Bealzebub, hi there.
Thanks for the respond. You're absolutely right about the reference of unforeseen circumstance. Its indeed refers to extension after the reduction of rest. I have referred to the wrong phrase "unforeseen circumstance" in the previous post. I should have referred to the phrase "what actually happens, not on what was planed to happen".
An aircraft commander may, at his discretion, and after taking note of the circumstances of other members of the crew, extend an FDP beyond that permitted in 7.3.8., provided he is satisfied that the flight can be made safely. The extension shall be calculated according to what actually happens, not on what was planned to happen. An extension of 3 hours is the maximum permitted, except in cases of emergency (see Note).
For the record, we're talking about 1 sector of 12:22 BH with max allow FDP of 13BH.
That indeed, reflects the main difference in approaches for the reasons mentioned above. In other words a trip time of 12:12 was clearly planed and therefore its obvious that the normal FDP is gonna be bust. It can be suspected that rostering consciously has planed that particular flight counting on commanders discretion. Again if the flight would have been planed within the max allowable FDP and then something would have came up forcing the commander to consider the extension, that would have been completely different scenario though. The question here is: can a flight be planed knowing upfront that the max allow FDP will be extended and the commander's discretion will be necessary to conduct that flight? Following that logic, next question is: is the decision to extend FDP justifiable or not?
Speaking of the responsibility, do you think CAA can object that decision after reviewing the report and somehow cause the skipper troubles in case the CAA thinks the decision isn't justifiable. What is the general practise of dealing with that kind of things? Is that the communication between the CAA and company or the direct approach of CAA to the commander.
Thanks.