B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 234; Flight Crew Total 21000; Flight Crew Type 4920
Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Human Factors
Operation encountered a significant operational irregularity upon landing at ZZZ. It was discovered that the aircraft departed ZZZ1 with the crew not being aware that the empty cargo containers had been removed from the aircraft by the station the previous evening. In retrospect the weight and balance information we were provided may have been inaccurate due to the cargo bins having been removed.Once at ZZZ we were advised that before continuing on to [our next planned destination] we would have to fly the aircraft back to ZZZ1; pick up the containers; and return to ZZZ to pick up the cargo and passengers; thus adding two more segments to the pairing. We flew back to ZZZ1 and I called the dispatcher and we conferenced (crew desk) and (FAR 117 desk). I asked if the pairing was being built legally and was told it was. I expressed that we would be willing to waive duty should we encounter operational delays. Considering the complexities of FAR 117; interpretations; and the mixture of operations; we relied on the expertise of the FAR 117 desk. Crew scheduler said that there were some odd codes popping up in his diagnostics but that he would consult with the manager when he arrived in a few minutes and get back to me if there were any problems. I emphasized that he should contact us ASAP if there were. We flew back to ZZZ and never heard anything from [the crew scheduler].Upon review of the situation I am concerned that the way that the pairing was rebuilt may have violated two FARs. It appears that the crew scheduler built the new pairing projected [to exceed the duty limit by eleven minutes].Further I believe that the crew may have violated subpart (d) of FAR 117.17 Flight duty period: Augmented flight crew.(a) For flight operations conducted with an acclimated augmented flight crew; no certificate holder may assign and no flight crew member may accept an assignment if the scheduled flight duty period will exceed the limits specified in Table C of this part.(b) If the flight crew member is not acclimated:(1) The maximum flight duty period in Table C of this part is reduced by 30 minutes. (2) The applicable flight duty period is based on the local time at the theater in which the flight crew member was last acclimated.(c) No certificate holder may assign and no flight crew member may accept an assignment under this section unless during the flight duty period:(1) Two consecutive hours in the second half of the flight duty period are available for in-flight rest for the pilot flying the aircraft during landing.(2) Ninety consecutive minutes are available for in-flight rest for the pilot performing monitoring duties during landing.(d) No certificate holder may assign and no flight crew member may accept an assignment involving more than three flight segments under this section.
We landed in ZZZ to find out that our cargo bins had been removed during our overnight at ZZZ1. The company directed us to return to ZZZ1 to retrieve these bins and return to ZZZ to pick up the charter to [their destination.] By doing this we added 2 unplanned legs to the day and exceeded FAR 117.17(d). As 777 pilots it is rare for us to have more than one leg a day. So we were concerned about our duty day limitations but no one considered a leg limitation. We extended our allowed 2 hours in order to complete the mission. I suspect that we also departed ZZZ1 with incorrect weights due to the fact that we assumed our cargo bins were on board.
B777 flight crew reported concerns about the legality of duty time and number of legs flown with an augmented crew.