Also a fatigue call only gets you out of working revenue flights, it does not guarantee immediate rest... they can keep you on duty and DHD you all over the map for as long as they want. In fact that's a common tactic used to discourage fatigue calls... you know you're going to have to wait 2+ hours for the relief crew and THEN ride a middle seat in a cabin full of disgruntled pax. Most folks would rather just fly the damn plane themselves, now, and get to bed sooner.

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm simply saying that Part 117 does not require a pilot to accept an extension like so many people think. It simply only requires that a pilot concur that the extension is legal. If you're fatigued call fatigued.

That’s easier said than done when it’s fairly likely you will be docked pay as a result. There’s motivation to not call fatigued even if you are in fact fatigued.

We are all in agreement about the concept, however some companies have made it punitive to not accept an extension.

They determine if it was the company’s fault or not. Nobody ever says “you weren’t fatigued.”

Yes, but people are making the argument that you are (or should be) able to refuse an extension for reasons other than fatigue.

You can absolutely refuse an extension. For all of you whose companies are forcing you to extend for any reason you’ve been snookered. I foresee fines in the future for a lot of companies. 117.19 (a)(1). Cut and dry, the PIC AND (key word there) The certificate holder, not the PIC OR the certificate holder.

Show me. I’ve quoted the FAR, show me where it says exactly that. Word. For. Word.

excellent read.

"It is important to note in the FAAs preamble and clarifications, it does not delineate “fatigue” as the only issue surrounding the PICs decision to extend. The extension decision should be made based not only on fitness for duty of the PIC, but on the totality of the situation (e.g. fitness for duty of the entire crew, operational environment, transitions into and out of the WOCL, weather conditions, outside stressors, and many other factors that tend to be additive in most situations that lead to the necessity for an FDP extension). When making this extension decision late in the duty period, it is also important to note NASA’s observation that when an individual has fatigue onset, this is when
they are most likely to not recognize their fatigue state during their decision making."

"The FAA agrees that the responsibility for determining whether a FDP needs to be extended
rests jointly with the pilot in command and the certificate holder. This ensures that one
party is not taking excessive action over another party, and that proper considerations are
factored into the decision-making.

Since it is prior to takeoff, once the certificate holder becomes aware of such issue, the
certificate holder and pilot-in-command have discretion to evaluate the situation and
determine whether it is permissible and appropriate to extend the applicable FDPs and continue with the flight or whether it is more appropriate to replace the affected flightcrew
member."

Go in the FAA general counsel webpage and download the 117 extension interpretations. They supersede any local FSDO or POI.
There is one (of many) that specifically states an extension must be affirmatively agreed to on a case by case basis by the pilot and the certificate holder.

IIRC, It specifically states that automatic extensions are a no no. It does authorize signing the release to be consent proof for extensions up to 30 minutes, but you still have to consent, and consent can’t be given before the need for an extension is even known.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...tions/Part117/