Your help needed: BBC News questionnaire on flying hours

[shoey1976]

Dear all

As before, please let me introduce myself: My name's Ian Shoesmith and I am a BBC News journalist who is examining the recent and continuing massive growth in short-haul aviation.

As part of my research, I'd like to know more about the conditions in which pilots are operating. We'd like commercial airline pilots only please, to click on the following link: http://www.pprune.org/Fatigue_questionnaire_4.doc and complete the questionnaire on pilots' hours, fatigue and aviation safety.

The results will be taken in aggregate, and may be used in any BBC programme.

As with all emails, private messages, texts and phone calls, any information provided will be in strictest confidence and will not be divulged to anybody outside of the BBC.

Many thanks in anticipation

Ian

[shoey1976]

Just to add: I forgot to thank Danny Fyne at PPRuNe for his help and technical expertise. Along with a couple of you who've made enormously helpful suggestions, Danny read the questionnaire before making it available for download from the site.
I hope this further reassures PPRuNers, and urgently await your responses to the questionnaire.
Best Wishes
Ian

[BusyB]

Link doesn't seem to work:confused:

[RatherBeFlying]

Just a reminder that unless your management has agreed to its pilots participating in this survey, you would be wise not to download or copy this survey to any computer provided by your employer.

[shoey1976]

erm, thanks - glad it works!
mr luddite (aka shoey1976)

[shoey1976]

Re Ratherbeflying's point: that's one reason why we're happy to accept responses in the post, as well as by email attachment.
Can I again stress though that any information provided will be treated as a journalistic source, and as such handled in strictest confidence.
Thks
Ian

[lomapaseo]

Whatever happened to the role of pilot unions? and IFALPA, I doubt that they will be able to counter such an authoritive poll as this

[Shanwick Shanwick]

"I forgot to thank Danny Fyne at PPRuNe for his help and technical expertise."

Technical Expertise???????

Tyr getting him to navigate around Las Vegas!!!

[White Kite]

Mr Shoesmith, are you only interested in replies from UK pilots?

[shoey1976]

Hi White Kite
The primary focus of the questionnaire is on pilots who currently fly for one of the airlines regulated either by the CAA or IAA.
Best wishes
Ian

[BIG MACH]

Beware! Much of BBC output has a strong left-wing bias. If you want the truth about Iraq, or the EU (which it blindly champions) or global warming, don't get your info from the BBC. I suspect that this BBC reporter already has an agenda. He now needs a few selective facts to substantiate his opinions.

[dumdumbrain]

I have a feeling that your report will be anti low cost airlines. And you have already planed your report and just looking to use us and twist our words to fit your report. It would be wise to watch what you say, and we all know the BBC can leak like Whitehall when pressure is applied.

[PAXboy]

Big Mach You may not know that the BBC consistently angers politicinas of both left AND right. The current UK govt is centrist and the BBC upset them more than any other in history.

It is generally believed that the BBC is neutral and whether they are 'right' or 'left' depends upon the political perspective of the observer.

Perhaps we should give the report accurate information and then judge what is broadcast? After all, we would not want to jump to conclusions would we.

[BIG MACH]

PAXboy suggest you have a look at this site.

http://www.biased-bbc.*************/

If you follow the links you will find many more who have discovered the bias of the BBC. As to its attacks on this government, most of its attacks have been because this government is not left-wing enough. The BBC is anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-capitalist, pro-EU and politically correct to the letter. I have no objection to anyone holding these views. What I object to is paying a licence fee to an organisation whose reporting is so unbalanced.
I suspect that this journalist has already made up his mind. He will now seek out facts from crews, discarding those that do not fit his story and highlighting the ones that do.
The political Left are seeking to weaken the low cost operators. The politicians are critical of aviation in general on the premise that it is a big contributor to global warming. The journalistic left are supporting them. The reality is aviation is a convenient means of levying tax, but politicians are not going to say that and a BBC, dependent on public funds is not going to say it either. Many BBC reporters work hand in glove with reporters from the Guardian newspaper. I would not be surprised to find a BBC/Guardian axis behind this story. If the travelling public cannot be taxed into to abandonning their holidays in the sun, perhaps they can be frightened into staying at home.
Typically there will be stories of pilots asleep at the controls. I am sure we have all cat-napped on a long cruise sector with the agreement of other crew members. In fact, this cat-napping is recognised as being a good idea, but it is not how the BBC would portray it.
I look forward to watching the programme and being proved correct.

[Stoic]

Hi BM

With the greatest respect your opinion is reactionary drivel.

Kind regards

Stoic

[bruppy]

Stoic,

Unfortunatly BM has a point (even if his link does not work??) Auntie Beeb has over the past few years tended to "dress to the left" & we have all suffered, its "biased" reporting of a number of incidents has ensured that the uproar has been exagerated when things have been done in the course of "national interest", I personally would accept mistakes to occur (after all we are all human) in the course of national security if it means that another 7/7 will not occur!, I take it you dont agree?? :(

[PPRuNe Towers]

"or is it just a quick buck ?''

A common view on journos covering aviation since the demise of the specialist reporter.

3 months full time work by Ian going into research. The more cynical you are the more its worth writing or calling to check out the depth he's gone into before compiling the survey and having it vetted by working professionals.

Danny and I have both done our time on Balpa technical committees. I can only think of one, totally outstanding, person had the time to research in depth over such an extended period.

Whether a programme comes out of this is in many ways immaterial. Ian has had the time to gather and collate information such that, if nothing else, the associations should lock him in a room for an extended debriefing:D :D

Rob

[Maude Charlee]

Good job that us 'professional' pilots don't indulge in the stereotypes and knee-jerk responses like all of those pesky journos eh?

So what if the Beeb may or may not be a leftie, cheese and sausage loving entity? Does that mean that all Ryanair pilots are obnoxious, mealy-mouthed, shifty-arsed eejits like O'Leary? Didn't think so.

Give the guy a break.

[bermondseya]

Unfortunately Mr Shoesmith has already provided evidence of a preconceived bias in his investigation from an earlier post (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3207055)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?You should use your investigation to collect the 'hard stats' and use these to come to a conclusion, not decide you need to 'prove' something and then search for the stats to back up what you decided in advance what you need to prove. Unfortunate, as this slip of the tongue fatally taints what could be considered to be an impartial investigation by a reputable news organisation on a subject that really needs to be discussed in public. Dodgy dossier?

[Right Way Up]

I think it is quite simple in this case. Either
1) Mr Shoesmith will follow the normal journalistic direction of shooting our industry down in flames.....
2) or he might just be able to make a difference.
With regard to no 1 - well who cares it will be another article/program that will disappear amongst the hundreds of other sensational efforts to denigrate our profession.
Case no 2 - on Grand National day I say its worth a punt....
Good luck Mr Shoesmith! :D

[Bomber Harris]

bermondseya, what a great post......

you have proven with one swift blow that this whole thing is a sham. the mans mind is made up, he is just collecting enough supporting facts to prove it. anything which goes against his opinion will be binned...i'm sure

i cringe every week when i watch how impartial the bbc are. the most recent thing that annoyed me was the labelling of the britich sailors held captive by the iranian authorities as "hostages". They were calling it a hostage crisis at one point. How disgustingly manipulative. Im sure the iranians would call them "prisoners". Calling them hostages implies they did nothing wrong...how can the bbc make that call.

They have for years decided which side to take in wars and then put labels on each side. Tell me, whats the difference between a "rebel" and a freedom fighter"? Its whether you support them or not. And the Beeb is often very quick to make these decisions.

Dont get me wrong shoey old boy, i support your view, I just dont support your methodology or your employers ethics. It is a shame that the beeb has reduced itself to the modus operandi of the popular press, but the fact that it (and it's employees) hail themselves as a mecca for unbiased truth on the back of its reputation is disgusting.

I would the truth about pilot hours to come out in a balanced piece of research, carried out by somebody who got paid to do it. Not somebody who wants to increase tam ratings, and then get a glory promotion. I would like somebody trained in the forgotten art of lateral thinking to look at this. Maybe somebody a little older than 31. Somebody with life experience, sound training and good ethics. Go meddle somebody elses career. I do not trust what you will do with the information. It will be twisted and pruned (pun) until you get what YOU want out of it. This can only lead to tears for the pilots, and glory and promotion for you.

You are a meddler, in something you know very lttle about. A quick chat with danny does not put you in any position to analyse this complicated data. Go away and pick on lawyers or nurses. Leave us alone, we will deal with our enemies in our own way.

[Julian Hensey]

It is interesting - I mean if this BBC guy had said "I am going to examine the work hours of numerous professions and if things look amiss I will look at getting a commission for an investigation on it." - that would be ok, but when someone comes into the field and says "hey I know there is a story here, and I will find one, but I need a few surveys done to make the show" then that is different. It is all about approach and our wiley community has picked up on the slant that mr "i gotta make this show whatever, i really have" journalist has shown his cards way before he has made the deal. Premature factusmadeupus I think the medical term is...:)

[Say again s l o w l y]

Are you lot thick or what?

Life is getting harder for pilots, especially if you work for a Lo-Cost airline. We all know it, we've all experienced it and here you are bi*ching about a journalist who's trying to find out what's happening.

Ian, ignore the comments from the obviously Daily Mail reading (and believing) commentators on here.

There is a story here and pilot's won't be hurt by it coming under closer scrutiny.

Fill in the survey and we'll see what the results are.

[Harry Wragg]

The common mistake that people make is that the BBC is impartial. It isn't, never has been, never will be. No-one on the face of the planet is impartial. The BBC, unlike most other media outlets, is however, reasonably good at voicing divergent opinions.

That is all it can do. The content of any proposed programme is dependent on the people actually making it.

HW

[Gary Lager]

My concern is that the structure of the questionnaire is flawed.

If just one person out of a thousand puts a response to Q 4.1a

"Has passenger safety ever been put at risk as a result of your fatigue?"

You can bet that it will feature in the article/programme. I am sceptical whether "99.9% of pilots have never had a fatigue-related incident" has the same journalistic appeal. This is known as 'counting the hits and ignoring the misses', is very unscientific and serves only to convince myself that this report will be biased from the start.

My own stats would show that my flying hours have increased, since in 2002 I worked for a 'full-service' airline with a union maximum of 750 rostered hours a year, now I work for a low-cost airline with a far better safety record but up to 900 hours flying a year.

What I don't do now are positioning flights, night flights, long taxi journeys around the country prior to flying and nights spent away from family - all of which , IMHO, have a far worse ultimate effect on flying fatigue. But the 'hours-related' survey won't show this.

You will almost certainly be able to prove that pilots are flying more hours now than in the past. However, this will not provide any direct causal link to flight safety, but I expect any programme based on the survey will be likely to imply this (irresponsibly, I believe).

We are also very likely flying more now than 50 years ago, but there is no doubt that overall flight safety (accidents/incidents related to totla global/national flying hours) has improved.

We can also discover from the accident records that human psychological and physiological factors (of which fatigue is usually one) are playing an increasing part in aircraft incidents over the years - but the since the technology improves (GPWS, TCAS, better instrumentation) and humans don't (to the same degree), that is to be expected.

The important point is that overall flight safety is improving (in the UK, at least) in relation to the expansion of the aviation industry - which will not be demonstrated by the questions asked in the survey.

The very feature of the industry which optimises safety - the open and honest reporting culture and the understanding that humans are fallible - is the feature which is often exploited to sell newspapers/TV programmes. the medical profession doesn't have such a culture - do fatigue-related incidents happen in hospitals - almost certainly. Are there stats available? Almost certainly not. So can they do much about it? Not as much as we can.

You seem to have established a lot more credibility on here than may in your profession in the past, please don't betray the insight into the industry which you have been given by undermining the safety culture we have worked so hard to establish...it is not hard to imagine the pilot, who, after his employer has received a bashing in the press following a damning news article, decides he doesn't want to enrage his employers by calling in fatigued...

I hope I will be proved wrong, Ian, but since most of your colleagues seem no longer able to produce articles for the modern media without either a political/commercial (ie ratings) agenda or by dressing up this mornings corporate survey/press release as news I am not optimistic.

Good luck

[excrewingbod]

The issue of fatigue is a lot more complex than the number of hours worked. I note the questionaire has no mention of rest periods!!

Missing out questions on rest periods is a fundamental error, it is one of the key items that has a DIRECT impact on fatigue.

[Bomber Harris]

SAY AGAIN SLOWLEY,

we are not daily mail readers. That is not the reason we are questioning what is going on. Please read the last 3 posts after yours. They are informed intelligent comments. They make very valid points.

My fear is that this is being looked at (and dramatised) in such a way to create a stark "wow factor" on a 60 minute documentary, by a BBC employee who already knows what he wants to say before the survey is complete (Can you imagine walking through a university and making that last statement....it would be laughed at by every bright thinking mind on campus!!). If there is public outcry after it the tv program then there will possibly be the usual inappropriate knee jerk reaction by the CAA and a drop in passenger bookings because people get a little sceptical about flying for a while

SAY AGAIN SLOWLY, please try to understand where we are coming from. This is not real research. It is lip service to research, so a headline grabbing statement can be made to dramatic music which will attract viewers.

Even a questionaire is a joke. If this were done properly then log books and rosters would be number crunched to come up with real data. Mr shoey is just looking to say things like "60% of pilots have felt fatigued enough that their aircraft was in danger"....what toss. This is a very complicated issue, not comprehendable by the public in a 60 min program, and not comprhendable by mr shoey in a few months of research.

This is more likely to damage our industry and our reputatiuons than help. And Mr shoey doesn't give a damn. He cares about his high flying Beeb career (my guess only...maybe he is a philantropist!)

SAY AGAIN SLOWLY, I think we have thought this through more than you know, and certainly more than the average DM reader!!! Please, I beg you, think it through.

Danny, I think you are right to allow this man to make a pitch. It is for us to decide to help or not. But I have made my views clear, and I will not be helping.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Bomber Harris,
What I'm attacking is the instantaneous attacks on the BBC as a "left wing" organisation.

I have had a look at the questionaire and it is is missing a fair few points that would be useful IMHO.

However, whilst you say that any decent Uni student would laugh at the idea of having a fixed idea before starting research, this is true to a certain extent, but the same student would also laugh at the thought of using a survey as the basis for a piece of research.

This will survey would hopefully only make up a small amount of the "facts" with an awful lot more supporting evidence around it.

The fact that Danny and Pprune Towers are giving this their backing says a lot to me and I'll bet they've had a lot more contact with Ian Shoesmith than any of us.

Pilots are by nature a suspicious bunch, but this hounding does no-one any favours. If you don't want to fill in the survey, then don't, but don't let your preconceptions about the journalistic fraternity guide your actions.

There are scum bag journalists out there certainly, but in the same way there are some sh*thouse pilots as well.

[Gary Lager]

An interesting difference being that as a professional pilot, I have no ability to convey to the general public a belief that any or all journalists are incompetent.

The reverse is not true.

besides, I don't care about left or right wing politics in the meeja, I care about speculation and ratings grabbing, lowest-common-denominator dumbed-down sub-GCSE standard analysis being portrayed as fact and the BBC (or SKY, or CNN) as the last defender of integrity and public service.

I will add that Ian, or any journalist anywhere, is of course welcome to disagree - but as we know talk is cheap; my opinions are based on what I see and hear around me, not what anyone else tells me.

I do still sincerely hope that we eventually see some evidence that I have made the wrong assessment.

[Bomber Harris]

Great points SAS. I have to agree that Danny et al who have met the jounelist would be better able to "get a feel" for his integrity.
However, you "sort of" implied that I think journalists are scumbags. Quite the opposite. I know quite a few journos socially, including a war correspondant for whom i have the utmost respect. Let me be clear about my opinion on this (and it hasn't changed).
1/ The beeb is not as neutral as it portrays itself to be (I can give thousands of examples but not going to! and i didn't actually say "left" :rolleyes: )
2/ Mr shoesmith is not doing independant research. He is collecting facts to support a 60 min presentation orientated at an uninformed public, the content of which has already been decided. I dont appove of his methods.
3/ I believe a properply appointed research team conducted a review with the results directed at CAA, EASA, JAA and any other regulator you can think of!....would be far more beneficial to us as pilots than a TV "expose"
4/ Mr Shoesmith should be highlighting the lack of research and development rather than criticise the status quo (which i strongly suspect will be the main thrust of the show). However, I would prefer if he didn't highlight anything, because trial by media generally leads to inappropriate responses by our glorious leaders.
5/ once again...jounalists are good. i like them. john simpson....respect. paxman...let him have a go at any politician on my behalf!! I just dont like mr shoesmiths approach here. Am i making this clear. I like journalists, its mr ian shoesmith i have a problem with. if i met him i would probably like him and buy him a beer....but i do not believe he has any interest in the betterment of aviation and i would tell him that. he is interested in making an "expose". his information gathering is about that and i believe you and danny and towers etc are all making an error of judgment. But thats only my opinion.
I think i have made my pont and im going to bow out now. SAS Thanks for debating (rather than ranting). You are right, I will do what I think is right and so will you. I just hope i made a few others 'think' before they reacted. May I even made young shoey have a guilt pang :confused:

[anotherthing]

As an ATCO looking in, I would advise you to tread carefully with journos, even the BBC. This is in light of the well known, but completely factually incorrect 'docu-drama- 'the 'day britain stopped'.

NATS offered to supply technical advice, and also objected to the inaccuracies that were portrayed; this offer was declined, but of course, the truth would have killed any 'story' and therefore would have made the programme pointless.....

[anartificialhorizon]

If this guy's mind is not already made up on the outcome of this documentary, why is he just looking at the CAA (UK based carriers on a BBC programme,makes sense) and the IAA ? Why the IAA?

Seems to me another spot of, rightly or wrongly, Ryanair bashing is planned.

Remember he is just looking for a way to prove it !! You can prove just about anything if you really want to......:bored:

[yamaha]

Look, lets be direct here.

A TV journalist believes that there is a safety issue with low-cost airlines.
As an industry outsider, this journalist hasn't just dreamt this up, he has been fed information/opinions.

Now based on the information before him, this journalist has made the correct moral judgement and wishes to expose the perceived situation to the public. Part of this will obviously involve research to (amongst other things)

a) confirm what he has been told and
b) try and make a decent, balanced but well informed programme

Now the decision before us imho is not whether we accept journalism as a bona fide occupation or whether journalists have in fact got fathers but rather whether those directly involved in this premise i.e. low costs are pushing safety to the limits and beyond, believe this to be the case.

Now the decision in my opinion is simple.

If you feel that low costs are pushing the safety limits in a negative direction then you should perhaps give assisting this journalist some real thought.

If on the other hand you are completely happy with the behaviour of low costs then ignore this request.

It just seems to me to be a pointless, double standard exercise slagging off journalists. When there is something positive we want in the press, who do we call......yes the journo's. Yet whenever they behave in a balanced manner and also report the down side, we question their parentage.

So in a sentence, just make a decision on the issue.

[anartificialhorizon]

So why is he basing his "safety concerns" around the LCC's ?

Why does he not concentrate on the so called majors. Far more steaming holes filled with their aircraft than the LCC's.....

Not got to look very far away from these shores before you will find some issues to report on. In actual fact I think France is actually closer to the UK than Ireland ....... :)

[Wingswinger]

Not so. The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have a common land border!

If you mean Great Britain rather than the United Kingdom and Ireland as a whole then it's a mere 11 miles from the Mull of Kintyre to Murlough Bay. :O

[shoey1976]

Morning all

Have just had a trawl back through all of your postings on this thread, and there a few points I'd like to address.

"already has an agenda ... needs a few selective facts to substantiate his opinions", "looking to use us and twist our words to fit (my) report", and "anything which goes against his opinion will be binned":

Not so. To date, I have been in communication with more than 20 PPRuNers who convinced me they were commercial airline pilots; trade union officials; aviation medical consultants; occupational health specialists; other academics; and airline officials. Naturally, the range of views and experiences has been wide, and will be taken into account in any programme which results from my research.

"Questionnaire is not real research"

The methodology was largely based upon that used by Craig Jackson from the University of Central England. His findings were published last year in the peer-reviewed and highly respected academic publication the Journal of Occupational Medicine.
I accept that a questionnaire in itself would not be sufficient to base an entire programme. Of course, other journalistic methods are being used to test claims made to me by members of the aviation community.

"Tv expose ... Sixty minute documentary ... log books and rosters should be crunched"

Who mentioned anything about tv or 60 minutes? Not me. The research is continuing as it has done for the last two months. If, and only if, we have enough credible evidence to support a programme will the format and scope be decided. As for logbooks, rosters etc, have you not thought that this is an area which I've been pursuing?

"flying hours are not the only story"

A good point, well made by Gary Lager and Ex Crewing Bod I believe. From conversations with many of you, and others, I've learned that it's not just the total number of flying hours which may be a problem which needs to be addressed. Rather, it seems to be the intensity of flying hours, and hassle factors like proximity to base, roster disruption etc etc. Rest assured, this is something which will be taken into account.

"should be highlighting lack of research and development, rather than status quo"

Fair point and something which has become apparent: correct me if I'm wrong, but the vast majority of research into fatigue seems to have been carried out amongst longhaul pilots.

"focussing on IAA and CAA regulated airlines"

we have to limit the scale of our attention somewhere, and I would suggest the airlines registered in the UK or Ireland are the ones best-known and most often used by our audience.

Finally, let me assure you that I do not have a personal agenda here. I'm big enough and ugly enough to deal with any constructive criticism, but some of the comments made have been pretty personal, and often made from a position of ignorance. On all the threads I've started, I've been completely up-front and honest, and included my contact number and email address.

Our job is purely to collect as much evidence as possible, to seek expert analysis, and to present it to the public so they can form their own opinions. That's it.

Apologies for the somewhat lengthy nature of this reply, but I wanted to clarify some issues and, above all, to encourage relevant members of the PPRuNe community to fill out and return the questionnaire.

Best wishes

Ian Shoesmith
BBC News
07769 977665
[email protected]

[Gary Lager]

Thanks Ian.

I apologise if my scepticism of your intentions or my uninformed generalisations have seemed personal - they were not meant as such. Grumpy old man rant mode stuck on, I'm afraid.

I had a think about this last night, and had some thoughts for you (although you appear well involved in considering such factors).

900 flying hours a year is the legal maximum in the UK. Compared to an office worker, working 5 days a week with 6 weeks holidays, that equates to only 4 hours a day (or so). Add in time for briefing/de-briefing, we're looking at about 5-6 hours. Even on a 4 sector day, with 1 hour turnarounds (which provide ample break on a short-haul day - but who ever has that long nowadays?) then we're still looking at spending less average time at work than joe 9-5. So there must be something else at play.

As you've indicated, levels of pilot fatigue are influenced by other factors like:

number of consecutive duties (earlies/lates)
rest periods
quality of rest (hotel? home)
ability to plan for adequate rest and social life (roster stability)
local time versus body-clock (jet-lag)
company culture (pressure on individuals to perform)and so on.

A good example is the recent media interest in the BA flight delayed by the crew's assertion that they received inadequate rest. Most populist media are sympathetic to the delayed passengers; large corporations (e.g. BA) are expected to provide excuses and are often treated with scepticism.

I would assert that a company where a crew feel able to state when they are fatigued, and are backed up by their airline and not pressured to operate, is a far safer one than where crews are put on the spot. Such pressure need not come from fleet managers, it can come from an awareness of what the Daily Mail headline will be the next day and the subsequent impact on their company's commercial success.

I feel it is misleading, although understandable, to ask if crews have ever put pax safety at risk due to fatigue. Some examples may well be very illustrative, and I have no monopoly on the facts, but as pilots we are all used to self-evaluation and can be very self-critical when mistakes have been made. That those mistakes only rarely turn into incidents or accidents can be credited a great deal to the systems and procedures that have been put in place over the years, but the survey can't illustrate this.

I sometimes make mistakes, and forget to do things in the flight deck - could these errors be due to fatigue? Yes, of course they could. Have I ever injured people or property as a result of my frequent (fatigue-related?) errors? No - because so far (touch wood) my colleagues on the flight deck , in ATC, in the cabin, or those who write the checklists or design the aircraft systems take into account the fact that I will, at some point, err. You could say 'the system works' although we will never stop trying to improve it.

You may have heard of the 'accident chain' concept of accident causal factors - I have had many situations where the chain has been broken, but to relate them all to the uninitiated would only serve to alarm rather than educate.

So, I would have to answer 'yes' to the question of whether I have put pax safety at risk. Without the context this is unhelpful information and misleading.

I am giving more thought to assisting, though.

[Airbus38]

Yes, I'm another cynic, uniformed and maybe not best placed to comment.

"Tv expose ... Sixty minute documentary ... log books and rosters should be crunched"

Who mentioned anything about tv or 60 minutes? Not me. The research is continuing as it has done for the last two months. If, and only if, we have enough credible evidence to support a programme will the format and scope be decided.

So, if you are a balanced sort, only interested in presenting the facts, be they positive or negative, are you trying to tell us that if you find that everything is working swimmingly you will, perhaps, make a documentary entitled "Aren't Low Cost Airlines Great?" or perhaps "Why It's now safer to fly than ever?"

I really doubt it. Because that's not a sensational story at all. I am struggling to think of a Panorama based upon how fantastic an industry is.

I feel that there are two outcomes possible. Either a highly critical documentary will be made, or no documentary will be made. By filling in this questionnaire, you make the former more likely, whether intentionally or not.

Please be careful.

[Ancient Observer]

The beeb is left wing. That is not to say that this particular researcher is either left wing or a trot., but his organisation is incapable of being balanced. There was a fascinating piece in the Times a while ago about how difficult it is to be a journalist who does not believe all the Marxist mumbo-jumbo that the beeb is full of.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1433753.ece

It has also released it own report about its pro-Euro bias http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article507564.ece

Even visitors from abroad note how left wing the beeb is:- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article1522471.ece

So, how does that impact any future report on our sector?

Well, the fact that the UK has the best safety record in the world for commercial aviation does not grab headlines. However, an allegation that a pilot had a snooze whilst on cruise control could do.

The fact that 90% of crashes are caused by "human factors" does not grab headlines - mistakes by pilots and AtCos do. ....and so on.
I'd steer well clear of this and any other journo who is hust seeking "facts" to support his story.

However, as all property is theft, (the accumulation of previously expropriated surplus wage labour), then maybe he is right to tacle O'Leary and his US-owned (check the records) airline.

[swordsman]

I cant see anything wrong with the BBC,shame we dont see more reports from around the world from the places that wont let them film.Good luck to them.As far as this survey is concerned it is a bit of a non starter as most professional pilots in their right mind steer well clear of hacks.The exeption being alcohol,totty and channel 4 documentries.

[Bomber Harris]

(I wanted to get out of this but i cant resist)

Yamaha, thanks for the most realistic reason so far as to why we should be PRO this issue. Great stuff.

In order ro counter your argument, I would like to point out that you have thought it through, but not far enough in my opinion....ie to its logical end. So to pick up where you left off.........

What if we wade in behind shoey and the beeb like you say, as its the best option available, what is the likely outcome.

A sensationalised program critical of uk and ireland based airlines with some tarnishing of the pilots for working within the inadequate rostering system, and thus endangering pax. THEN WHAT? the program is over. A few heads scratched at ministerial level, a letter of enquirey to the CAA. A token investigation by 3 or 4 CAA investigators with a very quick politically correct response. Which will say that everything is generally ok but thanks to the beeb we have discovered a few minor anomolies which have now been corrected. So, shoey makes a difference (as will be stated on his now fatter CV....sarcasm, sorry) and the pax are safer. GET A GRIP GUYS.

This needs a properly funded and properly direct research program (not a tv program), and not shoeys proud two months of work, so far, probably by a team of two students on gap year (stop...cynical!). The researcher is telling you that he realises from talking to pruners that the issue is about more than just flying hours

quote "From conversations with many of you, and others, I've learned that it's not just the total number of flying hours which may be a problem which needs to be addressed. Rather, it seems to be the intensity of flying hours, and hassle factors like proximity to base, roster disruption etc etc. Rest assured, this is something which will be taken into account."

Guys n gals, you know the complexity of the issues here. How can someone who makes this flippant statement be the person to lead the research into this and then present the findings to jo public WITHOUT ANY EDITORIAL RIGHTS BY YOU. I really cannot believe the naivity of some of you. This researcher is just learning to take his first steps in a playground full of mines....and if he hits one YOU get hurt.

Shoey believes he is doing good, of that im pretty certain. I can guess that from the "the cut of his jibe". But the most likely outcome of this will be negative for the industry. I accept there is a possibility that the program will collapse the current government after a wave of protests from concerned pax about air safety, not seen since the days of poll tax!! However, if you want to rely on that then maybe you should bet on shergar winning the grand national. this is a game of realism, not chance, and the ralistic hand that will be dealt will be bad.

But if the program goes ahead I will hoping for the best, and if it all goes well I will ride shergar accross the finishing line myself....

[Oldjet Jockey]

Bomber is correct!!

I would go further than suggesting a couple of students on gap year by suggesting this could be made into a formal University research event, properly funded and carried out on the basis of terms of reference created by professional pilots(perhaps BALPA), the CAA, and even contributions by PPRUNE (maybe Dany). If there is a real problem caused by flying hours and/or fatigue it is too important a matter to be aired publically by a TV programme or the press as a result of sensationalism to attract viewers/readers. The results of an entirely independant research would, I am sure, be passed on to the media in a non sensational manner.

OJJ

[yamaha]

Bomber may be correct he may not be.

One thing is for sure:

If there is a problem, brushing it under the carpet or fooling one's self that a top level secret inquiry is about to begin will not move this issue forward.
If there is an issue, it should be dealt with openly.

If there isn't, what are we discussing here?

[shortfinals]

These figures suggest that the famous Ryanair rushed approaches are history.

Insofar as anything can ever be confined to the history books never to return! And of course the history was pretty recent (was it Knock or Cork that was June last year?)

See Flight's website this week:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/17/213283/ryanair-rushed-descents-take-a-dive.html

Did the famous letter do the trick, or was there more to it than that?

Shortie

[babymike737]

Shoey

Very happy with my work hours. Plenty of rest, and pay. Fantastic standards of aircraft maintenance, and training. Looking forward to going to work tomorrow!

Just wish the DFT would see sense and allow pilots to take their own fruit juice on the aircraft with them! Fed up with boring old water and coffee.

I know, why not research how dangerous a pilot can be with a carton of tropicana in his case?

Night, off to bed for a good night sleep.

[dash6]

Aah. A Journalist who wants to love us.Used to read the Express,I know they used to have at least one experienced pilot an their staff;yet they obviously never passed any of their aviation related material across his desk,or they would not have published so much shock horror plane plunges within inches of school/mosque/church bull**** over the years. Just watching a report on BBC. Does not matter what its about;It starts with "Information received may cause concern" then comes out with rumour and "news" The Oxygen of publicity might well choke us!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[RoyHudd]

Pity, I have useful data to contribute, but simply do not trust the bias of BBC. (Anti-Israel, anti-American, etc). This is not to cast any doubts on Ian Shoesmith whatsoever.

What I would suggest is that Disclosure of Information should provide some interesting stats on sickness rates and reasons for, within the airlines.

[saddest aviator]

Shortie,
If Ryanair think rushed approaches are a thing of the past sadly they are mistaken. The pressure to achieve on time performance is still there. The management think that by introducing yet more procedures and more SOP's they will solve the problem. There are flight crews that are so snowed under by onerous paperwork complicated briefing procedures and challenging non precision approaches into small and ill equipped airfields dodging VFR traffic, that occasionally situational awareness breaks down. Coupled to that fatigue and a company that makes no bones about bullying its pilots to bring them into line ' just because they can' and you have the potential for ' god forbid a smoking hole in the ground' The stress that RYR puts on its pilots is maliciously manufactured by a spiteful management, new sop's being designed to cover the backsides of the management if an event happens with the words THE FLIGHT CREW DID NOT CONFORM TO COMPANY PROCEDURES so what do you expect.
Pilot management had a heaven sent opportunity to ask why the flight crews continued to press on with a potentially dangerous approach by asking the right questions. Sadly however no feedback is encouraged at all.We have a problem so here is a new SOP to solve that so it wont happen again. Rather than we have a problem lets try to find out why

[shoey1976]

Hi there
Just wanted to refocus attention on the questionnaire itself. The response rate has been pretty good - but the more replies we receive the better from a statistical point of view.
Thanks
Ian

[captjns]

In addition to LCC short haul flying, Mr. Shoesmith should compare the legacy long haul operators, when it comes to factors of fatigue, as to how they want:

To reduce the rest 48 hours to under 24 hours between crew turn arounds.

Place crews in cheaper noisier hotels that may not be as safe and secure for crewmembers as current layover hotels.

Heavy crewing of some flights so no layovers are required for the basic crew.

[Life's a Beech]

I am often critical of journalists, mostly because they nearly always get the story wrong in the cases I know the truth. However at least Mr Shoesmith has done the right thing, enlisted the co-operation of the people he is writing about and the expertise of Captain Fyne, to try and get it right.

I could not be accurately described as an airline pilot, or give meaningful answers to some of the questions. Otherwise I would be happy to help, to help give the most accurate programme possible.

However for balance can I ask if Mr Shoesmith has talked to the management at Easyjet, who have a flight-time limitation programme that they have devised under expert advice that is not compliant with the CAA's usual rules but is supposed to be safer? Considering some of the glaring anomalies in the rules under which I work, this might be an important addition.

[shoey1976]

Without revealing too much, I have, yes, spoken to Easyjet and others about the roster changes they introduced.
Best wishes

[Stoic]

In order to restore some balance to this thread, I should like to report that in the dealings that I have had with BBC journalists in the past, they have been unfailingly determined to be objective in their reporting. I have been extremely satisfied with their skill in presenting a story in a necessarily limited time while including and explaining the salient facts and putting the story in context.

This is also true, in my direct experinece, of the 'heavy' press including the Times, Telegraph, Financial Times, Guardian and Independent.

Remember, if you are supplying the facts, you are in a very good position to make sure that those facts are accurately transmitted to, and received by, the reporter.

Regards

Stoic

[llondel]

Remember, if you are supplying the facts, you are in a very good position to make sure that those facts are accurately transmitted to, and received by, the reporter.

You forgot "and understood by". I've seen some quite inaccurate reporting by papers at the 'posh' end, which appears to be due entirely to the fact that the journalist didn't fully comprehend what he was being told and grasped the wrong end of a few sticks. To be fair, that wasn't necessarily the journalist's fault, I wasn't present at the time so I don't know what was said.

[Stoic]

You forgot "and understood by".


LLondell you are quite right. It is just like briefing for an emergency - make sure the people you are briefing understand what you want to convey. In my experience the BBC journalists, and those from the heavies mentioned above, are first rate and extremely keen to get their facts right.

Regards

S

[PAXboy]

I am on holiday so taken longer to catch up with this thread.
Bomber HarrisMr shoesmith is not doing independant research. He is collecting facts to support a 60 min presentation orientated at an uninformed public, the content of which has already been decided. I dont appove of his methods.
To be picky ... the method is not just to do with Mr Shoesmith. He has been given instructions by his management who pay him. You will be aware that BBC management may not be any better than your airline management ...
I believe a properply appointed research team conducted a review with the results directed at CAA, EASA, JAA and any other regulator you can think of!....would be far more beneficial to us as pilots than a TV "expose"
Yes, of course it would - but that would mean govt admitting a mistake and having to spend money. BUT if the BBC produce something of sufficient strength and veracity - it might be possible to get the properly appointed research team.

Gary Lager
then we're still looking at spending less average time at work than joe 9-5. So there must be something else at play.Speaking as a non-pilot who spent some 27 years working in offices (and 'cube farms' just like Dilbert) I can tell you that we have the chance to dodge a lot of things, depending upon office culture, location and the boss:

Pop out to the shops.
Phone a friend!!
Attend meetings that you do not really need to be at and then sit back and do little.
Pretend to work at your desk.
etceteraYou guys cannot really pretend to work and your own lives depend upon not making a mistake. That is already 100% more stress than office workers.

Ancient Observer You state that the beeb is left wing and then quote a Murdoch newspaper to justify that? You don't get much more right wing than Murdoch so it is no proof.

Whether you like the BBC or not, this research is the ONLY game in town for the topic to get the light of day. I cannot see any other media outlet trying this one and the CAA will do nothing off their own bat, they have to be kicked by govt and govt can get kicked by the media. And this govt is more sensitive to getting kicked by the media than any other before in the UK.

[visibility3miles]

When a journalist is trying to do an investigative story, they WILL talk to SOMEBODY. This journalist is trying to give all of you a chance to present your point of view.

Will they use it the way you want them to? Who knows. Odds are you will find something you don't like about the story no matter how well they try to write it or how balanced they try to be.

If you worry that they will leak your identity to whomever you work for, or in some other way that might get you in trouble, then do not contribute or ask if there is a way you can protect yourself.

However, if you do not try to get your side of the story out there, then do not complain about failings in aviation related journalism.

Journalists are human. If you treat them with respect they are more likely to return the favor.

[merlinxx]

On point I would like to input, this from observations on lang haul ops. I have spent many, many hours deadheading/supernumerary, were on certain routes the flight deck inactivity had induced a more subtle form of fatigue called boredom. Is this a realistic observation?

[Bomber Harris]

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=272330
Just look at the way the "Pilots admit they took a nap on air" artical was dealt with by the media.

Do you really believe there is there is an emphasis on air safety or selling stories?

[merlinxx]

NO

PM if you want any more info on this

[shoey1976]

Thanks to all who've sent in their responses - it's taking a while to collate them and analyse the results. I'm conscious that time is marching on, and have therefore decided to set a provisional deadline of 2359bst on Sunday for more replies.
Debates about the media's role in general, and the BBC's in particular, are for another platform. What I'd ask for now is that you let me know about your experiences.
What goes into any final programme is not finalised until the hour of broadcast, so if you want your views and experiences to be taken into account, you know what to do.
I look forward to hearing from as many of you as possible.
Cheers
Ian Shoesmith
BBC News

[dash6]

Yesterdays Daily Mail:"The 787...is lighter than rival planes because it is built from composite materials rather than heavier steel." May my old Boeing rust in peace.

[harrogate]

"bermondseya, what a great post......
you have proven with one swift blow that this whole thing is a sham. the mans mind is made up, he is just collecting enough supporting facts to prove it. anything which goes against his opinion will be binned...i'm sure
i cringe every week when i watch how impartial the bbc are. the most recent thing that annoyed me was the labelling of the britich sailors held captive by the iranian authorities as "hostages". They were calling it a hostage crisis at one point. How disgustingly manipulative. Im sure the iranians would call them "prisoners". Calling them hostages implies they did nothing wrong...how can the bbc make that call.
They have for years decided which side to take in wars and then put labels on each side. Tell me, whats the difference between a "rebel" and a freedom fighter"? Its whether you support them or not. And the Beeb is often very quick to make these decisions.
Dont get me wrong shoey old boy, i support your view, I just dont support your methodology or your employers ethics. It is a shame that the beeb has reduced itself to the modus operandi of the popular press, but the fact that it (and it's employees) hail themselves as a mecca for unbiased truth on the back of its reputation is disgusting.
I would the truth about pilot hours to come out in a balanced piece of research, carried out by somebody who got paid to do it. Not somebody who wants to increase tam ratings, and then get a glory promotion. I would like somebody trained in the forgotten art of lateral thinking to look at this. Maybe somebody a little older than 31. Somebody with life experience, sound training and good ethics. Go meddle somebody elses career. I do not trust what you will do with the information. It will be twisted and pruned (pun) until you get what YOU want out of it. This can only lead to tears for the pilots, and glory and promotion for you.
You are a meddler, in something you know very lttle about. A quick chat with danny does not put you in any position to analyse this complicated data. Go away and pick on lawyers or nurses. Leave us alone, we will deal with our enemies in our own way."

The irony.

You've tried and convicted this guy before his programme's even come out, thus mauling his profession without substance in the way you've already accused him of mauling yours.

The holier-than-thou, pig-headed, pure arrogance of idiots like you is more likely to drag your profession's image through the mud than any journalist can.

And to tell him to 'go pick on lawyers and nurses' shows a level of maturity on your behalf considerably lower than that of a 31-year-old.

Your behaviour and attitude towards an investigation into the subject raises suspicions. I'd be ten times more interested in researching the issue after reading your post, if I were him.

To adopt your tone - why don't you go and fly your little aeroplane and let the journalist compile research on an issue that's clearly very much bigger than your narrow, BIASSED and naive mind can entertain.

[BusyB]

I'm amazed at the objections to this. As far as I'm concerned its about time some of our problems were aired more professionally. They are certainly not being addressed by the airlines and Balpa doesn't make enough noise either.

Go for it, it can't make things any worse.:ok:

[Ancient Observer]

Would it be worth having a chat with the doc.s at the CAA? Given their medical background, and that some of them are/were CPL(A)s, with real experience, they should be able to help. Also, they are sometimes the ones that try to rehabilitate those with medical problems, so they must have some insights?

[RAT 5]

A.O.

A few years ago I wrote to CAA about fatiguing rosters. I was working in Italy, on a UK licence but Italian validation for local registered a/c. My medical was to UK standards, but the Italian FTL's were sometimes 7 hours more than UK. I tried to argue with the UK CAA that the medical to UK standards, therefore, was not appropriate. No luck though, but they did offer that the CAA medical department had a computer program which could grade a roster for fatigue, and perhaps other things. I tried, but failed to get a reply and to find out who, exactly, to contact. If such a program exsists it is a very well kept secret and I doubt if it has ever been used. It certainly never has been at the LoCo's, otherwise they would not be rostering the way they are.