Aircrew Fatigue

[Flying Lawyer]

The UK CAA has published a report reviewing "a programme of work related to the sleep and wakefulness of the airline pilot" carried out on its behalf by the QinetiQ Centre for Human Sciences (CHS) and its predecessor organisations - DERA, DRA and the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine.

The results of the research have been used to develop and validate the 'SAFE' (System for Aircrew Fatigue Evaluation) model.

Link: Aircrew Fatigue (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAAPaper2005_04.pdf)


It's a pdf file so you may need Adobe Reader to open it - free downloads are widely available on the net.


Tudor Owen

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Have used the SAFE programme its ok but does not give estimates of cumulative fatigue. It also likes 5 earlies on the bounce..... :\

[Sir Richard]

You are not alone in EK !

In another quarter of the world there are similar flights across the Pacific with similar layover patterns. Or how about 2 sectors (via ANC) or even 3 Westbound. LAX-SFO-ANC-Orient :sad: :hmm: :\ :uhoh:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Flying Lawyer,

Interesting topic this....The great difficulty is for crew, especially, to differentiate between fatigue and just tired...especially when you're very ******* tired:ok:

While I, in no way, condone, nor would like to fly, EK rosters (I have mates who are and they are not happy campers) the issue becomes further confused when emotions get in the way of deciding that difference between fatigued and tired.

Certainly tiring flights like that quoted above flown often would lead to long term fatigue...and their (EK's) charming habit of DXB-MEL (24 hrs off) AKL (24 hrs off) MEL (24 hrs off)-DXB....followed by a few days at home then DXB-JFK (<24 hrs off) JFK-DXB, followed by 2 days off then J'burg, min rest DXB, 2 days off then Bombay return and on etc, seems gauranteed to shorten your temper, marriage and life.

I started reading the attached pdf and then quite frankly lost interest....the reason being is I have participated in a similar thing with CASA. They, in concert with Uni of SA, came up with FMS (Fatigue Management System) much along the lines of SAFE.

The FMS's biggest failing, and I suspects SAFE's as well, is they don't make allowance for 'life'.

They assume you are either 'doing work' which has a fatigue score or not 'doing work' which doesn't. Of course in their lovely perfect world, which exists only in a Univercity Lab thesis, we would be reporting all 'work done' which would include running around paying bills, mowing the lawn, arguing with the wife, kids, contractor, working out in the gym, playing touch football, going for a jog, crap sleep because you're jet lagged, crap sleep because it's daytime when you're trying to sleep, crap sleep because the new baby is sick, etc etc etc and on ad nauseum.

You can imagine the reaction from the company when you tell them a marginal rostered flight (a duty period has a fatigue score) cannot be crewed by your good self because your last 2 days 'off' had a fatigue score which when added to that which they would like to impose on you exceeds that max allowed fatigue score.:ouch:

The theory is of course that you must (it's yours and the comapnies responsibility) enter into the computer software that calculates your fatigue score EVERYTHING that causes fatigue....of course you do...otherwise the computer spits out rubbish:ugh:

I think you, being an undoubtely clever chap, can probably work out why we get a little cynical when CASA, CAA or whomever come up with their cute little systems to fix perceived 'safety issues'.

The answers to the issues are of course unnacceptable to airline management....that's why Flight Time Limitations as espoused in documents like CAP371 are used as targets on not limitations. I am sure the chaps who penned CAP 371 could not envisage B777, 744 and A340-600s with their attendant 2 crew cockpits in 1975.

I would suggest true answers to the fatigue issues would create a true aircrew shortage and impact the 'bottom line' so horrendously that the airlines would revolt...so instead various regulatory authorities trot out their cute ideas which go nowhere....we are still using CAP 371, CAO 48 30-40 years after they became law.

Chuck.

[A Sayers]

The value of SAFE and similar systems is very questionable. Before becoming a professional pilot I spent a lot of time running around the North German plain preparing for WW3. Practice combat operations required us to operate without rest resulting in high peace time accident rates - weapons mishandled, drivers ran off roads/into other vehicles etc. The Army (UK) did research and then came to the conclusion that 5 hours 'rest' in 24hrs was required (this includes HGV and armoured vehicle drivers on public roads). We were required to fill in 'eat/sleep cards' to record just that, as well as any time we were not on duty. Officers were to ensure that drivers had 5 hours sleep in any 24hr period. Off duty time included cleaning kit and the dozens of other things that keep a soldier awake. A soldier was to be considered sleeping whenever he was not 'on duty' or eating (15/30 mins for each meal). The five hours was acrued in tiny blocks throughout the day, sometimes in blocks of as little as fifteen minutes.

12 days into a big exercise I can recall being in the middle of a convoy eventualy stopped by police on an autobahn where most of the drivers were asleep at the wheel. For three hours we wrecked the countryside, took the corners of houses, even straying into contraflow road works crushing the oversized traffic bollards in use and causing understandable fear in the oncoming civil traffic. By the time the police stopped the convoy the destruction was enormous. But everyone was rested and benefited from 5 hours 'sleep' in accordance with the regs.

As has been suggested in this thread, studies in clinical conditions produce clinical results that dont always match conditions in the field. Minimum rest is rarely adaquate and should never be the 'normal' rostered rest period. Minimum rest means minimum recovery of fatigue, not a rested pilot. There are a lot of threads that show just how tired some pilots are even though they have had 'minimum rest'.

Andy.

[Earl Hadlea]

Isn't there a requirement (not sure where) that not more than 10 % of the flights should exceed the block time ?

Anyone care to confirm this ?

Rest in the real world is a far cry from some of the very optimistic and "feel good" FM programs that are floating around right now.

[ornithopter]

I have just spent most of my second day off of two asleep. I was delayed on a trip last week and had an early the day after I got back. I was fatigued due to the delay in the trip and went to ask if I could be knocked off the the early so that I could get some sleep.

I was told it was within limits and that we had to compete with the low costs and that if I went running into management every time I was tired then we wouldn't get anywhere. I was then told the manager incharge "really knew how I felt". The upshot is that my roster in the past few days has been very fatigueing. So much so that when I went to turn the temp up in the flightdeck one my last flight, I turned it down (twice) and thought there must be a problem with the aircraft when it didn't get warmer. It took me 30 mins to realise what I had done.

Now I don't complain easily and I am convinced that if I had had the early duty at home insted of work, I could have caught up on sleep. Going sick wasn't an option unfortunately as we are now monitored for sickness and given the manager didn't understand at the outset, he was unlikely to understand if I had gone sick.

[TDF380]

You raise a valid point. I have little knowlegde of these surveys, but I do believe the regulations are way outdated, simply because of my rosters and associated fatigue.

I started a thread a while back demise of professional pilots profession. This was one of my major concerns, and reading through the threads even since then, many other airlines pilots are voicing their concerns. The 30 year old regs are well outdated, yet nothing seems to change, and even worse airlines are rostering their crew MONTHLY right up to the maximums, rather than using them as a maximum when they are REALLY stuck due unforseen resignations, they also IGNORE the recommendations of time off between rostered slip patterns, giving only 1-2 days to recover rather than the recommended 3-5 days. Why publish recommendations knowing only a handful of legacy carriers will honor them, while the large majority of airlines ignore them. pointless.

They also seem to believe that if you get several hours off before a flight, even though you have been working succesive all night flights in different timezones you can simply sleep whenever you wish.

I havnt been able to do this since i was an infant.
Its called jet lag, and its not only passengers that can suffer from it.

When will someone carry out a realistic fatigue survey for the 21st century. Taking into consideration 2 pilot crews (no flight engineers anymore) and longer sector and duty times.

there have been surveys conducted whos results indicate that flying tired or fatigued has the same effect as flying under the influence of alcohol. yet the only rule change in the last 30 years appears to be the change of the alcohol rule from 8 hours to 12 hours. realistically those who would have in the past consumed a reasonable amount of alcohol finishing above the required 8 hours off will take little notice of the 12 hour rule. yet those who consumed only a small amount would not have been impaired when reporting for duty. I believe the level allowable now is so small, fatigue of crew is a far more potential hazard, yet the authorities have done nothing to address this.
You may be correct, the alcohol rule does not affect the airlines, only the crew, yet the fatigue issue would affect the airlines costs, yet greatly improve the crews and airlines safety.
So who pockets are the authorities in.
If you answer that we can see nothing will be done to improve the situation.

It seems the authorities of the world are a bit like many royal families. Plenty of publicity, but basically no real authority.

[Airbus Girl]

"I was fatigued due to the delay in the trip and went to ask if I could be knocked off the the early so that I could get some sleep."

"The upshot is that my roster in the past few days has been very fatigueing. So much so that when I went to turn the temp up in the flightdeck one my last flight, I turned it down (twice) and thought there must be a problem with the aircraft when it didn't get warmer. It took me 30 mins to realise what I had done."

Doesn't this just explain why the rules haven't changed?

Pilot admits he is fatigued. Pilot continues with rostered duties.
a) you are not legal if flying fatigued.
b) you knew you were fatigued before the duty; did you not realise what a liability you were? I would not want to be flying with you if the above is true.

So...we are our own worst enemy in this one. If crew called in fatigued EVERY time they were fatigued then the CAA could not ignore the huge safety issue that would ensue.

I have been fatigued once or twice and I HAVE called in, not to tell the company I was sick, but to tell them I was fatigued. And why. Yes, I had to spend some time explaining myself to management, but if everyone stood up to be counted rather than complaining about it being unsafe to fly fatigued, then a) less incidents would happen and b) the rules would have to be changed.

I understand that there are some airlines out there who could sack or demote you for doing this - this should be reported to the CAA as if the rules were followed and you called in fatigued then it is a safety issue if you are then demoted or sacked.

Its like saying "I knew I was drunk, but I didn't want to report it to the company because I would lose my job, so I thought I would fly anyway".

Now how many people would be sympathetic?

[captplaystation]

Airbus Girl, please acquaint yourself with the"Ryanair view on fatigue" thread,and you might understand the reluctance of many of us to call fatigued.I agree if you work for a less draconian company than RYR you are indeed your own worst enemy if you fly whilst fatigued ,here, in happy low-cost heaven, it is called keeping your job;sad but unfortunately that is how it is.

[FlapsOne]

Interesting views all.

To capitalise on the last points, if pilots are represented by a strong and coherent union (or collectively and professionally organised as a group) the FR instance of 'summary demotions' would not and could not happen.

Get wise folks.

If you are fatigued, do not fly. If the company questions your judgement or decision, go to your union who will happily involve the Authority where necessary.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Oh if it was that simple!

Having been on the recieving end of supremely dodgy rostering practices and then seeing the lack of response from the regulators when this was brought to their attention, I wouldn't hold out too much hope of too much changing.

This is probably the biggest and potentially most dangerous issue in the industry at the moment. We are our own worst enemies, since we all want to get the job done, so occasionally we go out of our ways to keep the schedules on track, after all, isn't that the job of a professional pilot?

It's a pity that management see this and then treat it as "normal" and then accuse you of trying to sabotage the company when you are unwilling to go into discretion everyday.

Fatigue is cumulative and devasting on your long term health, I certainly know of one ex-colleague who is no longer with us, who's exceedingly premature death was caused by the cumulative effects that this most glamourous of careers has on the human body.

Poor rostering practices are not just an inconvienience, but a serious problem, probably as damaging long term as boozing or smoking. It's funny how those are unacceptable in the modern airline world since getting rid of them doesn't cost money, but getting good practices and more crew..........

Cynical... Me? Never.

[Shaka Zulu]

Say Again S l o w l y, I so agree with your post.......

My companies protocol (yes not an agreement) states:
Discretion should be looked upon favourably by the Crew.

In other words Discretion is expected.....

I know standing firm might get you into the ****. But I rather have my head up high and take the blame then having to account for hundreds of lives lost!

[PAXboy]

Shaka But I rather have my head up high and take the blame then having to account for hundreds of lives lost! Indeed but, if you are one of the hundreds dead, then you can get blamed for 'pilot error', not for being fatigued. Statistically, this must have already happened.

[acbus1]

What it all boils down to is that insufficient accidents have been attributed to fatigue. So why, one can hear the authorities ask, take any action?

"Pilot error" seems far more in favour as a label to stick on incidents. That get-out allows the authorities to ignore the real problems and bend to the will of the operators.

Anything for an nice comfy, easy life in Gatwick (working 9.30 to 4.30 with an hour for lunch in the multiple choice, decadently stocked, subsidised restaurant) ........... :rolleyes:

[ExSimGuy]

PAX Speaking

How many of us in the back (non-working) part of the 'plane would really bitch at the extra cost of a few extra aircrew (drivers, cabin crew) to be sure that they are fully alert when an emergency occurs?

How much would that really put on our tickets?

Hear me airline mangement, some posters are completely anonymous, but we - your paying pax - can work out many of the airlines involved (I don't fly QR, for several reasons)

Even a pax knows the efect that "jetag" has, and I schedule my business (and pleasure) to try to avoid pushing the envelope. I'd really like to know that the guy driving the damned aircraft isn't doing that!

Yeah - I "take the Michael" on pilot's monthly working hours - but I'm joking - I have driven the sims and even in them I have been scared. We need a fully relaxed and awake guy at the front of myaircraft! (and Cabin Crew who aren't half asleep due to "imaginative" rostering)


why can't we have Martin Baker on passenger seats?

[Sunfish]

With the greatest of respect, "the Problem" is that some companies appear to outwardly comply with rules, but internally they reward rule breakers and punish those who follow the rules.

If you give in and break the rules, you are effectively assuming complete responsibility for what happens next, and the company rightly will claim it has no liability for your accident. After all, you broke the rules didn't you?

You might like to consider the aftermath of an industrial accident that killed a lot of people. The proximate cause was poor working practices, training and systems of work.

The company involved immediately blamed the dead (and one surviving) plant operators for the accident. It took a Royal Commission to get at the truth.

Just Google "Longford Gas Plant Victoria" and read about decades of cost cutting, high workloads and a ruthless drive for profits that lead up to the fatal mistake.



Then there is the report about Regulation and enforcement here.



www.ieaust.org.au/policy/res/downloads/publications/regulation-failure.doc



It\'s too long to post. Selective quotes:


The nexus between regulation enforcement and catastrophic engineering failures

by Athol Yates, Senior Policy Analyst, Institution of Engineers Australia



ABSTRACT
The deaths caused by the 1999 Turkish earthquake, 2001 Indian earthquake, the 1997 Canberra hospital implosion and the 1998 Esso Longford gas plant explosion all have one thing in common. Good regulations existed but they were not followed nor enforced.

Over the last 2 decades, the trends of de-regulation and self-conformance have effected most engineering activities. These trends have the potential to reduce costs, increase innovation and benefit the nation. But they also may lead to a decline in design quality, a failure to apply relevant codes and an increase in safety risks for the community.

The enforcement of engineering standards is a critical factor in ensuring that the reforms actually benefit society. This paper examines the evidence of the development and enforcement of engineering regulation, and finds that there is much to be concerned about.


About the author
Athol Yates, MA (Public Policy), BEng, Grad Dip Soviet Studies, is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Institution of Engineers. He has been a guidebook writer, journalist and engineer before joining the IEAust in 1996. He undertakes government lobbying and research to promote the interests of the engineering profession. His recent publications include Government as an informed buyer, The future of engineers in the public sector and Risk allocation in major WA projects. He project managed the 2001 Australian Infrastructure Report Card.

He is undertaking a PhD at the Australian National University on Government as an informed regulator of engineering, telecommunication and transport activities.



A common element to all these tragedies is a failure to enforce the existing regulations.



These examples are not unique. They are just the most tragic examples of regulatory enforcement failures. Any regulation system can suffer the same fate. Any can degenerate from effective to ineffectual without enforcement.



So the question is “Why were regulations not enforced?”. The question is simple but the answer is complex. There are a number of reasons of which the more important are:
1. consensual neglect
2. regulatory overload
3. cutting corners
4. inadequate resources for enforcement
5. penalties are little known
6. inappropriate enforcement mechanism

1 Consensual neglect
This occurs when companies know that the regulations are out of date, inappropriate or conflicting, and consequently, don’t follow them. The regulators are also aware of this and know that enforcing them will make them look silly. So both sides agree not to follow nor enforce them, and not say anything about it.

2 Regulatory overload
This occurs when companies are not meeting the relevant regulations because they are unaware of a recent change or what regulations apply. In a regulatory overload situation, the company is simply submerged in a confusing miasma of regulations, guidelines and codes of practice.


3 Cutting corners
This occurs when companies take a little short-cut here and there, which in themselves have little effect. But when these are all added up, the outcome can be fatally compromised. Nearly always, there is no deliberate decision to avoid meeting regulatory intent. They just occur because of incremental drift.


If the customer becomes a “dumb buyer”, the contractor may be more tempted to cut a few corners. These short-cuts are mostly related to quality. Examples are less detailing, lower quality materials and reduced sub-contractor inspection. Rarely are the short-cuts outside the legal interpretation of contracts or intended fraud.


Cut-throat competition also increases the pressure for injudicious corner cutting. This is a particular problem for the construction industry where lowest upfront cost is a major factor in tender awarding. It is aggravated by the “dumbing down of buyers”. Often a reputation for quality work and best practice is only valuable for getting onto the tender panel. After that, cost seems to be the major determinate. If the pressure to reduce cost and time becomes significant, then the temptation to not undertake the “should” clauses in guidelines may be too great. Another temptation may be to redefine the level of effort put into activities which use the adjective of “commensurate” or “appropriate”. For example, a risk assessment involving a day of work by a para-professional may fulfil the guideline requirement just as well as a week long assessment by a multi-disciplinary expert team. However, the outcome will invariably be completely different.

4 Inadequate resources for enforcement
Another reason for a lack of enforcement is that the regulator does not have the capability to actually enforce the regime. This capability may not be available because the regulator has insufficient skilled people, inadequate financial resources, ineffective powers, or an inappropriate detection strategy.


A typical response from government when the regulatory system shifts from prescriptive regulation to self-regulation is to reduce staff. This is justified on the basis that as certain work is no longer needed, such as sending inspectors to companies to identify breaches of prescriptive rules, neither are the staff. But when new functions are identified, such as sending inspectors to sites to ensure employers are providing a safe workplace and issuing prohibition or improvement notices, instead of increasing staff numbers, the tired mantra of doing more with less is trotted out.




5 Penalties are little known
People will not do what is expected of them unless incorrect behaviour is punished and is seen to be punished. This means that prosecutions for failing to comply actually have to occur and be seen to occur. Most prosecutions occur in the legal system with a suit for negligence or breach of contract, rather than being taken by governments for breaches of Acts, regulation, codes etc.

6 Inappropriate enforcement regime
Appropriate behaviour will only occur if the enforcement mechanism chosen by the people who developed the system is appropriate.

This is where the issue gets sticky ... talking of safety........

Many of these depend on market forces to regulate behaviour.

Market forces are appropriate if both buyers and sellers are informed and can weigh up the costs and benefits of different price and service offerings. However, in the case of buying a building which is structural appropriate for a particularly earthquake zone, I would have trouble believing most buyers would know what questions to ask.



Being an uninformed buyer undermines the power of market forces to produce appropriate behaviour. The greater the ignorance, the less impact market forces can have. Perception of risks is used by most customers to determine what their informed status should be for each purchase. Given that we are all poor at rating risks we have no experience with, we are all particularly uninformed when it comes to evaluating low probability but high consequence events. Consequently we undervalue those solutions which offer best value for money for these events, while overvaluing others that do not offer such value for money.

Another limitation of the ability of market forces to produce appropriate behaviour is caused by the so-called moral hazard problem. Moral hazards exists when a particular set of incentives unintentionally provides motivation for people to do things that are not optimal for them or others.

A requirement for market forces to be effective in producing appropriate behaviour is that the market actually punish bad behaviour and reward good behaviour. The following is an example of this not occurring. If customers do not know about an earthquake code or don’t understand the benefits to the customer or community of following it, then there will be no market preference for designers and builders to follow it. An even worse outcome occurs if there is a cost advantage by not following the code. The result is that companies do not follow the code. And if a company does, then the market will penalise it for doing so.




A critical element for the success of any approach is that practitioners must actively participate in it. If engineers believe that the system is not working, they are the ones with the greatest chance of changing it. Relying on government to see an impending disaster is to wait for Godot.

Don\'t believe the clap-trap about regulation stifling business. Just like financial regulation and fair trading rules, sound building codes create prosperity, not endanger it. They can turn a disaster into a minor disruption.

[PAXboy]

Sunfish that is brilliant. Never before have I seen the decline of western industry and society placed in such clear words. Many thanks for posting and I have saved the file for later.
Over the last 2 decades, the trends of de-regulation and self-conformance have effected most engineering activities. These trends have the potential to reduce costs, increase innovation and benefit the nation. But they also may lead to a decline in design quality, a failure to apply relevant codes and an increase in safety risks for the community. This aligns directly (if memory serves) with the causes of the massive power outage in the NE USA on August 14th 2003 (in which I was caught). Because everything was now 'self-regulatory' no one needed to ensure that the power supply COULD meet the demand. Currently, the UK is predicted to have a major shortfall of generating power this winter for similar reasons of (so called) benign neglect.

[Ignition Override]

Ex Sim Guy: this might not be the situation over where you work (Britain, western Europe?), but the larger US airlines claim that they have little or no ticket pricing power-even with the huge increases in fuel prices.

As several are now under Chapter 11 protection, there is even less chance that extra expenses will be added for an extra crewmember. Chapter 11 protection applies to all businesses here, not just airlines, as is often suggested on Pprune. And most US airlines who have entered Chapter 11 failed, either during or after the sad process. And so this is US government protection? The historical facts show the contrary. Much of this happened before many of the "new pilot generation" of "400-hour-wonder button-pushers" were ready to waddle away from Kindergarten.

One of our crewmembers lived in Hamburg. Regarding recent profits at some European airlines, he said that, contrary to some claims on Pprune, when anyone on this website or elsewhere claims that there are no government subsides or tax breaks given to airlines over there, that is a lie. Jet fuel (refined kerosine) can not be cheaper than in the US, unless something is "rigged" in certain airlines' favor, possibly corporate taxes (?).

[acbus1]

Good stuff, Sunfish.

You missed one, which applies in this case.

7 Too many huge loopholes and/or ambiguities.

Who needs "incremental" when the authorities allow "big chunks"! :rolleyes:

[[Steve]]

Having just paxed half way around the world where I was expected to immediatly go to work, then paxed back and again expected to go immediatly to work all I can say is that I have the utmost sympathy for those aircrew that work on these long routes.

On my return I had some *urgent* work that had to be done which coincided with my body screaming at me to go to sleep. I'm just glad it wasn't something where anyone's life was in my hands. :zzz:

Perhaps you should petition to have your management work alternate weeks on opposite sides of the world. :E

I think it would focus their minds on the issue.

[Sunfish]

I've a correction to my previous post. It appears what is really happening when your company is asking you to "bend" the rules, in for example rostering, is called the double bind problem .

Reference here and google it yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Bind

In psychological terms, it appears to be asking you to believe two contradictory things at the same time.

For example

1. You will be punished if you break the rules (by a regulator if you have an accident while fatigued).

2. You will be punished if you refuse to fly because you decide you are fatigued.


It is suggested in the literature that this may be one of the causes of Schizophrenia. It's certainly a cause of stress.

Its actually the company that has the moral hazard problem because of the lack of blame that attaches to them if you commit "pilot error". There is no penalty for them in doing the wrong thing (at the personal level) even though they know that all will suffer by it.

Apparently this issue is being raised in Cirrus aircraft fitted with the ballistic parachute. The suggestion is that pilots get their Cirri in more trouble (and have more accidents than comparable aircraft) because they can rely on the chute to save them.

[makintw]

A pprune virgin writes:

I woke up in Vancouver 7am local time, Tuesday, packed, had a couple of meetings in the morning before catching a 3 hour AC flight to LAX, arriving around 6pm.

Waited there until 11.30pm for a 14 hour SQ flight to TPE, arriving 6am local on Thursday. Slept (dozed) a few hours on the flight. Another wait, this time 3 hours before a short 40 min hop to KHH. Finally getting home at midday.

Slept a bit in the afternoon. Fed and played with my 8 month old son. Went to sleep around 10pm and slept 'til 7am, but was woken a few times in the night by junior.

In the office around 9am, bright and breezy, but now I'm sitting at my desk here in Taiwan where it's 5pm on Friday and I'm feeling well and truly cream crackered.

The above were the final sectors of a month long round the world trip, TPE > SIN > AMS > MAN > LHR > AMS > CPH > HEL > CPH > MAN > BEL > MAN > LHR > IAD > MEM > CHT > ATL > YYZ > LGA > DEN > YVR > LAX > TPE > KHH. And these are just the flights. Add to these the train journeys, and many miles driven in UK, US and Holland. Oh....and the meetings in between.

Luckily I've only got a 45 minute drive home tonight and the weekend to try and recover from the 16 hour time difference and lack of sleep. :eek:

I'm just a pax, so I really do wonder how all of you at the pointy end can keep up with this type of travel month in month out without starting to suffer, not just from fatigue, but long term health and personal issues.

[bugg smasher]

I think most of us just get on with the job, another long night over the Pacific, another paycheck at the end of the month. Sleep when you’re able, grunt through the rest. Guess that’s why they pay us the big bucks.

With all the righteous indignation being voiced here, you’d think most of us would have already located other modes of employment. That’s always an option you know.

Personally, I like the lifestyle. Fatigue is one of the heavier costs associated with the job, but with time, experience, and a little imagination, you learn to manage it.

[Shaka Zulu]

What big bucks?
If it was for the money I wouldnt be flying.
Seriously underpayed for the things that you have to give up!

[Marvin the Robot]

Most of the "I don't mind the sleep deprivation" types are probably at the younger end of the age spectrum.

Mid thirties is when it starts to bite. :\ :zzz:

[Captain_Scooby]

Out of curiosity, have there been any air accidents where the final cause determined was that the flight crew had fallen asleep?

[PAXboy]

Cpt_S. My cynical guess is "Almost certainly but we shall never know." It is like trying to prove a negative, especially when those who could affirm that they were very tired are dead.

[peuce]

Or this, B737 nearly into the Canberra hills, recent one:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2004/AAIR/aair200402747.aspx

[Airbus Girl]

But the regulators won't do anything because there is no evidence that rosters are fatiguing.
CAA to airline: "so, may we audit your crew sickness and fatigue records"
"Yes"
"Well, looks good, no crew members have called in fatigued. That must mean your rosters are not fatiguing"

What are the regulators meant to do, try and get airlines to change rostering practices when there is no evidence that they cause fatigue?

I agree that fatigue is an issue, and I hope that scientific evidence will eventually get the FTLs changed but bearing in mind that when JAA rules came in they were not as limiting as the CAA rules in most cases, there is little hope.

There is no evidence. No one calls in fatigued. The only evidence the authorities have to work on is anecdotal or occasionally when it is obvious in an accident that human error was caused by fatigue. But then that pilot would be to blame for flying whilst fatigued.

Its a catch 22 and no matter how much we talk about it nothing will change.

[RAT 5]

This is not aimed at any particular national organisation;

but isn't this what national unions are for? To improve and uphold the working conditions and standards of the industry as a whole?


It staggers me the reaction of unions and goverment when a crash/incident occurs on the railways compared to that in aviation. The unions get involved, and there is often some "we've been telling you this for years."

The subject of rosters, fatigue/tiredness & life style has been beaten to death for years; each of the 30 I've been involved with it. Nothing has been achieved. It all started with the pilots allowing the upper deck on 747-100 (crew rest area) to be sold to the companies for a few pieces of gold. The slide has been slippery ever since. The old greedy claim of wide-body pay etc. The unions, driven by the older, near retirement pilots, took their eye of the ball and the life style has been eroded ever since.

As someone says, there is all this anecdotal chit chat. Why not Balpa, or ECA, call a conference and invite CAA and operators etc. It will be very public, hopefully televised. It would be a darned sight more positive in effect than some of the junkets that go on.

The national unions are a disgrace for allowing this to happen. The miners had balls, just chose the wrong war and the wrong stratergy.

There is talk about the JAA, that old fading European conjunction, aand their suggested FTL's. Well, why not first attack the fact that no operator has implemented the compenstaion packages directed by the then EU transport commission of the early 90's, led by Niel Kinnock, or been brought to task by any union or authority for not doing so. The fact is that the transport industry was temporarily exempt from the workers social charter & working time directive; compensation measures should have been introduced by the operators (buses trains ships etc.) until a proper change in T's & C's could be devised to bring about the gains enjoyed by ground based static based employees.

The whole matter was conveniently forgotten in aviation; the unions did naff all and the operators have ridden rough shod over the whole industry. It is Hi Time that the Commission is bought to book by the ECA as to why its own directive has been so steadfastly ignored. It would go a very long way to alieving many of the problems, AND IT IS THE RIGHT of the aircrew, not some charitatble gift. Get your 1% for gawd's sake.

[BANANASBANANAS]

I have recently moved from one employer in SE Asia to another. The airline I left has no union representation and a weak operating authority. Most of the time I flew for them I considered myself fatigued and this fatigue was one of the reasons I sought alternative employment. I now fly for an airline that has good management, union representation and a strong operating authority. Guess what? Little or no fatigue and sufficient post flight rest (legally required by the authority) to recover completely before the next long haul.

And the strange thing is, its my new employer that is making record profits and the ex employer that continues to struggle.

There has to be a moral there somewhere.

[Masai]

The Which Magazine Survey on No Frills Airlines says:

We're also worried about the potential for overwork among airline pilots. This is a safety issue which needs to be monitored closely.

They have got a point

[Smudger]

Just as an aside, when I was a C130 captain in the RAF I once took the Lyneham Station Medical Officer to Akrotiri and back so that he could assess for himself the effects of fatigue on the flight crew. Departure from Lyneham was approx midnight on Sunday, arrival at Akrotiri 7 hours later. 24 hours in AKR, then return trip to UK. He spent most of both sectors fast asleep on the crew bunk. All I'm saying is that fatigue is of course a serious problem for us flight deck people, but nobody is going to solve it for us. I don't know what the answer is, but it is up to us to fight tooth and nail against ANY pressure to fly when unfit due to fatigue. As has been said already, it's not always easy to say no, but it MUST be done when the circumstances dictate. (Gets down off soap box, dons steel helmet and awaits flak).

[RAT 5]

Once more I read a new glossy brouchure advertising the delights of passenger a) sleeper seats with moderate recline, b) full recline seats, c) full beds. Arrive refreshed is the advertising cry.
I consider the standard Boeing seat to be utter rubbish. My 11 year old Opel has a more comfortable seat. After a 10 hour journey I fell better, i.e. less back ache, from my car journey than a megamillion U$ Boeing. Anyone else agree?

After a few years of long-haul, no bunks and horendous duty times of 16 hours, it was essential to cat nap on a night flight. The recline is not enough in a Boeing seat to support your back and use the head rest. I woke up more stiff, but a little rested. meanwhile the pax, all cuddled up and cosy, arrived refreshed. the pilots arrive knackered. Somethings wrong there, methinks. I feel A simple solution would be to design the cockpits so that the pilot's seat can fully, or nearly fully, recline. Compare a long distance lorry seat to ours. Any self respecting lorry driver would walk off the jobvif he had to spend his shorter duty times in our seats.

OK, it would cost the cabin 1 row of seats, perhaps. But with proper design, probably not even that.

[Bomber Harris]

quote: "Out of curiosity, have there been any air accidents where the final cause determined was that the flight crew had fallen asleep?"

Capt Scooby, I'm sure you just penned the question quickly and didn't give it much thought. Had you given it more thought you have realised that "falling asleep" is a symtom of chronic fatigue. We are just talking about plain old moderate fatigue. The kind which causes you to make "errors" as opposed to "falling asleep". The kind of errors that make you mis set altimeters and fly into the ground a few miles before the runway.

There are plenty of accidents out there which fit this category. Very hard to pinpoint fatigue as the "cause" but easy to realise it was a contributing factor to the accident. If you remove a contributing factor then it could be argued that the accident may not have happened. All very speculative, but either way, fatigue is a very very very bad thing to have in the flight deck.

[Agent Oringe]

Along with contaminated air, which is known to induce the fatigue that you are all on about.

747-200, 757, A330, for longhaul ?
737, A320, A321, 146, MD83, Emb145, for shorthaul anybody?

Penny dropped yet?

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

I called in fatigued once, in the middle of a duty. I was fatigued because the hotel they put me in the night before was, frankly, appalling. Fortunately, there was an FO on airport standby, he was at the steps of the aircraft by the time the last passenger was off. (Before anyone asks, the captain was not fatigued- he was locally based and had spent the previous night in his own bed). No flights were delayed, no passengers were inconvenienced...
Some weeks later, I had a phone call from crewing.
Crewing: "You never submitted a sickness self-certificate for the duty you did not complete on xxx day."
CBFO: "That's because I wasn't sick."
Crewing: "You did not complete the duty, you called in sick in the middle of it."
CBFO: "I was not sick, I was fatigued."
Crewing: "Fill in a sickness form anyway."
CBFO: "Well, if you're sure. However, the reason I was sick was, the company put me in a terrible hotel. That means, if I was sick, it was due to company action; that means it was an industrial accident. I will write that on the sickness form. Still want me to submit one?"
Crewing: "I'll get back to you. <click>"
It's been nearly three years and I haven't heard back yet!

[expelair]

Whilst I sympathise with the F/D crew on the availability of suitable rest on long haul I would like to remind you that those of us who look after the live freight are lucky to get any rest at all, yes there are some A/C fitted out with bunks but not all.
We the humble cabin crew have very little in the way of legislative recourse and are expected to stay on our feet for very long periods. Both jobs are difficult in there own right but when was the last time anyone did a fatigue check on cabin crew who have to move around the A/C cabin pressurised to 8k feet, with no quiet area to sit down in and have a drink or something to eat.
I commend all the pilots for trying to stay awake whilst looking at a video screen on a dark night but the whole issue should be looked at but not just from the point of view of the F/D, it is called CRM or just sensible working practice.
:ok:

[Flying Lawyer]

This news item caught my attention - non-aviation but IMHO relevant to this thread.

Professional people don't have a culture of going sick for trivial reasons or personal convenience, but the story is a sad illustration of the high price which can be paid for just 'getting on with it' and going to work instead of calling in sick.

Staten Island crash pilot jailed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4597272.stm)


"I will regret for the rest of my life that I did not just call in sick," he told the court.

[moosp]

Yes FL I read the same article and thought the same. Very relevant to the airline industry. I also thought that his professionalism in taking the responsibility was profoundly moral, and yet he was not totally responsible.

I have observed several airline companies who have in the last few years instigated "Sickness Management Programs." Whilst the motive to wheedle out the slackers may have been understandable, the result has been appalling.

I have seen pilots and cabin crew at work who were fatigued to the point of incompetence, infectious, and working to the detriment of their recovery. If they had reported sick, they would have gone on the sacking list, and promotion would certainly have been curtailed.

Just ask your friendly crew member if he keeps chickens at home when he next sneezes on you on departing Ankara.

[Dream Buster]

I can confirm as an airline pilot that if you call in sick, you will also regret the decision for the rest of your life. Can't win.

[PPRuNe Dispatcher]

The official report on the Staten Island ferry accident is on the NTSB website at http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2005/MAR0501.htm

[ILS 119.5]

Tell you what, I am knackerered all the time with long haul. Fatigue is a major problem, coming back over the pond is now buggeirng me, maybe short haul is the next step for an easy life. Always remember "work to live" not "live to work".

[beaver eager]

Funny thing ILS, I am finding the work on short haul very heavy going these days. Many "max duty hours, four sector days" and arduous tours (3, 4, 3 or 3, 4, 4, 3 or even 3, 4, 4, 4, 3! with lots of min rest down route) with earlier starts and later finishes than ever before during the summer 'high utilization' schedule. Add to that the unrealistic schedules and finishing an hour late most days in the summer...

Every day, I ask myself whether I should bite the bullet, take the pay cut and go RHS long haul. Apparently, there's more to life than money but someone tell my wife, please!

This industry just ain't what it was, and that's from near the top of the food chain too!

[Mr Angry from Purley]

A letter in the Daily Mail 11/01/06
" Who'd be a bus driver? You could finish a shift one day at midnight and have to start one at 0530am the following day. If you refuse to drive because of fatigue or illness you're reprimanded. If you have an accident because of tirdness, its your fault. If you're late for work by more than ten minutes three times in a month, your fired. If you have to take time off for a medical or domestic emergency you're reprimanded.
You get one saturday off a month and 15 days holiday a year to be taken when instructed by the Company. And all for £6.75 an hour "

[beaver eager]

Thanks for that Mr Angry... I suppose things could always be worse; how can just 5:30 rest be legal (let alone his travelling time to/from home)?

Then again, I bet your average bus driver (not Airbus, I might add) didn't spend £35k of his own money and work seven days a week for four years to get his licence.

I had certainly hoped for slightly better!

[Pilot Pete]

how can just 5:30 rest be legal (let alone his travelling time to/from home)?

It's not legal. Take a look at [URL=http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_504544.pdf[/URL] page 27 of 48. It lays down the working/ rest periods for PSV drivers in the UK. The fact is;
-Daily rest periods
10 hours continuously must be taken between 2 working days. This can be
reduced to 8 1/2 hours up to 3 times a week.

So there you go, Mr Angry's post of a letter in the Daily Mail was not factual.

PP

[beaver eager]

Maybe he meant finish at midnight, a single day off and then back in to an early start the following day.
Something we are all familiar with on shorthaul, n'est pas?
At least we have a 36 hour rule for a single day off at BA LGW (although it only covers 'industrial' days off - if the lovely Carmen blows a fuse and gives you more than the industrially agreed 11 days minimum, the extra days can be single days off with less than 36 hours between duties).

[Spartacan]

Well, they got there in the end. Now 'Flight' is discussing the problem in refreshingly plain language. The question is, will the CAA and AAIB now wake up to the fact that pilot fatigue is a killer? Will anybody in these institutions have the balls to speak up about the problem in the public interest ?

Read on . . .

Dead tired: 31 January-6 February.

Increasing numbers of accidents are citing pilot fatigue. While knowledge of its effects is growing, regulators are not listening
Accident reports timidly cite pilot fatigue as a causal factor rather than a cause because it can rarely be proven.

Even where it is given as a cause, science is never quoted as having provided the evidence that, under the circumstances, the crew would have been fatigued. When the US National Transportation Safety Board gave fatigue as the primary cause for the pilot mishandling that led to a Kalitta International McDonnell Douglas DC-8-61 freighter crash at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in 1993, it was a judgement based on the fact that everybody knows 18h is too long a shift for a safety-critical job, especially when the pilot had suffered recent disruption to his circadian rhythms as well.

At the time the NTSB criticised the special rules in the Federal Aviation Administration regulations on crew duty that allowed an international cargo operation like this to slip through the crew duty safety net.

What safety net? At Kirksville, Missouri in October 2004, 13 people died because FAA regulations allowed a crew to fly six sectors from an early start on a 15h crew duty day operating a commercial passenger schedule that terminated in a non-precision approach in marginal weather at night. And they would still allow it today.

Everybody knows that six sectors and 15h is too long a shift for a safety-critical job, but the FAA still stands by its 16h maximum for an unaugmented crew. The experts who study fatigue, however, liken the effect on a pilot’s decision-making capabilities to the results of having a blood alcohol level that would see a car driver criminally convicted. The driving offence is socially unacceptable; but, if a pilot is drunk on fatigue, that, apparently, is socially acceptable.

The NTSB has been trying to raise the profile of fatigue for years. Yet it is so lacking in faith in the FAA’s willingness to do anything to correct the situation, despite the flood of new scientific evidence on the effects of tiredness that, in the Kirksville report, it recommends pilots should be given lessons in “fatigue countermeasures”. That is, recognise that you must be seriously tired at this point in a duty day, and make due allowances for it. The situation is preposterous: it is like the NTSB’s road transport department advising those car drivers who insist on getting drunk that they should recognise their inebriation and manage its effects.

The trouble with fatigue and alcohol intake is that both of them significantly impair physical and mental capabilities at the same time as they reduce the critical ability to recognise the evidence of impairment.

When the FAA set 16h as its crew duty maximum there was less competition in the airline marketplace, and a limit that was intended to be used occasionally when a rostered duty day is prolonged by weather or technical delay is inevitably being approached more frequently. A state of denial is one of fatigue’s effects. Perhaps the FAA is tired.

[kms901]

This worries me immensely. I am only an amateur pilot, but my work involves long hours and we are in a position where a mistake could cost many lives. Research has shown that your effectiveness drops sharply after 12 hours, and we talk a lot about "entering the 13th hour". Why should pilots be treated any differently?

But what is more fatiguing, an intercontinantal flight with lots of time zone changes, or lots of short sectors with more "stressful" take offs and landings ?

[Jambo Buana]

This was a reasonably well researched article regarding LCC work patterns and their attempt to reduce incidents by tailoring work patterns to suit the 'new' LCC model. 5/2 5/4 at EZY and 5/3 5/3 at RYR.

My dozen years in LC is where I am now coming from:

These are nice patterns for a few years, but in my experience, the stress levels start to build by about year 3 or 4 due to the pressure of operating at max alertness and total self reliance. You then become a trainer! Non stop, 100%training, day in day out, forever. 10 to 12 hour dutys everyday (13 to 14 in reality).

What the article misses is the fact that week to week fatigue levels are OK'ish, but long term fatigue and motivation levels drop off and are never restored. I suppose the best word to describe it is 'BURNOUT.' The type of burnout suffered by bankers and traders around the world.

Career progression is fast with TRI/E status achievable with 5 years airline experience! Once you get there what next? Motivation lost? Job satisfaction deteriorates.

I have not met many LCC pilots who genuinely believe they will be able to sustain this pace for 30 to 40 yrs.

So the end result is that at RYR we loose 10% of our pilots, 100 plus per year. They wander off believing they will find greener pastures or take a year cycling around the world then return. Hence the continuous training and low experience level across the airline which is a constant worry as we operate the most difficult operation in Europe bar none.

The answer is far from easy I know, especially with fuel prices high and yield so low due to competition. Managements hands appear tied to ensure that we will all survive in the long term. But, with an airline that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing, they need to flip that equation on its head and start to see both sides of the gate.

Several fatigue/sleep experts examined the EZY/RYR working patterns proclaiming them 'fantastic' steps forward in safety. Whilst they undoubtedly are, on a week to week basis, what about long term burnout issues? Can a pilot reasonably expect to live through a 35 year career in a European LCO?

[IcePack]

No! Already seen in crew rooms Pilots looking totally K'***erd:(

[Vee One...Rotate]

Don't many LCC pilots aim to get into long-haul flying later in their careers?

V1R

[LegsUpLucy]

Good post Jambo,
I think this is a very important issue to address and its about time the Caa brought the issue to the fore,not everyone has the ultimate goal of flying long haul;i personally still enjoy flying,so i dont think long haul would be for me,but i dont want to burn out after a few years in lo-co which i feel is inevitable when your so fatigued.
I think a lot of people leave lo-co for long haul out of disillusionment and know in themselves its unsustainable as a long term career,if you value your health in anyway!!
Not Everyone Is A Size queen you know..........:ugh:

[earnest]

. . . as we operate the most difficult operation in Europe bar none.
Jambo Buana, I'm not seeking an argument here but please would you elaborate a bit more?

[MarkD]

Interesting that European pilots on 900hrs are that fatigued when US allows 1000 and Canada 1200, the subject of a very interesting Toronto Star article (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1149630618112&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home) recently.

edit to fix link

[GGV]

Interesting link MarkD. In the accompanying story (in the side box) it is interesting - and far from surprising - that when push came to shove the airline spokesman noted the decision to press on to Toronto was made by the flight's captain. Which is where the buck stops, even after you have allowed yourself to be pressurised into doing what you did not want to do. This carries a message for all concerned.

[ShortfinalFred]

This is the same CAA who devolved safety management to the airlines' own internal ISO 2000 or whatever it is self-audit process. Likely to be completely independant of management pressure, NOT!

The CAA dont care at all if pilots burnout - its your responsibility if you are fatigued, and your career if you succumb to intolerable management pressure to operate despite being fatigued and screw-up because of it. Heads you lose, tails you lose! Welcome to the New Aviation.

LCC pilot useage is totally unsustainable over a 30 year career, (and that LCC-style pilot usage is now common in scheduled carriers too - Big Airways have 900 hours-a-year A320 pilots now), and it is not until we have the appalling spectre of a hull loss clearly attributable to the kind of pressure pilots operate under now that the regulator, (ever a reactive body), will even think of doing anything about it. CAA = the friend of the Big Business Battalions. Little Pilots dont even feature on the radar. CAA view = "Take it or Leave it".

Flight's article was a brazen suck-up to the business view:- "everything's fine, thanks" and only hinted at the true state of affairs at carriers like RYR. The only concession was to suggest that airlines may have to think about offering flexible contracts to allow for the fact that a LCC pilot who has, SHOCK, a young family, (how dare he or she), may be unable to keep up the manic pace and so will have to take a pay cut and possible career ending compromise by seeking to fly less through the early child rearing years - when the need for money is the most acute - in order to cope.

I suspect that the CAA know that the system is creaking and that CAP 371 was NEVER intended as a rostering TARGET, but they are addicted to the airline cashflow that pays for the shiny Belgrano and all the Good Things that go on there-in. Corporate vision = "Dont Bite The Hand That Feeds You"!

The public enquiry that follows from a hull-loss that is attributable directly to institutionalised, roster-induced, pilot fatigue would, one hopes, direct that a TRULY ACCOUNTABLE CAA would be completely independant from the companies it regulated and be financed from general taxation. What exists at present is a cosy, mutually-parasitic arrangement utterly conducive to the kind of dangerous compromise we see now.

Take care out there. You are on your own.

[MikeAlphaTangoTango]

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2007/B20050121.aspx

Essentially says that a 'one size fits all' flight duty limits scheme can compromise safety if inappropriately applied.