When the Captain considers whether or not to agree to an FDP extension, he must consider all relevant factors, including the fitness of his crew. If one of his crewmembers declares himself to be unfit to extend, would the Captain not be required under FAR 117 to refuse the extension?

 

A captain with strong leadership skills would refuse to fly it if his first officer doesn't want to fly it. Unfortunately, every captain out there is not leadership oriented. This applies to all airlines.

 

Agreed. One fine point of argument that I would make is that I understand the FAR to be less intended to allow the PIC to decide if he "wants" to extend vs whether an extension may be performed safely considering all relevant factors.

This is in contrast, for example, to the Delta contract's provision that any pilot may refuse to remain on duty more than two hours longer than the max scheduled duty time. This refusal can be for any reason, not merely safety related.

 

With contractual language and union support this decision is simple. Under the "Direct Relationship" this simple decision is layered with pay, discipline and safety consequences.

 

Sounds just like JB. All that JB does is dock pay, there is no dependability review in fatiguing out or refusing extension. Am I missing something, there are lots of things we need to fix here at JB this to me anyway isn't one of them. It will be fixed once we get a CBA and some more 117 operating time under our belt but to call it illegal just takes away the credibility of those who make the statement, unethical maybe but not illegal. Let's just work on getting that CBA.

 

This isnt about the fatigue policy.

Just this week a captain in JFK was being pressured to accept a 117 extension or be faced with loss of pay and a dependability review.

 

I thought that a Fatigue Policy was supposed to be "non-punitive"?

 

Loss of pay yes, dependability policy not likely unless there are a lot of other issues are looming for this individual. I think your getting some bad second hand information from this captain.

 

It is as well as not taking extensions. Only sick calls can trigger a dependability review and if pre coordinated with your chief nobody will ever enforce the policy. Let's get back on point with real issues to get this CBA on property not ones based on miss information.

 

If that's the case, I hope JB has recorded scheduling lines, because that would bring a world of crap to whoever was "pressuring". I would made it VERY clear to whoever was on the other side of the line "OK, just so I'm %100 clear...you are telling me that if I do not extend this FDP, I will be faced with disciplinary action and loss of pay".

Pull that tape. Hope JB has a version of ASAP.

The DAL PWA has grid of maximum scheduled duty (domestically, international is different), which runs from 13 hours down to 8:30, depending on when the duty day reports. Your actual duty ?can can be up to 2 hours longer, and you don't really have the option to say no unless you use the F word.

After the 2 hours is up, you walk with no question asked.

117 and the DAL PWA don't really match up, but if you break it down, the majority of the "grid" shows the PWA is more restrictive than 117, which means that you will run out of PWA "actual" duty before a 2 hour 117 extension. OTOH, a 30 minute extension is usually more restrictive with the FARs.

I think I saw that C20 put out a little guide that color coded the "table B" showing what was most restrictive.

Nu