Narrative:

I am writing this report 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 hours 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 hours 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 supervisor. I asked her how this was legal. She said 'go to the chief pilot's office' and she would explain later. So I went to see the chief pilot. I explained my story and he agreed that it did not sound legal so he called customer service supervisor 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 pilot agreed with customer service supervisor 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 pilot I was fatigued.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: 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.

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.