Narrative:

All flts were flown in the same aircraft, a DC8-63. Upon completion of flight segment from cyqx to ngu on jul/xa/99, the flight crew had accumulated 22.1 hours flight time (aloft) within the previous 48 hours. Additionally, the crew duty day which began at XX00Z was 18 hours long upon arrival at ngu. In accordance with far 121.521, the crew was required to receive a rest period of at least 18 hours. Instead, the company requested that the flight be continued under far 91 as a ferry flight to toledo, oh. This continuation would have added at least 2 more hours of duty time to our duty day, making a total of a 20 hour duty day. When I questioned the legitimacy of the continuation of this flight after 22.1 hours aloft and 18 hours of duty, I was informed by the director of flight operations that this would be a perfectly legal operation and that xyz had been conducting similar part 91 'tail end ferry flts for yrs.' I then questioned the safety of continuing this flight. I informed the director of operations that I did not feel safe in continuing the flight due to fatigue. His reply was that it was my call and if I didn't feel safe to continue that it was my choice and he could not force me to take it. He went on to describe how much expense I was going to cause the company due to the necessity of 'lear jetting in' another crew to move the aircraft. And that the aircraft was badly needed within the system at toledo, oh. After listening to his attempt to persuade me to take the flight, I flatly refused any continuation of the flight on the grounds of safety due to fatigue. His reply was ok, then that's it, we'll have to lear jet a crew in to recover the trip. The conversation ended at this point and the crew prepared to go to the hotel for the required crew rest. Prior to departing the aircraft, the line mechanic hollered over to the crew as we prepared to board the line van that we were going to take the aircraft to toledo regardless of the captain's opinions. He further emphasized that the aircraft was needed in the system and we were going to take it there. At this point his comments were ridiculous and meaningless and they were dismissed without comment. The crew boarded the van and proceeded to the terminal to wait on transportation to the hotel. While waiting in the terminal, the ground handler from FBO called my cell phone and said you guys better not go anywhere because we need that airplane moved. The military will not let us keep it here, it must be moved. I informed him that I didn't intend to move any aircraft anywhere and that he should make arrangements to move the aircraft with another crew and the conversation ended. Shortly thereafter, a representative of FBO approached the crew in the terminal and said, hey you guys can't leave yet, you're going to have to move the aircraft over to norfolk international. Your company is setting it up now. You need to call your company. I then called dispatch and informed them that the handler told me to call. The dispatcher put me on hold and the director of operations answered. He proceeded to tell me that they had set up a parking spot over at norfolk international and asked if we could make the shorter flight (about 20 mins of flight time) over to norfolk international. I informed the director of operations at this time that I felt like I was being pressured into continuing a flight which I thought to be unsafe. His reply was well that's up to you, but if you can't take the flight, it's going to cause a big mess with the military and it's going to be tough to get another crew at this short notice. I then told him that they had days to arrange for another crew as they knew what our duty day and flying time was going to be at ngu. He proceeded to tell me that the duty day and flying time was irrelevant to the situation because this was going to be a part 91 tail end ferry flight. I questioned him as to how the company could possibly justify their actions if we had an aircraft accident after continuing this flight under the present conditions of duty time and flight time and after informing him that it was my opinion that it was not safe to continue. His reply was that he was not even going to answer a question like that. At this time it became my perception that my employment stability would be jeopardized by refusing this flight and I informed the director of operations that I would agree to take the flight under protest as I felt that my job security was going to be affected and I would take it for that reason but that I still felt that continuing the flight was unsafe and unwise. The conversation ended there. The aircraft was moved from ngu to orf. Numerous procedural errors were made throughout the short flight due to the fatigued state of the crew. Fortunately, none of the procedural errors resulted in an in-flight incident or accident. At block out time from ngu, the crew was at a 20 hour 18 min duty day. At the completion of this flight the crew was at a 21 hour and 15 min duty day. Due to the realization of less than legal duty times on this particular segment, the crew went back to the earlier flight segments to check the legality of those segments. It was found that on jul/xa/99 after arrival at licz the crew had accumulated 22.7 hours of time aloft in the previous 48 hours. Since the crew was only allowed 14 hours of crew rest at licz this was an additional violation of far 121.521.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DC8 CREW FLIES 22 PT 7 HRS OUT OF 48 UNDER PROTEST, DURESS AND THREAT OF LOSS OF JOB.

Narrative: ALL FLTS WERE FLOWN IN THE SAME ACFT, A DC8-63. UPON COMPLETION OF FLT SEGMENT FROM CYQX TO NGU ON JUL/XA/99, THE FLC HAD ACCUMULATED 22.1 HRS FLT TIME (ALOFT) WITHIN THE PREVIOUS 48 HRS. ADDITIONALLY, THE CREW DUTY DAY WHICH BEGAN AT XX00Z WAS 18 HRS LONG UPON ARR AT NGU. IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAR 121.521, THE CREW WAS REQUIRED TO RECEIVE A REST PERIOD OF AT LEAST 18 HRS. INSTEAD, THE COMPANY REQUESTED THAT THE FLT BE CONTINUED UNDER FAR 91 AS A FERRY FLT TO TOLEDO, OH. THIS CONTINUATION WOULD HAVE ADDED AT LEAST 2 MORE HRS OF DUTY TIME TO OUR DUTY DAY, MAKING A TOTAL OF A 20 HR DUTY DAY. WHEN I QUESTIONED THE LEGITIMACY OF THE CONTINUATION OF THIS FLT AFTER 22.1 HRS ALOFT AND 18 HRS OF DUTY, I WAS INFORMED BY THE DIRECTOR OF FLT OPS THAT THIS WOULD BE A PERFECTLY LEGAL OP AND THAT XYZ HAD BEEN CONDUCTING SIMILAR PART 91 'TAIL END FERRY FLTS FOR YRS.' I THEN QUESTIONED THE SAFETY OF CONTINUING THIS FLT. I INFORMED THE DIRECTOR OF OPS THAT I DID NOT FEEL SAFE IN CONTINUING THE FLT DUE TO FATIGUE. HIS REPLY WAS THAT IT WAS MY CALL AND IF I DIDN'T FEEL SAFE TO CONTINUE THAT IT WAS MY CHOICE AND HE COULD NOT FORCE ME TO TAKE IT. HE WENT ON TO DESCRIBE HOW MUCH EXPENSE I WAS GOING TO CAUSE THE COMPANY DUE TO THE NECESSITY OF 'LEAR JETTING IN' ANOTHER CREW TO MOVE THE ACFT. AND THAT THE ACFT WAS BADLY NEEDED WITHIN THE SYS AT TOLEDO, OH. AFTER LISTENING TO HIS ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE ME TO TAKE THE FLT, I FLATLY REFUSED ANY CONTINUATION OF THE FLT ON THE GNDS OF SAFETY DUE TO FATIGUE. HIS REPLY WAS OK, THEN THAT'S IT, WE'LL HAVE TO LEAR JET A CREW IN TO RECOVER THE TRIP. THE CONVERSATION ENDED AT THIS POINT AND THE CREW PREPARED TO GO TO THE HOTEL FOR THE REQUIRED CREW REST. PRIOR TO DEPARTING THE ACFT, THE LINE MECH HOLLERED OVER TO THE CREW AS WE PREPARED TO BOARD THE LINE VAN THAT WE WERE GOING TO TAKE THE ACFT TO TOLEDO REGARDLESS OF THE CAPT'S OPINIONS. HE FURTHER EMPHASIZED THAT THE ACFT WAS NEEDED IN THE SYS AND WE WERE GOING TO TAKE IT THERE. AT THIS POINT HIS COMMENTS WERE RIDICULOUS AND MEANINGLESS AND THEY WERE DISMISSED WITHOUT COMMENT. THE CREW BOARDED THE VAN AND PROCEEDED TO THE TERMINAL TO WAIT ON TRANSPORTATION TO THE HOTEL. WHILE WAITING IN THE TERMINAL, THE GND HANDLER FROM FBO CALLED MY CELL PHONE AND SAID YOU GUYS BETTER NOT GO ANYWHERE BECAUSE WE NEED THAT AIRPLANE MOVED. THE MIL WILL NOT LET US KEEP IT HERE, IT MUST BE MOVED. I INFORMED HIM THAT I DIDN'T INTEND TO MOVE ANY ACFT ANYWHERE AND THAT HE SHOULD MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO MOVE THE ACFT WITH ANOTHER CREW AND THE CONVERSATION ENDED. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, A REPRESENTATIVE OF FBO APCHED THE CREW IN THE TERMINAL AND SAID, HEY YOU GUYS CAN'T LEAVE YET, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE THE ACFT OVER TO NORFOLK INTL. YOUR COMPANY IS SETTING IT UP NOW. YOU NEED TO CALL YOUR COMPANY. I THEN CALLED DISPATCH AND INFORMED THEM THAT THE HANDLER TOLD ME TO CALL. THE DISPATCHER PUT ME ON HOLD AND THE DIRECTOR OF OPS ANSWERED. HE PROCEEDED TO TELL ME THAT THEY HAD SET UP A PARKING SPOT OVER AT NORFOLK INTL AND ASKED IF WE COULD MAKE THE SHORTER FLT (ABOUT 20 MINS OF FLT TIME) OVER TO NORFOLK INTL. I INFORMED THE DIRECTOR OF OPS AT THIS TIME THAT I FELT LIKE I WAS BEING PRESSURED INTO CONTINUING A FLT WHICH I THOUGHT TO BE UNSAFE. HIS REPLY WAS WELL THAT'S UP TO YOU, BUT IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE FLT, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE A BIG MESS WITH THE MIL AND IT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH TO GET ANOTHER CREW AT THIS SHORT NOTICE. I THEN TOLD HIM THAT THEY HAD DAYS TO ARRANGE FOR ANOTHER CREW AS THEY KNEW WHAT OUR DUTY DAY AND FLYING TIME WAS GOING TO BE AT NGU. HE PROCEEDED TO TELL ME THAT THE DUTY DAY AND FLYING TIME WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE SIT BECAUSE THIS WAS GOING TO BE A PART 91 TAIL END FERRY FLT. I QUESTIONED HIM AS TO HOW THE COMPANY COULD POSSIBLY JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS IF WE HAD AN ACFT ACCIDENT AFTER CONTINUING THIS FLT UNDER THE PRESENT CONDITIONS OF DUTY TIME AND FLT TIME AND AFTER INFORMING HIM THAT IT WAS MY OPINION THAT IT WAS NOT SAFE TO CONTINUE. HIS REPLY WAS THAT HE WAS NOT EVEN GOING TO ANSWER A QUESTION LIKE THAT. AT THIS TIME IT BECAME MY PERCEPTION THAT MY EMPLOYMENT STABILITY WOULD BE JEOPARDIZED BY REFUSING THIS FLT AND I INFORMED THE DIRECTOR OF OPS THAT I WOULD AGREE TO TAKE THE FLT UNDER PROTEST AS I FELT THAT MY JOB SECURITY WAS GOING TO BE AFFECTED AND I WOULD TAKE IT FOR THAT REASON BUT THAT I STILL FELT THAT CONTINUING THE FLT WAS UNSAFE AND UNWISE. THE CONVERSATION ENDED THERE. THE ACFT WAS MOVED FROM NGU TO ORF. NUMEROUS PROCEDURAL ERRORS WERE MADE THROUGHOUT THE SHORT FLT DUE TO THE FATIGUED STATE OF THE CREW. FORTUNATELY, NONE OF THE PROCEDURAL ERRORS RESULTED IN AN INFLT INCIDENT OR ACCIDENT. AT BLOCK OUT TIME FROM NGU, THE CREW WAS AT A 20 HR 18 MIN DUTY DAY. AT THE COMPLETION OF THIS FLT THE CREW WAS AT A 21 HR AND 15 MIN DUTY DAY. DUE TO THE REALIZATION OF LESS THAN LEGAL DUTY TIMES ON THIS PARTICULAR SEGMENT, THE CREW WENT BACK TO THE EARLIER FLT SEGMENTS TO CHK THE LEGALITY OF THOSE SEGMENTS. IT WAS FOUND THAT ON JUL/XA/99 AFTER ARR AT LICZ THE CREW HAD ACCUMULATED 22.7 HRS OF TIME ALOFT IN THE PREVIOUS 48 HRS. SINCE THE CREW WAS ONLY ALLOWED 14 HRS OF CREW REST AT LICZ THIS WAS AN ADDITIONAL VIOLATION OF FAR 121.521.

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.