A CARJ CREW CONTINUES THEIR FLT SEQUENCE UNDER PROTEST AFTER A DISAGREEMENT ARISES OVER REQUIRED REST PERIOD REQUIREMENTS AFTER AN EXTENDED DUTY DAY BROUGHT ON BY OPERATIONAL AND WX DELAYS.

Date: 2004-10 · Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200) · Phase: ground

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

Synopsis

A CARJ CREW CONTINUES THEIR FLT SEQUENCE UNDER PROTEST AFTER A DISAGREEMENT ARISES OVER REQUIRED REST PERIOD REQUIREMENTS AFTER AN EXTENDED DUTY DAY BROUGHT ON BY OPERATIONAL AND WX DELAYS.

Narrative

DUE TO WX AND OPERATIONAL DELAYS; MY CREW AND I WERE ON DUTY FOR 15.5 HRS. AT THE END OF THE DUTY PERIOD; I CONTACTED CREW SCHEDULING AT XA14 AND TALKED TO MR X. HE TOLD ME THE SCHEDULING COMPUTER INDICATED WE NEEDED 9 HRS OF REST BASED ON OUR PRESENT DUTY DAY AND REST THE NIGHT BEFORE; AND MODIFIED OUR DUTY IN FROM XI00 LCL TO XI15 LCL TO ACHIEVE THE 9 HRS. I QUESTIONED THIS WITH HIM AND OUR NEED FOR 10 HRS REST. WHILE WAITING FOR THE HOTEL VAN TO ARRIVE; I CONTACTED OUR PLT UNION SCHEDULING REPRESENTATIVE FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION; AND HE INDICATED THAT 10 HRS OF REST WERE IN ORDER BASED ON OUR DUTY DAY. I CONTACTED MR X IN CREW SCHEDULING AGAIN AT XA30 AND ASKED HIM TO DOUBLE CHK CREW SCHEDULING'S DETERMINATION; CITING MY BELIEF FOR OUR NEED TO HAVE 10 HRS REST. HE SAID WE DID NOT NEED 10 HRS REST BECAUSE OUR BLOCK TIME FLOWN FOR THE DAY WAS UNDER 8 HRS AND WE HAD NORMAL REST THE NIGHT BEFORE. AT THIS POINT WE WERE TIRED AND WE PROCEEDED TO THE HOTEL. EARLY THE NEXT MORNING; I ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT THE CHIEF PLT ON CALL AT XH50; AND LEFT A VOICE MESSAGE FOR HIM TO CONTACT ME REGARDING CLARIFICATION OF THE REST ISSUE. I NEVER RECEIVED A RESPONSE. I THEN PLACED ANOTHER CALL TO CREW SCHEDULING AT XH52 AND ASKED TO SPEAK WITH A SUPVR. MRS Y CAME ON THE PHONE AND I BROUGHT THE REST ISSUE TO HER ATTN AS I HAD THE NIGHT BEFORE WITH MR X. SHE AGAIN STATED THAT 9 HRS OF REST WERE SUFFICIENT FOR OUR SIT AND THAT WE SHOULD DUTY IN AT XI15 LCL. FEARING REPERCUSSIONS; WE CONTINUED THE TRIP AS ASSIGNED BY CREW SCHEDULING UNDER PROTEST. THERE SEEMS TO BE AMBIGUITY IN BOTH THE FAR'S AND THE CREW SCHEDULING PROGRAM ACR USES; REGARDING REST REQUIREMENTS COVERING ALL OF THE VARIABLES THAT MAY ARISE IN A DUTY PERIOD. TO FURTHER COMPLICATE THE ISSUE; IT PROVED IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A DEFINITIVE RULING IN A TIMELY FASHION. MY ONLY DESIRE IN THIS MATER WAS TO OPERATE BOTH SAFELY AND LEGALLY.

More incidents for this aircraft family →

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