Narrative:

Total flight time for the day was 7:51 with 12:25 on duty. Flight was normal until the approach. I was flying. Weather conditions for the approach were good VMC; with excellent visibility and good light; though the sun had recently set. Localizer FMS runway 25; the procedure is too slow to be fully configured before intercepting the final approach course. ATC asked for speed as long as practical. We left rlg at 220 KTS; but I delayed slowing and configuring; intending to still be configured by intercept. I misjudged the distance required to slow and was not fully configured; but elected to continue. With the steep vertical path; it was difficult to slow further and completely configure during the descent. This resulted in an unstable approach to very short final. Also; due to the higher airspeed and rate of descent; an egpws warning was received. This; I believe; was due to the rising terrain as we approached a ridge-line and would not have occurred at normal speed. We could see terrain and were safe to continue. This entire approach was unacceptable and should have been aborted; certainly prior to the final approach fix. Last winter; there were two occasions when my flights had to go-around; early in the approach. Neither of us called for a go-around; both of us should have. For this event; I believe; the difference was my fatigue. I had not slept well; the night before and while getting ready for the airport had reviewed my state. Finding that I was ready; I started the sequence. After the second longer leg; however; my fatigue level had risen; causing me to have 'tunnel vision'. Our destination was visible ahead and I continued; assuming that I would get stable quickly. My first officer; also; had a fatigue challenge; due to an all-night return flight; arriving the previous morning. Delays and turbulence during this day added to our fatigue. This is the first time that I can identify being affected by this level of fatigue. It troubles me that it manifested itself in this way.1. I have decided to specifically brief fatigue issues from now on; when flight time has exceeded six hours; or other factors raise the possibility. A briefing re-emphasizing that a go-around should be at the forefront of our minds. Acknowledging that; as workload increases; the insidious effects of fatigue may present themselves; and the common result of landing out of an approach may not occur. 2. My norm is to state 'unable' when asked for 'maintain speed' when setting up for an approach; I will reinforce that. 3. My current status has 35 lines of flying for the month; with 16 lines containing two-crew all-night legs. The type my first officer flew prior to this sequence. They are built so that the first leg is flown to the western us in the evening; followed by 24 hours off. The return leg flies over-night arriving early morning. While legal; these are an immense challenge. During each sequence; a complete reversal of body schedule is required. An alternative is for west-coast based pilots to be used. Their arrival would be before their circadian low between 3am and 5am body-clock. A return flight would be 12 hours later; during normal waking hours. This high percentage of all-night flying is unnecessary. A safer alternative is available.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 Captain describes the events leading up to an unstabilized approach to EGE that is continued to a landing. Fatigue was cited as the primary factor in the in the event.

Narrative: Total flight time for the day was 7:51 with 12:25 on duty. Flight was normal until the approach. I was flying. Weather conditions for the approach were good VMC; with excellent visibility and good light; though the sun had recently set. LOC FMS Runway 25; the procedure is too slow to be fully configured before intercepting the final approach course. ATC asked for speed as long as practical. We left RLG at 220 KTS; but I delayed slowing and configuring; intending to still be configured by intercept. I misjudged the distance required to slow and was not fully configured; but elected to continue. With the steep vertical path; it was difficult to slow further and completely configure during the descent. This resulted in an unstable approach to very short final. Also; due to the higher airspeed and rate of descent; an EGPWS warning was received. This; I believe; was due to the rising terrain as we approached a ridge-line and would not have occurred at normal speed. We could see terrain and were safe to continue. This entire approach was unacceptable and should have been aborted; certainly prior to the final approach fix. Last Winter; there were two occasions when my flights had to go-around; early in the approach. Neither of us called for a go-around; both of us should have. For this event; I believe; the difference was my fatigue. I had not slept well; the night before and while getting ready for the airport had reviewed my state. Finding that I was ready; I started the sequence. After the second longer leg; however; my fatigue level had risen; causing me to have 'tunnel vision'. Our destination was visible ahead and I continued; assuming that I would get stable quickly. My First Officer; also; had a fatigue challenge; due to an all-night return flight; arriving the previous morning. Delays and turbulence during this day added to our fatigue. This is the first time that I can identify being affected by this level of fatigue. It troubles me that it manifested itself in this way.1. I have decided to specifically brief fatigue issues from now on; when flight time has exceeded six hours; or other factors raise the possibility. A briefing re-emphasizing that a go-around should be at the forefront of our minds. Acknowledging that; as workload increases; the insidious effects of fatigue may present themselves; and the common result of landing out of an approach may not occur. 2. My norm is to state 'unable' when asked for 'maintain speed' when setting up for an approach; I will reinforce that. 3. My current status has 35 lines of flying for the month; with 16 lines containing two-crew all-night legs. The type my First Officer flew prior to this sequence. They are built so that the first leg is flown to the western US in the evening; followed by 24 hours off. The return leg flies over-night arriving early morning. While legal; these are an immense challenge. During each sequence; a complete reversal of body schedule is required. An alternative is for west-coast based pilots to be used. Their arrival would be before their circadian low between 3am and 5am body-clock. A return flight would be 12 hours later; during normal waking hours. This high percentage of all-night flying is unnecessary. A safer alternative is available.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.