B737-300 CREW DEP ON THEIR FINAL LEG OF THE DAY 1 SHORT OF FLT ATTENDANTS.

Date: 2002-04 · Aircraft: B737-300 · Phase: ground

Anomalies: deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-far|other-crew-departed-with-fa-s-out-required

Synopsis

B737-300 CREW DEP ON THEIR FINAL LEG OF THE DAY 1 SHORT OF FLT ATTENDANTS.

Narrative

CRM COM BREAKDOWN. I WAS UNAWARE OF ANY PROBS ON THE NIGHT OF THE OCCURRENCE. UPON RETURNING HOME; I RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE CHIEF PLT INFORMING ME THAT I POSSIBLY COULD HAVE FLOWN THE LAST LEG WITH ONLY 2 FLT ATTENDANTS. SIT BACKGROUND: (I RECALLED) #2 FLT ATTENDANT HAD BEEN WONDERING ALL DAY IF THERE MIGHT BE A COMMUTING FLT ATTENDANT TO MDW; SO HE COULD COMMUTE HOME. FAST FORWARD TO MDW TERMINATING THE ACFT. A DRUG TEST REPRESENTATIVE CAME TO THE COCKPIT ASKING WHERE 3RD FLT ATTENDANT WAS. THE FO AND MYSELF AFFIRMED HE WAS PROBABLY STILL IN THE BACK. WITHIN MINS; ALL PAX WERE OFF AND I DEPLANED THE ACFT AND LEFT. AFTER CHIEF'S CALL; I CALLED MDW INFLT AND REQUESTED 1 OR BOTH OF THE OTHER FLT ATTENDANTS CALL ME AT HOME. I RECEIVED A CALL AROUND XA00 FROM #3 FLT ATTENDANT WHO INFORMED ME THAT #2 HAD PERFORMED A JETWAY TRADE AND HAD GONE HOME. PERSPECTIVE: WHETHER COMPLETED APPROPRIATELY OR WHETHER LEGAL; A JETWAY TRADE WAS PERFORMED. NEITHER THE ON-COMING; OFF GOING; #1 OR #3 FLT ATTENDANTS NOTIFIED ME OF THE CHANGE. CONSEQUENTLY; NO VERIFICATION PROCS WERE FOLLOWED. ADDITIONALLY; IF I WOULD HAVE KNOWN; THE DRUG TEST REPRESENTATIVE COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED DIFFERENTLY. END RESULT: THE FLT WAS FLOWN WITH 3 FLT ATTENDANTS; BUT I WAS UNAWARE OF THE CHANGE. JETWAY TRADES NEED TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL STEP OF NOTIFYING THE CAPT (THROUGH SCHEDULING) IF THE CREWMEMBERS THEMSELVES CANNOT PERFORM THIS FUNCTION.

More incidents for this aircraft family →

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