B757-200
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Company Policy
Was rescheduled for later departure due to late inbound flight. The relief pilot and I spent approximately 30 minutes on the phone with crew scheduling to determine our legality for the duty period extension. I found FAR 117 very confusing in this situation and asked for clarification to assure us that we were legal. We were actually given two different answers; 30 minutes apart; as to when we ran out of duty day. One scheduler told us it was XF40 and another told us it was XG10. Since we would beat both of them I was not too concerned about the different interpretations of the rules. Hours later when we got on the bus to the airport; the other pilot stated that he had done some further research and thought that the schedulers were wrong and that in fact we were only good until XA40 which would make it an illegal duty assignment. After much discussion on the bus; I told the other two pilots that I would call the chief pilot and get him involved. I needed an answer to satisfy the uncertainty of my crew. This was the first time that I had been involved in a situation like this and the FAR's were difficult to sort out. After consulting with the chief pilot; we were actually given a third time (XH10) which only reinforced our opinion that the company did not have an adequate understanding of the situation either or they all would have arrived at the same answer. There is obviously only one correct answer. We dug into the regulation ourselves and satisfied ourselves that we were indeed legal but were concerned about the confusion this caused as we were trying to get a very late flight out.In the original discussion with the crew scheduler it was not adequately explained as to how they were transitioning us to short call reserve status so they could lengthen our duty day. The subject of a reserve availability was never discussed. I found the chief pilot to be a little impatient with me as if my concerns were not justified. When a fellow crewmember expresses concern about a legality issue it is my obligation to slow things down and sort the issue out. Surely the company has dealt with this before and should have been able to give a clear and concise answer with references to the appropriate sections of the FAR for our review. When three different company representatives give you three different answers to the same question it is a little disconcerting. Lack of familiarity with all the intricacies of FAR 117 combined with poor company support. Complexity of the regulations; especially during an irregular operation contributed to the confusion. Company should have an expert to consult on these issues. Obviously if I was given three different answers; some additional training should be provided to crew scheduling. There is only one correct answer. I am going to follow up with Union consultants to get their interpretation. There are commercially available apps available to use in these situations. The company should research these apps and give the crew members access to an approved app to make their own calculations.
After experiencing a departure delay; an international flight crew attempted to determine from crew schedulers what their duty-limit time would be per FAR 117. The crew attempted to resolve the two answers received from schedulers by contacting the Chief Pilot who gave them a third time. Crew determined that they were legal for the extended duty day; but recommended that the company refine its training of schedulers to enhance FAR 117 requirements during irregular operations.