Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was the Captain and Pilot Flying for Aircraft X. Prior to departure from ZZZ; the FO (First Officer) and I discussed the weather and turbulence we were going to encounter along our route through Central Florida. We had also spoken with Dispatch about possible routes due to being a non-EOW (equipped over-water) aircraft for this leg. Dispatch informed us that most aircraft were staying on the east coast to get around the weather. Just south of Orlando; we started approaching the line of thunderstorms and began deviating to the east. Dispatch has us request MLB-COMET-JAWSS-VIYAP to avoid the weather and keep us within the 50 mile limitation of a non-EOW aircraft. We passed the request to ATC and was told the route wouldn't be possible; however; he did say that most aircraft were on NE deviations and staying around 30 miles off shore. We passed this info along to Dispatch. As we continued with our deviations; the FO was keeping vigilance on our route with the terrain display on his MFD and the Jepp app. As we approached the 50 mile boundary; we advised ATC that we had to stay closer to the coast as we were not capable of extended overwater operations. We began a more N-NW heading around the weather. We once again requested JAWSS to maintain the 50 mile boundary. ATC told us to plan on headings around the weather. As the flight progressed; the frequency became congested with traffic requesting vectors as well. Dispatch advised us we were approaching the boundary and to turn back. We tried to get a word in to ATC but unsuccessfully. I advised Dispatch it was busy and we would turn back when we could. Dispatch advised us we had gone past the 50 mile boundary. FO confirmed we were around 60 miles offshore. When we finally got a word in to ATC; we were rerouted on a route that took us further away from the coast and declined it; advised them we could only go 50 miles off the coast. We were told to continue on the heading and they would try to get us closer to the coast. We were then assigned HATMA-CRVET.[STAR]. We verified that HATMA would be within the 50 mile limitation (which it was) and proceeded towards HATMA. We told Dispatch of the route and it being within 50 miles. He informed us he had spoken with the company; who told him exceeding the boundary was OK; for weather deviations. Dispatch said he would be filing a report and we should as well. I informed him that while we were aware of the limitation; we were not going to jeopardize the safety of the flight and did our best to stay within the 50 miles. He agreed safety first and to file the report when we had a chance. Once over HATMA; we were within the boundary again. The rest of the flight was within the boundary.  While it was helpful to have communication with Dispatch for weather deviations; it became an unnecessary distraction to respond to multiple notifications of approaching the 50 mile boundary and exceedance of the boundary. It's my opinion that dispatch should be more aware of our possible task saturation of flying the aircraft and dealing with ATC; traffic; weather. I believe informing us of a possible deviation could have been relayed to us after we were past the weather.


Second narrative: Before takeoff I contacted [the] Captain about weather in Florida region and plan of action to fly the route. From the time we first spoke over phone by the time he reached weather did move further east. As a Dispatcher I asked him to get [route] then as filed to avoid weather near DAB and upward area. My waypoints still within 50 miles of EOW [Extended Over Water] boundary. As soon as I saw the route ATC gave him to fly to avoid weather was beyond 125 miles of EOW line. I notified Captain to not to fly that far as we may cross 50 miles line. He tried contacting ATC about it but ATC frequency being congested for that Center due to weather; aircraft re-routes and holdings; he could not get vectors back on time. The flight returned back to normal boundary and continued to its destination without any problem.


Synopsis: Flight Crew and Dispatcher reported a bad routing due to weather that would have taken the crew over the 50 NM range for aircraft not certified to fly over water.