Fourth Sector into Minimums
Two pilots are on the fourth sector of a regional-jet duty period that began with a 05:10 report. Planned duty is 13 hours. The captain slept about 3.5 hours because of construction noise at the hotel; the first officer admits to two brief microsleeps during the previous cruise and has been rubbing his eyes. It is 22:40 local, 40 minutes from destination. Weather is 400 ft ceiling and 1,200 m visibility; the ILS minima are 200 ft and 550 m. One alternate is 45 minutes away with good weather. Fuel is sufficient for one approach, diversion, and 30 minutes final reserve. The captain feels 'wired but foggy' and the first officer says, 'I'll be fine once we're on the ground.' The operator has a confidential fatigue reporting system.
1. Assess the crew's fatigue state and decide whether they should commence the approach. Justify your decision with the specific factors in the scenario.
Read the worked answer
The crew is not fit for a normal approach to minima. The captain's 3.5-hour sleep opportunity is a substantial acute sleep restriction, and the first officer's two microsleeps are objective evidence of high sleep pressure, not a minor complaint. Microsleeps show that the brain is already overriding wakefulness; the risk is not just slow reactions but complete lapses in monitoring. The 22:40 local time likely coincides with the circadian low for a crew that reported at 05:10, and the fourth sector adds cumulative fatigue. The captain's 'wired but foggy' description suggests compensatory arousal masking impairment, which is dangerous because it can collapse suddenly.
The weather raises workload exactly when performance is degraded: a 400 ft ceiling with 200 ft minima leaves little margin, and a two-pilot approach with one impaired pilot is effectively single-pilot. The first officer's 'I'll be fine once we're on the ground' is an indirect statement of unfitness and should be treated as such. Fuel permits one approach plus diversion, but fuel is not the limiting factor; human performance is. The safest decision is to divert to the alternate with good weather while fuel and alertness permit, or to land at the nearest suitable airport if either pilot is clearly unfit. Holding for weather improvement is poor because fatigue will worsen and the approach will not become safer.
2. Outline the threat-and-error management and crew-coordination actions for the next 40 minutes if the captain decides to divert.
Read the worked answer
First, make the decision explicit and brief it: 'We are diverting to [alternate]; I will fly, you monitor, no FMC reprogramming unless we are level and stable.' This assigns PF/PM roles and removes ambiguity. Threats are fatigue, weather, fuel management, and unfamiliarity with the alternate. Errors to anticipate are omission of the diversion setup, wrong altimeter or frequency, and an unstable approach if the crew later changes its mind.
Use the autopilot and flight director to reduce workload, but both pilots must monitor the mode annunciator after every change. Do not allow heads-down work during climb, descent, or high-traffic phases; if the FMC must be reprogrammed, do it after the aircraft is level and the other pilot is monitoring. Notify ATC early with a clear request: 'Request diversion to [airport], we are fatigue-impaired.' ATC can provide priority and vectors. Inform the cabin crew so they can prepare passengers, and avoid a long, detailed passenger announcement from the flight deck; the cabin crew should handle it.
Set a firm stability gate: if the approach is not stable by 1,000 ft in IMC, go around and reassess. Monitor fuel against the diversion plan and confirm the alternate weather before committing. If either pilot feels unable to continue, the other must say so directly. After landing, both pilots should complete a fatigue report and the captain should consider removing the first officer from the next duty.
3. What should happen after landing regarding the first officer's statement and the fatigue report?
Read the worked answer
The first officer's statement was a report of unfitness, even though it was indirect. The captain should have addressed it before the approach; after landing, the priority is to prevent a repeat. The captain should speak to the first officer privately, without blame, and ask directly: 'You told me you would be fine once on the ground. Were you fit to fly that approach?' The aim is to establish whether the first officer was impaired, not to punish honesty.
Both pilots should submit a fatigue report through the confidential scheme, including sleep history, duty times, sectors, and the microsleeps. The first officer should be removed from the next duty and referred for a fatigue assessment; the captain should also consider his own fitness for the return sector. The report should go to the fatigue risk management process, not just to a manager, so that rosters and sleep opportunities can be reviewed. If the operator has a just-culture policy, the report should be protected from disciplinary use except in cases of gross negligence.
The captain should also document the operational decision: weather, fuel, alternate, and the reason for diverting. This provides evidence that the crew managed the threat and helps the company identify whether the 05:10 report and 13-hour duty were appropriate. The first officer's admission should be treated as a safety signal, not a personal failing.