Yup...."Exception Two" to 12.D.1 is a nice tool for FRMS flights.

The FDP extension language needs to be strengthened, tightened, and expanded upon to reflect the intent of far 117. Had a scenario where on leg 4...we were facing a ground stop at KDCA in which duty day was becoming a factor. We were going to push...and ground stop issued. No update in sight. Deplane the aircraft. Fdp limit comes ( no acars message btw). We had called crew tracking to ensure they were following and they insisted we would be ok. Captain and I say we are good fatigue wise, but i had serious objections to the concept that at a major hub, we are almost expected to try and extend to take off into a busy airport that has ground stops, weather, and planned 4th of july tfrs because of the Capitol celebration.

I'm wondering why we have language that says refusal of FDP extension is only because of unfit or fatigue. In my opinion, the idea of extending to fly into known thunderstorms and possible holds or diverts is insanity. I decided to press...so we taxied out, and then was issued another ground stop with an ETA exceeding our max fdp. I immediately said I'm not doing it. We called and said we were returning to gate. Because of semantics, we didn't refuse an extension...but merely stated that we would exceed limits due to anticipated eta.

Absurd. I will not make the same mistake. There are some instances were extensions make sense. Outlying airfield and getting back is logistically smarter and there happens to be good weather. Crew tracking and dispatch kept praying and hoping we would get off on time so it wouldn't be their problem anymore.

Long story short, they should have been more proactive on getting a reserve crew, green slip, etc ready...and they ended up delaying the flight even more because they had to wait on a new crew. Some poor crew got rerouted to take our flight.

My objection to taking the fdp had nothing to do with fatigue (at the moment...although it was a LONG day) but rather that the idea of pushing it was borderline unsafe.

Your post is full of contradictions. On the one hand you say you had serious objections but decided you were ok to continue. Later you state it was insanity to continue but decided to go. At the serious objection point you should have shut it down. No idea why you went past the insanity point.

Don’t extend if you are fatigued. I learned a similar lesson a few years ago. We do not have the best system for this but our percentage is pretty near perfect when you fill out the paperwork. As I stated before, the FAA does not necessarily agree with delta’s practice, but will not get involved in labor disputes. This needs to be addressed in our contract. If we chose to not extend, it is our choice and we should be protected without paperwork. We will see if this is a priority over retirement.

Hard to explain the nuances and details in the post about the scenario in how it played out. I can see where it appears contradictory. To make it clear, the captain nor myself ever felt unsafe or fatigued. And it was legal on what the company was doing. My objection is along the lines that protocol on which they are operating is backwards and I'm ranting about it. It's putting crews in a potentially bad situation.

The planned flight by itself in a vacuum is just another flying leg during the stormy summer months.
Had that been the first flight of the day, it would have been a nonfactor. But at the end of the day, it is a different story.

In my opinion, the refusal of an extension should not be limited to an automatic implication of fatigue or being unfit to continue. How about the idea that it just isn't a good idea to try and have a crew rush against the fdp in order to fly into known thunderstorms, delays, ground stops, holding, and non fly zones? Why are we constructing lines that even flirt with the idea of having to do that? Out of Atlanta no less. Had I declined the extension, how would my reasoning be viewed upon when facing the Frb?

I can emphatically say that safety was the ultimate concern (not pay grievances). I have no doubt that a safety call is the right call..But the process of having to worry about explaining yourself to a cpo, and or worry about not being protected (pay, jobs whatever) can be slightly intimidating and it clouds judgment.

Soooooo you’re putting this issue of getting paid whether one extends or not (an issue where I believe over 95% already get paid) at a higher priority than current retirement issues? I’m thinking you need to re-evaluate your priorities.

Denny

Who is “they?”

Note to self: Do not expect “them” to be proactive in such dynamic go/no-go cases.

I think he's on to something. The hassle and unknown is a deterrent. I also think if we just adhered to the 117 intent as written and extensions were rare for extenuating circumstances, not daily storms in the southeast in the summer, things would be reliable and scientifically safe. Which is completely foreseeable because of the historical data on scheduled release from bid packets vs. actual release. There is a buffer that would allow a statistical reliability at what ever the acceptable level is. We use 99% statistical fuel, don't we?

Crap, nope I think retirement is much more important, along with scope, reroutes, soft pay (training, vacation), dead head issues, etc. over was supposed to be besides with a list, two hurricane toddlers is making me go crazy. This is prob in the teens for me. My comment posted prior to me finishing.

Fatigue is different than extending.

If it wasn't, there wouldn't be an extention option; it would only be the max 100% of the time with fatigue as needed.

The extention option should be a Y/N question at the appropriate time and if the answer is N, that's it. Go to rest, no report, no explanation, no review board, nothing.

Pretending its a fatigue issue is asinine. Fatigue at exactly -2 hrs would be a total and complete coinsidence and since fatigue requires a call out whenever it happens (at hour 1, hour 15 or anywhere in between) then the -2 extention threshold has nothing whatsoever to do with fatigue.