Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Do We End Pilot Fatigue

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How Do We End Pilot Fatigue

    Let me just start with this little manifesto:

    -----------------------------

    The job of a commercial transport airline pilot is to:

    a) possess the skills to fly the aircraft(s) he/she is assigned to under any foreseeable circumstances; those skills being basic airmanship, navigation, communication, flight engineering and systems administration, procedural proficiency (normal and abnormal) and CRM.

    b) be an authority on the aircraft(s) he/she is assigned to, including an extensive systems and systemic behavioral understanding of every control he/she has access to;

    c) defend the flying public from both immediate and latent threats to their safety.

    -----------------------------

    Now, this concerns item (c), which includes reporting to public authorities any ongoing procedural or operational policy that presents an immediate or latent danger and, failing action by that authority, to make that danger known to the public by other means.

    It is my opinion that every airline pilot has this responsibility, even if it threatens their job security. What I keep reading about and witnessing in accident reports is quite a different scenario where pilots are distressed about tough scheduling and fatigue, with some even going so far as to expect a crash at some point as a result, yet they fail to make these concerns public.

    I don't mean to assign the greater blame to these pilots, but I think they share some of it. Indeed, most of the blame falls upon the operators and oversight agencies for pursuing and tolerating practices that are almost assured to result in loss of lives. Still, big business and big government are infested with corruption. The individual pilot is the last line of defense.

    My two proposals to end this pattern of fatigue-induced crashes are 1) a UN mandate via the ICAO as I described in the Fly Dubai 981 thread and; 2) a revolution of pilot culture, speaking up, no longer remaining silent on the issue and refusing outright to fly if they feel unfit due to fatigue.

    The first proposal could be instated by decree, the second would have to be an organic self-preservation movement within the industry and a moral prerogative.

    ---------------------------

    So, I'd like to hear any other serious ideas on how we can finally do away with the single most dangerous practice in commercial aviation today....

  • #2
    Don't forget that flying in the USA where we care about this stuff is really really really really really really really safe.

    Then we have other areas of the country where people ride on top of trains and bathe in sewage contaminated rivers.

    Indeed, there is much room for improvement on the third planet out.

    (Oh, and the factors I cite here are serious)
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      I don't mean to assign the greater blame to these pilots, but I think they share some of it. Indeed, most of the blame falls upon the operators and oversight agencies for pursuing and tolerating practices that are almost assured to result in loss of lives. Still, big business and big government are infested with corruption. The individual pilot is the last line of defense.
      I would put a *very* small amount of blame on the individual pilot.

      What you say makes perfect sense in theory, but in practice there are two huge factors (and probably 100 smaller ones) going against the pilot.

      The first one is obvious: people need to put food on their tables and have a roof over their heads. When a pilot declines a flight due to fatigue in a company with a poor safety culture, they know there's a significant chance of losing their job, putting those things in jeopardy. If word gets out about what they did, they might not be able to find employment with another airline. So that decision potentially could be a career-ending one.

      The second one is slightly more complicated. You could correctly argue that a pilot's responsibility to self-certify his/her fitness for duty is greater than that of (for example) your average burger flipper because the lives of tens or hundreds of people could depend on that decision. But here's the rub: in a company with a poor safety culture, if a pilot refuses a particular flight due to fatigue, the airline will bring in a replacement pilot that easily could be as fatigued or more so!

      So not only does the pilot have huge factors motivating him/her not to cancel, but knows the purpose of canceling (improved safety) quite possibly will not be fulfilled.

      Another factor that you haven't mentioned specifically, and would (or could) be helped by more/tighter rules, is that humans are notoriously bad at gauging their own fatigue. Just look at how often you hear about car crashes caused by drivers falling asleep at the wheel...
      Be alert! America needs more lerts.

      Eric Law

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by elaw View Post
        ...The first one is obvious: people need to put food on their tables and have a roof over their heads. When a pilot declines a flight due to fatigue in a company with a poor safety culture, they know there's a significant chance of losing their job, putting those things in jeopardy. If word gets out about what they did, they might not be able to find employment with another airline. So that decision potentially could be a career-ending one...
        Just nitpicking at this- I don't think there's that many companies that would fire a pilot over declining a flight. But conversely, you only get paid when the door is closed on the plane and the engines are running.

        Also, in this day and age of computer optimized, cut-throat-minimal hiring and scheduling, I'm guessing that finding the backup pilot is a problem. (Not at the hub, but the outlying airports)...and then if you decline the flight, you could potentially be stranded and then unable to get scheduled back on another flight, thus more lost wages. (Again, not talking about guys who go from mega hub to mega hub and have decent commuting options).

        I don't think the airline forces the pilots to go ahead and fly, as much as personal desire.

        Finally, where do you draw the line? Oh I didn't sleep very well last night, kind of tossed and turned, but got a few hours is one level of fatigued. Totally screwed up circadian rhythms is another level of fatigue.

        Some would argue that the regulations allow decent rest. And, they probably do, from a basic stand point. But if you want to nit-pick at them...should there be more attention to crazy shifting of sleep patterns- yeah probably, and I heard another recent complaint that the time to get from the plane to the crash pad/hotel/whatever needs to be added on top of rest periods...

        What should "we" do (yeah, the magical bold italic "We"...the "we-parlour-talkers" that ATLCrew properly questions)? We should go to the internet, find the cheapest fare, and then go choose the flight option that costs $100 more.

        Of course, it's always the greedy airline's fault...you'd think with fuel now cheap again, that flight crews could get an extra 4 hours...

        ATLCrew, please forward these important recommendations to your airline's upper management. Thanks in advance.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          J

          ATLCrew, please forward these important recommendations to your airline's upper management. Thanks in advance.
          I was going to, but turns out there is no need for that. It's been brought to my attention that not only mine, but every airline's management routinely peruse these forums hoping for answers to life's persistent questions, so there's that.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by elaw View Post
            The second one is slightly more complicated. You could correctly argue that a pilot's responsibility to self-certify his/her fitness for duty is greater than that of (for example) your average burger flipper because the lives of tens or hundreds of people could depend on that decision. But here's the rub: in a company with a poor safety culture, if a pilot refuses a particular flight due to fatigue, the airline will bring in a replacement pilot that easily could be as fatigued or more so!

            So not only does the pilot have huge factors motivating him/her not to cancel, but knows the purpose of canceling (improved safety) quite possibly will not be fulfilled.
            But this is exactly what I am getting at. I am talking mostly here about established individual operator policies, not whether a certain pilot had a bad night's sleep (though that should always be a consideration). I'm talking about endemic safety culture problems. If a pilot blows the whistle on his operator to the CAA and the CAA is reliably upholding safety standards based upon an established maximum duty-hour schedule, then the operator can neither fire the pilot nor replace him with another one. If the CAA isn't up to par, the pilot can threaten to take it to the public. At that point the operator has a potential public-relations disaster on their hands and can avoid that by quietly complying with the CAA, taking on more pilots if necessary and reducing pilot scheduling to a safe level. Yes, it will reduce their profitability somewhat, but they get to remain in business. What do you think they're going to do at that point? It's pay to play.

            In the film Whisky Romeo Zulu, PIC Enrique Piñeyro refuses to fly a 737 after he realizes multiple primary instruments aren't functioning. The company simply replaces him with another pilot on that flight. He later resigns from the company after voicing his concerns about their very poor safety culture. Two months later, LAPA Flight 3142 crashes on take-off, taking 65 lives. It was bound to happen. This was before the establishment of Argentina's CAA (ANAC) and I think there was a great deal of corruption between the Air Force oversight and the operators. What he did—one pilot with a conscience—made a tremendous difference. Now they at least have a CAA that pilots can report their concerns to. If Piñeyro had ANAC to go to back then, LAPA 3142 might never have happened and 65 people would be living their lives. I think what he did was heroic, but also should become the standard for airline pilots today.

            And I'm still open to other suggestions.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by BBC
              The pilots who spoke to the BBC say their colleagues are at "significant and obvious risk" from fatigue. One of the sources has already resigned and another says he will quit.
              See, not so far-fetched is it? These are pilots defending the flying public (and their own lives).

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                I was going to, but turns out there is no need for that. It's been brought to my attention that not only mine, but every airline's management, the FAA, the IACO, NTSB, ASAE, NSA, EPA, USDA, NATO, OSHA, AMA, AFL-CIO, ALPA routinely peruse these forums hoping for answers to life's persistent questions, so there's that.
                Fixed.
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  In the film Whisky Romeo Zulu, PIC Enrique Piñeyro refuses to fly a 737 after he realizes multiple primary instruments aren't functioning. The company simply replaces him with another pilot on that flight. He later resigns from the company after voicing his concerns about their very poor safety culture. Two months later, LAPA Flight 3142 crashes on take-off, taking 65 lives. It was bound to happen. This was before the establishment of Argentina's CAA (ANAC) and I think there was a great deal of corruption between the Air Force oversight and the operators. What he did—one pilot with a conscience—made a tremendous difference. Now they at least have a CAA that pilots can report their concerns to. If Piñeyro had ANAC to go to back then, LAPA 3142 might never have happened and 65 people would be living their lives. I think what he did was heroic, but also should become the standard for airline pilots today.
                  I guess I interpret that situation differently.

                  Make no mistake: I have tremendous respect for what Enrique Piñeyro did and I would hope if I were in the same position to have the courage to do the same thing.

                  But I'm not sure I agree that "what he did made a tremendous difference". I think what made a tremendous difference was an airplane crashing into the ground and killing a bunch of people, and the results of the investigation showing that the airline's culture and that of the regulatory system contributed greatly to the accident.

                  Or to put it more bluntly / cynically: what made the big difference was pictures of a lot of dead people on TV, not someone's words... no matter how correct or important those words were.
                  Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                  Eric Law

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by elaw View Post
                    I guess I interpret that situation differently.

                    Make no mistake: I have tremendous respect for what Enrique Piñeyro did and I would hope if I were in the same position to have the courage to do the same thing.

                    But I'm not sure I agree that "what he did made a tremendous difference". I think what made a tremendous difference was an airplane crashing into the ground and killing a bunch of people, and the results of the investigation showing that the airline's culture and that of the regulatory system contributed greatly to the accident.

                    Or to put it more bluntly / cynically: what made the big difference was pictures of a lot of dead people on TV, not someone's words... no matter how correct or important those words were.
                    Have you seen the film? He exposed the issue to the public. The crash only confirmed it. If he hadn't come forward, the crash would probably just have been written down to pilot error, the error of a bad pilot, and everything would have gone on as before. Without the crash, perhaps this is also true, but the crash was inevitable; the pilot coming forward took courage and a sense of moral obligation... which is definitely not inevitable in society. You cannot underrate his contribution here.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                      I was going to, but turns out there is no need for that. It's been brought to my attention that not only mine, but every airline's management routinely peruse these forums hoping for answers to life's persistent questions, so there's that.
                      Originally posted by Evan from Fly Dubai 981 thread
                      If you don't have any interest in a discussion on the issue, just don't go there.
                      ???

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        Have you seen the film?
                        I sure have seen the film, I own a copy!

                        We may have to agree to disagree on how much influence Mr. Piñeyro's actions had on the regulatory changes.

                        In that particular case, it's possible nothing would have changed had he not publicized the issues at hand. But there are numerous other cases where someone who knew of an issue could have come forward, didn't, a crash ensued, and changes were made based on the results of an investigation. A few times, changes have even been made before a crash took place!

                        AA191 is a great example. Engine removal & replacement ops were being done contrary to specified procedures, you *know* a bunch of people at various levels in the organization knew about it, and none of them ever went public with the issue. An airplane crashed, an investigation took place, and based on its results changes were made to rectify the situation.
                        Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                        Eric Law

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by elaw View Post
                          AA191 is a great example. Engine removal & replacement ops were being done contrary to specified procedures, you *know* a bunch of people at various levels in the organization knew about it, and none of them ever went public with the issue. An airplane crashed, an investigation took place, and based on its results changes were made to rectify the situation.
                          Yeah... exactly, that's the problem in a nutshell. Nothing gets solved until after the inevitable crash, a crash that some people coming forward beforehand might have prevented. In the case of AA191, I'm certain of it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Don't we have stars, to recommend a quite brilliant entry? If I had one, certainly Evan must receive a star for his thoughts, posted here in the #1.

                            It is my opinion that every airline pilot has this reponsibility, even if it threatens their job security.
                            I don't think that we have to go that far. Everytime when I board a car, I ask myself, do I have a
                            sickness certificate
                            and if yes, why? Did my doctor say "stay at home and relax"? Did my doctor give me medicine that prevents me from boarding a car (in the left front seat)?!

                            Sickness more and more gets accepted. You have diarrhoea? You better don't board a car, in the left front seat.

                            But the reason why I like to second Evans #1 post here with 100% is, we are at the beginning. Let me replace "car" by

                            "a jet, capable of Mach 0.78".
                            The German long haul is alive, 65 years and still kicking.
                            The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
                            And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
                            This is Lohausen International airport speaking, echo delta delta lima.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              Yeah... exactly, that's the problem in a nutshell. Nothing gets solved until after the inevitable crash, a crash that some people coming forward beforehand might have prevented. In the case of AA191, I'm certain of it.
                              ...and let's not forget that we probably pay a LOT less to fly across places that what we probably should pay...pretty amazing stuff ole ATL crew and VNav and Snyder do several times daily.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X