Narrative:

Due to a mechanical delay, the flight departed mke approximately 3- 4 hours late. When the flight left mke it was expected to arrive in cvg well within our duty time limits. En route the flight encountered stronger than forecast headwinds. Additionally, the aircraft performance was much worse than planned due to the fact that the landing gear had to remain extended. As a result, the aircraft's fuel burn was much higher than planned and the flight was forced to make an unplanned fuel stop at ind before continuing on to cvg. While at ind, a longhand performance calculation had to be computed due to the aircraft's inability to retract it's landing gear. While on the ground at ind, it became apparent that we would exceed 16 hours of duty before the flight reached its destination. After talking with dispatch and crew scheduling it was decided that, since we were legal to start the flight and were delayed due to headwinds and worse than expected aircraft performance, we would be legal to complete the flight. Although the interpretation of the regulation seemed correct, I'm not 100 percent sure it was legal! Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: this was a legal flight per the FARS with reference to section 135.263(D) which states that flight crew members are not considered to be assigned in excess of flight time duty limitations if the flts to which assigned are normally terminated within the limitations. Of course, the aircraft has to be considered airworthy with the landing gear in the down position.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT, OF AN ACR LTT SCHEDULED ACFT, QUESTIONED THE LEGAL STATUS OF HIS FLT TIME DUTY LIMITATIONS FOR A DELAYED SCHEDULED FLT.

Narrative: DUE TO A MECHANICAL DELAY, THE FLT DEPARTED MKE APPROX 3- 4 HRS LATE. WHEN THE FLT LEFT MKE IT WAS EXPECTED TO ARRIVE IN CVG WELL WITHIN OUR DUTY TIME LIMITS. ENRTE THE FLT ENCOUNTERED STRONGER THAN FORECAST HEADWINDS. ADDITIONALLY, THE ACFT PERFORMANCE WAS MUCH WORSE THAN PLANNED DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE LNDG GEAR HAD TO REMAIN EXTENDED. AS A RESULT, THE ACFT'S FUEL BURN WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN PLANNED AND THE FLT WAS FORCED TO MAKE AN UNPLANNED FUEL STOP AT IND BEFORE CONTINUING ON TO CVG. WHILE AT IND, A LONGHAND PERFORMANCE CALCULATION HAD TO BE COMPUTED DUE TO THE ACFT'S INABILITY TO RETRACT IT'S LNDG GEAR. WHILE ON THE GND AT IND, IT BECAME APPARENT THAT WE WOULD EXCEED 16 HRS OF DUTY BEFORE THE FLT REACHED ITS DEST. AFTER TALKING WITH DISPATCH AND CREW SCHEDULING IT WAS DECIDED THAT, SINCE WE WERE LEGAL TO START THE FLT AND WERE DELAYED DUE TO HEADWINDS AND WORSE THAN EXPECTED ACFT PERFORMANCE, WE WOULD BE LEGAL TO COMPLETE THE FLT. ALTHOUGH THE INTERP OF THE REG SEEMED CORRECT, I'M NOT 100 PERCENT SURE IT WAS LEGAL! CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THIS WAS A LEGAL FLT PER THE FARS WITH REF TO SECTION 135.263(D) WHICH STATES THAT FLC MEMBERS ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE ASSIGNED IN EXCESS OF FLT TIME DUTY LIMITATIONS IF THE FLTS TO WHICH ASSIGNED ARE NORMALLY TERMINATED WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS. OF COURSE, THE ACFT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AIRWORTHY WITH THE LNDG GEAR IN THE DOWN POS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.