Narrative:

The planned assignment was a flight from anchorage int'l (anc) to wainwright aaf (fbk), ak, and either return to anc or take the baby to seattle, wa (bfi) and then return to anc. All flight planning and airborne operations were normal. While on the ground at fbk we were advised that the baby would need to go to seattle. Also, the baby required a sea level cabin altitude for medical reasons. Anc takeoff time had been XA40. My figuring for the flight included a flight level 240 cruise to keep the cabin altitude at sea level and long range cruise. The forecast winds were slightly aft of abeam, so I expected little headwind. I expected a ground speed of about 350 KTS. We departed fbk at XF40. I planned for about seven hours of flying time to get to seattle and return to anc. That left about 2 hours on the ground at seattle, which seemed adequate. When we leveled off at FL240, we had a ground speed of 270 KTS. The wind was directly on the beam at 105 KTS. Later it eased off to an average of 85 KTS until about 200 mi from seattle, but it remained on the beam for most of the flight, cutting our ground speed to an average of about 285 KTS. Instead of about 3.9 hours to seattle, it took 4.4 hours. While en route, we were advised by vancouver center that our hospital dispatch had sent instructions for us to take the baby to portland, or (pdx) for medical procedure that is not available at seattle. We did not have enough fuel to extend to pdx, so we landed at bfi, took on fuel, and went to pdx. Ground time at bfi was longer than expected because one of the nurses was on the phone, conferring with the hospital. Ground time at pdx was about 2 hours. The extension to pdx was unplanned. My thinking was that we had planned the assignment in accordance with the far requirement to have 10 hours rest within the 24 hour period preceding the planned completion time of the assignment. I reasoned that the delays were unplanned and beyond my control, and, for that reason, I was justified in returning to anc in order to put the aircraft back into service for the hospital with the next scheduled crew. We returned to anc, landing at XQ40L. On reflection since then, I think I may have been wrong in that decision. The far's use of the term 'planned completion of the assignment' led me to think that I had the prerogative to complete my assignment. In an aeromedical operation, returning the aircraft to air ambulance availability at the assigned base is always part of the assignment. That was my motivation. I would like to emphasize that I am on salary, and I did not make any additional income by returning to anc, nor did my employer. Corrective action: I could have remained at pdx for 10 hours crew rest. In the future I will do that.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF AIR AMBULANCE LTT EXCEEDS DUTY TIME LIMIT DUE TO UNFORECAST WINDS, CHANGE IN DESTINATION, AND POTENTIAL MISINTERPRETATION OF DUTY TIME RULES.

Narrative: THE PLANNED ASSIGNMENT WAS A FLT FROM ANCHORAGE INT'L (ANC) TO WAINWRIGHT AAF (FBK), AK, AND EITHER RETURN TO ANC OR TAKE THE BABY TO SEATTLE, WA (BFI) AND THEN RETURN TO ANC. ALL FLT PLANNING AND AIRBORNE OPERATIONS WERE NORMAL. WHILE ON THE GND AT FBK WE WERE ADVISED THAT THE BABY WOULD NEED TO GO TO SEATTLE. ALSO, THE BABY REQUIRED A SEA LEVEL CABIN ALT FOR MEDICAL REASONS. ANC TKOF TIME HAD BEEN XA40. MY FIGURING FOR THE FLT INCLUDED A FLT LEVEL 240 CRUISE TO KEEP THE CABIN ALT AT SEA LEVEL AND LONG RANGE CRUISE. THE FORECAST WINDS WERE SLIGHTLY AFT OF ABEAM, SO I EXPECTED LITTLE HEADWIND. I EXPECTED A GND SPEED OF ABOUT 350 KTS. WE DEPARTED FBK AT XF40. I PLANNED FOR ABOUT SEVEN HRS OF FLYING TIME TO GET TO SEATTLE AND RETURN TO ANC. THAT LEFT ABOUT 2 HRS ON THE GND AT SEATTLE, WHICH SEEMED ADEQUATE. WHEN WE LEVELED OFF AT FL240, WE HAD A GND SPEED OF 270 KTS. THE WIND WAS DIRECTLY ON THE BEAM AT 105 KTS. LATER IT EASED OFF TO AN AVERAGE OF 85 KTS UNTIL ABOUT 200 MI FROM SEATTLE, BUT IT REMAINED ON THE BEAM FOR MOST OF THE FLT, CUTTING OUR GND SPEED TO AN AVERAGE OF ABOUT 285 KTS. INSTEAD OF ABOUT 3.9 HRS TO SEATTLE, IT TOOK 4.4 HRS. WHILE ENRTE, WE WERE ADVISED BY VANCOUVER CENTER THAT OUR HOSPITAL DISPATCH HAD SENT INSTRUCTIONS FOR US TO TAKE THE BABY TO PORTLAND, OR (PDX) FOR MEDICAL PROC THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE AT SEATTLE. WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH FUEL TO EXTEND TO PDX, SO WE LANDED AT BFI, TOOK ON FUEL, AND WENT TO PDX. GND TIME AT BFI WAS LONGER THAN EXPECTED BECAUSE ONE OF THE NURSES WAS ON THE PHONE, CONFERRING WITH THE HOSPITAL. GND TIME AT PDX WAS ABOUT 2 HRS. THE EXTENSION TO PDX WAS UNPLANNED. MY THINKING WAS THAT WE HAD PLANNED THE ASSIGNMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAR REQUIREMENT TO HAVE 10 HRS REST WITHIN THE 24 HR PERIOD PRECEDING THE PLANNED COMPLETION TIME OF THE ASSIGNMENT. I REASONED THAT THE DELAYS WERE UNPLANNED AND BEYOND MY CONTROL, AND, FOR THAT REASON, I WAS JUSTIFIED IN RETURNING TO ANC IN ORDER TO PUT THE ACFT BACK INTO SERVICE FOR THE HOSPITAL WITH THE NEXT SCHEDULED CREW. WE RETURNED TO ANC, LNDG AT XQ40L. ON REFLECTION SINCE THEN, I THINK I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG IN THAT DECISION. THE FAR'S USE OF THE TERM 'PLANNED COMPLETION OF THE ASSIGNMENT' LED ME TO THINK THAT I HAD THE PREROGATIVE TO COMPLETE MY ASSIGNMENT. IN AN AEROMEDICAL OPERATION, RETURNING THE ACFT TO AIR AMBULANCE AVAILABILITY AT THE ASSIGNED BASE IS ALWAYS PART OF THE ASSIGNMENT. THAT WAS MY MOTIVATION. I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT I AM ON SALARY, AND I DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL INCOME BY RETURNING TO ANC, NOR DID MY EMPLOYER. CORRECTIVE ACTION: I COULD HAVE REMAINED AT PDX FOR 10 HRS CREW REST. IN THE FUTURE I WILL DO THAT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.