Narrative:

On jul/thu/93 I was PIC of flight sea to lax. We were running about 2 hours late due to a mechanical problem in sea. The flight was to continue to san. We would have done this trip under 8 hours even with the extra taxi time due to mechanical in sea. Upon arrival in lax, we were informed that flight (lax-san, same aircraft) and flight (san-lax, same aircraft) was cancelled and we were to continue on flight (lax-sea, same aircraft). Concerned with flight times, I called crew scheduler and gave him our flight times for the day. Flying back to sea would put us over 8 hours. He assured us that this was acceptable under 121.471. We were late and busy and accepted the flight. After researching 121.471, we found out we were in violation of 121.471(a)(1). The intent of 121.471(a) states 'no crew member may accept' is intended to protect the company from unrpted commercial flying time by the pilot. They are still responsible for assignment. The point is, for safety purposes, flight crew members have far more important issues to deal with on flight duty than flight and duty times. As long as we relay proper times to the company and communicate with scheduling, we should be exempt from flight and duty time violations.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN MLG ACR ACFT EXCEEDED FLT DUTY LIMITATIONS DUE TO RESCHEDULING AFTER A SCHEDULED CANCELED FLT.

Narrative: ON JUL/THU/93 I WAS PIC OF FLT SEA TO LAX. WE WERE RUNNING ABOUT 2 HRS LATE DUE TO A MECHANICAL PROB IN SEA. THE FLT WAS TO CONTINUE TO SAN. WE WOULD HAVE DONE THIS TRIP UNDER 8 HRS EVEN WITH THE EXTRA TAXI TIME DUE TO MECHANICAL IN SEA. UPON ARR IN LAX, WE WERE INFORMED THAT FLT (LAX-SAN, SAME ACFT) AND FLT (SAN-LAX, SAME ACFT) WAS CANCELLED AND WE WERE TO CONTINUE ON FLT (LAX-SEA, SAME ACFT). CONCERNED WITH FLT TIMES, I CALLED CREW SCHEDULER AND GAVE HIM OUR FLT TIMES FOR THE DAY. FLYING BACK TO SEA WOULD PUT US OVER 8 HRS. HE ASSURED US THAT THIS WAS ACCEPTABLE UNDER 121.471. WE WERE LATE AND BUSY AND ACCEPTED THE FLT. AFTER RESEARCHING 121.471, WE FOUND OUT WE WERE IN VIOLATION OF 121.471(A)(1). THE INTENT OF 121.471(A) STATES 'NO CREW MEMBER MAY ACCEPT' IS INTENDED TO PROTECT THE COMPANY FROM UNRPTED COMMERCIAL FLYING TIME BY THE PLT. THEY ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSIGNMENT. THE POINT IS, FOR SAFETY PURPOSES, FLC MEMBERS HAVE FAR MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO DEAL WITH ON FLT DUTY THAN FLT AND DUTY TIMES. AS LONG AS WE RELAY PROPER TIMES TO THE COMPANY AND COMMUNICATE WITH SCHEDULING, WE SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM FLT AND DUTY TIME VIOLATIONS.

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.