Airline Pilot Central Forums - Airlines requiring part 117 extensions

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)

- - Airlines requiring part 117 extensions (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/123096-airlines-requiring-part-117-extensions.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Random Task (Post 2858460)

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.

Um, no... it does require PIC agreeing to the extension. Show us language saying it’s only a legality check.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...rpretation.pdf

(2) An extension in the flight duty period under paragraph (a)(1) of this section of more than 30 minutes may occur only once prior to receiving a rest period described in § 117.25(b).

It’s certainly not legal to just expect the extension every day beyond the beyond 30 minutes. You can’t accept more than one before you get 30 hours off. That part is pretty clear. No interpretation needed. Refer dispatch to this CFR if they try to pressure you into it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Random Task (Post 2858330)

This is a common misconception. 117 states the pilot must concur the extension is legal, not concur to the extension itself.

Uhh....it says the pilot and certificate holder must agree if an extension is to be used...do you have a reference to your odd interpretation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cujo665 (Post 2858865)

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/

at OO we sign the release electronically with our Ipad, by doing this we are agreeing to any FDP extention that is known at that point, if one becomes known after signing in on our ipad it is up to us to notify that we are fatigued if we do not plan to work the flight. we are not allowed to not agree to the extention, we can only call fatigued, so far no one has hired a lawyer to challenge this interpretation seeing as our representation is funded by management, they will concur with whatever mgmnt says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gone Flying (Post 2860522)

You know that “my boss said it was ok” won’t hold up with the FAA, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadstick35 (Post 2860593)

You know that “my boss said it was ok” won’t hold up with the FAA, right?

100% agreed. You have to be on top of your own times, the company will throw you to the wolves if you agree to an illegal extension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by captande (Post 2860603)

100% agreed. You have to be on top of your own times, the company will throw you to the wolves if you agree to an illegal extension.

That’s exactly right. It’s called “self-reporting” or “self-disclosure.” The company fesses up, gets a lighter penalty than if the violation is discovered by an FAA audit (they mighty get a fine or something), but it puts the pilot in the crosshairs.

In my part time gig I'm an Air Force WX forecaster with the Guard. I take exception to saying weather is an unforseen operational circumstance. I'd say that in regards to weather, planning fails to plan properly, IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayBee (Post 2860628)

Some airlines have tried to say critical levels of understaffing (IE extending people for flights that have been uncovered in open time for weeks) are an “unforeseen operational circumstance”.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayBee (Post 2860628)

And the TAFs are always right on the money? If the forecast is such that it’s illegal to depart, that’s it.