'realistic'? 25 minutes? 30 minutes? an hour?
The point is that I would think it is dependent on where the reroute is taking place to determine what is reasonable. If it occurs at an outstation where the inbound crew makes up the outbound crew, that COULD be reasonable. If it is a hub city, notsomuch.
I'm not in any arguing to justify what was done in this case. Quite the contrary, I find it egregious. The question it raises is what is the remedy? Fly it and grieve it? The damage is done. What would ALPA/company say if you looked at the time that runs you into the extension and then said "Stop, we're done"?
06-12-2019, 08:39 AM
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: Kickin’ Back
Posts: 6,971
Originally Posted by Xray678
As I understand it, You can’t pick up over the footprint of the trip you for which you called in fatigued. But you can still WS or GS after that.
Denny
06-12-2019, 08:50 AM
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,117
Originally Posted by OOfff
How would you want it rectified?
06-12-2019, 09:11 AM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,943
Originally Posted by JamesBond
For Enuf: At what time does a delay for a turn become 'realistic'? 25 minutes? 30 minutes? an hour?
The minimum published turn time would be a realistic and legal number to use in the extension scenario. Anything less I would consider a violation of 117.
20 minutes is not a minimum turn time for any airplane in our fleet.
06-12-2019, 11:08 AM
#86
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: Fastest Hunk of Junk in the Galaxy
Posts: 1,657
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
OBTW....you guys need to lighten up....subtle sarcasm isn't necessarily bull**** nor over the top bull****....in this case it was a means to provide another perspective. I like to think we are all responsible and can manage our own live's accordingly re sleep prep
06-12-2019, 12:10 PM
#88
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by Han Solo
Pretty sure I recall this isn't the 1st or even 2nd time you're having to backtrack on "sarcasm". Maybe the problem isn't with the way the 99% interpret your posts.
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
Gosh..."the responsible thing to do"...
So you guys on international have to fly 12 hours straight?...no rest break,or possibly 2 of them.....???
Crap....that's inhuman....no wonder your preparation was so diligent...you are a true professional
So you guys on international have to fly 12 hours straight?...no rest break,or possibly 2 of them.....???
Crap....that's inhuman....no wonder your preparation was so diligent...you are a true professional
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
Hmmm....Bronco said his sleep prep was the "responsible" thing to do. Therefore, to not do sleep prep for international like he does would be what ??????......I think the word irresponsible comes to mind. Ergo, since I don't do that, I am ?????? I told him, he was truly a professional.
The only diff as far as over the top bull cr** between what he did and what I did is.....he intentionally/unintentionally implied I (and all the others that don't do it his way) are unprofessional....while I told him HE was real professional
In the week or two that I have been flying international, I have NEVER heard of guys staying up till 4 am intentionally prior to the first leg to prep.....I have heard of them waking up at 3 am unintentionally
OBTW....you guys need to lighten up....subtle sarcasm isn't necessarily bull**** nor over the top bull****....in this case it was a means to provide another perspective. I like to think we are all responsible and can manage our own live's accordingly re sleep prep
The only diff as far as over the top bull cr** between what he did and what I did is.....he intentionally/unintentionally implied I (and all the others that don't do it his way) are unprofessional....while I told him HE was real professional
In the week or two that I have been flying international, I have NEVER heard of guys staying up till 4 am intentionally prior to the first leg to prep.....I have heard of them waking up at 3 am unintentionally
OBTW....you guys need to lighten up....subtle sarcasm isn't necessarily bull**** nor over the top bull****....in this case it was a means to provide another perspective. I like to think we are all responsible and can manage our own live's accordingly re sleep prep
Do you know what sarcasm is??? Either it's sarcasm like I claimed ....OR....it is an outright accolade like it plainly states(sarcastically)
Thanks for validating my thoughts though....if you represent "the 99% of us", then I am truly glad that I don't have much time to go.
This is not subtle sarcasm...you can take it the way it's meant
OBTW....I never backtracked re this post.....just stated the facts
No nuances...no backtracking....just calling it the way I see it (just like you)(OBTW....I don't make up "statistics" and use them as "facts" to buttress my argument)
Plainly stated....you don't think that it was fair for me to infer that if Bronco was responsible in his international sleep prep that the corollary is I am being irresponsible to do it another way?
Last edited by Buck Rogers; 06-12-2019 at 12:30 PM.
06-13-2019, 12:03 AM
#89
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
Plainly stated....you don't think that it was fair for me to infer that if Bronco was responsible in his international sleep prep that the corollary is I am being irresponsible to do it another way?
Your post read more that his method wasn't appropriate than defending your own.
06-13-2019, 06:14 AM
#90
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by Broncos
Also, this flight (before it was shifted 14 hours into the future) was planned to land at the destination at 0500 pilot base time. So no, I don't believe staying up until 0400 the night before is unusual at all. In fact, I think it's the responsible thing to do.
If it would have said,....... " In fact, I think it's the responsible thing to do FOR ME".......I would totally agree with you
As it stands....I think the way I interpreted it was valid
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
