 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Commuter first officer refused to fly a trip because of fatigue... Chief pilot called to inquire.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 195509 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199111 |
| Day | Thu |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : sjc |
| State Reference | CA |
| Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
| Environment | |
| Light | Daylight |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : instrument pilot : commercial |
| ASRS Report | 195509 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | non adherence : far |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
| Resolutory Action | other |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Flight Crew Human Performance |
| Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
Due to the shortened sleep period the previous night, I was clearly in violation of my medical certificate and illegal under far 61.53 as now defined not only by FAA documentation, but substantiated by scientific data. On 11/91, I advised crew scheduling that I would be illegal to continue the trip and took myself off line. Less than 1 hour after I arrived home, I received a telephone message from domicile chief pilot of san jose, requesting details and specifics on my so recent fatigue call. In returning his call, I inquired as to what appeared to be a new, unwritten policy of a domicile chief pilot calling a pilot at home, with an urgency to investigate reasons for the pilot taking him or herself off line. It was at this time that the chief pilot enlightened me to a chain of events that took place at corporate headquarters earlier that morning. This concerned the closure of the december bids portraying my husband and I flying together. 'Things hit the fan,' he stated. First, the company decided that under no circumstances could they (the company) possibly allow us to fly together, because of nepotism the clause.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: COMMUTER FO REFUSED TO FLY A TRIP BECAUSE OF FATIGUE... CHIEF PLT CALLED TO INQUIRE.
Narrative: DUE TO THE SHORTENED SLEEP PERIOD THE PREVIOUS NIGHT, I WAS CLRLY IN VIOLATION OF MY MEDICAL CERTIFICATE AND ILLEGAL UNDER FAR 61.53 AS NOW DEFINED NOT ONLY BY FAA DOCUMENTATION, BUT SUBSTANTIATED BY SCIENTIFIC DATA. ON 11/91, I ADVISED CREW SCHEDULING THAT I WOULD BE ILLEGAL TO CONTINUE THE TRIP AND TOOK MYSELF OFF LINE. LESS THAN 1 HR AFTER I ARRIVED HOME, I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE MESSAGE FROM DOMICILE CHIEF PLT OF SAN JOSE, REQUESTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICS ON MY SO RECENT FATIGUE CALL. IN RETURNING HIS CALL, I INQUIRED AS TO WHAT APPEARED TO BE A NEW, UNWRITTEN POLICY OF A DOMICILE CHIEF PLT CALLING A PLT AT HOME, WITH AN URGENCY TO INVESTIGATE REASONS FOR THE PLT TAKING HIM OR HERSELF OFF LINE. IT WAS AT THIS TIME THAT THE CHIEF PLT ENLIGHTENED ME TO A CHAIN OF EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE AT CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS EARLIER THAT MORNING. THIS CONCERNED THE CLOSURE OF THE DECEMBER BIDS PORTRAYING MY HUSBAND AND I FLYING TOGETHER. 'THINGS HIT THE FAN,' HE STATED. FIRST, THE COMPANY DECIDED THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES COULD THEY (THE COMPANY) POSSIBLY ALLOW US TO FLY TOGETHER, BECAUSE OF NEPOTISM THE CLAUSE.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.