Narrative:

We blocked XX52 on aug/xx/94. We were scheduled for return trip after the overnight (in cho) and was told by dispatch that the block on scheduled segment was 65 mins. This is a total of 8 hours and 57 mins in a 24 hour period. Therefore, they reduced our rest period to 8 hours from the normal 10 hour required by the FARS. However upon our return to pit that morning we discovered that there had been a change in the schedule for september to 75 mins block on the cho-pit leg. This is a total of 9 hours and 7 mins which would have required a reduced rest of 9 hours per the FARS. We were assured by dispatch when we questioned them repeatedly that we were legal to reduce our rest period to 8 hours because the block was only 65 mins. Hence we're in violation of far rest period requirements in 135. Supplemental information from acn 281684: it was very late and we had been on duty since XA00 that morning, hence we were too tired to argue, and since we had been tossed around so much that day, we hadn't managed to get our hands on a current set of crew cards for the next month, which began that next morning. Dispatch should have checked the new crew cards prior to insisting we were wrong about the 75 min block and requirement of 9 hours min reduced rest. Dispatch, in there anxiety to have the flight depart on time, and not in the interest of safety, told us the incorrect block to convince a tired crew to do the flight as scheduled. It's no wonder that pilot error is a factor in so many of the accidents to date. 'Fatigue and exhaustion.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF A LTT SCHEDULED COMMUTER FAILED TO BE GIVEN THE REQUIRED REST BY THE COMPANY.

Narrative: WE BLOCKED XX52 ON AUG/XX/94. WE WERE SCHEDULED FOR RETURN TRIP AFTER THE OVERNIGHT (IN CHO) AND WAS TOLD BY DISPATCH THAT THE BLOCK ON SCHEDULED SEGMENT WAS 65 MINS. THIS IS A TOTAL OF 8 HRS AND 57 MINS IN A 24 HR PERIOD. THEREFORE, THEY REDUCED OUR REST PERIOD TO 8 HRS FROM THE NORMAL 10 HR REQUIRED BY THE FARS. HOWEVER UPON OUR RETURN TO PIT THAT MORNING WE DISCOVERED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A CHANGE IN THE SCHEDULE FOR SEPTEMBER TO 75 MINS BLOCK ON THE CHO-PIT LEG. THIS IS A TOTAL OF 9 HRS AND 7 MINS WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A REDUCED REST OF 9 HRS PER THE FARS. WE WERE ASSURED BY DISPATCH WHEN WE QUESTIONED THEM REPEATEDLY THAT WE WERE LEGAL TO REDUCE OUR REST PERIOD TO 8 HRS BECAUSE THE BLOCK WAS ONLY 65 MINS. HENCE WE'RE IN VIOLATION OF FAR REST PERIOD REQUIREMENTS IN 135. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 281684: IT WAS VERY LATE AND WE HAD BEEN ON DUTY SINCE XA00 THAT MORNING, HENCE WE WERE TOO TIRED TO ARGUE, AND SINCE WE HAD BEEN TOSSED AROUND SO MUCH THAT DAY, WE HADN'T MANAGED TO GET OUR HANDS ON A CURRENT SET OF CREW CARDS FOR THE NEXT MONTH, WHICH BEGAN THAT NEXT MORNING. DISPATCH SHOULD HAVE CHKED THE NEW CREW CARDS PRIOR TO INSISTING WE WERE WRONG ABOUT THE 75 MIN BLOCK AND REQUIREMENT OF 9 HRS MIN REDUCED REST. DISPATCH, IN THERE ANXIETY TO HAVE THE FLT DEPART ON TIME, AND NOT IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, TOLD US THE INCORRECT BLOCK TO CONVINCE A TIRED CREW TO DO THE FLT AS SCHEDULED. IT'S NO WONDER THAT PLT ERROR IS A FACTOR IN SO MANY OF THE ACCIDENTS TO DATE. 'FATIGUE AND EXHAUSTION.'

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.