Originally Posted by
Small cog
cappt: Do you have a reference for that?
My understanding is
Chief counsel of the FAA.
This ruling has been long known.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...rpretation.pdf
"Requiring pilot to change status to "fatigued" or "ill."
You next ask whether a certificate holder can require a PIC who is unwilling to concur with an extension to change his or her status to "fatigued" or "ill." As discussed in the answer to the previous question, § 117.19 is silent as to the details of how concurrence with an FDP extension is to be achieved. Thus, it neither prohibits the certificate holder from requiring the PIC to change his or her status to "fatigued" or "ill" nor prohibits the PIC from refusing to comply with the certificate holder's requirement. As mentioned previously, we expect this issue to be addressed as part of the certificate holder and PIC's employer-employee relationship.i
3. Disciplinary action for refusing an FDP extension.
In your next question, you ask whether a certificate holder may take disciplinary action against a pilot for refusing to concur with an FDP extension.
During the rulemaking process that created part 117, commenters asked the FAA to add a non-retaliation provision to part 117 to protect flightcrew members from disciplinary action. However, the FAA rejected this suggestion, explaining in the final rule that:
[C]arriers are entitled to investigate the causes for an employee's fatigue. If a carrier determines that the flightcrew member was responsible for becoming fatigued, it has every right to take steps to address that behavior. However, if the flightcrew member's fatigue is a result of the carrier not following the regulatory requirements of this rule, the FAA may initiate enforcement action against the carrier. 6
As discussed in the final rule preamble, part 117 does not prohibit air carriers from investigating the causes of their employees' behavior and acting on the results of their"