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.'