captain152

Thank ya much!

Hillbilly

FAR 117.19 states that the decision to extend is made jointly by the certificate holder (the company) and the PIC (the captain). From a technical standpoint, the FO never enters the equation unless he has been previously extended greater than 30 minutes and has not had the requisite 30 consecutive hours free from all duty. If that's the case, the crew cannot be extended.

That being said, any respectable captain is going to gather the input from his crew before making his decision on the extension. I would expect that to be the norm, but the letter of the law does not require it.

Additionally, consider the situation where an FO signed the release prior to pushback but during taxi out the crew is notified by ATC of a ground stop and they are delayed. If the delay leads to a decision point on an extension, the FO has already signed and is in the position described above.

GogglesPisano

Q-30. If the PIC concurs with the carrier for a 2-hour FDP extension, can the FO refuse the extension?

A-30. Yes. Each individual flightcrew member must “sign off”
that they are fit to fly before each segment, i.e., the PIC can
accept a 2-hour extension but the FO can independently
state he/she is not fit for further duty and could not under
the circumstances accept the extension.

wxman

iv. PIC Concurrence in FDP Extension

ALPA asked whether the PIC needed to concur if the PIC does not need an FDP extension but another flightcrew member needs an FDP extension in order to finish the assigned schedule. ALPA also asked whether the PIC could concur on the condition that only one hour of the two-hour FDP extension is utilized. A4A asked whether carriers could use existing procedures for acknowledging joint responsibility between pilots and carriers for extensions that exceed 30 minutes.
Under § 117.19(a)(1) the “pilot in command and the certificate holder” must both concur in order to utilize an FDP extension. Thus, § 117.19(a)(1) requires PIC concurrence for all FDP extensions taken pursuant to § 117.19, even if the PIC is not the flightcrew member who is using the extension. If the PIC believes that the flightcrew is too fatigued for a two-hour FDP extension, the PIC could concur to a shorter FDP extension that he/she believes could safely be carried out by the flightcrew. We also note that, pursuant to § 117.5, each flightcrew member would also have to certify that he/she would not be too fatigued to operate the aircraft during the extension.
A record of PIC concurrence can take any reasonable form as long as there is evidence that the PIC concurred with the extension. For example, the PIC could note his/her concurrence with an FDP extension on a flight release or in an ACARS message.

Hillbilly

That's good news. Thanks for providing that GP! It has given me a better understanding.

Senior Skipper

Where does the FO sign the release?

Hillbilly

That's a good question. The new FARs require that each individual pilot must certify his fitness for duty prior to each flight as part of the dispatch or flight release. My carrier doesn't currently do this, but I suspect after the beginning of the year, the captain will not be the only person signing something prior to each flight.