Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) Brief Report(s)

Header Region

ASRS REPORT: 80148

Data Source AVIATION SAFETY REPORTING SYSTEM
Report Number 80148
Local Date 01-JAN-88
Local Time 1201-1800

Synopsis
TKOF MADE AFTER SUNSET WITH RWY LIGHTS OUT OF SERVICE.

Assessment
Event Primary Problem HUMAN FACTORS
General Results NONE REPORTED / TAKEN

Anomaly Information
Anomaly Detected - Person Desc FLIGHT CREW

Location Information
Loc State Code CA
Loc Ref Airport Name SMK
Loc Ref ATC Name SMX
Altitude AGL - Single Value(ft) 0

Environmental Information
Weather Conditions VMC
Light Condition NIGHT
WX Elements Visual (sm) 10


AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

Aircraft 1
Acft Make/Model Desc SMALL TRANSPORT, LOW WING, 2 TURBOPROP ENG
Acft Operator Desc AIR CARRIER
Acft Flight Mission PASSENGER
Acft Flight Phase TAKEOFF / LAUNCH
Acft Flight Plan VFR
Flight Crew Count 2


PERSON INFORMATION

Information For Person Sequence 1

Reporting Organization AIR CARRIER
Flt Crew Exp (last 90 days) 200
Flt Crew Total Exp 9500
Flt Crew Function CAPTAIN
Flt Crew Qual Desc AIR TRANSPORT PILOT (ATP)


Narrative

A DAYLIGHT LNDG WAS MADE AT SANTA MARIA ARPT, SANTA MARIA, CA, WITH PAX ON BOARD. THERE WAS A TRUCK AND MEN OFF THE LEFT RWY EDGE AT MID FIELD. NO ADVISORY WAS GIVEN BY TWR. THE F/O LISTENED TO ATIS AND MADE NO MENTION TO ME ABOUT MEN, EQUIPMENT OR FIELD LIGHTING. I WAS FLYING AND MADE THE LNDG. AFTER A 30 MIN GND TIME WE CALLED FOR TAXI FOR TKOF. WITH TOTALLY CLEAR CONDITIONS I ELECTED TO DEPART VFR FOR THE SHORT 10 MIN FLT TO SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. COMPANY FLT FOLLOWING PROCS WERE USED. THE GND CTLR ADVISED ON TAXI OUT THAT THE RWY LIGHTS WERE OUT OF SVC FOR MAINT. AT THAT POINT IT DID NOT REGISTER THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE IN SERVICE FOR TKOF. AS I APCHED THE RWY THE SITUATION BEGAN TO TAKE SHAPE IN MY MIND. IT WAS VERY LIGHT WITH A GOOD MOON AND MY TAXI LIGHT, LNDG LIGHTS, RECOGNITION LIGHTS AND WING ICE LIGHTS ILLUMINATED SO MUCH THAT IT DID NOT SEEM LIKE NIGHT. THERE WERE PLENTY OF BLUE TXWY LIGHTS ALL DOWN THE RWY PLUS THE VASI LIGHTS AND I THINK THE APCH LIGHTS. THE RWY WAS CLEAR TO ME. I ASKED THE CTLR WHAT TIME WAS OFFICIAL SUNSET AND FOR SOME REASON MY MIND TOLD ME THAT I WAS OK FOR 1 HR AFTER SUNSET, WHICH I WAS WITHIN. EVERYTHING WAS SO CLEAR THAT IT MISLED MY THINKING. ALSO, ANOTHER COMPANY ACFT OPERATING UNDER THE SAME RULES DEPARTED RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. I WAS NEARING THE END OF MY 3RD DAY OF DUTY. THE PREVIOUS DAY'S DUTY WAS 13 HRS AND 53 MINS WITH REDUCED REST OF 8 HRS AND 45 MINS AND I HAD BEEN ON DUTY THIS DAY FOR 10 1/2 HRS WITH 4 HRS TO GO. I HAD ALREADY TOLD MY F/O THAT BECAUSE WE WERE TIRED THAT WE NEEDED TO BE CAUTIOUS AND WATCH EACH OTHER CLOSELY. I MADE THE TKOF. THE ACTUAL DARKNESS AFTER LEAVING THE GND AND ALL OF THE AIRFIELD LIGHTS AND MY OWN ACFT LIGHTS JOLTED ME INTO REALIZING THAT I HAD ACTUALLY MADE A TKOF AFTER DARK W/O RWY LIGHTING AS REQUIRED BY 135.229B (2). THE BOUNDARY OF THE RWY WAS CLRLY DEFINED BY THE VASI AND TXWY LIGHTS AND I MAY HAVE IN FACT BEEN LEGAL, BUT ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACT KEEPS BOTHERING ME. I WAS FLYING IN A TIRED STATE OF MIND. I WAS TOTALLY LEGAL BY FAA RULES GOVERNING PART 135 COMMUTER DUTY AND REST PERIODS. COMPANY SCHEDULES ROUTINELY REQUIRE LONG DUTY DAYS FOLLOWED BY REDUCED REST AND AGAIN FOLLOWED BY LONG DUTY DAYS. AT THE URGING OF THE RAA (REGL AIRLINE ASSOCIATION) THE RULES WERE RECENTLY CHANGED TO SEP CHARTER AND COMMUTER DUTY TIME RULES UNDER PART 135. WE FLY DEMANDING SCHEDULES WITH 8-12 LEGS PER DAY. WE FLY A FAST AIRPLANE WITH NO AUTOPLT AND MUST MAKE MANY QUICK TURN AROUNDS BTWN LEGS. IN MANY YRS OF MIL FLYING IN MUCH LARGER EQUIP I NEVER EXPERIENCED SUCH A WORKLOAD. WHILE MY PHYSICAL ABILITY TO MANEUVER THE AIRPLANE DOES NOT SEEM AS EFFECTED, I FIND MY DECISION MAKING ABILITY SUFFERS GREATLY AT THE END OF AN EXHAUSTING DAY. BEING AWARE OF THIS CERTAINLY HELPS AND THIS INCIDENT WILL SLOW ME DOWN EVEN MORE AND BE ANOTHER VALUABLE LESSON. I THINK THE CREW AND DUTY TIME REGS ARE THE REAL CULPRITS IN THIS INCIDENT. AS SOON AS I BROKE GND AND MADE MYSELF EVALUATE THE SITUATION I KNEW I WAS WRONG AND SHOULD HAVE RETURNED TO THE GATE. IN A MORE RESTED STATE, I WOULD HAVE RECOGNIZED THIS ON THE GND. INSTEAD, I SUBCONSCIOUSLY RATIONALIZED THE SITUATION AS SAFE (WHICH IT WAS) EVEN THOUGH IT BROKE A RULE. I RECOGNIZE THAT RULES ARE THERE TO MAKE DECISIONS LIKE THIS CUT AND DRIED AND TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALWAYS INSURING SAFETY. ON THE OTHER HAND, A RULE THAT ALLOWS THE COMPANY TO ROUTINELY SCHEDULE PLTS INTO FATIGUE HAS TO CREATE SOME CONTEMPT FOR THOSE SAME RULES. JUST BECAUSE THE ACFT ARE SMALLER UNDER 135 DOES NOT INDICATE A SMALLER WORKLOAD THAN UNDER 121. THE WHOLE DUTY TIME SITUATION OF PART 135 COMMUTER OPERATION SHOULD BE RE-EVALUATED AND NO COMPARISON SHOULD BE MADE TO PART 121. THESE ARE TOTALLY SEPARATE ENVIRONMENTS. THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC WE TRANSPORT SHOULD BE THE ONLY PREREQUISITE IN DEVELOPING SAFER RULES. IN THE MEANTIME, I WILL BE EVER MORE CAUTIOUS AND DELIBERATE WHEN APCHING THE AREA OF FATIGUE.

Information For Person Sequence 2

Flt Crew Function PILOT FLYING
Flt Crew Qual Desc INSTRUMENT


Narrative


Information For Person Sequence 3

ATC Function LOCAL
ATC Qual Desc FULLY CERTIFIED


Narrative



END REPORT