Where does this leave Professional Pilots ??

[had_enough]

You get up at 7am or so - see the kids to school, perhaps, if you are very lucky, grab a short nap in the afternoon and then fly down to the Med that night and over the fence in the morning - basically awake for over 24 hours !!!! Oh, and in addition, you drive home !!!

Headline news today !!

>> The motorist accused of falling asleep and causing the Selby train crash has been convicted of 10 charges of causing death by dangerous driving.

The judge, Mr Justice Mackay, said it was inevitable that he would receive a substantial prison term."

He had not had enough sleep, said Professor James Horne, Britain's leading authority on sleep-related road smashes, he could not have maintained alert driving. Hart stayed up all night talking to a woman on the phone.

Prof. Horne said, "He had a nap the previous afternoon which I don't think had much effect - I find it very difficult to see how he could have maintained alert driving.

Asked if his lack of sleep was relevant, Prof Horne told Leeds Crown Court: "Yes - if he had been awake for the previous 24 hours, I don't really see how he could have driven. <<

[Stampe]

An excellent post and exactly my thoughts on reading this case.Most passengers who land around around 0400-1000hours are being flown by pilots in exactly that state of rest who may have been able to catch a bit of sleep the previous afternoon.Then of course most of us drive home and I guess most of us have nearly fallen asleep some time both in the air and driving.Should provide some interesting industrial ammunition to force FTL changes and perhaps hotels after all night operations.I seem to remember that both Mrs.Thatcher and Mr. Churchill went long periods without any periods of what most of us would call proper sleep and just think what they were in charge of!!!.

[ 13 December 2001: Message edited by: Stampe ]

[paulsamcam]

Where does it leave anyone who works nights,
Doctors, nurses, cabin crew, etc, etc.

[deeps]

This has been coming for some considerable time and it doesn't just affect our industry. The whole question of company drivers/time behind the wheel is coming more to the fore as the number of accidents involving company drivers become increasingly apparent.

For some of us, the whole question of basing will come into question. Let's say you are based at STN and choose to live in Cardiff. Your company may say that you are supposed to live within an hour of your duty station - but do they really insist upon it? Like most, the answer is probably that your domestic arrangements are your own concern providing they don't interfere with your job and you report for duty on time. But your company can't say it doesn't know where you live. So it deposits you at STN at 0230 after a maximum FDP, secure in the knowledge that that is where its responsibility ends. Meanwhile, you drive back to Cardiff and, on the way, become an integral part of a bridge support on the M4.

I'm not pretending I know for sure what a court might make of those circumstances but I have a sneaking suspicion that, given the way our compensation culture is going,it might be difficult for your company to argue they have no responsibility for the accident. And look at the proposals for the new offence of Corporate Killing which suggest that a company would be liable if its actions are the causeor one of the causes of a death.

Doesn't seem that everyone has looked at the implications of the HSE's proposals under their Revitalising Health and Safety initiative or the Home Office's new offence of Corporate Killing

[rex]

Hi

I aspire to the fraternity of professional aviators and presently do 12 hour night shifts myself.
Sometimes I cannot remember half the journey home

Rex
:eek:

[ 13 December 2001: Message edited by: rex ]

[Flap 5]

deeps has a point. I know there are pilots with easyJet based in Luton who live from Swindon to Sevenoaks. Some try to set up appartments in Luton, but the arrangement frequently does not work out.

[had_enough]

The interesting point that I picked up from the BBC was that this was considered just an accident, one of those terrible things that happens from time to time, until it was discovered that Hart had been up all night. It was then considered CRIMINAL that he decided to drive and therefore deliberately (knowingly) put other people lives in danger.

Ref. Doctors etc.. yes I agree !

[SOPS]

I think now the "cat is out of the bag" Im long haul, and have been awake for 19 hours since leaving my hotel, ( and did not sleep that well in the hotel due jet lag/cleaners making a noise) and at the end of the flight I crash. They first say I was tired, but no I have operated to the approiate law, then they say I was drunk, no, no drink in the last 24 hours (though it may have helpt me sleep). Fact,we all need sleep at the right time. And if this person can be found guilty of not having sleep, then I suggest that everyone of us worldwide, start refusing back of the clock duties, just incase we end up in jail.

[P.Pilcher]

What annoys me most is that after finishing your night freight duty at Luton at 04.00 and driving back to Birmingham (home) you see this notice by the side of the M1 "Tiredness kills - take a break" WHERE? You can't pull off on the hard shoulder when you feel your eyelids getting heavy, you can't pull off onto one of the junctions because thay have made them motorway regulations - no stopping. You just have to continue, windows down heater off, until you make a service area and have a kip in the carpark. Drive down the A14 towards the East coast however and there are laybys for such activities every few hundred yards!
:confused: :confused: :confused:

[xavieronasis]

As a longhaul pilot I have frequently driven home after 24+ hours with little or no rest. I only live 1.5 hours from base and usually make it home on adrenalin. Now Ive been compared to a drunk driver (social outcast was the phrase used). Best be very careful and rethink tactics!

[Devils Advocate]

A long time ago..........

I awoke at 6am, checked PPRuNe (as you do), took the kids to school, etc......

At 5pm my standby started, and on the dot of which the phone rang - and guess who ?

Crewing: "Hi Crash, sorry old son, we've gotta call you out"
Crash: "Fair enough" said I (thinking it'd only be a quick EDI, or maybe a MUC, or MXP), "so where am I going ?"
Crewing: "Tenerife"
Crash: "Err, excuse me, where did you say ?!"
Crewing: "Tenerife, it's gonna be crap here in the morning, snow, ice, and fog and the crew that were rostered are not cat3 qualified - so that's why we're calling you. How soon can you be in ?"

Nb. At the time I, of my own volition, lived 90 miles away, and had never been late and / or missed a duty.

Crash: (silently "Sh!t !") "In about 1:30" (our contracted report time) "and I'm leaving now"

So I drove like a man possessed and made the report.

So, at about 9:30pm (our inbound aircraft was delayed) it's off to Tenerife I go.

From overhead Dinard until abeam Casablanca it was as rough as a bears arse - even the cabin crew we sick !

Running behind schedule (with the aircraft needed for an immediate rotation on our return) we conduct a lightening fast turn-around (thirty minutes) and we're on our way back to the UK - and again from Casablanca to Dinard the same truly crap ride (cabin crew and all the pax sick).

Approaching the UK we're told by the French to slow down coz our destination airport is closed "Whilst ze sweep ze snow from it !"

Aside from being late, we then spend twenty minutes in the hold, during which we went through all the usual machinations about diversions (anybody else find it hard not to keep looking at the fuel gauges ? ) and what we'd do w.r.t. pax and the aircraft / crew if we did.

Finally we land at our home base, albeit on the pin of pins of diversion fuel minima, but then wait 45 minutes for wheelchair support for some pax that required it, nicely followed by no sign of a crew bus (and HQ is some way away) and eventually (+1 hour after arriving on stand) we pile into the back of the engineers van (complete with discard oil and Skydrol cans) and he takes us over to HQ.

The time is now 08:00

We hand-in the flight paper work and ****** off to the now snow filled car park. I manage to de-ice the car and make my way to the motorway - which, as you can imagine, after a night of snow, was somewhat congested being down to 2 (and occasionally 1) lanes.

Finally arrive home at noon, having literally fought my way through the traffic / snow / ice, having been continuously awake since 6am the previous morning.

Nb. It gets worse, I was so wide-awake - read, 'stressed' - when I got home that I actually found it hard to go to sleep, e.g. and I won’t bore you with detail, the door bell went three times during my slumbers, waking me each time - I eventually drifted off properly at 14:00 - but it was a short-lived slumber, as the kids came in at 16:00 and woke me up again. Coupled to this, I was rostered for an 04:45 report the next morning - so, I rang crewing, and for the first time ever, sighted he 'F' (i.e. fatigue) word - and to whit they were not at all happy about it !

So let me see - I spent 30 hours being completely awake, drove 180 miles (just to work and back), flew something in the order of 3600 Nm, was thoroughly bounced about for 5+ hours, went through the hoop w.r.t. all the usual things about diversions and fuel planning, and ultimately landed on an icy / slippery runway.

So seeing as how I can now supposedly get locked up for just doing my normal job - too right we should be concerned !

Ps. For any lay-people who read this site, this is a NORMAL operation for many a pilot - goodnight all !

[ 13 December 2001: Message edited by: Devils Advocate ]

[overstress]

Excellent postings. The thought occurred to me as I heard the verdict that you could probably operate legally max FDP (say with discretion), arrive back @ base, have an accident on the motorway on the way home and be found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.

You would then face 'a long prison sentence'. (For those who have not heard the latest, sentencing is next month but the judge used the above phrase)

[JoyDivision]

So much for our 'human right' to a decent nights sleep! (recent European Court ruling re LHR nightflights) How many nightshift workers are awakened by building works nearby or lawnmower merchants? which we are powerless to do anything about

I might feel differently if I were related to someone killed in the Selby crash, but what purpose does sending this man to jail serve?

[willryderdaley]

Well folks.

We knew this was going to be a very hot topic as soon as that verdict was delivered, didn't we? This ruling could also have PROFOUND implications for airline management - never mind the pilot. The shrink books also tell us that we 'cannot bank sleep / get sleep credit' by merely sleeping for 4 hrs before our night flight, but we CAN sleep off the debit - yep - at the steering wheel! I'm being facetious of course, but the importance of proving one's innocence after modifying the M25 crash barrier, will be to PROVE that you took "all reasonable measures" to rest before your flight.

I don't somehow think that the excuse "oh well officer, I HAVE just been on a night Larnaca you know" - will hold up so.......

....can we now expect an offer of hotac please after a night flight!!!??? - hmmmm, I'm feeling a bit pooped. :D

[Droopy]

Isn't the pertinent point here about avoidable risk? Half my working life is spent on 12-hour night shifts [I'm doing it now] and the comments about the scary drives home are as accurate for me as anyone else but if I want to stay in my current employment then such a journey isn't reasonably avoidable.
Surely the difference is that the driver in that accident had wilfully neglected to rest when he had every oppurtunity to do so but chose to stay awake on the phone.

[willryderdaley]

Droopy - you're quite correct

However, the emphasis here is that if you KNOWINGLY drive when you're feeling shattered, you're committing an offence (which, has probably always been the case anyway, but........ )
and therefore I feel that there really isn't any difference in flying an aeroplane or, chatting up some sad bint on the net all night, in that, if you crash after you KNEW you were unfit to drive - you might now face something worse than a wake-me-up-cuppa in the plods car!"

That's all, but I see your point

[Devils Advocate]

Real life is not what civil servants (i.e. those on the States payroll) e.g. the Police, or HSE inspectors, or Sleep Professors know about.

The harsh and commercial realities of aviation life are that when you get called - as I did, and still do, e.g. just two nights ago, for a very heavy night flight - yet having been awake all day - one doesn't say "I'm sorry but I'm afraid that I've not been able to sleep this afternoon, and accordingly I can't come in to work, because I may be, or might become, fatigued. So you'd better call somebody else. Byee"
To which they reply, "but there is nobody else - it's either you, or we lose this £100,000 worth of business !" etc.

Suddenly your minds-eye reveals your colleagues having to tell their children why there's no food on the table.........

"Ok, what times report ?"

Perhaps then, FTL's are really a crock of sh!t (just a nice aiming point) and we all know it, in that if you stick to them then (at best) you're either marking your card for the future, or else (at worst) the company goes out of business - when it's undercut by some other airline who's crew are 'more flexible'.
E.g. how many times have we all gone to work when asked (begged) by crewing (or OpsMgmt) to do so due to an 'unplanned crew shortfall' or unexpected yet lucrative market opportunity, albeit that you know you maybe shouldn't ?!

And whilst I'm on my soap box...... those wa_nkers in the Belgrano (UK CAA) are a prime example of the biggest bunch of lazy incompetent to_ssers that ever lived - because one can be sure that they'll say that they always audit the hours which crews keep and find only minor infringements (surprise surprise) ;)
But hold on a minute, nobody from FltOps Inspectorate has ever bothered to call me about what was an apparently 'legally rostered' flight duty (see above) - and why not ?!
The fact that it was actually outrageous seems to escape them, e.g. I finish work the night before at 10pm (after a five sector day), drive home, go to bed at midnight, wake at 6am (the rest you can read above)

So let's all get real (and honest about it) !

Yeah, there's certainly different strokes for different folks - but everybody needs (some) sleep, be yea driving a plane, car, ship, train, etc.......

ZZZZZZZZZZ

[Pandora]

Told ops last week that with only 15 mins to spare at the end of our split duty we were going to overrun FTLs if we operated in the fog, because there would doubtless be fog. They said that maybe the weather would clear up and we should try anyway. What do ops know about weather forecasting? Due to tech problems and fog on both sectors we ended up being late and had much reduced rest. This is a regularly rostered trip and with that night's problems the captain offered them the option of making it a full night stop instead of a split. They say they have never had problems before, but I wonder how many of my colleagues when faced with a commute home in rush hour after a 14hr overnight split duty with only 4hrs rest in a room next to the lift feel like going up to ops to tell them.

[had_enough]

In my airline it is possible to report around 4-6pm for a two sector/four hour flying/7 hour duty day (or for a one sector five hour flying day) and then be told to hang around for a few hours because you are now going on a 14-16 hour Ultra Long haul sector (and then be away for home for 5 -7 days)

This happens regularly - it has been going on for some time and all the authorities know about it (MORs etc etc).

I don't know about anybody else but if I think I am working from 4-6pm to midnight I get up normally. When you then report to be told you are going to fly all night and half the next day (as well as be away from home for several days - unplanned) I find it stretches my physical endurance.

I don't want to say anymore I might get sacked or demoted with the others.

[Lawyerboy]

I don't think I quite understand how standby duty works; Devil's Advocate mentioned in what I imagine is a fairly typical story that he had been up since 6am one day until about 2pm the next. But his standby time didn't start until 5pm.

So, we have an 11 hour period - presumably your day off - before any sort of actual duty time starts in which to do what you want. You can, if you wish, sleep, but I suppose most would rather use their time off productively.

Point is, though, if you don't use those 11 hours to sleep, and then wind up forming an integral part of a bridge support on your way home the next day, whose actually to blame? You, for not sleeping, or the airline for forcing standby at the end of your only time off? Or both?

Answers on a postcard...

[PowerRanger]

Sorry chaps but there seems to be huge missing of a few important points here.

SOPS - Hart wasn't found 'guilty of not having sleep' as you assert but guilty of causing death by dangerous driving on 10 counts. See if you can spot the difference.

Lovely Morning - It isn't CRIMINAL to be up all night. But it is CRIMINAL to be up all night and then drive your LandRover/Trailer combination 65 miles in 70 minutes (a time a trained police driver with a police escort could not match) and then nod off and be directly responsible for the deaths of 10 men.

Hart was a 'mobile disaster waiting to happen' according to a member of the invetigation team.

He lied about sleeping when in fact he had spent most of the previous night chatting up some woman. He had already hit the kerb through weariness earlier in his journey and had stopped to have coffee to make himself more alert.

He drove beyond the speed limits in a highly fatigued manner and ultimately robbed children of their fathers, wives of their husbands and mothers of their sons.

Yes he's criminal. Yes he deserves to be punished heavily and no 10 years is not enough. Only one year per death?

Take notes people. You have a choice. It is called personal responsibility and it goes hand in hand with rights. You can't have one without the other.

If you fly KNOWING that you are too fatigued to fly and as a DIRECT result of that cause the death of people then you don't deserve sympathy you deserve prison.

You are professionals. Act professionally. Don't hide behind the 'I was just following orders' line.

Perhaps if one of those killed was connected to you, you'd be less arrogant about the matter.

With 10 years Hart will get off light.

His children still have a Daddy.


Edited for spelling mishtakes.

[ 14 December 2001: Message edited by: PowerRanger ]

[5by5]

Err, with respect to 'he had spent most of the previous night chatting up some woman' and 'have coffee to make himself more alert', does that sound familiar to anybody else ?!

[katiecorrigan]

Re Lawyerboy's post, and putting aside the fact that some choose to do jobs with erratic hours.

Have you ever tried sleeping through the day, trying to get enough rest before a minimum 8-hour duty starts at 5pm? When it's daylight outside, when doorbells or phones ring continously, when children are playing outside, when neighbours are cutting their grass, when the other half needs to be doing the housework? Earplugs don't work that effectively. You can't have a drink or take anything from a chemist to help you sleep because of the 8-hour ban on drinking before duty starts.

It's damn difficult but one's life outside the airline (or any other job involving constantly changing shift patterns) goes on, that's why some people will be awake from 6am in the morning even when standby doesn't start until 5pm. But usually not through choice.

None of this really justifies the actions of anyone who causes an accident when they've been awake and working for 24 hours or more, but it has to be taken into account.

Katie C.

[had_enough]

Power Ranger - the point the "expert" made was that having had very little sleep in the previous 24 hours, Hart, should not have been driving. Having had very little sleep in the previous 24 hours should I be flying ? Hart didn't choose to nod off and have an accident.

I agree about being Professional,however, with no professional support from the authorities I am faced with "it's legal - are you refusing the duty" - and the Company has shown what happens if the response is not to their liking.

Where do I go from here - not sure - tried all the avenues I can think of... and yes leaving is an option.

[Human Factor]

Just a thought, I can't sleep on command. If I'm tired I can sleep, if I'm not I can't. It's that simple. I cannot put my head down during the day to ensure that I'm properly rested for the evening unless I'm already tired. Just one of those things I'm afraid.

I sincerely hope that I always make it home - I have practically fallen asleep at the wheel before on a couple of occasions after a duty. It is not a pleasant experience and I have been extremely lucky.

Some people may consider me foolhardy for putting myself in that situation. As someone has already said, it's illegal to stop on the hard shoulder unless it's an emergency so my options were a little limited. (Not driving was not a viable alternative).

Something must be done, ie. HOTAC or a driver, to alleviate this situation. Otherwise, let's hope that BALPAs legal protection is worth my 1%.

[Donkey Duke]

Why is it that most of these British guys who fly for the charters and have to do all nighters to Tenerife always live 90 miles from the airport? Why not move a little closer until you can hold a better schedule? That extra 90 minute drive home
in morning traffic makes you dangerous to everyone. Homes and flats closer to the airport are also cheaper, but there is an extra expense in additional ear plugs.

Thanks. Donkey Duke :cool: :cool: :cool:

[Devils Advocate]

Donkey Duke, with respect to 'hold a better schedule' by that I assume you mean from a ‘bid’ ?

If so, the problem is that UK airlines don't normally use 'bidline' rostering (coz it's expensive on crews), so we are not able to bid for certain preferred routes (and you can re-read Lovely Day's post above for the effects of that), and whether you live around the corner, or 90 miles away, it still doesn't get around the fact you can be awake all day (as per Katie C's post above) and get called in off standby for a heavy night flight - with little or no prior warning, such that you could avail of some sleep, even if you could have actually achieved some - the with effect being that you might still have to be awake for 24 hours, albeit that’s just slightly better than 26.

E.g. Monday - drive to work to start mid afternoon with 5 sectors, finish close to midnight, stay in hotel.
Tuesday - wake up at 6am (other guests making noises), leave hotel at midday, do 5 more sectors, finish back at base at about 10pm and drive home (at least the roads nice and quite), in bed by midnight.
Wednesday - wake up at 6am (just can't sleep) and spend rest of day doing the normal stuff that we all do prior to starting standby at 5pm - the rest you know.

So let's say that I don't manage to get any shuteye during the afternoon (I tried but couldn't)..... should I call in sick ? or plead fatigue ? .... but it was a 'legal' roster, and the company 'assumes' that I should have got some sleep..... now is that my fault, or the rosters ?
Perhaps I should now take the view that if I’m even the slightest bit tired I should call in sick, and let some other poor schmuck do it instead ? So what’s to do ?

[matsaysgo]

I agree with most of what is said here and as i am sitting here in a dark house with the family asleep suffering the ground based jet lag of shift workers it makes me think as well. I too had the drive home yesterday with sudden shocks on the motorway. The enevitable horns at the traffic lights and peers from other sensible drivers as they go past.As an LAE i am in the background most of the time and can remember all too well the many 24 hr + shifts due necessity. I force myself to get rest before duty and still suffer. The plain facts are, nightshift is against what the body wants to do. It is an enevitable evil though.
The company i am with drive the flight and cabin crew to and from work, alas that does not help my colleagues and i but it is a sensible choice after a long night duty.
Maybe you guys could negotiate the company providing transportation for you after a night flight in the same way that the company i work for does

[matsaysgo]

I agree with most of what is said here and as i am sitting here in a dark house with the family asleep suffering the ground based jet lag of shift workers it makes me think as well. I too had the drive home yesterday with sudden shocks on the motorway. The enevitable horns at the traffic lights and peers from other sensible drivers as they go past.As an LAE i am in the background most of the time and can remember all too well the many 24 hr + shifts due necessity. I force myself to get rest before duty and still suffer. The plain facts are, nightshift is against what the body wants to do. It is an enevitable evil though.
The company i am with drive the flight and cabin crew to and from work, alas that does not help my colleagues and i but it is a sensible choice after a long night duty.
Maybe you guys could negotiate the company providing transportation for you after a night flight in the same way that the company i work for does

[Vmike]

It's all very well trying to sleep in a hotel room if you happen to be downroute. All you have to contend with there is cleaners banging around outside the door all day! It's far worse when you are at home.

When you're at home, people assume you're awake, so they phone you, drop in for a cuppa etc. Then there's the kids who suddenly find Daddy's home, "yippee, wake up daddy, let's play bouncing on your bed". :cool:

[Arkroyal]

The acid test will be when one of our employers is held to be responsible for the next Selby.

Here's an example of dumb but legal rostering.

I know next month I'll be in the simulator from 0300 - 0900 in a nearby foreign country. Before that I've got two days off, so I could stay up late, sleep in and acclimatise myself quite nicely, couldn't I? No, because on the day before the sim, I have to report at 0630 to position to the foreign country, stay in a noisy hotel and 'sleep' before doing the sim sesh,then go straight to the airport to fly back to base and then, you've guessed it....drive home.

's OK though, it's only the busiest motorway in the UK and if I drive fast enough, I'll only expose the public to half an hour's worth of my crap, sleepy progress!

Back to Selby, it smacks to me of the well known Chinook accident at the Mull. Had that aircraft simply killed the crew, the enquiry's verdict of 'no known cause' would have been accepted, just as this hapless bloke veering off the road into a tree would have raised no eyebrows. The idea that the horrendous consequences somehow alter the cause is a nonsense.

[Vmike]

After a long duty or, worse still, a split shift, the decision you have to make is this: Do you drive fast, and hope to get home before you fall asleep, or do you drive relatively slowly, and stand a better chance of surviving the inevitable crash?

Tough one! :cool:

[PowerRanger]

Arkroyal hello, planet Earth calling!!

So the number of deaths changes not the magnitude of the crime?

Go tell it to the Jews. Go tell it those affected in New York. Go tell it to The people of Omagh.

And then wake up.

Of course there is a difference between running off the road into a tree and what happened at Selby.

In one instance you are the only one that suffers from your actions but in the other innocent people are given no option but to pay with their lives for the mindless stupidity of one man.

If you need me to point this out to you you shouldn't be allowed out alone let alone in an aircraft.

[crackerjack]

5by5 - very true, who hasn't been there!!!

PowerRanger - What are you LIKE.

[Kaptin M]

An interesting thread, however I'm more than a little surprised that the "core" of this discussion has evolved around fatigue affecting pilots, during their car journey home after work.
Surely the next progression to this court ruling, would be similarly charging crews who have an accident following a flight that was undertaken without adequate rest - whether it was an all-night flight (which had probably commenced at a sign-on time of around 2100 local), or a day flight undertaken in a foreign country without allowance for "jet-lag" (the body clock's 'home time', ie Circadian rythm).
How many times approaching the end of an all night flight have I thought to myself, "If only the pax (who have probably managed to grab a few hours sleep) knew how much like sh!t I feel like NOW! (Tired, dry eyes, heavy eyelids, and that yearning to just sleep!)

Some people, such as I, are inherent early-risers - I wake at 0530 in Summer, and 0600-0630 in Winter, without an alarm, and regardless of the time I go to bed the previous night - making those night flights "nightmares".
Other individuals are late risers and kick on through until 1 or 2 in the morning - however, NO-ONE (except insomniacs) are still USUALLY awake at 4 or 5am.

Likewise, for those wishing/needing rest during the day, prior to duty, it may simply not be possible where both parents of children are working.

The answer for employers isolating themselves from the prospect of any court action in the event their employee is involved in a road accident, is an easy one - provide transport to and from work, or make rest facilities available following work at home base.

Two crew complements on, all-night ops flying between 2300-0700 should be MANDATORY regardless of sector length...for SAFETY'S SAKE!!

[chrisN]

Seems to me (amateur pilot, not professional) that two things may be needed to address the issues raised:

1. Regulations covering hours worked/report times/time off/normal sleep patterns etc. need to be changed - not by individual pilots fighting your ops mangt etc. (risk to job) or by "industrial action" within your company (ditto risk), but by Parliament. That means telling your MP's what the implications of Selby are in the real world you guys/gals are in, and getting them to do it for you. You would probably need an organised campaign to register enough potential votes to make MP's sit up and take notice.

2. Everyone who drives needs better rest facilities on motorways and trunk roads. E.g. French motorways mostly seem to have alternating rest areas ("aires" - parking/loos only) and full service stations with fuel/food/drink every 10 km. This might be a campaign that AA, RAC, Institute of Advaced Motorists, RoSPA, various unions, and others would have reason to join in.

By the way, [CHIRPS mode on] I think I am lucky not to have had an accident of this type; e.g. (a) three nights ago I was on the M11, started feeling drowsy, had nowhere to stop from Stansted to A11 (15 miles), and at one point woke up to find I was overtaking a truck which to my last recollection had been some way ahead of me. E.g. (b) once when flying a glider solo, I started feeling drowsy, headed back to the airfield from about 10 miles away, and at some point became aware that I was over a village I could not remember approaching. I don't mean the "driving on autopilot and can't remember" syndrome, I mean a micro sleep (as I believe its called). [CHIRPS mode off.]

I would go so far as to say that most people fall into only two categories - those who have had lucky escapes, and those who haven't yet.

[AffableGuy]

It's sad, really. Fly, and risk having an accident, either inflight or on the ground. Don't fly, and risk getting left behind, or even outright release.

Most, in their right frame of mind, would say that the latter is obviously the more logical choice, given that any loss of human life is definitely not an attractive option.

But when you have to do this on a consistent basis because of rostering requirements, where do you draw the line?

I find it quite disheartening myself...

[2500]

A few nights ago I was positioned back to my home base in an aircraft after a long multi-sector duty involving a diversion. The off duty time was a little before sunrise, having been on duty since lunchtime the previous day. The whole crew protested at the scenario on the basis of fatigue and the likelyhood of facing a drive home in the fog. Crewing's response: I can position you anywhere in the world after a flight duty. There is no limit on positioning.

The problem is that crewing work to CAP 371. The have no interest in the safety of the individual, only the legality. As far as I am concerned, the employer has a duty of care under the Health and Safety regulations and it is this that should be addressed. :mad:

[kippa]

WOT 3 pages long and no GUVNOR.

Looks like management don't like this thread. :)

[MAXIMOL]

Write to your MP. Lots of examples here...Probably lots more and loads of times where people have got away with it. Well yuo can get 10 years for falling asleep at the wheel through lack of sleep! Time to start letting people know about what we do. And I don't just mean landing an aeroplane in s**t weather in the dark, etc after no sleep. And indeed no proper sleep for a couple of days sometimes!!
http://www.locata.co.uk/commons/

This website gives details of who you MP is and how to get in touch with him or her, even by e-mail.

[autobrake3]

Flying has never been a 9 to 5 job and never will be. Commercial + safety will never be an easy issue. Complaining to MPs who are generally unsympathetic to our cause merely washes more dirty clothes in front of an already highly sceptical public. I hate feeling knackered too but it goes with turf that we have all voluntarily chosen. :cool:

[Flex33]

Expect the next amendment to your Ops manual to include some text about power naps whilst on duty.

Just who will use this get out of jail free card first?

[SOPS]

I will add one thing here. Our airline has a policy that if a crew is positioned back to base, due delay or breakdown, and the total duty time is out side the legal limit ( as applied to operating crew), they then have the option of a room at the airport Hilton or a taxi home (and back the next day to pick up the car)

[wizzflight]

Join Emirates. They pick you up for work and drive you home afterwards, all in Volvo stationcars! (I don't think they do it because we are so precious, Emirates likes the control it gives them and it makes sure pilots and cabin staff don't get killed in the extremely dangerous roads here).
I used to spent hours in traffic jams after a 16 hours duty back in Europe and I do feel sorry for you guys.

[Croqueteer]

A few years ago in the cargo world a few of us insisted on hotac when finishing long duty periods in the deepest Europe before positioning back to UK. The company quality control manager accused us of doing this to get more hours duty pay. With plonkers like that in charge, what hope have we?

[Mowgli]

I am one of those who lives 1 hr 30 from base, and I fly for a charter airline. The uninitiated will already be aware of the potential problems by reading this thread. Taking personal responsibility is essential, because post Gary Hart, things have changed. I stay in B&B often before an early start, or if I will be working a hard week, but after the end of the working period, naturally I want to drive home. Staying in B&Bs, and the cost of my journey, uses all my in flight allowances. The only self fix solution is to move closer to my base. The problem is that LGW is an expensive area. If I was based at STN or BRS I could afford to live there. I get paid the same as colleagues who are based in more affordable areas, and my company does not offer me:

1. A relocation allowance.

2. A "London" pay subsidy.

3. Accommodation for me when working at my base.

So, there is a big problem here. Additionally, when I do drive home (M25 then M3), I can't pull off the motorway until the first service station which is 50 miles. Sometimes I struggle to stay awake until the service station where I sleep for an hour or so.

So that's us - the same must be true for our passengers too - this is relevant for the lack of stopping places argument.

I know I should move closer to LGW, but my problem is the drive of only 50 miles where I can stop and kip. Would not the problem still exist if I did move closer but still with a 30 mile drive (probably the same journey time non-motorway)?

Seems to me that the only solution is for the company to provide some accommodation to get a kip in before driving on those occasions when you're really knackered. And the Transport Authority should build more stopping places.

One way or another, it's going to cost some money. And it can't be my money because mine is all gone by the end of the month.

I agree with someone earlier who suggested getting this in the public domain by writing to your MP.

[had_enough]

One of the problems with moving for the job in aviation is that you could be moving every 10 minutes.

Staying centrally to a bunch of airfields is the only way to have any stability in your home life !

[had_enough]

I've just realised that the thread has moved off track somewhat - my initial post is based on the fact that it is now deemed to be a criminal act to drive a car having been awake for 24 hours but we regularly land aeroplanes with several hundred people on board having been awake - perhaps with a short nap - for much longer periods.

[Mowgli]

Yeah, I hear you LM. I had an overnight flight in the summer and I was PNF for the return. I was micro sleeping all the way in on the approach. I had taken all reasonable steps to be rested before the flight. The problem was a physiological one. The previous 4 days had been very early starts. The 5th "day" was start work in the evening and by 3am I was as useful as a chocolate ashtray.

I can't make my body adjust like that. Yes, I could have called in sick, but I wasn't tired when I went to work, but about 6 hours later zzzzzz. It was a crewing responsibility. I did try and take a power nap about 2 hrs before the approach, but it didn't happen.

I know the thread has wandered from the flight safety side, but apart from the incident I've just mentioned, it's the drive home that worries me most, because usually adrenaline kicks in when I'm flying the important bits. In the car it's more difficult. Just ban overnight flights - we all hate them!!

[Arkroyal]

Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone could argue civilly and calmly?
Powerranger, I did not say ‘So the number of deaths changes not the magnitude of the crime?’ I stated with irrefutable logic that the consequences of an action cannot alter its cause.
There is another big difference between Selby and the occurrences you quote and that is the question of intent. The action of carelessly falling asleep at the wheel and running off the road can only result in a train crash if the people who designed the road screwed up. Perhaps the authorities who planned and built the M62 are equally culpable?

[keepin it in trim]

This is a reasonably hot topic where I work as well. I am employed in a flying post which requires me to meet a 15 mins to airborne time from 0800 to 2200 followed immediately by a 45 mins to airborne from 2200 to 0800. It is a 24 hour duty with a hand over, crew to crew, at 0930. The job involves flying regularly in abysmal weather, on reactive tasking, quite often with other peoples lives depending upon you showing up. Obviously you cannot sleep during the 15 mins readiness period and it is not uncommon to be tasked late in the evening and then operate literally all night.

Each duty day is followed by a standby duty with a call-out to airborne requirement of 60 mins. Duties are regularly done in blocks of 3, day in, day call, day in, day call, day in, day call. This is usually followed by a few days off. Fatigue was a real issue before the Selby incident. People are now thinking very hard about the implications of the verdict and the judges comments.

At a medical a couple of years ago the Doc expressed horror at my working routine. However, he didn't explain where the extra crews (money) would be found to cover if it was changed. From the comments above an awful lot of people are in a very similar boat. Luckily I live within 30 mins of my base and in a reasonably remote area, so the number of people exposed to my driving after a shift is relatively small. I have to get home to sleep somehow and public transport is not an option. Does that excuse me if I have an accident, probably not, but what else can I, or the thousands of other people who have similar working routines, do about it.

[DwainCleana]

There are many valid points to this topic, could the Transport Authority be held resonsible in not providing rest facilities and therefore forcing a motorist to continue driving whilst unfit and not pull over into a convenient lay-by. I recon O.J's lawyers would have worked on that one. Aviation is a legal mine field and most of us break a few regulations every day without realising it. A recent statistic claimed it would take about 240years to read all the laws which have currently been passed. Many of these appear to be of little consequence but what has been brought home by the above case is how easily it could have been us, either on a motorway or making our burning mark in history in a "crash comic". We have our responsibilities to the general public and to our families whom we have to feed. There is no way we can legislate to make operations as safe at 4am as at 11am, our body specs do not allow for that luxury. Evolution programmed our bodies to rise at sun-up and sleep at night and they will only accept a slow change in the order of 2 hours per day. It is all very fine to legislate for proper rest but it is necessary for an indepenent party to confirm we are rested, we are not able to rate ourselves. Sleep fatique impairs our judgement. Note the drunk driver who considers he was driving perfectly when stopped by police; at least he could resort to a breathalizer. Maybe a practical test for us at sign-in would be which is more attractive another day off or a club sandwich.
Incase some think I am unsympathetic, let me state that except for the spacing between a row of 50ft trees and my car having a sense of self preservation I wouldn't be tapping away on this keyboard. That was on the way to a night duty. Since that reprieve I declined an offer to fly from MAN when my BRS base closed; a 4hr drive. I traded that for a life of 14hours across the Pacific which has partially solved the problem as I can't go home after work.
What I can highly recommend is to get hold of a copy of "The 24hr Society" which should be required reading for all shift workers. It will keep you awake for hours.Promise.

[5 APU's captain]

Nothing new...
Are you going to change the world?

[PowerRanger]

Arkroyal - you want civil discussion and that's fine by me.

However, don't come here and try and blame the road-builders because a criminally irresponsible individual took the lives of 10 men.

He chose not to sleep. He chose to drive. He chose to continue when he had already been forced to stop through tiredness.

The result - 10 men were forced to die because of his crass stupidity.

He then chose to lie to try and save his own wretched neck.

And you try and say it was the road-builders who must take some of the blame!!!

Someone here asked me what am I like??

I have no doubt whatsoever that Hart nad no maliscious intent. Of course he didn't set out to cause this disaster.

But that's not really the point is it?

He has personal responsibility for his own actions like we all do. He made the choices all by himself. There was nobody else involved. His choices led directly to deaths. It really is very simple.

As for the road builders being to blame worlds almost fail me. I pray, really pray, that you said that tongue in cheek.

If not then God help your passengers.

Was it the architect of the WTC's fault on 11 September? After all, if the building hadn't been so high, such an icon, then Bin Laden never would have sent his killers to fly into it.



:mad: :mad: :mad:

[forget]

Power Ranger , Ark Royal's point that the lack of safety barriers contributed to this disaster is valid. As it happens, Gary Hart has been found guilty because he drove when he knew he was mentally wrecked. Now let's say that the circumstances were different and that a tyre had, in fact, blown. With an innocent driver who do you then blame, and with ten dead someone must carry the can. Any design of overhead motorway which allows an out of control vehicle to land on a high speed railway track is seriously deficient. A few thousand pounds worth of crash barrier would have prevented this - knackered driver or tyre blow out - full stop.

[Arkroyal]

forgot,

Thanks for seeing the point which seems to elude PR. I have at no point defended Hart's actions, merely questioned the way the law comes down on those easy to nail whilst allowing the bigger fish to get away with it.

It should not be possible for a car running off a road to cause a train crash. Now PR, would you let me know how my views (which you don't have to agree with, but you must admit are reasonably and calmly argued) place my passengers in peril?

Nothing in life is 'very simple'.

'worlds (?) almost fail me' too. :p

[radeng]

Arkroyal,

Shortly after the Selby crash, there was an article in a railway magazine querying the safety of push-pull trains. There was a nasty accident in Scotland in the 70's because of the leading vehicle (driving trailer) being too light when a cow was hit. Had the train at Selby been a conventional loco hauled trained with a 90 ton loco as the leading vehicle, there's an arguable chance that fewer people - if any - would have died. As you say, vehicles shouldn't (especially relatively small light vehicles) be able to fall on a line and cause a disaster. The fact that it can happen demands a scape goat. Push-pull operation is a lot cheaper, though.

[ 17 December 2001: Message edited by: radeng ]

[M.Mouse]

Just for the benefit of those not familiar with the detail. Mr. Hart and his Landrover + trailer with car went of the road and travelled something in the region of 100 metres across a field before plunging through a fence and down an embankment. He did not just fall off the motorway straight on to the railway line.

It was shown that he had covered some 65 miles in 70 minutes and not all of that on motorways. It would be interesting to know what speed he was doing when he departed the motorway and how long before he became awake enough to realise what was happening and attempted to brake.

His actions leading up to the accident were bad enough but to my mind he should have had the decency to admit his guilt and avoid putting the bereaved through a full trial. I have no doubt that will be taken into account during sentencing.

As far as driving when tired. Does not common sense and personal responsibility come into it? We are in grave danger of trying to make the world entirely safe. Unfortunately life carries an element of risk. We in the UK are well on the way to fully adopting the US condition of trying to eliminate all risk not least because of the risk of being sued.

Fatiguing rosters do need serious attention from the powers that be but if you have just returned from a long night duty it is surely your responsibility not to drive unless you feel adequately rested? To say it is the employer's responsibility is really leading us down the path of the nanny state and then being being compelled to take rest before driving home.

I presume the fact that we are often very tired would account for the increase in my car insurance premium when I became a commercial pilot

[ 17 December 2001: Message edited by: M.Mouse ]

[I'd rather]

Just wanted to second Mouse's post above - couldn't agree with you more.

[IcePack]

My Airline allows us a Hotac after 16 hours duty. BUT we still have to self drive to the hotel!
What a silly world, as surely the civil aviation authorities should take more interest in Pilot fatigue than they actually do. Maybe this case will have some influance.

[EDDNHopper]

About half a year ago I started a thread on pilot fatigue (yes, yet another one...) - a topic which is of much concern for me, as I am not a pilot but, as a pax, rely on you all to take me home safely.

Now, I vaguely remember some years ago Swissair, on long-haul flights, introduced an option for crew members to take a nap of not more than 30 minutes, about 2 hours before landing (or something that way). This was based on research findings that a short sleep of no more than 30 minutes is extremely refreshing, as opposed to a longer sleep which often leaves you in worse shape for the more stressful task of approach and landing than had you not slept at all.

I wonder did this scheme prove viable, and are there other employers who have come up with something similar to tackle fatigue? Obviously, a scheme like that would only be possible on long-haul flights.

[126.9]

:) This is a concept that has been successfully adopted by some airlines over the past few years (although well used un-officially by many for many years), and is in very common use every day. Of course, those that disagree with it, or don't use it; will blow it out of the water before before you can say "put your head back!" ;)

[raitfaiter]

MOD in response to a transport pilots complaints about having to sleep in a tent 300mts from the end of the active runway in MCT before a 14 hour working night?.....I WILL NOT BE BLACKMAILED BY FLIGHT SAFETY! Good to know its not just us civvies eh? :rolleyes:

[PowerRanger]

M.Mouse - Thank you for your contribution. The two crucial words here are personal responsibility.

Arkroyal and forget try and take note. All your other red herrings melt away into nothing.

Oh, and by the way Arkroyal I have no problem with you correcting my spelling but you be a little more credible if you didn't, in the same posting, mis-spell forget as forgot! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

A closing thought all you 'someone else must be to blame merchants' out there.

This site is called PPRUNE.

Quiz time - what does the first P stand for??

A pat on the back to the winner.

The collected postings of Arkroyal to the loser.

:D :D :D

[150Aerobat]

PowerRanger .. So you're an Aviation Consultant. What area of aviation do you consult in?

The posts above that you so obnoxiously ignore are talking REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE. _Repeat_ -- REAL ACTUAL LIFE EXPERIENCE. ie THINGS THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

The professionals that have kindly responded to your posts have used actual EXAMPLES, versus your hypothetical, spreadsheet analysed data-mined risk-asessed brainstormed moral-high-ground bull****. You can ramble on all you like, but the facts stand and at the end of the day, what matters most? Your idealistic rhetoric, or FACT.

I wish the world were fair too.

Try listening.

Wear sunscreen.

Edited for colour.

[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: 150Aerobat ]

[Septimus Pyecroft]

Icepack[B]. This point is probably the most important consideration. Airlines should take more responsibility of their crew but this can only be implemented effectively if all other pieces of the puzzel are available. As Mowgli states it is only possible to stop and rest if the facilities are around. There are no stopping places on the M25 or they are about 50 miles apart and who in rush hour can afford to turn off and rest with a time limit set! Some might say 'leave earlier' well I have never met anyone who has done that and foiled the M25!
It appears to be scenario where you earn money, with one hand just to throw it away on all too eager B+B's or those rather expensive Travel lodges and come home with zero profit or more commonly out of pocket.
More effective rostering which would require substantial thought processing, or relocation packages seem to be a more viable proposition economically and from an implementation point of view, than building 'The pooped pilot' services on the M25 and surrounding routes to the Airports which would not solve the problem as there will be the all too inevitable 'lets make a quick buck at someone elses expense 'mentality.
As a Pax I expect my hard earned annual holiday to be a smooth operation. I want a plane in good nick and a pilot on top form. Isn't that what I have paid for???? A certain degree of personal responsibility applies, but there is only so much an individual can do!!!!Finally, this case seems to me to have parallels with the working hours of junior Doctors which was highlighted a few years back......What was echoed then was 'this is an accident waiting to happen'....well as the old adage goes:
'What's the difference between a knackered Doctor and a .knackered Pilot?'
Answer: A Doctor kills in ones. :(

[PowerRanger]

150Aerobat you are an amusing character.

First of all, how can you 'obnoxiously ignore' something? Isn't the adjective active, whilst the verb is passive? :rolleyes:

You seem a little confused. :confused:

Perhaps the strain of using all those block capitals late at night was too much for you. In fact, maybe you were tired!

Perhaps you should have laid down in a darkened room, taken some tablets and waited until you felt better. :rolleyes:

And just for the record, I don't use spreadsheets or slide rules or brain-storming techniques or any other of the bilge you listed. :eek:

What was that you said about bull****?? :p

As for moral high ground - yeah probably you're right Aerobat150 how appalling of me to criticise those who kill people when they're tired. Momentarily, I had forgotten that there were such consumate professionals such as yourself who never make a mistake in the air. And anyway, how dare anyone who isn't a double wing master race criticise one who is.

We should all know our place right?

After all, it's only SLF down the back. Not real people with real lives. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[max_cont]

What a hot subject.

I live well within the one-hour travel time to LGW. I agree with most of what’s been said re the work schedule practices of most airlines.

Fact is you can’t just switch off and sleep in the day before a night standby because in my experience you are doing day flights just prior to the night flights and you have to be rested for them as well.

Doing longhaul flight and then battling the M25 is a joy that I wouldn’t wish on anyone.

I agree we all need to take responsibility for our rest, along with the companies we work for.

Since it would seem that our passengers are quite rightly concerned about our fitness to operate without adequate sleep and then drive home, I am only too happy to book myself a room. Since I am a professional pilot I’m now out of pocket and my BALPA CC will be putting in a pay adjustment claim to the Company I work for, which will no doubt pass the cost on to our passengers.

Problem solved…or not, now the fare paying public start complaining about the price hike…

[Grandad Flyer]

I have been watching this thread with interest and agree with most of what has been said.

Its all very well saying "book into a B+B" but where I work I have yet to find one which will accept me "checking in" at 6am, sleeping all day and going at some point in the afternoon. Besides the fact that the price of B+Bs near the airport I work starts at around £40 per night.

I could check into a hotel, but I still have to drive there, so really my only option is an "on airport" hotel, at a cost of around £80-100 per night. I can't afford that.

When I have flown in America I found that many FBOs had bunk rooms which pilots could use for free. Usually around 4 bunks per room plus a bathroom.

Why do airports in the UK not have this facility? I don't need a posh hotel room, I would sleep anywhere (usually my car at the service station part way home). Surely it wouldn't cost BAA etc. much money to provide a handful of bunkrooms? I would be happy to pay a small amount for this, say, up to £10.

The other question to ask is why do car insurance companies load your premium when you tell them you are a pilot? What do they know that the public don't? Do they have access to a database which shows how high the risk of car accidents is to pilots? Interestingly it doesn't matter to them if you are short haul or long haul.

Also, for people who don't work in the industry, it is probably worth pointing out that most of us work "irregular" shifts - we don't have say 5 nights on, days off, 5 days on or anything as regular as that. Many of us work "as and when" which could mean flying an early morning or a day flight then a night flight. Also, like the previous example of a day flight finishing at 10pm followed by a 5pm standby. When you get home after the 10pm finish you are tired, so you go to bed sometime before midnight. You sleep until say, 6-8am. Then to get 8 hours rest in before your 5pm standby you need to go to bed again at 11am to sleep for 8 hours. Now, how is that going to happen? You are not tired, having just spent a night asleep. It is not possible to go straight back to bed and sleep for another 8 hours. And how often do we get called out? If you are not called out you can guarantee your next duty will be a day one, so do you try and nap during the day in the hope that you will be rested if you get called out or do you not sleep, and then be acclimatised for the next day flight.

Has anyone done any research on the "car journey" side of flying duties?

If not, about time someone did a survey.

[christep]

At the risk of getting flamed, I had always thought that the reason car insurance was higher for pilots was that they too often prang their Ferraris while showing off to the trolley dollies?

;)

[Greek God]

"Arkroyal - you want civil discussion and that's fine by me."

Obviously it is not fine with you. Your manner, lack of perception, and mind set leave much to be desired. There is no call for your attitude to postings that raise valid points other than your own which, by the way, are not in dispute. All Arkroyal was trying to suggest is that there are other aspects to the tragic sequence of events that could be looked at. Avoiding similar situations in the future and breaking the chain is the key to safety, which indeed is what this thread is all about. Personally I find your attempt to compare with Omagh, the holecaust and the WTC distasteful and misguided. This thread has had many intelligent and valid responses to a serious problem within the industry, yours I'm afraid was not one of them. You would do well to enter your own quiz. I would gladly send you a pat on the back & Arks collective postings but I suspect you don't know the answer. :)

I bet you are real fun to work with your CRM skills.

[PowerRanger]

Greek God - interesting name. It proves at least that you have a sense of humour!

Strange that you should imply that I am being less than civilised and then begin your posting with a string of insults. :rolleyes:

Lets put aside that hypocrisy for a minute.

Quite frankly, it is neither here nor there to me that you find anything I say distasteful. I'm not interested.

But I ought to say that I found Arkroyal's attempt to blame the road engineers, the navvies and the railway engineers for the deaths of 10 men equally distasteful and offensive. :mad:

Also, I care not about your judgement on my postings. If you don't like it don't read it - simple. Again, you insult me in order to make the point that I am not civilised.

You really are very mixed up. :rolleyes:

Finally, the answer to my quiz was Professional.

I'll take the pat on the back.

You can keep the collected works of Ark and put them where the sun don't shine. :D

[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: PowerRanger ]

[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: PowerRanger ]

[forget]

This important thread has been (almost) ruined by Power Ranger's aggressive rantings - he makes the Guv read like Barbara Cartland. For some reason I've developed a mental picture of PR and I suspect that if he ever visits a library, which seems doubtful, the top shelf won't come easy to him.

[Mowgli]

Well done Grandad Flyer! You have suggested an option which could really make a difference - some inexpensive beds at the airport which you can use when you need to for a tenner. Sure, it would need to be managed and sorted, but I believe it's an excellent idea, and would certainly have solved the problems that I've experienced.

I like it when the debate and people's ideas here come up with something constructive, rather than the pub brawl that we often see. If I want that I can go to the pub.

Grandad's suggestion: any supporters? BAA, CAA are you reading this?

I'm off to the pub now. Cheers!

[Agamemnon]

Power Ranger - you are either a traffic warden or one of those Local Authority parking wardens. I doubt very much that you have any useful connection with aviation, judging by your immature postings.

ArkRoyal's input was measured and sensible. The fact is that crash-barriers on the approach side of the bridge would have prevented this terrible accident - in effect a break in the error chain. Such barriers are commonplace on much of our motorway network but for some reason were missing here.

Before paranoia gets the better of you, try wondering why everyone else on this topic thinks you're rather silly.

Changing subject slightly, it's worth reflecting on what might have happened to the driver had he exercised his right not to say anything, when cautioned by police.

Apart from telephone records showing somebody was on the phone throughout the night, there would have been very little other evidence of the driver's physical and mental state before he set off.

It wasn't the fact that he had been on the phone all night that got him convicted, it seems he was damned by his own admission that he'd not tried to get any sleep earlier in the day.

Moral of the story: when cautioned after any accident/incident, it is invariably better to remain polite and exercise your right to say nothing until you've had time to calm down and give a measured response. It's not immoral, it's our system of justice.

Power Ranger - I've just had another thought. Maybe you're a traffic policeman....

[Ignition Override]

I only read part of the first page of this excellent topic. Very late over here.

Do you guys/gals have a small, fairly quiet room near where you leave your flight bags, in which some comfy chairs or sofas are available?

In the US, our NTSB finally admitted several years ago that fatigue was the main cause of a tragic accident in which a cargo DC-8 crew had been up a very long time and crashed (cartwheeled) while trying to land in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba which has a hazardous, (required) close-in turn to final approach, in oreder to avoid off-limits areas. Don't no whether any of them fully recovered. They were with some branch of Connie Kallitta freight ops, based at Ypsilanti at Willow Run Airport (YIP), by Detroit, MI, coincidentally, where many B-24s (featured in Stephen Ambrose' latest, "the Wild Blue") were built in the 40's.

This is much easier said than done, but if one is really beat, declare crew rest and tell the hotel desk no telephone calls until...if your license and future career are in jeopardy.

A TWA crew (pilots and flt att's) once endured a rock band which trashed rooms all night long in a Wichita Hotel, then got off the trip after the first (early) leg into the hub at STL. The young hotel valet dude had earlier hidden the band members in some room, right when the police showed up.

[ 19 December 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]

[Budvar]

Power Ranger reading this thread seems like you've got the wrong end of the stick old boy. Absolutely no-one has condoned Hart's actions merely looked at the situation as a whole.Arkroyals comments seem valid to me, if Hart had fallen asleep and driven into a tree injuring himself only would we be having this discussion No!If the DETR had put crash barrier along that section of road would we be having this discussion No!! And yet the problem still exists. Hundreds of people in our industry (and other industries) pilots cabin crew and others work long tiring work patterns and usually drive home knowing that we are absolutey ******ed (I've done so many times) does that make us all iresponsible. That is whole picture so please power ranger try and discuss sensibly . :rolleyes:

[Budvar]

Sorry forgot to add usually just before we drive home after what could've been a period of over 24hrs awake we have to land an aeroplane full of REAL people in crap weather. So please power ranger keep your comments questioning the professionalism of pilots to yourself!!!

[ 19 December 2001: Message edited by: Budvar ]

[1.3VStall]

Budvar,

"...usually drive home knowing we are absolutely ******ed...does that make us all irresponsible?"

The answer is, quite simply, Yes!

I'm afraid that if you wipe someone out on the M3 in the early hours on the way home the fact that you couldn't afford to buy a house near LGW or LHR would be no defence. Even weaker would be the admission that, because you are longhaul and don't go to work that often, you decided to live in Somerset as the lifestyle is better.

The beak would simply ask why, if you were absolutely *****ed when you landed, you didn't crash out in one of the many airport hotels. Again, "I couldn't afford it Your Honour" would be no defence.

[max_cont]

1.3Vstall, forgive me if I’m wrong but I think you‘re missing the point. Just working normal airline rosters will get you into the driving while too tired category. (Not to mention flying) I’m sure most professional pilots will agree with me. As stated in an earlier post I live within the one-hour drive to work rule.

The old CAP 371 rules were designed as a maximum legal limit and not intended as a normal work pattern. The various airlines, being commercial companies found ways of getting you to work as close to those limits as possible. The new JAA rules are even worse.

I have reported fatigued and got an interview with my manager for my trouble. He even agreed with me that the roster was “not ideal” but told me to go sick in future (No reports generated that way)

From my vantage point at the bottom of this particular pond, it would seem that the CAA are very keen not to look into this. The Ops inspectors only fly with a select few Captains and get fed the company line. I have no proof, but I bet 90% of the pilots reading this can tell you the same.

The only reason for posting this is that no one can prove who I am, but since my cards have already been marked, I suppose it won’t make any difference anyway.

I have never understood the difference between a mistake made due to fatigue or a mistake made due to tiredness.

The trouble is, is that as individuals we’re powerless to stop this if we want to have any sort of career. Unless the industry gets a push by political pressure or public insistence, then I don’t see things changing until we have a major incident.

[1.3VStall]

m_c,

I am quite well aware how "normal" rostering patterns lead to aircrew fatigue.

I was merely pointing out that someone who had a fatigue-related accident on the way home (particularly during a long journey) would be poorly placed to defend themselves if they had knowingly driven "whilst absolutely ******ed" (not my words).

[knackered]

......And isn't that the point of this whole thread, that daily we are put in the situation where we "knowingly" drive without sufficient rest. Put there by our rostering departments who, at least in my case, use days off merely as a buffer between 2 duties.

The moralizers amongst us say that if we know we are tired then we shouldn't drive. Yeah. Fine! But that would most of us on the streets in short order and, quite frankly, is not a viable solution. I know personally, if I fly all night and don't get to bed before the sun comes up, then I'm just not going to sleep til that night. My mind is just not interested. Body wants to sleep, mind says 'it's day time, time to get up'. So that makes even the hotel rest seem impractical, not to mention the expense.

I think what bothers most posters on this thread is that with the direction taken by the legal system these days, it will not take much of a leap for a keen lawyer, of the mindset of PowerRanger, to be applying these same arguments to one of us who becomes involved in a serious accident after one of the many duties described above, using the argument 'you knowingly......' or 'it was your final responsibilty.......'. This is fairyland stuff, we all know it. But the scary part is that the legal system is moving more and more in the direction of 'someone MUST be held responsible' and fairyland is where they're headed.

I'm not 'knackered' for nothing!

[Roadtrip]

Although the FAA mandates defined availability periods and rest periods for US domestic flights, pilots pulling reserve on international routes are available to fly 24 hours a day, with NO defined duty or rest period. The FAA . . . geez.

[Gunner B12]

Most of the posts here are looking into the big picture; some are fixated on small detail. Perhaps it would be beneficial to restate what should be discussed, I’ll try but I’m sure some will try and correct me.

In light of the court proceedings regarding a person being in control of a vehicle when knowingly fatigued causing death or injury. How should pilots address the liabilities regarding the position the employer puts them in by the current rostering systems.

If we are taking the problem seriously we need to look at how we can break the cycle that could lead to an undesired, fatigue induced, chain of events. This calls for appreciation of everybody’s responsibility not to just blame the person who ultimately screws up. It is easy in these circumstances to only look at the poor fool who was the one who got caught out by his actions but that does not do anything about all the other accidents just waiting to happen.

From the pilots point of view this means complaining about poor rostering at least once and in writing. Any company, which ignores a written notification of a safety issue, deserves all it gets. Make sure a copy of the letter can be found if anything happens to you. It then means trying to do something your self if the company doesn’t.

An earlier suggestion about cheap accommodation is the way forward but have you thought of organising it yourselves. Approach the company and the airport authority, see if the company will match any funds raised and will the authority provide free space. The simplest answer is probably the type of accommodation that the mining companies in WA use lovingly referred to as “dongas”. Basically they are transportable units often little more than converted containers split into a number of bedrooms. Arrange fund raising events to get them started. Find out if there are any safety organisations or other companies that will sponsor them. Don’t just stick to your own company, get together with others it’s a common problem.

Up until recently I was purely SLF, I am currently learning to fly, but due to my age will probably never make it into the professional fraternity. I don’t therefore know of the union arrangements you guys have but they should be willing to coordinate your efforts. I know this seems simplistic but it can be done and is better than waiting for someone else to solve your problems for you. In Oz staff often have what are termed as “Busy bees” (I think that’s right) where they get together to improve their own facilities at work so it can be done.

I’ll get off my soapbox now; sorry if this was a little long winded.

[leander]

VStall has not missed the point - his advice is v. pertinent.

It is the act of driving whilst fatigued that the court will investigate - not the causes of the fatigue. Crewing did not crash the car - the driver did.

The driver (killer) would be branded a pariah forever, though the inevitable sentence might be reduced by a sucessful plea of mitigation.

Such pleas need not include :

1. We like living in Cornwall
2. Hotels are so expensive
3. My social life is in ruins
4. Tee off was brought forward
5. Everybody else does it
6. Life is unfair

Please don't assume I'm moralising - the very nature of our job involves risk management. Just agreeing with VStall that on the day of reckoning it will be the driver on trial not the Chief Pilot.

[Gunner B12]

The point of view here is as much a problem as the case. You are looking at the criminal case and that is only how long you spend behind bars. The real question here is money. The airline has it but if they can protect themselves or deflect blame on to you then it becomes how much you have got.

Would you like to find yourself behind bars and your wife and/or children destitute because your estate was wiped out in compensation. Look at the OJ case it wasn’t the criminal charge that got him it was the compensation case that crippled him.

Forget mitigating circumstances, they are just a way of minimising the inevitable. Even a receipt to show you have contributed to a fund to raise money to alleviate the problem is a better defence than “my social life is in ruins” it shows an acknowledgement of the problem and a positive attempt to reduce the risk.
I know my previous post may seem a little naive but it is valid and provides a defence which makes the employer the more attractive target for compensation claims. The interesting thing is the figures if you follow my suggestion and apply the earlier suggested figure of GBP 10.oo (sorry this keyboard doesn’t have a pounds sign) then assuming 8 hrs for the fee and four bedrooms to a transportable that brings in 120 per day or 840 per week or 43,680 per year that is a lot of money for a transportable unit, heck you could buy a house for that in some areas. Even if this didn’t include bedding let’s face it if you knew the facility was there but you needed a sleeping bag you’d be quite willing to carry one, wouldn’t you??
Set up a trust fund…. Take destiny into your own hands!

Don’t just stand in the dock and try to blame your employer, jet lag, anything but you!!


<img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

edited because I was naive about the spelling of naive!

[ 20 December 2001: Message edited by: gunner b 1 2 ]</p>

[Ignition Override]

Power Ranger and gang: Just because Captains have defined, but limited authority over their planes (except in an emergency), does not imply that we, or the First Officers or Flt. Engineers, can often, or on a regular basis, just call our Crew Schedulers on impulse and say "I'm pretty tired due to the jerks in the next room last night, whose noise preceded our 11 "continuous duty" hours ago, and need to leave after the next landing for a hotel room-if no other pilots can substitute, that's too bad").

It is not that easy. Only naiive laymen believe that we are more than "liabilities on a financial balance sheet". With many large companies we are viewed as a labor commodity, pure and simple, no matter how shiny our gold or white stripes. The "Naval Officer" image is merely a facade for the publics' peace of mind.

Anyone who thinks that fatigue can always be quantified/qualified or that counting on sympathy from one's employer is a simple matter, has never done this job and therefore has no job experience whatsoever which can bolster any (academic) claim that refusing to continue with a flight duty period is a simple decision to make. Only a civilian or military line pilot, in contrast with those who observe the business from outside the cockpit, understands the reality of business revenue, or "hacking the mission". One of my FOs once stayed on continuous duty as Learjet Captain for 30 hours (Connie Kallita cargo ops), without a rest break, because no relief Captains were available at certain cargo stops, and he felt that he could push himself, in order to move the freight.

There are those who do this job and those who don't: these two categories are totally separate from each other. Riding on jumpseats or flying actual simulators are clearly no substitute. Anyone with a little extra cash can buy some computer games and fly simulated combat missions or delude themselves also into thinking that they can easily comprehend the reality outside their windows. Considering changing traffic, fuel, weather decisions based on very limited information while flying a Shorts 360/F-27/B-737/DC-9... In good or bad weather with various, changing combinations of systems problems, changing braking action, winds with various levels of caffeine and blood sugar, can quickly endanger your career if you (or the Dispatcher or ATC) figure something wrong, which nobody notices and corrects, or you slide off a runway, or you bypass one questionable airport in favor of a more distant suitable airport (ie "why was it not suitable?") due to a possible pax heart attack, in which the passenger soon dies or is crippled from a massive stroke. "Why couldn't you begin an approach for an almost max crosswind landing on a wet runway after an NDB approach with no VASI etc?"
Any attorney can find fault with any decision we make, based on interpretation of compliance or "willful disregard of...some tiny obscure regulation buried within a stack of books and manuals"

1) Let's see the non-cockpit "aviation experts", who are so often lionized by the media, go fly their simulators in real conditions with real systems, with partially blocked radio calls.

2) When the airlines recall the furloughed pilots who now or will soon have no more paycheck and then begin hiring, these "experts" are welcome to submit a resume/CV and application form for a Flight Officer position. Maybe enough time on a cable or sattelite tv (telly) remote control device will somehow add to one's pilot "instrument time".

My company is an "equal opportunity employer". Welcome aboard.

[ 21 December 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]

[ 21 December 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]</p>

[Gray]

In my last life I had a Senior GM Flt Ops who said in a pilots meeting that 'our only recourse as pilots is to go sick'. In the good old days pilots didn't like to go sick. Whether it was a professional thing, a macho thing or a combination who knows (I'm gulty too!) but my point is unless the sick rate of any given airline has gone beyond a predetermined limit they (management) are not accountable. All you have to do is say 'I'm reporting sick due to insufficient rest'. If everybody does it then the company has to address the problem. The trick is to get everyone to agree and act!

[PowerRanger]

It is amazing to me just how many people are lining up to have a pop at me for daring to assert that Hart was solely and totally responsible for the deaths of 10 men.

Yes, of course had there been a crash barrier there this would never have happened. But this misses the point entirely.

There was no barrier. Hart fell asleep. Hart killed 10 men.

His falling asleep was no mere unfortunate medical condition. It happened because he chose not to sleep during the previous night.

He made all his own choices and now he must deal with the resulting consequences.

I say again - PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

It is not my intent to offend anybody here I promise. And I am sorry if I sounded a little rabid in earlier postings.

But I will never be silenced from making observations on a subject that has the potential to affect us all. Budvar take note.

Your question concerning driving home very tired is a monumental own-goal.

If you choose to do something knowing that you are not fully competent to do it then damn right you're irresponsible.

How could you possibly think anything different??

As for not commenting on professionalism. Sorry, old boy. It will be a cold day in hell before you gag me.

I have no doubt that 99% of all pilots are extremely professional. They do a difficult job well in the vast majority of cases.

But if you think you can whitewash the antics a few bad apples because the majority are of the required standard or better then I have serious concerns about you.

I pray I never fly on your aircraft.

Finally, to all you who choose to insult me. Carry on if you wish. All you do is undermine your own professionalism.

And to you amateur psychologists - no, I'm not a traffic policeman or a traffic warden or any other uniformed jobs-worth. Sorry boys. And neither am I a short-arse.

I am 6'1", mid-thirties, incredibly fit and very good looking! :)

I also work in aviation and can fly.

Keep guessing.

[ 21 December 2001: Message edited by: PowerRanger ]</p>

[knackered]

Oh boy!

[Covenant]

PowerRanger

On a point of order, only a verb can have "voice" (i.e. active or passive); an adjective cannot be active. Indeed, neither can an adverb, which is the part of speech of the word you were referring to: "obnoxiously". Adjectives qualify nouns and adverbs qualify verbs (oddly enough).

Additionally the use of the verb "ignore" was very much active and not passive. In grammar, the voice determines whether it is the subject or the object of the sentence that receives the action of the verb. In 150Aerobat's posts, the object of the sentence was "posts" and the verb was very much actively describing the fact that you appeared to be ignoring them.

I think it may be you who is a little confused.

Doesn't anyone bother learning grammar these days?

[Arkroyal]

PR

I have read this thread again, looking for the 'insults' you feel have been levelled at you. The only insults appear to have flowed in the opposite direction.

I politely asked you a while back:

"Now PR, would you let me know how my views (which you don't have to agree with, but you must admit are reasonably and calmly argued) place my passengers in peril?"

You now make similar comments about Budvar. Please explain the logic behind these insults.

I say again, nothing in life is simple, and even in the modern 'blame culture', no risk assessor alive could have foreseen Harts actions leading to the incredible chain of events that they did. He is a scapegoat for the failings of a bigger system. Note I am not holding him blameless either.

[forget]

Power Ranger, you revel in the anonymity which is your right. However; a small wager. I will send you £20 worth of beer vouchers if you can prove to me that you are not ex British Airways admin. On the other hand, if you don't, or can't, offer a denial - then you send me the same number of vouchers. Deal?

PS. Not sure how we administer this, but worth a shot.