BBC investigation into fatigue, working culture & safety standards

[shoey1976]

Hi all
This is the third thread I've started on pprune, the others being on safety standards in the loco sector (which was absorbed by Danny into "Ryanair in the news...") and the other being on "IAA, CAA and safety standards".
As I made clear at the start of those posts, my name is Ian Shoesmith and I am a BBC News journalist who is investigating safety standards within the airline industry in general, and within the low-cost operators in particular.
Part of my research to date has thrown up the importance of flight time limitations (FTLs), and whether the existing 900hour annual limit (including no more than 100 in a 28day period) is working sufficiently well in order to prevent pilots flying when unfit due to fatigue.
I know Easyjet changed their rosters a while ago, in response to a trial in which they found evidence of fewer errors being made when they moved away from a 6/3 roster to a 5 early shifts/2/5 late shifts/4 (David Learmount wrote extensively about this in Flight International, 6/6/06). Do his conclusions ring true in your experience?
Should Ryanair adopt a similar roster? Would it cut down on mistakes being made?
I would imagine it's very hard for airlines to make pilots go "over-hours" in terms of the 900/100 rule, but please correct me if I'm wrong. And what about the 12-hour shift rule? Do (loco) airlines regard this, as some contributors have posted, as a target rather than a limit? How frequently are pilots asked to fly into what I believe is called a "discretionary" period beyond the 12 hours but certainly no more than 14?
Naturally I understand we're talking about some pretty sensitive issues here, and that you may not want to publish a post on the forum. If this is the case, you can either pm me, or email [email protected] or call me on +44 (0)7769 977665. As ever, any conversations, emails etc will be treated in the strictest of confidence, and I'm happy (at least at this stage) to speak to people anonymously.
Best wishes, and apologies for the somewhat lengthy posting
Ian

[RAFAT]

Hi Ian,

You may already have a full appreciation of this point, but please make sure that you don't fall for the type of line that O'Leary often spouts that gives the impression that his pilots only work for 18 hours per week/900 hours per year. He does specify fly and not work when he says it, but I think we all know what impression he's trying to give Joe Public. He's simply raking up a comment which worked well for Rupert Murdoch during the Australian Pilot strike of the early 90s.

Likewise in your post above, make sure it's clear in your mind that the FTL figures you quote are for flight time and not duty time.

[shoey1976]

understood :)

[richardhead]

Try Canada. Normal duty day is 14hrs which can be extended to 17 for unforseen circumstances. What is an unforseen circumstance? Well that depends who you ask. Ask an operator he'll tell you anything can be unforseen. The hours a pilot can fly in Canada are 1200 per year 120 in 30 and 40 in 7. And yes 14 is a target not a limit. Transport Canada gets alot of it's safety recommendations from ATAC. Who is ATAC. The owners of Canadian airlines. Bit of a conflict ya think?

[Banzai Eagle]

Ian

The follow up to Easyjets fatigue study was they moved from 5/2/5/4 to 5/3/5/4. The study suggested I believe, that it took more than 2 days off to recover sufficiently from 5 earlies (although I would add Ground Staff have to
suffer still). The 900 hours limit is sufficient to protect crews from suffering long term fatigue in theory. Fly to PMI 5 days a week at 0900, back at 1700, have 2 days off and so on. However with the mixture of earlies, lates, nights, only Pilots that work for EZY/FR/BA can tell you.
Ryanair operate a 6/3/6/3 so in theory 2 extra days to EZY Crews, and because they work to Irish FTL limits, can work longer days and more sectors, on average around 1hr more a day and 5 hrs more a week.
In terms of going over the 100 hr limit most airlines can get their crews to that limit, especially in the summer months. Going right to the 900 annual limit is a Esy/FR/BA specialist subject.

With ref to the 12 hr shift limit you need to do some more homework on CAP371 the UK CAA regs and the Irish regs. Its not a simple 12hrs, in the UK it depends on time of report and sectors flown, the more you do the less hours you can work. The funnier the time you report the less you can work etc depending if your body says you should be asleep etc.

Commanders discretion is allowed on the day to recover situations and the maximum is 3 hrs, most crews don't go over 2 hrs as 3hrs the report goes to the CAA.

Last and by no means least, please remember that UK and even Irish rules are restrictive compared to the Spanish, and Eastern Block countries. And last and by no means least, with all due respect, pilots in general don't like coming to work!. When they get to work they are fantastic, god like people whom I have the utmost respect for.

[orangetree]

Untrue! Pilots DO like going to work - but not for an 0500 report, 5 days a week.....:zzz: :zzz:

[The Mixmaster]

Ian, with regard to discretion being used to extend flight time to 14 hours, if discretion is used in such a way, this will generally result in the crew member not being used for their following days roster.

According to the IAA, all crew must have an amount of rest equivalent to their duty period, 10 hours being the minimum amount of rest following duty. For a 4 sector day you can generally add 3 hours of duty( assuming there are no delays on the ground). So say a captain were to use discretion to extend flight time to 13 hours, this would mean all crew members would require a minimum of 16 hours rest. Our usual method of dealing with this would be to put all crew members on standby from when they are "back in hours" and hence would, in this situation, only be called if a new crew were needed top operate later in the day or if any crew members offloaded after 2 sectors.

No crew members can be rostered a 12 hour+ shift but for a small number of routes it would only take a delay of 20 mins before discretion may need to be used.

[Capt H Peacock]

Ian, phone BALPA on 0208 476 4000 and ask them about JAR-OPS Sub Part Q and the new pan-European safety body - EASA.

Some UK operators will protect themselves from the bold aspirations of 'Q' by the controls placed upon them by industrial agreements. These will be the subject of commercial pressure by the time the legislation becomes compulsory by the middle of next year. The pilots will hold out for a while, but the pressure from management to extend to the limit (target) of 'Q' will be inexorable.

From that point on you can expect your pilot to be flying longer days than long distance lorry drivers whilst enjoying shorter rest breaks than livestock in transit.

Oh, and while you're at it, ask the CAA how happy they are with EASA taking over the supervision of safety in the UK.

Good luck. You have a real opportunity to achieve soemthing here. We'll help you where we can.

[Denti]

Well, Subpart Q is of course not a great thing, but at least its a common ground in europe, at the moment we can only dream about conditions like pilots flying according to CAA regulations do. Over here in germany it is allowed and commonly done to fly up to 13:59 planned duty time and to work more than 140 hours in a month during the summer. Most known to use that as target rather than the maximum for its pilots is of course Air Berlin. With discretion you can go up to 16 and in exceptional circumstances up to 20 hours.

[AltFlaps]

Ian,

Have a read of CAP371 'Avoidance of Fatigue in Aircrew'. You'll find it at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP371.PDF

CAP371 is the FTL document which defines maximum duty hours, flying hours and commanders discretion. Although each company might have a slightly different interpretation, the limits are printed here in black and white, and any UK scheduled operation will have to adhere to them very strictly. We all face CAA audits on a regular basis, and CAP371 compliance is something that gets looked at very closely.

This is the gospel according to Gatwick. That is of course assuming that you are operating a UK registered aircraft with a UK license and a UK AOC (Air Operators Certificate).

I think one other area to be considered when looking at fatigue is roster turbulence/instability.

The LoCo I work for flies me for approx 870 hours every year. Last year, crewing and the rostering system were in turmoil, and my 870 hours almost finished me off. This year, however, crewing and rostering have been sorted out, and I'm flying exactly what I was rostered for. I'm actually on track to do slightly more hours this year, but feel a lot better for it ...

Good luck ...

[PAXboy]

From the responses generated by the first threads that Ian started and the first nine posts here, there is no doubt that the first area of enquiry is not the carriers but the regulatory bodies. If they choose not to see transgressions - then the carrier can do anything they like.

Secondly, I suspect from Ian's brief: ... investigating safety standards within the airline industry in general, and within the low-cost operators in particular. and by his line of questions, that LoCos are in the firing line. I do hope that does not obscure what the legacy carriers are doing. They know what they are doing as they have been playing the game for a long time! My reckoning is that Pax assume that LoCos are cutting corners and the Legacy carriers are not. All that I have seen on PPRuNe in the six years I have been fortunate to read the forums - says that is not the case.

[merlinxx]

A reminder and for Ian to take into account. History of CAP 371. After many, many consultations with all interested parties and Aero Medical specialists in the early 70s (the so called Bader Committee) CAP 371 was acted into law.

Most carriers had/have an industrial document which conforms to, or betters CAP 371.

I remember going from a UK non-sched carrier who's industrial doc bettered CAP 371 to a US FAA121 supplemental (non scheduled) operator where you could operate an outbound 121 duty up to 12 hours wheels off to wheels on, and then a back-end FAA91 ferry for 12 hours. A duty day of 30+ hours. Only time aloft was counted, NOT DUTY TIME!

CAP 371 got it right, don't blow it away, no other regulatory authority has had the courage to go for it, just look at the mess in the US with the FAA, NTSB, NASA, AALP, NATA et al, trying to make a code, let alone those oiks in EASA!!!

[rkd993]

Ian,

It would probably also be useful for you to look at the consumer side of this issue. There is increasing public concern at such "efficiency" measures by operators.

See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=travel&res=9E05E4D9103BF932A25750C0A9679C8B63 for example and do a Google search on "airline passenger consumer organisations safety" or similar.

I suspect that most of the travelling public would prefer pilots (like my son) to be properly rested, focused, etc. Ultimately everyone's life and safety is at stake and operators who continually push the limits of good sense and safety are going to cause serious incidents if we let them...

Good luck on your project.

Federal agencies who bow to "industry pressure" (notice this is usually business owners, many are cost cutters rather than profit growers) and forget their obligations to the whole of the industry who ultimately depend on the consumers (passengers).

Regards!

[IcePack]

Ian,
The one that always gets you is an afternoon standby say 14 to 2300. You wake up at 0800 as your body clock says wake up. And off you go to do things for the wife/kids etc then at 1430 ring ring "we need you for a flt" " 1630 report A/Line to say Glasgow hang around for say 4 hours then operate.
say GLA - AGP(Malaga) - LTN (Luton) throw in a little delay and discretion and whoa! you are landing at LTN in maybe bad weather having been up for something like 22 hrs. All quite legal. (Note hav'nt got my CAP371 on me at mom but the above gives you an idea of what actually happens for real. Substitute any flt from GLA that works to the FTL and it works out virtually the same):hmm:

[A-3TWENTY]

If you want to have a full understanding of what fatigue is :

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAAPaper2005_04.pdf

http://www.wingfiles.com/files/hf/fatigue.pdf

cheers

[Sean Dell]

What also is never factored into the above equations is operating into and out of some challenging/fatiguing/energy sapping places like LHR (I'm sure there are others).
Good luck Shoey - it will be nice to see a well balanced, informative, fact based programme. Unlike the usual Daily Mail/Sky News sensationalist dross.
SD

[Moonraker One]

Back in the 1990s the medical evidence submitted to the CAA recommended limiting CAP 371Table A Flight Duty Period Limits to something like 9 hours for 4 sectors. Especially early morning duties.

In the debate this was dismissed on economic grounds by the CAA committee and this I fear is the problem. The medical evidence will always be dismissed on economic grounds.

Ask the CAA for a copy of the submissions from interested parties ie employers ,unions and medics along with the minutes of the meetings conducted before the revised edition of CAP 371 at or around 1990.

I bet you won't get very far.

The NASA report into duty limits would also be a good read.
Good luck with your investigation.
Most people believe flight crew and I include the cabin crew are under worked over paid and lazy.

To maintain our professional standards we have to spend many hour learning and revising procedures from our Flight Manuals in our own time. Cabin Crew face a check on their saftey knowledge at pre departure brief.
Most crew have to report between 15 and 20 minutes early to complete their preflight duties in time for an on time departure. Parking at work and lack of public transport can increase the need to plan arriving at the car park even earlier.

At one time there was a despatch service now it's all self help to prepare your own brief and flight plan material. Great if it works but if computer says NO an absolute nightmare as you try to brief for you flights.

[Paris Hilton]

The first accident where crew fatigue was recognised as a causal factor in the report was FEDEX at guantanomo bay. (Several years ago).

A friend told me that in a meeting with the 'safety department' of her airline, they were invited to offer their opinions as to the most likely cause of a hull loss. (To see if it concurred with their expert opinion).

All the usual candidates were voiced. Weather, ATC mis-communication, Maintenance, blah blah.

When she suggested fatigue as the no.1 cause, she was told that this was not an available 'option' as it was 'too political'.

So why have the meeting, and why have a 'safety dept.'?

[JW411]

merlinxx:

I have no desire to nitpick but when I flew in the USA flag carriers operated to Part 121 and supplemental carriers operated to Part 135. Most flights that we flew came under Part 121 but some (usually military charters) came under Part 135.

Has it all been changed?

[Stoic]

I seem to remember learning that the first time "fatigue" was recognised as a factor in a British-registered aircraft accident was the BOAC Constellation crash in Singapore in March 1954.

[The Real Slim Shady]

One of the biggest scheduling problems is the requirement, exercised by some carriers - not necessarliy the LoCos - to be "flexible". What that amounts to is having your schedule changed continuously.

At Ryanair the flight crew work to 3 different schedules; either 5 on 3 off, or 5 on 4 off, or 5 on 5 off. Disruption or change is minimal and whilst sleeping prior to the first of 5 early duties is always difficult ( regardless of carrier) once you are in the "pattern" it is not generally a problem.

I always found 3 earlies / 3 lates / 2 off a much worse pattern and far more fatiguing.

[An Paddy Eile]

Statement in the Irish Times saying the Minister for Transport has concerns about recent approaches made by Ryanair.

He said he would only call for a formal investigation by the Irish Aviation Authority when he has all of the facts.

Seems we may get our witch hunt after all...

[CR-ASC]

Ian
Just a little point regarding duty time, rest time, etc.
When I started working in this industry more than 20 years ago,
it was considered duty time 1 hour before flight (actually the reporting
time), nowadays decreased to 45 minutes.
Also before, duty terminated 30 minutes after stoping engines, now duty finishes when parking brake is set for parking (by ACARS), that means that shuting down the aircraft now is not duty, having to report snags regarding aircraft status is not duty, reporting any event reagrding the flight is not duty, doing the shutdown checklist and parking/securing checklist is not duty.
All this means that imediately after spoping the aircraft I am already resting, resting doing the checklist , doing afterflight work, of course driving home, etc. As well after reaching home I am imediatelly sleping geting ready for the next duty.Of course I will have plenty of time according the regulations 101/2 hours is a lot.
Just one thing, this is in Europe not any 3rd world country.
If you have the chance please ask our european parliament members what do they think about this.

[fmgc]

Ian,

I have said this to you before, when it comes to safety standards do not categorise LoCos in one section. EasyJet and Ryanair are two very different airlines working under different sets of rules.

Also the BA shorthaul guys work bloody hard and to much less restrictive scheduling terms than some LoCos. Also don't just concentrate on 900 hours a year, some guys may only do 650 but 450 of those are in the 6 summer months (charter airlines) and into some very very challenging airfields (Greek Islands) in the middle of the night doing their thrid night in a row.

This is a very very complex subject with many many variables that would be so easy for the lay person to misrepresent and for other lay people to misinterpet.

[RAFAT]

Ian,

On the first thread you started on this subject you may recall initially getting a bit of a rough ride from some members of our community. Thankfully that has turned around, but articles such as the SUN article on LCY burst tyre incident (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007080474,00.html) do nothing to endear us to the sensationalist crap that some journalists spout. This article might give you an insight as to why your initial enquiries were treated with such scepticism.

There is an email address at the foot of the above article for the journalist concerned. I suggest using it.....I have!

[HKG Phooey]

The FTL's that are available today are based on rules made 50 odd years ago: some changes since then:

RVSM airspace...
The terminal areas round the airports are alot more congested,
......so is the airspace...
You can no longer drive to work and park next to your aircraft..
More NOTAMS/weather to check.
The old rules were there to get you back when older A/C were a lot less reliable.....
Slot delays....

Alot of study has been done on long haul ops but not for short haul... what has been done some operators ignore because it will cost them money!

The rules need to change.......

[Pilot Pete]

I would like to add about 'extra' duties that have crept into the working day of flight and cabin crew, which mean reporting earlier and reducing rest.

They have been mentioned already, but things like airport operators moving the staff car parks further away so that the passengers can use the ones by the terminal building. Then they put on a shuttle bus to ferry the staff to the terminal(s). Take Manchester as an example. Staff West car park is a brisk 15-20 minute walk from T2. The car park is vast and depending on time of day it can take you 5 minutes to find a space, which of course will be the furthest possible distance from the car park entrance. A bus service to the terminals is provided, but guess what? It doesn't stop at T2 - it goes to the railway station (10 minutes walk to T2 in the overhead walkway), then on to T3/T1. It stops there for a certain period before returning to the car park via T2. So if it isn't pouring down most people will walk. Like I said, good 15-20 minute walk to the terminal and then you have to actually get to the crew room, which can be another 5 minutes. So you plan to arrive in the car park at report time -30 minutes to be on the safe side? Well if you do that there is a good chance that on occassions you may be late if you have to wait for the bus!

Add to that the pre-flight duties which include synchronising a company laptop to get the latest updates to manuals etc, adn then as mentioned by others printing off your own papaerwork as the true dispatchers were axed years ago to save money. This paperwork can take 15-20 minutes to get (depending on just how 'good' the companies IT systems and network are). Then you have to read and inwardly digest all the info as part of your flight planning. Add to that the fact that some airlines have removed the Jepp/ Aerad hard copies (as they are all available over the inetrnet), it can take some time now to view your destination/alternates and find the operating minima if the weather is marginal or a factor. If I needed to look up one destination, one en-route alternate and up three destination alternates, this would take me about 10-15 minutes using the internet and the software available. Our report time is STD -1hr and that is pushing it. Add in the fact that we are supposed to be at the aircraft at STD-30minutes, and at a big airport that can require 10-15 minutes walk or possibly even a bus ride and you can see that reporting at STD-45, with bad weather forecast can mean that you have no chance of getting away on time. So what do pilots do? They turn up earlier than report time to get the job done. None of this counts towards duty. ANY pre-flight duties should be accounted for in the duty day. Are pilots making a rod for their own backs? You bet they are. Why? Because they tend to be professionals who take a pride in their job and doing a good job, especially a SAFE one, so are willing to stretch to ensure this. Trouble is this action in itself can start eroding margins elsewhere when it comes to fatigue.

PP

[Wig Wag]

Ian, what type of coverage are you intending and when?

Has there been insufficient response to justify a programme?

[PAXboy]

It is usual in modern TV / Radio documentary that the timing and scope of the programme will be set after initial research has been done. However, the timing might be six months in the future although it can often be less.

If the reporter is able to follow the line of enquiry suggested in this forum, then there is a VERY considerable amount to do. It is possible that this means that the budget allocated will not do and so the programme can be postponed, cancelled or the remit changed.

In this regard, they are just like any commercial organisation and will change as resources demand. The days of any news reporting organisation having open ended research on a project are long gone. It would be fascinating to know what would happen to a 'Thalidomide' or 'Watergate 'these days. That said, organisations and governments now 'leak' in a way that they did not 30/40 years ago.

I would expect that we shall not hear an answer to Wig Wag's question until it is time for broadcast.

[mill island]

I found this plain language explanation of pilot work and fatigue easy to follow.........

http://www.ialpa.net/pressrelease/pressrelease2006-09-12.html

[winkle]

As mentioned earlier we are professionals and also take pride in our work. To that end we should be aiming to arrive in the crew room as close to report time as possible and work back from that time so that you have a "car park" arrival time, then if the bus is slow or out of sync and you arrive a few minutes late then that will have a knock on effect, thats life for everyone its either that or we have beds in the crew room (come to think of it quite a nice idea if you know what i mean) As for stripping away the hired help and relying on laptops for everything - well big mistake. I am no computer buff but from the laptops i have had the more that goes in the slower they are, again adding to pre flight frustrations.
If we cut corners by arriving too early then nothing will ever be sorted out if you think its good to get in early how would it stand up in court if an incident/accident occurred and it transpired you had been in say an hour earlier than you should.
IMOH either tell ops you want an earlier report time because of unforseen circumstances ( wx , atc probs that you can pre-empt) or always aim to arrive on time and only depart when you are fully ready to go.

the real world is on the other side of the window......

[shoey1976]

hi all
just spotted a couple of posts asking about the progress of my investigation: I've been working on another story since Thursday, and am away from the office with only limited internet access.
Will be back in on Wednesday. Can be contacted on mobile 44 (0)7769 977665 in the meantime though.
Best wishes
Ian Shoesmith
BBC News
[email protected]

[RatherBeFlying]

I would suggest you look into the Comair accident where the crew attempted an early morning takeoff from the wrong runway. There is some information on the crew's sleep/wake times in the previous days and perhaps more can be extracted from the NTSB before the report comes out.

Another current example where fatigue seems to be a factor is the C-5 Galaxy accident in Dover, Delaware.

Both accidents are amply discussed in these pages and offer considerable material.

[upandoffmyside]

The development of part-time commercial flying could also do with high-lighting.


Since 9/11 part-time flying was introduced in many UK airlines as a way of mitigating pilot redundancies.


These schemes are still in place today in many UK airlines. Such schemes commonly offer the chance to work at somewhere between 50% and 100% of the normal number of days worked per month. 50% and 75% are the usual flavours offered.



In a highly skill-based profession, if you mention this fact to joe public they usually think it rather odd and muse on its wisdom....


If you ask professional pilots who have been lucky enough to take it up, usually after many years of waiting, why they have sought this path, most of them will tell you that the rostering was killing them, gave no quality of life, and turned you in to a fairly brain dead zombie.


The good UK employers probably only have a few percent of their pilots on part time with not many on the the waiting list, but the not so good may have around 5 - 10% part time with pilots waiting years for the opportunity.


Crap London airports with dismal staff parking & buses, four sector days in very busy airspace, minimal turnarounds with no rest time, 20 sector weeks, repetitive earlies, rostered to FDP limits nearly always, min rest always, and a strong expectation from management that you will exercise discretion always to keep the show on the road - are all strong factors here.


One day the men in suits in the Gatwick grey monolith might sit up and take notice, but so far they seem very good at hiding in their bunker since loco arrived in town .


When was the last time you had the opportunity to tell a CAA Ops Inspector what it's really like on the line ?


It is somewhat telling that in most advertisments in "Flight International" for CAA Operations Inspectors the job is sold to potential candidates with a description of the much better quality of life that can be expected while working for the state aviation regulator than for a commercial airline.

That's marvelous and good luck to them - they deserve it.

But it never seems to dawn on the CAA dimwits - who has created this situation in the first place ? , and who has the authority to do something about it ?


CAP371 may be better than others abroad.


But it has little relevance to high intensity short haul operations today and does absolutely nothing to address the need and right for UK commercial pilots to have a decent quality of life outside of work - just like CAA Flight Ops Inspectors.

[RAFAT]

If you ask professional pilots who have been lucky enough to take it up, (part time) usually after many years of waiting, why they have sought this path, most of them will tell you that the rostering was killing them, gave no quality of life, and turned you in to a fairly brain dead zombie.

Spot on, that's exactly why I did it!

CAP371 may be better than others abroad. But it has little relevance to high intensity short haul operations today and does absolutely nothing to address the need and right for UK commercial pilots to have a decent quality of life outside of work.

Spot on again.

[RAT 5]

Ian,

You may like to do some research into this not insignificant matter.

In the early 90's John Major was PM and Niel Kinnock was EU commissioner for transport. There were proclomations about the 'Social Charter' & Working Time Directives' from Brussels. For employees rules were introduced about such issues as:

* volume/space at each work station for an individual,
* contolled working enviroment, i.e. temperature, humidity, noise etc.
* working time/rest time balance. A break from your work station every XYZ minutes. A lunch break etc.

There were many more items included; it would be easy to find out the publication.
It was recognised that Public Transport could not redesign its vehicles and industry overnight, so it was given a 'SHORT TERM' dispensation to come up with proposals how to change its working practices to comply with the spirit of the 2 EU proclomations.

In the meantime they were required to introduce compensation schemes to their employees. This was likely to be of the form of more time off (rest time) between duties, or shorter duty periods. Flight crews work in cramped conditions, low humidity & oxygen, higher radiation levels, no rest areas or breaks from work/duty, ever changing sleep patterns etc. etc.

NO compenstaion scheme was ever introduced. (I even brought this up with my local CAA and they agreed, but were not interested.)

In mid-90's Kinnock and the EU commission became irritated that nothing had been done by the airlines and said they wanted it sorted PDQ. Proposals about how to change working practices towards the T's & C's improvements for the general work force had not been forth coming. Indeed NOTHING had been done. Afterall, flight crew are normal salaried employees. We come to work, do a fixed job, go home at the end of the shift and get paid. We are not managers who spend all day at the office and work until it is finished. We have a planned duty day; start & finish. If necessary we do extend to get the job done, but it is not the norm.

The unions had done nothing, the airlines had done nothing and the politicians had done nothing. (I don't know what happend in other public transport industries). EU commission was running out of patience. The proposed introduction and planning of common JAA FTL's was a diversion during this period.

It looked like Kinnock was going to demand action after so many years of none. However, the EU commission then resigned over other issues. The whole matter was forgotten by everyone, even the unions, and especially by the airlines. The late 90's saw the rise & rise of the LoCo's who, rather than introduce better working practices as per the EU guidelines, started to maximise the old rules and turned getting 'blood out of a stone' and a 'pound of flesh' into a science. For commercial survival reasons this sttitude filtered out across the industry to all carriers. Everything became maximised, everywhere.

So, here we are today. Conditions are worsening; quality of life is reducing; I have my own opinions about standards of training and operation, but I'm not sure they have improved as they should have; etc. etc. (one question for another topic is what pilots think about the general lowering of hours till command being lowered from the common 5000 in 80's to 3000 nowadays.)

If you investigate why those EU edicts from the early 90's were never enacted, and instead the industry moved in the opposite direction regarding employees working conditions, then you will have a real story. It will not be based on emotions & opinions influenced by who a pilot works for and what type of flying they do; it will be based on facts. Fact that things should have got better under an EU edikct, but instead became worse.

To illustrate the point, I have received an EU statutory instrument about aircrew (pilots & cabin crew) working conditions. It lays out how much work we can do and how much time off/holiday we must have etc. etc. We can do 2000hours pa. With 4 weeks holiday (hardly any compenstaion for the amount of time we spend away from home) 1 weeks public holidays, we can be on duty for 47 weeks. This averages at 42.5 hours per week i.e. 5% more than the norm. Consdering the enviroment we work in and the ever changing sleep pattern, and considering that EU edict 16 years ago, this begs a question.

WHY? Why was that edict never actioned but ignored and then forgotten; and WHY, now, have the proposals even gone in the opposite direction to general improvements?

Find the answer to that and print it.

[winkle]

MONEY
Maximise profits, squeeze as much as you can from it then discard it.

people included!

[MD80rookie]

Maybe not exactly what this journalist is looking for, but an interesting aspect is why the FTL's differ somewhat from country to country. Despite JAA/EASA, this seems to be impossible to agree upon.

I'm under the swedish regulations, known as the most strict in europe when it comes to daily FTL's. Are we more prone to fatigue than our german, british or spanish colleagues?

MD80Rookie

[shoey1976]

Hello again
I'm sure that regular viewers of the site will have come across my previous three threads.
I am a BBC News journalist taking an in-depth look at safety standards in the airline industry in general, and amongst low-cost operators in particular.
In response to my posts, a number of very-well informed people got in touch with me, and were immensely helpful in assisting me to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
Issues raised to date include: pilot fatigue, and how management respond when it is reported; corporate culture and allegations of bullying; whether pilots are encouraged to report flying errors without fear; the relationships between the regulators (IAA, CAA etc) and the airline; and the CAP371 (whether it is being adhered to; whether it is enough to prevent fatigue; and how airlines view it).
I'm extremely grateful, since I know a number of airlines threaten to sack any pilots who talk to the media. Rest assured, any information provided has been, is, and will always be treatest in strictest confidence.
I'd be very grateful if they would get in touch with me again, completely anonymously of course if that's what you'd prefer. Furthermore, I still need to speak to more informed people, to enable me to corroborate / eliminate various lines of inquiry.
Finally, if there are any members of REPA out there, could they get in touch? I'd love to be included in the forums on there, but it is of course limited to pilots at present.
You can either email me: [email protected] or ring me on +44 (0)7769 977665. I'm rarely at my desk, but can pick up emails and calls on my mobile wherever I happen to be.
Best wishes
Ian Shoesmith, BBC News

[sikeano]

Quote from the RT Hon Journo
"I'm extremely grateful, since I know a number of airlines threaten to sack any pilots who talk to the media. Rest assured, any information provided has been, is, and will always be treatest in strictest confidence"
My Lips are Sealed
nuff said :yuk:

[Lemper]

Try this one here under, you might find interesting insight!


http://www.leaonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15327108ijap1601_6

The Psychological Effects of Constant Evaluation on Air line Pilots: An Exploratory Study
Ina Lempereur, Mary Anne Lauri
International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2006, Vol. 16, No. 1, Pages 113-133
(doi: 10.1207/s15327108ijap1601_6)

[Carmoisine]

CAP371 does not apply to any airlines outside the UK Schoey. A small amount of research would have revealed that.

If you want to get in contact with the administrators of repa contact : [email protected]

It is also a violation of Ryanair Pilots contracts to talk to the press.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:
One once had the pleasure of working for an airline whose boss lady once assured one and all that, as her husband had written CAP 371, he was the only man who could interpret it and that, anyway, we were all wrong and that, anyway, if we argued the point further then furthermore, we would be fired!
But one says notheeng more, you understand!:ooh:
Well, perhaps on reflection..only for lots of pesos or gold dollars?:\

[shoey1976]

Apologies for lack of clarity, but as far as I am aware, Ryanair pilots operate to the 100/900 rule?

[Carmoisine]

100/900, I am assuming you mean 100 hrs in 28 days, 900 a year?

There are many subtle differences. I would get in contact with REPA though, it still sounds like you have a lot of research to do.

[shoey1976]

absolutely -- it took a while to plough through 371, and yes, it's well worth talking to REPA. i do appreciate this is an extremely complex area which isn't easy for a layperson to fully understand, which is why I'm extremely grateful for the advice and suggestions received already.
best wishes
Ian

[catflaps]

I trust you are already familiar with the MK Airlines saga. Worth researching the hours worked by the crew prior to the Halifax crash, and the reasons why they were permitted to work those hours. Also worth researching what the CAA/government has done about it since then.

[goshdarnit]

Careful what you say catflaps, comments like that surely border on the libelous, irrespective of anybodies personal opinions. Lawyers (and beancounters) rule the world....:eek:

[mikehammer]

Pointing someone in the direction of an interesting channel of investigation is hardly libelous, surely?

[goshdarnit]

I spend too much time with lawyers at work, clearly, but there does appear to be an implication of wrongdoing by the very nature of the post. One can presume the journo is not doing an investigation because he thinks everything is as it should be, therefore to point him in a certain direction suggests that he will find "bad things" for his piece.
I'll go and sit at the back and be quiet...

GDI

[MrNosy]

How about looking at the new European rules for Flight Time Limitations which we are all going to have to follow in 18 months - you might find some strong views about them. Try to see if you can get some people in the unions and the national aviation authorities to talk to you off the record rather than the PR statement.

[aviationdoc]

Dear Ian,
The Air transport Canada report relating to this incident would provide ample information /lessons to be learnt.
To the lay public the prolonged duty time is almost impossible to comprehend.
Also the fact that the Airline was registered in a country with a rather lax Aviation Authority is another issue.In a similar way that ships are registered in Panama rather than in Western Europe or N.America.
Aviation CME

[shoey1976]

Hi there
From what I understand, the EU-wide regs are intended to be a maximum hours limit, and that member states with existing, lower, limits will not be allowed to let them slip up to the new maximum?
Have I been misinformed? Would be keen to hear your views on this...
Cheers
Ian

[Human Factor]

...that member states with existing, lower, limits will not be allowed to let them slip up to the new maximum?

Anyone who thinks that situation will last more than a couple of years is being naive.

[foxmoth]

A couple of points on this.
The first caveat I would make is that many who send you info on this are going to be the natural whingers who would feel overworked if they were flying one day a week between 9am and 5pm. This is not to say there are not genuine concerns out there, but you do need to sort the wheat fromthe chaff.
my second thought may point to some "wheat", though I have no personal experience here and that is with Ryanair, you say Ryanair pilots operate to the 100/900 rule?. 100/900 rule is good in itself, but it is all the other bits of CAP371 that make it in my view a good, though not perfect, (but a perfect system is probably impossible to achieve) system and I would agree that the new EU regs are what really need looking at.

[aviationdoc]

There is nothing libellious in the Air Transport Canada report.The facts speak for themselves-the crew were tired.
Aviation doctor

[aviationdoc]

Why was the Airline registered in an African country?The CAA in that country has different rules from Europe and N.America.
The Air Transport Canada report makes interesting reading and would be an excellent basis for a TV programme.

[Ignition Override]

MerlinXX:
The accident at NAS Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was the first by which the NTSB found the fortitude to describe crew fatigue as the primary cause. This was years before the MD-83 tragedy at LIT.

Because the LIT accident involved passenger fatalities at the end of a long duty day, the FAA was forced to deal with the fact that 'their' FARs (created by the FAA) had never required a flight crewmember on repeated standby/reserve duty days to have a designated rest period. A pilot could make a guess as to when he/she might be on duty, but could never be sure with some companies. If they stayed awake in the day time, they could still be called at 2100 for an all-night flight to Cuba or anywhere else.
With a long Part 91 ferry flight attached to a 14-hour Part 121 duty period, the 91 period was not considered part of THE duty period, and so crewmembers often were abused by their employers for 20 hours or much more, all with no rest period. It might have begun after only 5 hours sleep.

Why would our beloved FAA be called "the Tombstone Agency"? How many dead people are there, or will there need to be, in order to require costly changes in the regulations, or new xyz equipment for a Part 121 airline (maybe not for Part 135 or 91....the public will forget in a few days after the crash)? Notice that the Gitmo Bay crash led to no basic changes in regulations, did it?

The LIT accident was years later, and was the catalyst for change because people-not crewmembers-were on board and died.

At ' Gitmo Bay' it was not a Fedex jet. The DC-8 (Fedex never had them) which cartwheeled was operated by part of Connie Kallitta's freight airline. The main hub has always been Willow Run (YIP) in Ypsilanti, MI, which is part of the Detroit area. By the way, pilots who flew Kallita Learjets almost never declared an emergency when an engine flamed out-they simply told ATC that they needed lower (NOW) and restarted the engine.

They were afraid of losing their jobs.
Pilots with some other smaller freight airlines were also quite reluctant to declare an emergency with ATC, unless absolutely necessary, i.e. 'allegedly' a DC-6 engine fire.

Na ja....

[captjns]

I agree, the GITMO accident was a result of an excessively long duty day. The LIT accident was veiled by stupidity and arrogance demonstrated by the captain, who with the "Complete the Mission" attitude commenced the approach into severe weather conditions, after being questioned by a new F/O.

[John Farley]

Ian
The difficulty with raising a civil aviation safety issue (in any context from yours to inside design or regulatory offices) is that civil aviation is statistically very safe.

Given that flying is inherently dangerous, the fact of this safety is remarkable - indeed I don’t think it has a parallel in any other risky human activity (surgery, road travel etc).

However a TV programme that investigated what lay behind the safety - not the risks - of air travel would clearly not attract many viewers among the general public.

So you have a problem with balance.

How about this for an angle:

The safety we enjoy today is the result of the inherent risks of aviation having been very well dealt with in the past by all concerned (designers, regulators and operators) and there is no reason to suppose all aspects of this successful endeavour will not continue into the future. BUT, and it is a big BUT, there seems to be a NEW safety THREAT emerging which only arises BECAUSE of this successful past which has allowed civil aviation to become a commodity in the literal sense of the word. This commodity is in danger of being exploited by managers who are too young to remember when aviation was not safe. These people (perhaps rather naturally) take safety as a given and just try and improve the bottom line by cost cutting

Enter the threat of crew fatigue…………………….

JF

[u0062]

I would be interested to know why you are concentrating on the low cost Airlines.
I work for the National Dutch carrier cityhopper,The cap371 and the new proposed european FTL is much more restrictive than our FTL.
We are legally allowed to work a 16 hour day,Reduced rest is as little as 7.5 hours.
The flight safety department a few years back produced a graph to demonstrate how detrimental the different types of FTL were. KLM was by far the most challenging

[Wig Wag]

JF, you have, as ever, hit the nail on the head.

As an airline Captain I have had to deal with the following:

* Being personally told by my Fleet Manager to defer technical effects to the last sector of the day to improve time keeping.

* Giving my First Officer a shove because he dropped off on the climb out from Heathrow.

As a First Officer I had to deal with:

* Landing (with 326 POB) off a non precision approach in the Caribbean, 2 hours 57 minutes into discretion, when my Captain claimed he was too exhausted to continue.

* Being harassed in the Flight Deck by my Fleet Manager to extend duty hours.

All of the above were safety threats. We might term them latent errors in the system. The academic importance of them would be explained by Prof. James Reason as holes in the swiss cheese that are waiting to line up and cause an accident. The job of an airline crew is to monitor the overall operation and thwart the events that might make the aforementioned holes line up.

Pilots at the sharp end fully understand this working practice. It's our survival mechanism to make sure we never leave a little back door open that could embarrass us.

This role is made a lot more difficult when you are very, very tired and working in climate of perceived fear from the management.

The problem is that the managers don't see that they have a role to play in preventing the holes in the Swiss cheese lining up. If they sweat the crews to the maximum and give discreet little hints that they want time keeping improved OR ELSE it wouldn't really enter in to their psyche that they might compound a situation such as low fuel, bad weather and wheels that don't retract on the go around at the end of the day . . .

The same minor incident can occur a hundred times without threat. However, keep operating with that ' aft fuel pump inop', factor in an inexperienced First Officer, a tired out Captain, a tricky diversion and some other random factor and you have an accident waiting to happen. THEN it becomes important that the crew should have snagged the defect and insisted it was rectified.

Of course, commercial aviation is statistically very safe these days and there hasn't been a major accident in Britain for a long time. However, a total hull loss is a frightful thing to deal with.

However, the experienced guys at the sharp end know the envirnoment has become a lot more hostile in recent years.

I don't believe there is any political will whatsoever to deal with this problem. The great British public have quite a high tolerance to risk when offered cheap flights. For ten quid well, you would go wouldn't you?

However, if some of the industries senior people could articulate the problem some progress could be made. The alternative of waiting for the evidence is insupportable to those of us in the know.

Regards,

WW

[Piltdown Man]

What we are allowed to do is very different from what we actually end up doing. We also have the backing of a good union(s), Chief Pilots that you can actually talk to and generally reasonable rosters that can be flown. Personally, I don't think we have too much to worry about when you compare our position with others. And then we have the calling in "unfit for duty" which you MUST do if you are. We have many subjects which need discussion with the company but (IMO) having to fly when you are too knackered is not one of them.

PM.

[PAXboy]

Pax speaking. I think that Wig Wag says it all. I have seen exactly that kind of behaviour from management but I have had the good fortune to work in telecommunications and when the system ground to a halt - it was still sitting comfortably on the floor of the equipment room. It is rather easier to fix something when you can stop for a cup of tea ...

In general commerce, I have seen management (both IT and general) move from a stance of:
Let us prevent problems occuring. Let us maintain equipment and train staff so that our operation runs smoothly.
To one that is harsh and unforgiving and short sighted:
Let us cut back on routine maintenance to save money and just fix things when they break. It is cheaper to apologise to the customer and give them a voucher.
Perhaps this sounds familiar to those in the airlines?

In the past 20 years I have seen several examples of UK management allowing safety to slide until it actually falls. Here are two prominent ones where, after the event, it came to light that brave staff had spoken up and warned the company that they were, to use an old fashioned nautical term, "Standing into danger".
Herald of Free Enterprise. Ro-Ro ferry 6th March 1987. Dead: 193
Kings Cross Tube fire. 18th November 1987. Dead: 31

Having followed this debate from the outset (and having a nephew who is a commercial pilot outside of the UK) I have long since come to the conclusion that UK and Irish airline business' are, Standing into danger. I expect a hull loss sooner not later.

[RAT 5]

The Swiss Cheese and James Reason are once again quoted. A fine expample and one which is discussed at every CRM course I've been on. Pilots are often the last slice in the cheese. A fundamental charateristic of a good airman is to anticipate the traps and avoid them. Remember the old adage that 'a skillful pilot is one who avoids the scenarios where they need their skills to cope with it.'
We attend these CRM courses because it is legal we do so. IMHO they would not be run if not legally required; non revenue generating cost. Management speak with great pride about the safety culture of their airline. "We ain't had a crash so we are 100% safe." Why, oh Why do they then operate with the complete opposite philosophy to our CRM teachings. They do not want to anticipate problems and be procative. That will cost money and they may never happen; so it would have been a waste of money. They let the holes line up and hope the crews will act as the final safety net they are; and boy, do they make even that difficult at times.

CRM = Company Resource Management = All the links in the Chain.

There are too many weak links at the top end and it is the stong links at the tail end; ops, engineering, distaptch, flight crew and others, who sort out the dros sent downstairs.

When was the last time anyone even close to management was sited as contributory to a crash/incident? Occaisionally a 'culture' is commented on, but even then it has not been nailed as the cause. It was sited as being unhelpful, but the crews and others should have been able to cope. I wonder how many near misses there were, due to the 'culutre', before the final smoking hole.

[Dried ears]

However a TV programme that investigated what lay behind the safety - not the risks - of air travel would clearly not attract many viewers among the general public.


I'm not sure I agree. IF the program was advertised on a BBC channel in a shocking manner citing safety threats, claiming our pilots are all too tired to fly these days I'm quite sure the general public would watch with interest. The question is what will be the headline, and what evidence will the programme actually reveal?

I'd be interested to know how many actually came froward thus far with facts, if only a few, then of course the programme will have a poor content and less interest, however I think it's too simple to say that the general public, as opposed to the aviation industry, won't watch.

[AC-DC]

I know that this was not asked, however, a friend of mine used to be a busjet pilot. He flew 750h in 6 months and in one instance that I know of he was on duty for 20h non stop. He is no more as he worked himself to death.

[delwy]

Which, of course, raises the issue of whether the responsibility for his situation lay with himself or with somebody else.

If you can say no, and should say no, then it is up to the individual. The individual has clear responsibilities, as per his licence.

If you cannot say no, but should say no, then it is about the operator and the safety regulator. Everybody has responsibilities in this case, most especially the latter two.

The difference between both cases is the proper focus of an independent and non-hysterical examination.

[carholme]

WigWag;
Can you or any of the other crews operating under the conditions you describe, tell me if your company operates under a Transportation Ministry which has embodied a self regulated safety system. Here in Canada we are moving ahead with SMS (Safety Management Systems) which in theory will allow safety concerns from within all areas of the company to be met and dealt with by company management. As well, in each company, there is an appointed Accountable Executive who. presumably, will have to answer for all safety concerns within the company.
They are even trying to enact a whistleblower protection scheme to force action.
There is real concern about this issue here as to whether it will be effective or is just another government ministry downloading of it's responsibilities, let alone what whistleblowing problems may arise.

Regards
carholme

[Thrush]

http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/zteam/fcp/pubs/GB.Abstract.html

This a thread which details the sleep/wake/duty pattern leading up to the Guantanamo Bay crash.

Seems VERY familiar to me, as I'm sure it will to many others in our industry.

The CAP371 hours do seem to be treated as a target by my lot but the botttom line is that the great unwashed expect to fly for very little money, thanks to the likes of Easy and Ryanair, and consequently have dragged our profession into the gutter, along with the lifestyle we have all worked so hard to achieve over the years.

The number of times a Sharm or other Middle East flight is rostered exactly on the allowed FDP is amazing - and 9 times out of 10 we have to use discretion or we'd have to land at somewhere on the way back each time and rest for 10 hours which would not go down well, either in flight ops, with the pax or with the domestic manager who's cooked a nice roast....

Hike the fares back up and let's all get back to normal.

Thrush

[upandoffmyside]

The effect of time pressure on the operational safety of intense short-haul multi-sector operations could do with a good examination.

Anyone else seen a major jet operator arrive next door on stand, throw the passengers off, chuck the next load on, then pushback and go ?

All in 10 minutes or so and without a standard pre-departure external aircraft examination by anyone.....

[oskar]

What i would like to see researched is bullying within this company, there are to many management style people withinn the company that feel that they can intimadate, humiliate and cause undue stress to there workers. I also believe that contracts and treatment towards these contracts should be investigated. We all understood what we were suppose to get, but the annoying part is that when you either get promotion from second officer to first officer and captain they try to reduce your terms or do not give you a contract for months. they say you have to wait till april 1st, example you start with the company as a cadet in may, you finish line training in november and you do not get second officer contract till december, you then have 12 months probation in the company until the following december but you wont get your first officer contract till april the following year. It is soul destroying, I have known pilots and cabin crew who are deeply in debt and have to sleep in cars, missing mortgage payments, owing thousands on credit cards to live. This company has to be investigated, by someone that has b**ls and guts. I urge cadets and all pilots please please be very carefull when you consider a move to ryanair. Look at other possiblities such as sponsorship with other small or even companies like easy,flybe thomson. If you have lots of money to spend and are wealthy when then you have nothing to loose in ryanair, its aircraft are brilliant and the procedures and safety is good, but think in the back of your mind how the managers and mol make remarks about everybody from gordon brown to british airways and even there pilots and crew, but when some other party investigates them they get very very very upset.

[Tinribs]

Many of you are quoting the CAA avoidance of fatigue document as if it were a set of rules, this is factually incorrect

In order to obtain an air operators certificate, licence to operate, each ailine submits to the CAA a set of manuals containing the rules it intends to use in governing flight activities these rules may of may not be the same as those in the CAA documnt

The CAA then grants airlines an operators certificate against the proposed rules

Essentially the CAA document is irrelevant to crews because it does not govern their activities unless their company happens to use it exactly as published, none do

To discover what actually happens in airlines you need to examine the manual of the airline concerned

Hold tight

[Kit d'Rection KG]

unless their company happens to use it exactly as published, none do

Err, that would be wrong, I'm afraid... The number of variations is astonishing too...

[RAT 5]

One of the biggest problems, IMHO, is the classic conflict of interest the various CAA's have. Not only they obliged to police the rules they make, they also decide upon the commercial viability of the very companies who pay their income. Stick rigidly to the rules and a company may not survive in harsh times. (I've flown with various companies who asked for dispensations to limits to overcome difficulties of their own making.) That strands huge numbers of pax, dumps loads of people onto the job market, reduces the income of the 'AA' and generally inconveniences huge numbers of people.
A blind eye for a short period might avert the commercial fallout. Once that is done the relaxation of the rules becomes the norm for that company. Rules are bent everyday, constantly. In general the 'AA's monitor paperwork. In every airline I've worked for the annual audit has only flushed out record keeping and other paperwork errors. Working conditions being outside the guidelines not even noticed or reviewed. In other words, a joke. The "AA's put far too much self regulation on the airlines. An airline applies for an AOC under a raft of proposals. The spectrum is massive. As long as they appear to follow the general guidelines it is approved. Often the terminology is so vague it can be interpreted different ways on different days. Flexibility? Yes. Abuse? Also.

Remember Valujet. The NTSB ridiculed the FAA for having excatly this same conflict of interest in its oversight. It procalimed that the 2 issues, commercialism and operational standards MUST BE DIVIDED. I'm not sure if it ever happened, but it sure as hell ain't been approached in EU. It's about time!!

[MarkD]

A system where company officials were forbidden at pain of prosecution to make requests of crew to extend except in writing (delivered in person on flt deck) or by fax (at remote bases) might be a good thing - then there is a chain of evidence to back up investigations of overuse of the discretion principle using verbal demands which can't be discovered in an audit.

[Proof Reader]

JF
"there seems to be a NEW safety THREAT emerging which only arises BECAUSE of this successful past which has allowed civil aviation to become a commodity in the literal sense of the word. This commodity is in danger of being exploited by managers who are too young to remember when aviation was not safe. These people (perhaps rather naturally) take safety as a given and just try and improve the bottom line by cost cutting."

Well said, that man! This rings so true to so many of us, not especially in aviation - Police Service (previously the un-PC "Force"), Education and NHS - all of whom have "managers" who did not come up through the ranks but obtained some sort of degree which was assumed gave them magical powers but who, in their ignorance, had an ability to cut corners and costs. The result - a crime-ridden society with a ham-strung no police visibility, kids leaving school who are unable to read or count and an NHS where you have to wait 5 hours plus in an A&E department and hope you don't have to get admitted as you are likely to contract some nasty disease because of uncleaned wards.

[YesTAM]

There are two issues here that i think are conflated.

1. The "double bind" problem where your company has an "Oh so Good" operations manual with all I's dotted and T's crossed, but an internal culture, perhaps of duty hours and time pressure and bullying, that encourages pilots to break the requirements of the operations manual, punishing those who don't, and rewarding those that do.

To put it another way, requiring absolute obedience to the Ops Manual but at the same time requiring absolute time keeping accuracy and punishing those who cannot achieve this for whatever reason, including adherence to the rules.

Under such circumstances, if you break the rules the company will hang you out to dry, pointing to their rules. Telling the judge you broke the rules in the interests of company profitability will not get you very far.

2. The "race to the bottom " issue where terms and conditions are being gradually squeezed, with the connivance of the regulators. This results in increasing workloads and fatigue and a gradual dumbing down, as the numbers of high quality people prepared to accept these working conditions decreases.

We will find out where the "bottom" is when not one, but four or five accidents in a relatively short period are found to have been caused by (1) combined with (2).

[PAXboy]

Yes, YesTAM, I agree but the people conniving at the breaking of rules now can still influence the fall out from the prangs. Whilst the various 'AA's do not investigate, they are the ones (nominally) running the show and can help spin dirt away from facts.

There are many on these forums who think that - when the prangs happen - fatique is going to be very hard to prove for the same reason that has protected the guilty in years past, the people with fatique get to the prang first.

[YesTAM]

Yup! The company will primly sit on its hands and quote its manuals to the judge and there won't be anyone who will tell him otherwise....about what really happens.

[Wig Wag]

Ian,

1. Have you now completed your research?

2. What type of television programme will be broadcast?

3. When will it be broadcast?

Thanks,

WW

[MrBernoulli]

Perhaps Ian is busy following up all the leads and documents suggested in the posts here?

Whatever programme you do produce Ian, please please don't dumb it down for the benefit of your 'expected' audience. The BBC has noticeably lowered its sights with respect to target audiences with a lot of stuff recently. (Even the Breakfast news on TV has become like GMTV - who gives a **** about whether some has-been soap star is doing well on some pathetic dancing or skating TV show. Inane, trivial nonsense!).

If you can get your head round the issues then please present them clearly and succintly but don't dumb down. Don't assume that your viewing public won't understand what your digging into, give (most of) them some credit for being intellectual and let them make up their own minds. The 'Sun' and 'News of the World' readers won't watch anyway so don't pitch it at that level with some sensationalist clap-trap. If this really is about investigating the aviation industry then remember the intellectuall level of the pilots and others here who are giving you the steers you have asked for.

And finally, to the folk who cited the MK halifax accident much further up this thread, remember it is easy to point the finger at operators who register outside Europe. However, this from that very accident report:

"Italy - After the accident, an Italian-registered company was found to have an approved duty time limitation scheme with a maximum allowable duty period for an augmented crew, consisting of three pilots (in an aircraft equipped with an inertial navigation system), of 24 hours and a maximum of six sectors."

This stuff can happen under you very own nose.

[shoey1976]

Hi all
Just to let you know that I am currently sifting through all of the replies and posts made. I'm also working on another story at the moment, so it's taking a little longer than I'd have liked.
As for how and when anything will be aired -- it's too early to say, and a great deal more information and research is needed.
Best wishes
Ian

[shoey1976]

Dear all

Many of you will be familiar with me by now, but for the benefit of everybody else please let me introduce myself: My name's Ian Shoesmith and I'm a BBC journalist researching safety standards in the UK and Irish aviation industry.

I've received some extremely interesting responses which are really helping to build up a picture of what it's like for some professionals working in the industry today.

Naturally, I'm very aware of your concerns about speaking to journalists without authorisation from your employer. Rest assured that we take this very seriously and will respect any request to speak confidentially. Its something we do quite often, and the BBC's reputation stands or falls on the way in which we treat our contributors. We do not disclose details of those people who have spoken to us 'off the record'.

To date, a couple of themes have emerged: FTLs and fatigue; and workplace culture (whether crews feel comfortable raising concerns, admitting mistakes etc).

I would be very grateful if those who got in touch with me before would do so again - and use the same "codeword". There have been several of you, and I have some follow up questions.

Equally, I'm keen to find out whether these are the only people who have concerns about long flying hours, fatigue and difficulty in reporting fatigue. If you have personal experience, please get in touch, with as many details as you feel you can - such as dates, and whether it put you or others at risk. If you leave a contact number or email address I can get back to you directly and explain more about what we are doing.

Best wishes

Ian Shoesmith
[email protected]
+44 (0)7769 977665

[Selac66]

'Its something we do quite often, and the BBC's reputation stands or falls on the way in which we treat our contributors.'
Are you serious? It's gone...

[URL="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739"]

[merlinxx]

Here, here. They should remember who pays the cheque through the licence fee!!!

[waffler]

Surely the fact that you are afraid of your identity being discovered is proof that something rotten is going on in certain airlines. Here is your chance to stand up and do something about it instead of cowering in the corner and hoping everything will magically fix itself.Here is an opportunity to do more than bitch in the bar or cockpit. If you are working for certain airlines where you know, as professionals, that what is being done is wrong then help shine some light on the darkness. :D

[LH2]

Hi there Shoey,

just one thing I've been wondering about... while I can see how a programme about the health & safety implications of fatigue in the flying industry could be of public interest, I am a bit puzzled by the lack of reaction by you or any other journalists regarding the various allegations which have been made respect to the changes last summer to "security procedures" across (well, more or less) the continent.

Surely wouldn't that be of much more concern and relevance to the public at large, flying as well as non-flying, than the story you are currently following? I am not suggesting that you start a new investigation, or blaming anyone for not doing it, or anything like that. I am genuinely wondering why has this particular subject not generated any noticeable interest amongst your colleagues in the press?

/lh2

[PAXboy]

yesTAMYup! The company will primly sit on its hands and quote its manuals to the judge and there won't be anyone who will tell him otherwise....about what really happens.There is a fascinating example of this in the BBC today. Looking at the undercover surveillance of Barclays Bank.

The reporter working undercover in the bank says: One manager admitted that the bank's "Additions" accounts are one of the "most mis-sold" products in the bank. Additions' accounts can cost around £150 a year, in exchange for which the customer gets a range of benefits.
[edit]
Just a few weeks ago Barclays announced record profits of £7 billion.

In response to our allegations Barclays Bank said: "We are not in the business of encouraging or condoning mis-selling or inappropriate sales in any way whatsoever, and we stamp on that when we find it because it is completely inappropriate behaviour for a bank. We pride ourselves on being a responsible institution that puts its customers first." It added: "People know we are a good bank, we're trustworthy, we do the right thing, we treat people with respect.

Yes, the big boys will "primly sit on its hands and quote its manuals to the judge and there won't be anyone who will tell him otherwise."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6476155.stm

[maxalt]

Channel 4 did one of these 'revelation' type programs already, and it was an embarrassment.
RTE television also did a piece on an investigative news program called Prime Time in which several Ryanair pilots gave anonymous interviews. The reaction from the public and the print media in Ireland was to call the whole story an invention because the whistle blowers kept their faces hidden.

I wish Mr.Shoesmith good luck, but sadly doubt any TV program would carry weight, or make any real difference. It'll take dead bodies - and even then it's a slim chance things would change.

[Orangputi]

Hi Just thought I would like to add my bit,

What amazes me is that such great (worthwhile) attention is given to the issue without any thought of other aviation professionals. I can only speak from a maintenance perspective and I do not want to create an 'us and them' mentality at all. These issues for the pilots are more than valid and require urgent attention from the authorities. However engineering is nothing but a discrace in terms of excessive working hours and so forth. It is quite common for guys to constantly work 70 hour weeks. So what I am saying it is all well and good having well rested and CRM compliant professionals in the flight deck, but if the guy rigging your primary flight controls is in his 18th hour on the job and constantly works excessive hours and severly fatigued and stressed it adds to the safety equation.

I for one feel that aircraft engineering is in a major crisis in terms of severe skill and experience shortages. Let's face it who wants to do it when you live at work, train for years and years for very little.To train a pilot and put him in the right seat just a couple of years an engineer that is working on large aircraft 10 years is not enough. It is important to note that maintenance errors are on the rise where mechanical failure overcome flight into terrain (CFIT) as the biggest airline killer in 2003, according to Flight International magazines 2003 annual safety review and a significant number of these mechanical failures resulted from maintenance mistakes (Learmount, 2004). It was easy in the past to blame the pilot in airline accidents as he was not around to defend him/herself, however there is evidence that maintenance related errors may have had a major bearing on previous well known cases.

Sorry for rambling just thought I would widen the scope of the discussion.

[CONF iture]

You bring up here a very valid point "Orangputi", and, as lately mentioned by "FlightDetent" on another topic, there have been occasions when flight controls, after maintenance, were linked back ... at the opposite.
It is one thing to do a mistake, but it is another not to follow the procedure which should allow you to catch it.
... Is it coming from overconfidence, nonchalance, ... or tireness ?

[shoey1976]

Just to say thanks very much to everybody who's got in touch with me regarding fatigue, how much of a problem you find it to be, and how your airline deals with it. A number of you have given me some very interesting information, which I'm examing as we speak. Still very keen to speak to others though, on the usual number +44 (0)7769 977665, email [email protected], or private message. Will obviously maintain strictest of confidence.
Best wishes
Ian

[oryx arse]

dear ian!
great that you are looking in to this,mayby you would like to investigate the role of cabin crew in air safety aswell.
currently several airlines fly to uk(mainly from middle east)
with cabin staff doing over 100per month,and definitely more than 900per year.
minimum rest at base,travel to and from work or "reporting" time not included!
and during the mont of ramadan,fasting..no water, no food..that is your captain on aproach to heathrow!:ooh:

[Orangputi]

Sorry about my late reply.:confused:

I regards to your comments. I sadly do not think it is over-confidence or bravado, quite the opposite (this is again in a maintenance perspective). The skill shortages, reduced training times (imagine 4-5 weeks for an entire 777 course with engine). What is being created is an over worked (excessive hours due skill shortages) inexperienced group of professionals. These guys are thrust in the deep end making decisions on airworthiness in which often they are not ready for. I may sound like an old BA engineer or Qantas engineer (which I am) but quite frankly the training now is nowhere near the depth and strength of past days. Also with regards to digital aircraft it breeds digital thinking, in that the ability to troubleshoot and think laterally is lost, the analogue aircraft allowed this.

Sorry I know it is off the track of a pilot forum, but airworthiness issues such as these should concern our guys in the flight deck as it is the passengers and their necks on the line at the end of the day!

I remember telling a pilot before a test flight after a maintenance check that I was not coming with him ''sorry I dont do test flights anymore" and he just looked at me grim faced!

Cheers:=

[PAXboy]

Orangputi did you stop going on test flights because you had had a bad experience or because mgmt had stopped you? Perhaps it was 'not productive' and they need you to work on the next machine? i.e. Money

[CONF iture]

I feel sorry Orangputi I was not understood the way I wanted to.
I probably did not express it correctly, ... my mistake.
So just to mention I absolutely share your concern, and talking with you guys is always very instructive.
To the moderator:
I would appreciate you let us know the reason you did edit my last post ?
It was just a legitimate questioning on the BBC supposed integrity, in relation to the early Selec66 post and its link.

[RatherBeFlying]

Just a reminder that workplace e-mails are commonly archived and can be searched.

Also your employer can at any time decide to examine the data on your workplace computer.

Any discovery of communications to reporters without approval of the higher ups is not good for your career; so, do it from home or an internet cafe.

[MD11Engineer]

Concerning fatique among Engineers, it is not so bad in my current job (an Eurpean low cost carrier). We have a second shift, which can take over when we go home and they make sure that we don't exceed regular working hours by too much. Also this airline's quality assurance department is quite strict and correct (at least for engineers).
It was really bad with a previous employer, a big American cargo airline. Since they were only flying at night, we didn't have a day shift.
They also had the policy "who finds a snag fixes it", no matter how long it took. For them paying overtime was cheaper than having a standby day shift in place. I remember on several occasions having worked 30+ hous shifts with rarely a break inbetween.
Obviously the working hours directive applies to us too, but it seems that pilots stick more together than us engineers. At least whereever I worked before, there were always some mercenary types with a contractor mentality for whom any overtime was good, and who liked to show off by how long they could work ("Somebody has to do it!")
Obviously if you refused to work these overlong shifts, the management would say "if this guy can do it, you can as well".
Though EASA rules say that if you feel unwell to work, you are not allowed to work, you better do not do it too often, because else the boss will find a way to get rid of you.
IMO it is just the same as having pressure put on to pencilwhip snags, at some point you'll have to make a stand, but the lack of solidarity in our profession, mainly through the mercenary types. makes it much harder, because in the end the boss will often find somebody who is willing to break the rules, just to get the plane out and save the company $$$.
Also, aircraft maintence is one of the few professions, where the good workers are being punishes by being called in for AOGs and overtime. It is rarely the sloppy, lazy workers who get called in if a plane goes AOG,but those who have proven that they can troubleshoot and fix problem efficiently.
So the lazy guy get their weekend off, while the good guy has to come in and work.

[brownstar]

Ian
I think one of the problems that the flight time limitations highlight is the lack of any consultation with pilots or crews. Even given the limits as they are now shouldn't be extended. Studies have shown that cummulative rest deprevation can result in reaction and cognitive functions equivilant to that of someone who is intoxicated. So at the end of a week of long days the folks at the front are about as sharp as the locals spilling out of the nightclubs at 2 in the morning. If you want an objective view and to make a real difference then why not enlist the help of some locost pilots, conduct a study backed by some recognised medical authority, CAA Medical at Gatwick perhaps, strap them up to some machines. do some cognitive tests before, during and after there flights. follow there progress for some weeks, then come to some conclusions. You may then end up with a hard hitting item which may lead to a change. Please do this subject some justice, not like the channel 4 documentary which was a golden oppertunity missed.
I hope you are looking at a serious item that will encorage worthy discussion and bring about change , not just something that after one days exposure will be regarded as yesterdays news.
Good luck!

[shoey1976]

Hi brownstar
Yep, I've certainly read about the alcohol equivalence to chronic fatigue ... and the scary-sounding fact that LEGAL fatigue levels proposed under subpart Q of JAR Ops is equivalent to above the UK motoring drink-drive limits (or four times the UK aviation limits).
A lot of this evidence is already in the public domain, so I'm not sure about repeating this methodology for our programme, since we can get interviews with the experts who supervised them.
As I think I've said already, what I need to do is prove that pilots are flying more hours than ever before (one estimate I've been given is that it's 30% higher than it was a decade ago) but I don't have the hard stats, and they're proving difficult to obtain. any ideas, anybody?
the same's the case for getting accident / incident stats with a proven fatigue link. i know it's commonplace for pilots not to report fatigue post-incident (for entirely understandable reasons!!), so this is making it quite difficult. Again, anybody in the know with smart ideas of how to get this information - I'd love to speak to you.
Best wishes
Ian Shoesmith
BBC News
[email protected]
+44 (0)7769 977665

[brownstar]

Ian
Perhaps if you got pilots to give you copies of their rosters, flight duties, etc dating back a few years or just gave you a summary of their months work /weeks work . you could comapre the likes of say air berilin and thier national flag carrier, ba short haul easy jet and ryanair , virgin,aer lingus and ba longhaul,emerits, cathy, singapore.
you would need to look at them over a number of years.
would that be of any use to you?
what about if you could say get a member of the public to follow the waking routine and activity pattern of a pilot put them in a decompression chamber, put the pressure to equate to that of an aircraft, similar sights, noise ,vibration levels, give them mental tasks to carry out and see how they feel after a week.
People as passengers on longer flights normally get off the aircraft feeling tired from the inactivity and the aircraft environment just from one flight. They should bear in mind that we get that feeling everyday we fly.

[shoey1976]

Hi there
I've sent further requests for information from about a dozen of you by private message - I'd be very grateful if you could get in touch as soon as possible please.
I'd also very much still like to hear from anybody else with specific, first-hand accounts of fatigue; incidents related to it; management responses to it; and your views of CAP371 / subpart Q / existing FTLs.
If there is anything which concerns you, something which you believe the public should know about, please don't assume somebody else will get in touch with me.
As ever, any information provided will be treated in the strictest confidence.
Best wishes
Ian Shoesmith
BBC News
[email protected]
+44 (0)7769 977665

[RAT 5]

Regarding working more than some years ago: I saw the proposed JAA annual duty limit is 2000 hours. I see that that the old Irish annual limit was 1780hrs. Thats an increase of 5 weeks more work. 2000hrs over a period of 47 weeks (allowing for leave, and a couple of other days off) = 42.5 hrs p.w. Why do we who operate in a closed tiny box, with reduced oxygen, with reduced humidity, with little or no physical motion worse than a prison cell for upto 12 hours stretches, with no regular break away from the work station, ever changing sleep patterns-sometimes at short notice-, changing time zones, constant deprivation of proper sleep, very reduced family enviroment, little chance of extra-work activities due no chance of achieving a stable roster with repetitive periods off, constant battering by hostile management,
why should we be subjected to a longer working week than those molli-coddled on the ground?
I've had it asked of me by crewing, when my duty has changed from a mid afternoon to a night period, "what's the problem with nights, you are a pilot?"
The self control exercised went beyond anything taught on a CRM course.

[aeroconejo]

A lot of good stuff in here.....will pm Ian with some ideas

aero;)

[Superpilot]

10 Years Ago (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/173370.stm)

[IcePack]

In my Company a Pilot (Now Retired) Refused a duty as he would have been up for 20 hrs before even taking off. Got a letter on his file (for 6 Mths) for his trouble.
Flight Safety? what's That!

[Cold Soak]

Ian, I don't know if this has been mooted already but I was just reflecting on your comment about pilots not reporting fatigue related incidents because of the so called "Blame Culture" within certain airlines. There is an anonymous reporting medium known as CHIRPS: Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme by which, by definition, anyone can report incidents without negative comeback. I'm certain that you would find fatigue related incidents reported here: http://www.chirp.co.uk/main/Aviation.htm
Good luck.
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

After a few minutes of looking I found this. Don't know if it's what you're looking for since there is no EVENT associated with it but it's interesting nonetheless:


From: Air Transport FEEDBACK 72 Issued Autumn 2004 page 6


REPORT TIMES
Article:
No particular event. I have concerns that my Company does not take the issue of pilot fatigue seriously. As far as I am aware CAP 371 INTENDS a rolling duty hour limit of 55 hours without the interference of the definition of a week. The Company I believe is moving towards a 60-hour rolling limit. The Company has introduced a fatigue survey in an effort to demonstrate its concern but at the same time allows no credit for the actual time conscientious pilots normally check in for a flight in order to obtain flight plans, weather etc and brief adequately. In particular no credit is given for training flights in this respect for briefing and debriefing. These problems are made worse by inadequate briefing facilities and very limited access to company and aircraft manuals which are shared on computers which cabin crew use for hotmail.

Comment:
CAP 371 - Fourth Edition, which must be incorporated in operators' Approved FTL schemes by not later than 1 April 2006, specifies that the maximum duty hours for flight crew, excepting helicopters, shall not exceed 55 hours in any consecutive seven days, except in specific circumstances involving unforeseen delays. CAA (SRG) is in discussions with the operator with a view to increasing the report time for crews undergoing line training.

[Cold Soak]

This one's a little more juicy:


From: Air Transport FEEDBACK 72 Issued Autumn 2004 page 6


ROSTER INSTABILITY
Article:
During the turnround at ### (Mediterranean destination) the aircraft was refuelled and boarded. I had a niggling doubt about the fuel load being wrong. The inbound and outbound flight times and distances were similar yet the fuel was much lower. After boarding and door closure I realised that the PLOG EZFW (Pilot Log Estimated Zero Fuel Weight) was 20 TONNES LIGHT. Why hadn't I noticed? Why had it taken so long to realise? Embarrassingly, the refueller had to be recalled after obtaining new figures. Off duty at UK base at 0100Z. The next day's duty had originally been SBY 1200-1800, this had changed to SBY 1600-2200 on check-in for the above flight and then again changed to a 1300Z ### (Mediterranean destination) on check-out. The next day on checking delays, I'm informed that I'm now doing a night ### (Canary Islands) at 1600Z leaving (again) no time for rest. The following day then became a rest day. Following the rest day, my rostered night sectors were again changed due to my high hours. This Company constantly changes rosters with no regard for fatigue. I put the above refuelling incident down to long term fatigue.

Comment:
An analysis of CHIRP reports on the topic of roster instability has shown a significant increase in 2003 and a further increase in the first nine months of this year. In some of the cases reported recently, individuals' duties were changed repeatedly from those originally rostered, often to maintain their flying/duty hours within the maximums permitted. The attention of CAA (SRG) FOD has been drawn to these rostering practices. Notwithstanding this, we are interested to confirm whether the increase in CHIRP reports received this year is indicative of an increasing problem of roster instability in some sectors of the industry, and would welcome additional reports/information on this issue.

[Orangputi]

Hi Cold Soak,

Interesting posts. However the main point with all this is the lack of regulation for the gross uncertaintity for roster changes. Not only does this place alot of pressure on ones home life, it affects people by disturbing ones sleep patterns. Due to this short notice changes it makes the shiftwork component of the professional a hell of a lot worse.

Employers should be penalised with regards to these short notice roster changes (which seems to be the norm to cope with industry skill shortages and the bean counters ever present bottom line!). The best way to do it is not through money for the pilot in question, but through a flying hour penalty that allows the pilot to fly less hours for the month due to the disruption and maintain the equivalent flight pay and allowances.

Why should the pilot be disadvantaged through the obvious short comings of the rostering department and the company employment policies. Easier to have less pilots and stuff them around to the maximum to fill in the gaps left by the shortage of personnel!

Cheers

[shoey1976]

just to say thanks to everybody who's got in touch with me re this posting - I'm working my way through the responses and will be in touch.
Ian

[Paris Hilton]

US carriers.

18/8/93 American International DC-8. Guantanamo bay.
1/6/99 AA1420. Little Rock, AR.
6/7/02 Fedex B-727. Tallahassee, FL.

Also 5/96 Valujet in FL. (Maintenance personnel fatigue.)
Korean Air B-747 at Guam.

http://www.ntsb.gov/