According to the Judgment this guy asked his CP in an email
"Upon looking at the initial plogs produced at standard crews and turnaround times it became clear that the duty was actually planned into discretion by approximately twenty minutes. I informed the company that I would not be utilising my Captain’s discretion as per FTL7.18.1. It states “the extension shall be calculated according to what actually happens not on what was planned to happen.” Therefore as it was planned to go into discretion, my Captain’s discretion would not be an option. The company then produced high speed cruise plogs (MACH .82) in an attempt to reduce the planned FDP to below that of 12.30. Even then the duty time showed in excess of the maximum of 12.30.
The claimant asked what figures had been used to come up with the original FDP of exactly 12.30 which was exactly the maximum FDP available."
Then later in the Judgment it states
"The claimant asked on a number of occasions for information on how the flight was planned to come within the maximum FDP. The respondent never provided him with this information and has given no satisfactory explanation as to why they did not do so.
Now....I wonder why that would be "stroking chin"
Last edited by onlythetruth; 20th Dec 2016 at 11:43.