Beacon wrote:Here is another TC view....Maybe TC could publish something that would clear this topic up once and for all.
From: Rehm, Danielle
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 3:13 PM
Subject: RE: Duty Times - Unforeseen Circumstances
If the pilot or the air operator is aware, prior to take-off, that a flight will put the crew over the max allowable duty day, it cannot be said to be unforeseen. As mentioned in my earlier email, there are very few situations that qualify as unforeseen circumstances - in any case it is always something that happens after the flight has departed. Delays due to deicing, maintenance etc, do not constitute unforeseen circumstances. The intent behind the exception to the regulations is to allow a crew to continue to destination in the event that something occurs enroute that could not have reasonably been foreseen.
As PIC, when you apply power for take-off, you must be reasonably certain that you will land within your legal duty day.
If you have other questions regarding duty times, crew scheduling etc, I suggest you contact the Principal Operations inspector for your company - you are also welcome to call me at any time to discuss..
Civil Aviation Inspector Commercial and Business Aviation
Ok, so I'm going to throw the ball a different way. I may be wrong.
So TC considers it to be illegal to depart if the pilot knows that they're going to be surpassing the duty times. Let's go back to YVR, where the guys departed. This is the first flight of the day for this crew. When they depart, they know that they're going to be okay for duty times as it's a round robin flight for a total of maybe 11 hours. At this point, there is no mention of having a "sick" passenger on board. So as a result, if they end up with a medical emergency that requires a diversion, wouldn't this be seen as unforeseen? Cause it is a different story if the crew knew they had a sick passenger while departing YVR. But since they didn't, then having a medical emergency really is out of the company's control and should be seen as unforeseen.
So if suddenly having a medical emergency is seen as unforeseen, then this entire round robin flight that the crew was scheduled to do has now been delayed for unforeseen circumstances. With that in mind, wouldn't the 4 hour delay at the diverted airport also be seen as unforeseen? Wouldn't that 4 hour delay added to the overall round robin be seen as unforeseen?
Cause if all of those are viewed as unforeseen as a result of unforeseen as a result of unforeseen, then as long as they make it back and check out from their duty times within 17 hours, and receive their extended 6 hours of uninterrupted rest... this would all be legal...
What might be considered illegal is the following. I was on a KLM flight, shortly departing EHAM, as we were passing FL120, the flight attendants go on the PA and ask for a doctor. Remember, our foreseen flight was intended to be 9 hours and 45 minutes. At 20 minuets into the flight, we need a doctor. What was a question to me was that we ended up continuing to Vancouver and midway over greenland, we had to divert to Keflavik. We were delayed in Keflavik for 5 hours because the passenger refused to get off the plane as they were worried about their foreign visa requirements. KLM knew that this passenger could not land anywhere else but Canada or Netherlands because at check in, her international documents must of been verified. Still, KLM decided to continue to Vancouver and being forced to divert to Keflavik. They were past the 14 hour duty requirement regulation for a 9.8 block flight time.
I don't know of the CAA/JAA regulations, but under Canadian regulations, wouldn't continuing with a sick passenger who KLM is aware of not having proper international documents for a diversion been considered a foreseen circumstance? Replace KLM with ACA... would ACA get crap for it if such a thing was done by a carrier under Canadian Jurisdiction?