AN ACR PLT DISAGREES WITH HIS COMPANY'S INTERP OF THE LEGALITY OF AN ASSIGNMENT RELATIVE TO THE 30 HRS IN 7 DAY MAX. IN THE END; THE ASSIGNMENT IS REFUSED USING FATIGUE AS THE REASON BECAUSE OF THE EXHAUSTING EFFORT REQUIRED TO ATTEMPT RESOLUTION OF THE SIT.

Narrative

I AM WRITING THIS RPT BECAUSE OF WHAT I BELIEVE WAS AN ERROR OF SCHEDULING ME AN ASSIGNMENT WHICH WAS IN VIOLATION OF FAR 121.47(A) WHICH DEALS WITH THE 30 IN 7 RULE. ON XXXXX I BEGAN MY DAY COMING BACK FROM MY SCHEDULED OVERNIGHT FROM LSE; THEN AFTER; ANOTHER LSE TURN. AFTER RETURNING TO ORD; I WAS TOLD BY SCHEDULING THAT I WAS REASSIGNED TO DO AN MKE TURN THEN BE FINISHED; WHICH PUT ME AT 28 HRS 21 MINS. AFTER COMPLETING THE MKE TURN; I WAS ONCE AGAIN NOTIFIED THAT I WAS AGAIN REASSIGNED TO A GRB TURN. I ADDED THE TIME UP AND I CAME UP WITH 30 HRS 9 MINS; SO I WAS NOT LEGAL TO DO IT. I CALLED SCHEDULING AND WAS TOLD THAT I WAS LEGAL TO START LEGAL TO FINISH. I ONCE AGAIN TOLD HER THAT I HAD BEEN REASSIGNED TWICE ALREADY AND IT IS NOT LEGAL TO TACK THIS ON TO THE END. I SAID I WANTED TO SPEAK WITH YOUR SUPVR. I ASKED HER HOW THIS WAS LEGAL. SHE SAID 'GO TO THE CHIEF PLT'S OFFICE' AND SHE WOULD EXPLAIN LATER. SO I WENT TO SEE THE CHIEF PLT. I EXPLAINED MY STORY AND HE AGREED THAT IT DID NOT SOUND LEGAL SO HE CALLED CUSTOMER SVC SUPVR UP AND SHE TOLD HIM THAT I WAS LEGAL BECAUSE THEY WERE ALLOWED TO USE BLOCK TIMES INSTEAD OF ACTUAL TIMES. THIS IS NOT TRUE -- CHIEF PLT AGREED WITH CUSTOMER SVC SUPVR THAT IT WAS LEGAL AFTER HER EXPLANATION. I HAD EXHAUSTED ALL AVENUES TO DECIDE WHETHER I WAS LEGAL TO DO THIS; AND I WAS NOT CONVINCED IT WAS A LEGAL ASSIGNMENT. I HAD HEARD 4 DIFFERENT REASONS WHY I WAS LEGAL TO DO IT AND MANY WHY I WAS NOT LEGAL TO FLY. AT THIS POINT I WAS EXHAUSTED FROM DEALING WITH THIS AND TOLD CHIEF PLT I WAS FATIGUED.