37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 825963 |
Time | |
Date | 200903 |
Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
State Reference | US |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | IMC |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | A319 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | Parked |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Function | Captain Pilot Flying |
Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 210 Flight Crew Total 15000 Flight Crew Type 6000 |
Events | |
Anomaly | Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence Other Flight Crew Fatigue |
Narrative:
My pairing in march required an XD14 check-in for an XE14 departure to ZZZ1. This necessitated an XA00 am wake-up. The trip pairing called for an 11 hour 30 minute 'day' layover. The impracticality of sleep during the day was manifested by multiple housekeeping; door opening/closings; and physiological needs; i.e.; food; made sleeping impossible. Upon arrival at ZZZ for the evening departure was notified of 1 hour delay by my first officer who himself was going on 12+ hour duty. The creeping delay was compounded by several ground stops -- after takeoff we held at an intersection for 30 minutes in moderate turbulence and encountered moderate icing. The approach and arrival to ZZZ2 called for an ILS xx with 30 KTS of wind; windshear warning; moderate rain; and 900 ft ceilings. Note: I had now been up for 25 hours. Landing complete. I taxied to the gate; pulled up ZZZ3 weather (my next destination) and talked to dispatch who forecasted 400 ft overcast; 1/2 mile visibility; +snow and wind from 250 degrees at 20 KTS gusting to 45 KTS. Keeping in mind that ZZZ3 is a 'special' airport; weather; PIREPS of moderate turbulence; and fact that at completion of day at ZZZ3; I would have been awake over 27 hours and first officer over 12 hours on duty (don't know when he got up). I then made decision to call fatigue. I have no regret or reservation in this decision. However; I do question whoever is responsible for building these 'backside of the clock ids.' note: the remainder of the trip pairing called for yet another short layover sleep during the next day followed by an 11 hour duty day. How much longer can line builders hide behind the irresponsible veil of 'it's legal' versus a more logical and practical approach of 'is this safe?' if we are genuine in our position of safety first; then these types of trip pairings must stop being constructed now.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A319 Captain related fatigue issues associated with extreme early get ups combined with daytime scheduled layovers and coupled with difficult weather conditions. Refused final leg of the trip sequence due to fatigue.
Narrative: My pairing in March required an XD14 check-in for an XE14 departure to ZZZ1. This necessitated an XA00 AM wake-up. The trip pairing called for an 11 hour 30 minute 'day' layover. The impracticality of sleep during the day was manifested by multiple housekeeping; door opening/closings; and physiological needs; i.e.; food; made sleeping impossible. Upon arrival at ZZZ for the evening departure was notified of 1 hour delay by my First Officer who himself was going on 12+ hour duty. The creeping delay was compounded by several ground stops -- after takeoff we held at an intersection for 30 minutes in moderate turbulence and encountered moderate icing. The approach and arrival to ZZZ2 called for an ILS XX with 30 KTS of wind; windshear warning; moderate rain; and 900 FT ceilings. Note: I had now been up for 25 hours. Landing complete. I taxied to the gate; pulled up ZZZ3 weather (my next destination) and talked to Dispatch who forecasted 400 FT overcast; 1/2 mile visibility; +snow and wind from 250 degrees at 20 KTS gusting to 45 KTS. Keeping in mind that ZZZ3 is a 'special' airport; weather; PIREPS of moderate turbulence; and fact that at completion of day at ZZZ3; I would have been awake over 27 hours and First Officer over 12 hours on duty (don't know when he got up). I then made decision to call fatigue. I have no regret or reservation in this decision. However; I do question whoever is responsible for building these 'backside of the clock IDs.' Note: The remainder of the trip pairing called for yet another short layover sleep during the next day followed by an 11 hour duty day. How much longer can line builders hide behind the irresponsible veil of 'It's legal' versus a more logical and practical approach of 'Is this safe?' If we are genuine in our position of safety first; then these types of trip pairings must stop being constructed now.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.