RPTR BELIEVES THAT HIS REDUCED CREW REST ASSIGNMENT WAS ILLEGAL.

Narrative

DURING THE PAST 18 DAYS; I HAVE FLOWN A SCHEDULE THAT REQUIRES A REDUCED REST PERIOD. THE REDUCED REST PERIOD IS DESIGNED INTO THE SCHEDULE. THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXAMPLE: FLYING SCHEDULE IS WITHIN A 24 HR PERIOD; DAY 1 BEGINS AT 12:00 O'CLOCK NOON; DAY 2 ENDS AT 11:15 A.M. DAY 1 SCHEDULED FLYING: 4:20. DAY 2 SCHEDULED FLYING 4:25. TOTAL BOTH DAYS = 8:45 'SCHEDULED.' NOT ONLY MYSELF; BUT OTHERS FLYING SAME SCHEDULE ARE OVER ON DAY 1 BY 24 MINS OVER SCHEDULE! NOW THIS ACTUAL FLYING COMBINED WITH THE 'SCHEDULED FLYING' OF DAY 2 EXCEEDS 9 HRS FLYING IN A 24 HR PERIOD; REQUIRING A REDUCED REST PERIOD OF 9 HRS. THE CHIEF PLT CONTENDS THE 8 HR REDUCED REST IS LEGAL BECAUSE THE FLYING WAS 'SCHEDULED' LESS THAN 9 HRS; REGARDLESS OF WHAT ACTUAL FLYING OCCURRED. HIS RESPONSE IS THE 'ATA LEGAL ADVICE;' ADDITIONALLY THE FAA POI WILL NOT PURSUE THE MATTER SO; NO PROB. THIS IS NOT WHAT I LEARNED WHEN TAKING MY ATP CHK RIDE IN 1984 FROM AN FAA FSDO INSPECTOR. I BELIEVE AN 8 HR REDUCED REST IS NOT CORRECT; BUT THAT OF A 9 HR REDUCED REST IS REQUIRED. I'M SUBJECT TO COMPANY RULE AND IF I TAKE THE 9 HR REST AND BELIEVE THE 8 HR REST IS A VIOLATION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR TRIED TO CONVINCE ANALYST THAT HIS INTERP OF THE FAR WAS THE ONLY ONE. HE CLAIMS TO KNOW AN FAA INSPECTOR WHO MADE PRIMARY INPUT INTO THE LATEST FAR REVISIONS WHO CLAIMS THAT THE INTENT WAS NOT THE SAME AS THE FINAL RESULT. HE REFUSES TO ADMIT THAT THE PRINTED WORD CARRIES MORE WT THAN HIS INTERP.