"Redeye" shouldn't mean the pilot.

[blow.n.gasket]

This couldn't/isn't happening in Australia, is it?




'Redeye' shouldn't mean the pilot

David Nason, New York correspondent | May 16, 2009

Article from: The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/)
TAKING a flight from New York City to upstate Buffalo to see Niagara Falls is commonplace for tourists visiting the US northeast, but after this week's shock revelations about the February 12 crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407, which killed 50 people, many visitors may rethink their itineraries.
Over three days the National Transportation Safety Board heard testimony that raised grave questions about the experience and ability of the pilots in charge of commuter aircraft. At the same time, the hearings peered deep into the airline culture behind the tragedy, finding extraordinarily low wages, bizarre work practices and a stunning management indifference to pilot fatigue.
But for ordinary travellers perhaps the most jarring discovery was summed up in the anguished words of Scott Mauer, who lost his daughter Lorin in the crash and attended the hearings to find out why.
"My daughter ordered a ticket from Continental Airlines," he said. "I'm sitting here listening to people from Colgan Air. Do the American people understand what's happening when they buy an airline ticket?"
Colgan Air is a regional airline hired 18 months ago by Continental to provide services on its Newark-Buffalo route.
While Colgan's relationship with Continental is not readily apparent when customers buy a ticket on the Continental website, the airlines would have you believe that by calling the flight a "Continental Connection", punters understand they'll be flying with someone else.
Even so, customers would assume safety procedures and pilot competence would be the same. How else could Continental allow another airline to represent its brand? But as Mauer found out this week, safety and management standards can "all take a step down" when airline services are contracted out, which happens much more than people realise.
The US has 640 airports and 75 per cent are served only by regional airlines, of which there are 70. Many are commuter carriers that typically fly small, turbo prop planes with capacity of 20 to 80 seats.
The pilots tend to be inexperienced, as was the case with Marvin Renslow, the pilot of Colgan's death plane.
On Tuesday the hearings were told that Renslow had failed flight checks in the aircraft five times before he passed, and that he was unfamiliar with emergency procedures to prevent the aircraft from stalling.
It also emerged that Renslow was one of 29 Colgan pilots who commuted more than 1600km to work. Paid just $US55,000 ($72,500), he couldn't afford to live in New York, so he flew in from Tampa, Florida. On the day of the crash he arrived at Colgan's Newark offices at 3.15am.
Renslow's co-pilot Rebecca Shaw, 24, was even worse off. Her salary was a paltry $US25,000 and she lived with her parents in Seattle on the other side of the country. The hearings heard she once had a second job in a cafe to help make ends meet.
Testimony by Colgan officials on Wednesday revealed the company did not pay cost-of-living adjustments so pilots could live in New York. But they did pay such adjustments to managers.
Asked if Colgan expected Shaw to live in the New York area, vice-president Mary Finnigan said: "Pilots are told what the pay scales are. Our pay scales are within the industry standard."
On the day before the crash, Shaw left Seattle on an overnight FedEx flight and arrived in Newark at 6.30am after changing planes in Memphis, Tennessee. She then sent text messages throughout the day, evidence that she wasn't sleeping.
Renslow was seen sleeping in the crew lounge, which is prohibited by the airline.
Asked how the company monitored the fitness and alertness of pilots who commuted such long distances to work, Colgan flight operations chief Harry Mitchell said: "We expect professional pilots should show up fresh and ready to fly an aircraft."

[QFinsider]

No surely not....:suspect:

Sadly though until the masses realise that you do indeed get what you pay for, airline management will continue to do it...

As long as pilots continue to undercut themselves there will always be someone else lining up to do it for less. :mad:

[airtags]

and myopic watchdogs asleep on the verandah

[turbantime]

Here is the NTSB animation for what happened...very chilling viewing.

YouTube - NTSB Colgan Air Crash Animation Flight 3407 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33NUAy3eomg)

For those who haven't read the reports, icing was not a factor in this crash. The crew were also heard to be talking about non-operational matters throughout the approach (ie below sterile) and as the above news article points out, fatigue.

Very messy trail and hopefully things are put in place over there.

[Mr. Hat]

Fatigue? Surely not, thats not a safety issue or problem in aviation is it?

Renslow was seen sleeping in the crew lounge, which is prohibited by the airline.

An indication he might have been tired perhaps. Can't see why - he got to work at 3 am.



Make sure you have your high viz vest asic card and take no over the counter medications.

[skol]

The last Flight International magazine I saw a couple of months back there was an article that NASA is concerned about the lack of reporting of fatigue, human error, and other aviation events by pilots.
There's nothing new about this and I'm surprised they're surprised. Fact is you are required to fall on your sword if make a mess of things and so you should, but in many cases airline management arent amenable to some pilot reports and fatigue tends to be one of them.
Report you are fatigued too often and the result will be a visit to the office where you will be asked if you're in the right job.

[heads_down]

I do not know about the pilots protocol
but in QCC, we all know if you just so much as mention the word :eek:"fatigue" :eek:to your team manager about yourself or your work colleague, you will be put on a watch list and so will your work colleague and when the opportunity arise, courtesy of team manager's spies on board : your work colleagues also will see that they dob you in on a whole range of things and then of course, the clause 11 will be handed out to you like lollies.:ok:

friend of mine got a medical certificate for fatigue, yanked in for 40 questions
then 1 month later clause 11 for totally unrelated matters to fatigue, to dismiss any suspicion.

[aussie027]

The only good to come of this terrible accident may be the public scrutiny into the issues of pilot fatigue and the appalling wages and conditions of regional airline pilots. Nothing will probably change at any rate, it never has and due to the economics of ticket prices in the US and how they are determined it never will.
(There are a few threads on this topic from 1-2yrs ago)

These are basically internships NOT jobs.:mad: but have all the responsibilities of a job. You are basically working for free.:mad::ugh:
I refused to apply as I refused to accept having to do all the intense study and training and then work very long hours with all that responsibility for a job that paid basically slightly more than the min wage, approx $10-15per "actual' duty hour for the first 1-5yrs til you made Capt and even then it was not much better until you were very senior and had many yrs with the company.

Under FAR 121 pilots can work and usually do, up to a 16hr duty period, which is criminal in itself.:ugh:
Actual sleep time after getting to/from airport to hotel/home, eating, showering etc is usually less than 4-6hr. So there is a big part of the fatigue issue and what causes it. It is all legal though, bloody fantastic eh???
Pay scales topping at approx 80K per yr after 12-15yrs with the company.
Sub 20K USD per annum was /is common for most junior FO. :mad:

So for all of that you basically are financially losing money every yr.
At least it is possible to get some decent to excellent jobs in charter/corporate IF you are pre qualified/rated and experienced on the specific aircraft type the position is for.:ugh: Those jobs often paid better than the regionals , IF you could get the work.
Regionals flying anything from B1900's to 90 seat RJs are all to FAR121 standards same as larger carriers..
Most pilots are there to get experience and then move onto larger mainline carriers. Doing so if you did not have regional part 121 experience was rare unless you had good military or charter/corporate turbine time and preferably jet time.

[Mr.Buzzy]

They are limits, not roster guides!

"Oh but, it is legal".............So is driving in fog at the speed limit..... Doesn't mean it is sensible!

2 sectors back of the clock will always be Russian roulette.....

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[YoDawg]

This couldn't/isn't happening in Australia, is it? (sic)

Buy a Qantas ticket and end up on a JetStar flight? Already happening.....

[AerocatS2A]

Buy a Qantas ticket and end up on a JetStar flight? Already happening.....
Sure, it happens all over the world. Jetstar is a bad example, it's a Qantas company. A better domestic example would be buying a Qantas ticket and ending up on a Cobham aeroplane. But so what? It's not like Qantas try to hide this from you.

I hope we don't have FOs on $25000 commuting 1600km to work though, that's just crazy.

[chimbu warrior]

A further irony in this case is that Colgan Airways is owned (or at least was; not sure of the current status), by Chuck Colgan, a US Senator.

Surely a legislator would never put commercial advantage ahead of public safety? Surely?

[1224]

Testimony by Colgan officials on Wednesday revealed the company did not pay cost-of-living adjustments so pilots could live in New York. But they did pay such adjustments to managers.
Asked if Colgan expected Shaw to live in the New York area, vice-president Mary Finnigan said: "Pilots are told what the pay scales are. Our pay scales are within the industry standard."



Industry standard.... meaning industry minimum wage:suspect:

[Mr. Hat]

I hope we don't have FOs on $25000 commuting 1600km to work though

Eventually it'll happen. Give it time and we'll be on par with the US.

limiting crew water/forbidding naps on sectors below x hours/min rest/back of the clock/no food on board/bus to airport/pay for asic/split duty/calls outside reserve period/manuals on cd rom/row 300 on duty travel/ /no food at outport/nil rest at outport/no otc medication/aviation in australia!ect ect ect yada yada yada!:zzz:

[Brian Abraham]

Sure, it happens all over the world. Jetstar is a bad example, it's a Qantas company. A better domestic example would be buying a Qantas ticket and ending up on a Cobham aeroplane. But so what? It's not like Qantas try to hide this from you.
Remember the 717 at Darwin recently? Much was made at the time here that it wasn't a Qantas aircraft despite the paint job. And it would have taken a knowledgeable punter a bit of digging on the QF web site to find who owned and operated the aircraft. Not immediately obvious.

[AerocatS2A]

Remember the 717 at Darwin recently? Much was made at the time here that it wasn't a Qantas aircraft despite the paint job. And it would have taken a knowledgeable punter a bit of digging on the QF web site to find who owned and operated the aircraft. Not immediately obvious.
Depends who you are. If you're a passenger all you need to do is dig around the front of your tickets and you'll see who's operating the flight. If you're not a passenger, it doesn't really matter does it? If you're booking a flight, you only need to click on the flight number and it will tell you who's operating the flight, it's not hidden away anywhere.

[Mr. Hat]

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/374035-fatigue-once-again.html

“When the 188 passengers boarded the charter plane in Antalya (Turkey) to return to Iceland, on 27 Oct 2007, they did not know that their airplane would experience a serious safety incident – ending up beside the runway of Keflavik airport. Pilot fatigue and inadequate in-flight rest facilities were key factors contributing to this incident – which luckily left all on board unharmed – according to the recently published Incident Report. The report makes several safety recommendations addressed to the EU Institutions. Regrettably, these recommendations are likely to slip off the runway too, when attempting to land on the Brussels Institutions' slippery political ground.”

http://www.rnf.is/media/skyrslur/2007/2009-01-29_M-03707_AIG-19_INCIDENT_TF-JXF_FINAL_REPORT.pdf

From the report-

JetX management sold the subcharter to carry a full load of a 189 passengers for an aircraft that was configured to carry a 186 passengers. Thus making the crew rest unavailable.

Gold.

[MrWooby]

Heads Down, I have been told by a few people "in the know" in QF tech crew,that there is a huge difference between fatigue and being tired or insufficient rest for a duty.

If you advise your manager that you are "fatigued" then this is taken as a serious problem, you need to see your DAME (doctor) it is a more enduring nature, ie constantly tired.

Whereas if you report that you have insufficient rest because of noisy hotel room, insufficient slip time etc. Then this is a one of problem, and management shouldn't be able to touch you.

You need to be very careful about the terminology you use. Probably more so in cabin crew management.

[teresa green]

Yodawg, strangely enough JQ is yet to end up on a golf course, QF on the other hand has that fine distinction,perhaps that should be remembered for those that just have to bag JQ simply for no other reason than it exists, their safety practices seem sufficient at the present time and cannot be compared with some regional in the USA, and no I retired before JQ came on line, but certainly worked for QF.

[blueloo]

teresa - let me think.... QF been around for 85+ years.... (since the dawn of aviation), JQ how long? 5-6 years? 85+ years with only few scars and dents (touch wood) for QF is a bloody good record in any ones books.

that just have to bag JQ simply for no other reason than it exists,

hmmm - the reverse comes to mind about those that love to bag QF.

[Lodown]

I'm not that particular or selective, but at least I'm fair. I'll bag both.

[Jock p]

Interesting news clip re. Fatigue management? in Canada

YouTube - Fatigue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GRLx_OwF4Q)

[Jock p]

Its all OK .....CASA is onto it

To wit

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s stance on fatigue management in Australia is about managing the risk of fatigue within a defined environment or work setting, and not simply about managing the work or flight and duty times of operational personnel. Each organisation and individual has a role to play in contributing to managing and mitigating the potentially hazardous effects of fatigue.
CASA’s focus is on scientific, evidence-based, fatigue risk management. As a result of ongoing participation in such research, CASA proposes to issue guidelines for fatigue risk management during 2009.

[AerocatS2A]

That sounds good in theory, the reality is that a Fatigue Risk Management System is just a set of rostering rules written by the company, and approved by CASA, that looks remarkably similar to an exemption to CAO48.

[Bradley Marsh]

What is always missing in these debates are facts. What is needed is hard data.

The only way to set safe limits to flight and duty times is to have crews fly various rosters/trips and test them at the end of each shift. A set of cognitive, decision making and fine motor skills should do it. A framework of both short and long term testing would be required.

This would ensure they are capable of making good decisions about diversions, handling any expected emergency and otherwsie be at a level of alertness and capability so that the people who are entrusted to our care have every right to expect.

Cheers,

Brad

[skol]

I guess you'll be the first volunteer then, because there won't be many.

[Capt Kremin]

Bradley, Qantas and AIPA did exactly that a couple of years ago and the results formed the FRMS report published by the University of South Australia last year. The report is supposed to form the basis of FRMS based duty limits for long haul flying, but the airlines suddenly don't like what it says about the fatigue levels of the pilots flying their aircraft, particularly on ULH east-west style flying.

It will be very interesting to see what happens.

[dodgybrothers]

Kremin I'd have to agree. I was listening to some CASA dude on the radio last week sprouting to the listeners about how they can sleep at night knowing that pilots and other aviation related workers will be drug and alcohol tested. Airlines were happy to go along with this as it takes the onus off them and really we are talking about a very small number of offenders. On the other hand, they have known about fatigue related issues in this industry ever since Orvill and Wilbur had a crack yet they choose to take a very placid approach because the airlines know how much it will hurt them financially and tell CASA to back off.

Make no mistake about it, the majors airlines in the country have run tests to see how it will affect them and they dont like it.

I mean the trucking industry has tighter regs than us.

[Mr. Hat]

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s stance on fatigue management in Australia is about managing the risk of fatigue within a defined environment or work setting, and not simply about managing the work or flight and duty times of operational personnel. Each organisation and individual has a role to play in contributing to managing and mitigating the potentially hazardous effects of fatigue.
CASA’s focus is on scientific, evidence-based, fatigue risk management. As a result of ongoing participation in such research, CASA proposes to issue guidelines for fatigue risk management during 2009.
Yesterday 13:45

All the fancy words in the world don't matter if what actually happens in the work place is the exact opposite.

CASA are concened with one thing only: covering their arses.

[CAR256]

After watching the you tube link that Jock p posted, I had the realisation that this subject is going to require careful introduction of change, due to the arse covering that is required by the relevent parties. (Except for Pilots :ok:)

The relevant aviation authorities cannot say that change to flight and duty time requirements is required without implying that the current regulations are, at least risky. Currently they are implicitly stating that they are adequate and safe. Thus developing an improved system is difficult for them.

Airline management are protecting their bottom line, and will not ask for change, for fear of losing market share. Change isn't required anyway, as the regulatory body states the regulations are safe, and their pilots are operating within those regulations.

So, it appears to me that the pilot body needs to 'step-up' and call for change. This is currently being looked into by the AFAP ( http://www.afap.org.au/?a1D1J&qiM&435&4vW ). When calling for this change, it needs sensitivity due to the reasons mentioned above.

The other thing that I picked up from you tube, was this subject is gathering a little momentum in the media.

Here's hoping that some good comes of it... :)

[Visual Procedures]

Airline management are protecting their bottom line, and will not ask for change, for fear of losing market share.

Very true. That is why we have a regulator.


CASA are concened with one thing only: covering there arses.

Arse covering sheets me to tears. To think that responsible laws with regard to fatigue are years away because our regulating body is scared of getting sued is ludicrous.

Perhaps we need a law passed that prevents people from suing the regulator for the crap flight and duty time limits we have been operating under until now. Pending or current investigations could be exempt from this law. Then, the regulator is immune, and can stand up and say that the current laws are dangerous, and need to be changed quickly.

Perhaps then we could get some quick action on this issue.

[Capn Bloggs]

The relevant aviation authorities cannot say that change to flight and duty time requirements is required without implying that the current regulations are, at least risky. Currently they are implicitly stating that they are adequate and safe. Thus developing an improved system is difficult for them.
Don't know about that. How do you think the regulators therefore "get away with" improvements to every other aspect of aviation? Certification of aircraft, introduction of better and safer equipment etc etc? Because most of the people that count know that nothing's perfect and can always be improved.

Anybody who rips into CASA or tries to take them to court for "improving" DTLs deserves to be shot. The big question is, who are they "improving" them for? :}

[max autobrakes]

PSS.
Profitability before
Safety before
Schedule.:eek:

[James Boag]

Actually Max its not PSS its BPSS

Bonus before
Profitability before
Safety before
Schedule

:}

[wirgin blew]

I wonder what WorkSafe think of all of this. I keep watching the ads on telly every night and wonder if they have been asked for their opinion on this.
Management should be as concerned as the people operating. The crew onboard may or may not survive a fatigue related incident however you can almost guarantee that someone will go to jail for a very long time if they happen to kill anyone.
The trial will be by media and they will listen to every tom, dick and harriet's fatigue near miss. Its a shame that the Emirates incident in MEL will go down to pilot error rather than fatigue which is probably the reason behind the "error" in the first place.

[Mr. Hat]

Update from US:



THE top US air safety regulator has said he hopes within a few months to have drafted tougher rules on fatigue among commuter airline pilots.

The new regime, and the speedy timetable for introducing it, is an indication that Randy Babbitt, the recently confirmed head of the Federal Aviation Administration, considers commuter pilot fatigue to be among the agency's top safety concerns.

Commuter airlines account for more than half of all commercial flights in the US.

They typically fly under contract from major carriers, ferrying passengers between smaller destinations and larger hubs.

Emerging from an industry-wide summit on commuter airline safety in Washington, Mr Babbitt also indicated his agency expected large carriers to provide more guidance and resources to improve the training and professionalism of pilots at their smaller commuter partners.

The closed-door session, convened by the FAA, was attended by airline executives, pilot union leaders and other industry groups.

Mr Babbitt's comments indicate the agency is moving more aggressively than many airline officials had expected.

The FAA appears poised to act on more than a decade's worth of sleep research by crafting standards for tighter limits on flight hours and workdays for commuter crews.

"The bottom line is, I'm going to want a new rule" aimed at combating commuter pilot fatigue, Mr Babbitt said. "I'd like to do it in the coming months." Congressional and public concerns over commuter airline safety have grown since the February 12 crash of a Colgan Air turboprop outside Buffalo.

Investigators discovered that the captain of the plane, flying under contract to Continental Airlines, had failed a number of flight proficiency tests in his career.

The crash also highlighted questions about adequate crew rest for commuter pilots.

During Monday's session, Mr Babbitt was blunt in calling for industry action. According to his prepared remarks for the meeting, the FAA chief said there was a public perception that pilots could repeatedly fail proficiency tests "and still keep their job".

Regardless of the size of the plane or the airline, Mr Babbitt said, "we want passengers to have no doubts about the qualifications of the person flying their plane".

Pilot union leaders have been prodding the FAA to beef up academic requirements for new commercial pilots, and emphasise additional mentoring of such pilots by veteran aviators.

After the meeting, Mr Babbitt said some mainline carriers had tentatively agreed to share facilities and other training resources with commuter airlines, with the goal of ensuring that pilots across the industry met the same standards.

The FAA has stopped short of agreeing to raise minimum requirements for issuing various licences to pilots, such as total number of flight hours or time spent behind the controls of multi-engined aircraft.

In many ways, however, proposed fatigue rules are bound to be more controversial with airlines.

[airtags]

Maybe old news, but I had this one emailed to me recently - interesting read given that the study was done in conjunction with one carrier and was funded by the regulator.

The Impacts of Australian Transcontinental 'Back of Clock' Operations on Sleep and Performance in Commercial Aviation Flight Crew



Summary

This aim of the study was to provide objective data to inform fatigue risk-management processes by determining the quantity and quality of sleep obtained by airline pilots during transcontinental back of clock operations, and any changes to subjective fatigue and neurobehavioural performance during these sectors. Typical transcontinental back of clock route pairings involve a departure close to midnight Perth local time, with a dawn arrival into an East-coast city such as Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane. In many instances this first sector is followed by a second sector to another east-coast destination, with sign-off at approximately 0900 Eastern Standard Time. Data were collected by participants during a two-week period of a normal rostered flying for an airline. During each of the 14 days of data collection, participants were required to undertake the following: 1) Wear an activity monitor wristwatch 7 days prior to, and 6 days after, a transcontinental back of clock flight; 2) complete sleep and duty diaries, which record time of sleep, subjective alertness, and time of duty; and 3) complete a simple 5-minute Psychomotor Vigilance Task (reaction time task) during the cruise of each sector, and three times on non-flying days. The results of this study suggest that Australian transcontinental back of clock operations, as operated by the airline involved in this study, differed significantly from a baseline sample of daytime duty periods in a number of important areas with respect to prior sleep, neurobehavioural performance, and subjective fatigue. While there were some significant differences in sleep and subjective fatigue as a function of a single transcontinental sector of back of clock flying, these differences were, on average, of a magnitude that was unlikely to impact on flight crew performance and overall safety. However, when a primary transcontinental sector is followed by an additional east-coast sector, there is evidence of reduced prior sleep, impaired neurobehavioural performance, and high levels of subjective fatigue.
Download Complete Document: B20050121 [http://www.pprune.org/wlmailhtml:{7CD95E04-F297-495A-BDE2-AEB4A738BF3F}mid://00000067/!x-usc:http://www.atsb.gov.au/images/dl_acrobat.gifPDF: 1158Kb (wlmailhtml:{7CD95E04-F297-495A-BDE2-AEB4A738BF3F}mid://00000364/!x-usc:http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2007/pdf/B20050121.pdf)]

Type: Research and Analysis Report
Sub-Type: Grant
Publication Date: 27/03/07

[ga_trojan]

CASA are concened with one thing only: covering there arsesYep that is correct and that what FMS is all about. CASA washing their hands of responsibility. Once you have a FMS the legal repsonsibility is on the pilot to call in tired. CASA got very very nervous after a particular incident a few years back when they almost found out the hard way how weak CAO 48 was in court.