A DASH 8 PIC RPT ON HIS POSSIBLY EXCEEDING THE 8 IN 24 HR RULE ON A FLT BTWN LGA AND MDT; PA.

Date: 1999-09 · Aircraft: Dash 8-100 · Phase: taxi

Anomalies: deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-far

Synopsis

A DASH 8 PIC RPT ON HIS POSSIBLY EXCEEDING THE 8 IN 24 HR RULE ON A FLT BTWN LGA AND MDT; PA.

Narrative

DUE TO A 30 IN 7 SCHEDULING CONFLICT; I WAS SCHEDULED TO DEADHEAD ON THE LAST LEG OF THE LAST DAY OF A 6 DAY TRIP. THAT LAST LEG WOULD HAVE NORMALLY BEEN FLOWN. BECAUSE OF 2 CANCELLATIONS 2 DAYS EARLIER; AND BEING WAY UNDER SCHEDULED BLOCK; I REQUESTED TO FLY THE LAST LEG INSTEAD OF DEADHEADING. AT APPROX XA15 ON SEP/XA/99; CREW SCHEDULING APPROVED MY REQUEST. WHILE INBOUND TO LGA PRIOR TO THE LAST LEG LGA-MDT. OPS INFORMED THE FO THAT OUR OUTBOUND FLT NUMBER HAD TO BE CHANGED; BUT THAT WE WERE STILL GOING OUT AS SCHEDULED. PRIOR TO DEP; I SIGNED THE DISPATCH RELEASE WHICH; TO MY RECOLLECTION; HAD NO CREW MEMBER NAMES LISTED. AFTER WE TAXIED OUT; WHILE WAITING IN LINE FOR TKOF; WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO CALL DISPATCH. THE FO WAS INFORMED THAT HE AND THE FLT ATTENDANT WERE NOT TO FLY THE ACFT. SINCE THEY CHANGED THE FLT NUMBER; IT RECONSTITUTED A SCHEDULING CHANGE; WHICH NOW MEANT BEING SCHEDULED FOR OVER 8 YRS FLT TIME. THE FO WAS SPECIFICALLY INFORMED THAT IT JUST WAS FOR HIM AND THE FLT ATTENDANT. SINCE THERE WAS A DEADHEADING CREW ON THE ACFT; THE FO AND FLT ATTENDANT WERE REPLACED. UPON ARR IN MDT; I CALLED CREW SCHEDULING AND ASKED WHY I ALSO WAS NOT REPLACED. THEY INFORMED ME THAT I WAS NOT FLYING; BUT DEADHEADING. I INFORMED SCHEDULING OTHERWISE. 2 PROBS ARE IDENTED: 1) THE CREW SCHEDULED NEVER INFORMED ANYONE NOR MADE THE CREW CHANGE THAT MORNING. 2) THE DISPATCHERS HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHOM WAS FLYING THE ACFT; HENCE NO CREW MEMBER NAMES ON THE RELEASE.

More incidents for this aircraft family →

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.