MD80 FO QUESTIONS COMPANY'S INTERP OF FLT TIME AND DUTY TIME LIMITATIONS WHEN A DIVERSION ON HIS LAST DAY'S FLYING PROJECTS THE FINAL LEG OF HIS SCHEDULED SEQUENCE TO RESULT IN MORE THAN 30 HRS ALOFT IN 7 CONSECUTIVE DAYS.

Narrative

THIS IS A 30-HR IN 7 DAYS FLT TIME LIMITATION ISSUE. ON AUG/XA/05 A WX RELATED FIELD CLOSURE AT BNA FORCED A DIVERSION TO SDF TO REFUEL AND WAIT FOR THE REOPENING OF BNA. AS IS NORMALLY DONE IN DIVERSION SITS; SCHEDULING CHANGED MY SEQUENCE TO REFLECT A 3-LEG DAY INSTEAD OF THE ORIGINAL 2-LEG DAY. THE ORIGINAL 2-DAY SEQUENCE SCHEDULED WAS: LAX TO BNA; AND BNA TO LGA. THE MODIFIED SEQUENCE WAS: LAX TO SDF; SDF TO BNA; AND BNA TO LGA. THE CHANGE IN THE SEQUENCE CAUSED A SITUATION WHERE I WOULD EXCEED 30 HRS OF FLYING IN A 7 DAY PERIOD ON THE LEG FROM BNA TO LGA; SO I ANTICIPATED THAT WHEN I ARRIVED IN BNA I WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE SEQUENCE. I HAD THAT EXPECTATION BASED ON A PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH THE 30/7 FAR IN AUG/04. IN THE AUG/04 SIT; I WAS ON THE THIRD DAY OF A 4-DAY TRIP AND I WAS SCHEDULED TO FLY INTO ORD WITH A FOLLOW-ON LEG TO THE WEST COAST. I BELIEVE THE DEST WAS LAX. WHEN I ARRIVED IN ORD; I FOUND THAT I HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE TRIP AND WAS TO DEADHEAD BACK TO LGA. I CALLED SCHEDULING TO INQUIRE AS TO WHY THE SEQUENCE HAD CHANGED. THE SCHEDULER TOLD ME THAT FLT DELAYS IN MY PREVIOUS LEG CREATED A SITUATION WHERE I WOULD EXCEED THE 30/7 FLT TIME LIMITATION ON THE ORD-LAX LEG; THEREFORE; I HAD TO BE REMOVED FROM THE TRIP. I NOTED TO THE SCHEDULER THAT I HAD BEGUN THE DAY LEGAL TO FLY THE ORD-LAX LEG AND THAT IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT OVERFLY ON THE PREVIOUS LEG WOULD NOT MAKE ME ILLEGAL. THE SCHEDULER TOLD ME THAT I WAS WRONG; AND THAT THE COMPANY'S INTERP OF THE 30/7 FAR WAS THAT A PLT COULD NOT START ANOTHER LEG; IF THAT LEG WAS TO CAUSE THE PLT TO EXCEED 30/7. GIVEN THE VAST ATTN ON A DIFFERENT FAA LIMITATION; DOMESTIC DUTY DAY; DURING THAT TIMEFRAME AND THE FACT THAT THE POINT HAD BEEN EMPHASIZED THAT A CREW MEMBER COULD NOT DEPART AN ARPT IF THE PLANNED FLT TIME WOULD CAUSE HIM TO EXCEED THE DUTY DAY FARS; I ACCEPTED THE SCHEDULER'S OR THE COMPANY'S INTERP OF THE 30/7 FAR. WHEN I ARRIVED IN BNA ON AUG/XA/05; I CHKED MY SEQUENCE EXPECTING TO FIND THAT I HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE BNA-LGA LEG. WHEN I FOUND THAT I HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED; I CALLED SCHEDULING. IN THIS CASE; THE SCHEDULER INFORMED ME THAT SINCE I WAS LEGAL WHEN I STARTED MY DUTY DAY; I WAS LEGAL TO FLY THE BNA-LGA LEG. BASED ON MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE; I INSISTED THAT SHE WAS WRONG -- THAT THE COMPANY'S INTERP OF THE 30/7 FAR WAS THAT A PLT COULD NOT BEGIN A LEG IF THAT LEG WOULD CAUSE HIM TO EXCEED THE 30/7 FAR. SHE PUT ME ON HOLD AND SPOKE WITH THE MGR ON DUTY ABOUT THE ISSUE. SHE RETURNED TO INFORM ME THAT THE MGR ON DUTY SUPPORTED HER POS THAT I WAS LEGAL TO FLY THE LEG. NOW I WAS CONFUSED; SCHEDULING'S INTERP OF THE 30/7 FAR IN AUG/05 WAS IN COMPLETE CONFLICT WITH SCHEDULING'S POS IN AUG/04. ANGRY PAX DELAYED FOR SEVERAL HRS AND SITTING IMPATIENTLY IN THE LOBBY WERE OBVIOUSLY EAGER TO BOARD AND DEPART WHILE I DEBATED FARS WITH THE SCHEDULER -- NOT MY INTERP OF AN FAR; BUT THE COMPANY'S CONFLICTING INTERP OF THE FARS. AS I SAT ON HOLD; I REALIZED THAT BOTH INTERPS SERVED THE COMPANY'S INTERESTS IN THE SIT IN WHICH THEY WERE APPLIED. SINCE IT APPEARED THAT ON ONE OF THESE 2 OCCASIONS SCHEDULING WAS NOT MOTIVATED TO APPLY THE FAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAA'S INTENT; I WAS UNSURE WHICH INTERP TO ACCEPT. I FELT I COULD NOT TRUST SCHEDULING'S MOTIVATIONS AND I DID NOT WANT TO DOCUMENT AN FAR VIOLATION. HAD I BEEN DECEIVED IN AUG/04 OR WAS I BEING DECEIVED NOW? I KNEW THE 30/7 FAR WAS A SCHEDULING LIMITATION; NOT AN ACTUAL FLT LIMITATION. BUT THE ISSUE IS -- WHEN DOES A SCHEDULED FLT BECOME AN ACTUAL FLT? -- WHEN THE PLT RPTS FOR DUTY? WHEN THE ACFT DEPARTS ON THE FIRST LEG OF THE DAY? WHEN THE ACFT DEPARTS ON EACH LEG INDEPENDENTLY? IN AUG/04; SCHEDULING'S POS WAS THAT A FLT BECAME ACTUAL WHEN THAT SPECIFIC FLT DEPARTED THE GATE. IN AUG/05; SCHEDULING'S POS WAS THAT A SCHEDULED FLT BECAME AN ACTUAL FLT WHEN THE PLT RPTED FOR WORK. IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THE AUG/04 INTERP -- A SCHEDULED FLT BECAME AN ACTUAL FLT WHEN THAT PARTICULAR FLT DEPARTED THE GATE -- WAS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICATION OF OTHER FARS. I READ THE FAR AS QUOTED IN PART I AND CLRLY; THE FAR COULD BE INTERPED EITHER WAY. BUT WHAT WAS THE FAA'S INTENT? THE INTENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOR FAR APPLICATION TO BE INCONSISTENT AND CONFLICTING. I TOLD THE SCHEDULER THAT I WOULD NOT FLY THE LEG UNLESS I RECEIVED A MESSAGE FROM THE COMPANY SPECIFICALLY STATING THAT THE COMPANY'S INTERP OF THE 30/7 FAR WAS THAT I WAS LEGAL TO FLY THE BNA-LGA LEG. I RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING FROM THE MGR ON DUTY: 'AUG/XA/05: FO XXXXX; YYYYY ZZZZZ; MGR OF OPS FOR CREW SCHEDULE REGARDING YOUR 30/7 ISSUE...ONCE YOU BEGIN YOUR DUTY PERIOD LEGALLY; AND SUBSEQUENT OVERFLY PUTS YOU OVER 30/7; YOU ARE LEGAL TO CONTINUE SAID DUTY PERIOD BOTH CONTRACTUALLY AS WELL AS BASED ON FAR LIMITATIONS AND THE COMPANY'S INTERP OF SAID LIMITATIONS. IN THIS INSTANCE ON SEQUENCE; YOU WERE LEGAL TO START YOUR DAY. WHILE THE DIVERSION PLACED YOU INTO AN OVER 30/7; SINCE YOU WERE LEGAL TO START THE DUTY DAY; YOU ARE LEGAL TO FINISH. IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS; PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT EITHER MYSELF; THE CHIEF PLT ON DUTY; OR YOUR UNION. REGARDS; YYYYYY ZZZZZZ/MGR OF OPS/CREW SCHEDULE.' SINCE THE FLT MANUAL PART I GIVES THE MGR ON DUTY THE AUTH TO MAKE 'ON THE SCENE' DECISIONS REGARDING FLT TIME LIMITATION ISSUES AND SINCE I THOUGHT IT UNFAIR TO THE PAX TO FURTHER DELAY THE FLT WHILE I VERIFIED WITH THE CHIEF PLT ON DUTY AND THE PLT GROUP AND MGR ON DUTY'S DECISION; I RETURNED TO THE COCKPIT TO FLY THE BNA-LGA LEG.