Pilots dozing at controls

[Capt PPRuNe]

JAL pilots dozing at controls as union blasts cockpit policy

Takanori Kobayashi

Monday, September 3, 2001 at 09:30 JST

TOKYO — Next time you're on a long Japan Air Lines flight and you lean back to have a nap, it would be nice to know that the pilot and co-pilot aren't doing the same thing.

But that is what may very well be happening, warn members of the JAL pilots union who are up in arms over the company's policy of using only two cockpit crew on long-haul flights instead of three, as most foreign airlines and All Nippon Airways do.

In late July, members of the JAL Flight Crew Union handed out petitions to passersby around Ginza station in Tokyo to let the public know how dangerous a long flight (over nine hours) is when there are only two cockpit crew, a practice known as flying single formation within the industry. Pilots insist there should be three pilots, known as multiple formation, for a long flight.

Although this issue affects the traveling public as well as pilots, many people are unaware of it. Few travelers know how many crew are in the cockpit or even what they do during a flight.

JAL pilots union vice chairperson Akihito Yajima said, "Many media came to us to report on the matter, but they didn't play it up. JAL is a big advertiser, so I guess they didn't want to cause any trouble."

In reality, in the case of a long flight, JAL pilots need to handle the controls for about 11 hours without resting. This leaves no time for either pilot to take a break. Sometimes, the total amount of working hours reaches almost 15. If there are three pilots, they can take turns resting.

According to a recent study by the U.S. Airline Pilots Association, having only two pilots in the cockpit during long flights is risky. Japanese pilots also took part in the survey and they have some pretty scary stories to tell.

One said he didn't remember what he actually did during a long flight by single formation. Another Japanese pilot admitted he fell asleep during an actual flight. When he awoke after several minutes, he noticed his co-pilot was dozing.

Besides these shocking reports, many other Japanese pilots recounted incidents in which they had lapses in concentration while at the controls due to exhaustion on a long flight in which there were only two cockpit crew.

Says Yajima, "Every month, about 100 JAL pilots fail medical checks because of exhaustion. Usually, when we hire pilots, we take people who are in better health than ordinary people. Handling a long flight between two pilots requires endurance. Considering the global standard, JAL's work standard is at an amazingly low level. Most foreign airline companies and even All Nippon Airways use multiple formations for long flights."

But Yosie Otaka, a spokesperson for JAL, counters: "Our work standard was approved back in 1993 by the transport ministry and there have been no safety problems since."

Nevertheless, in July, JAL did compromise and started to use three crew on some long flights. But Yajima said it was pointless unless the measure was applied to all long flights. In addition, he insisted, "Since JAL has the right to change its operational rules, they can make changes whenever they like. It's necessary to revise the work standard itself, otherwise this problem will not be solved fundamentally."

Explaining why JAL changed its policy from single to multiple formation on some long flights, Otaka answered, "When we change flight patterns of pilots, we take pilots' opinions into consideration based on our operational rules. For instance, we have increased the number of multiple formations and length of stayover at destination. This current pattern change is the result of an examination of various viewpoints within the company, not because we thought single formation for a long flight is risky."

Not satisfied, the union has taken the matter to court but it may be a while before a decision is made. In the meantime, JAL is stating its case on its homepage. "Our safety measures are the best in the world, even higher than global standards. We intend to take whatever measures are necessary in terms of safety which is our No. 1 priority," it says.

Reassuring words. Let's hope the pilot and co-pilot had their eight hours before the next flight.

Source: Japan Today (http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=66042)

[exeng]

Capt. PPRuNe,

Shocking though it may be, I have woken up on two occasions many years ago to find the Capt and F/O asleep. Needless to say I had only slept myself with the permission of the CAPT and on the understanding that I would be the only crewmember (F/E) taking a nap.

Wasn't the I.N.S a fantastic invention!!


Regards
Exeng

[Kaptin M]

Similarly, exeng, several years ago after a minimum rest in ANC, having flown SIN-SEL (minimum layover), and then SEL-ANC, we were on the ANC-SL return leg with the F/E asleep, and the Captain said to me "If you@re tired and want to sleep, wake me up - I need to take a sleep."
"Okay, I don`t feel too bad at the moment" said I. And the skipper joined the F/E in the Land of Nod.

The sun was high in the sky, we were about 30 minutes from our next reporting position, and the engines droned on.

I awoke with a start!! The Captain and F/E were still dozing, and I realised I also had - ALL 3 of us AT THE SAME TIME!!...I have no idea whether it was 2 minutes or 20.

The Captain had done the right thing, by telling me that he was going to take a sleep (it has been proven far better to get 15 or 20 minutes of proper sleep, than trying to sneek "micro-sleeps", as these only cause you to become even more tired after you wake up), but I had nodded off unknowingly through a combination of back-of-the-clock rostering, minimum rest layovers, and zonal time changes (jet lag/circadian rythm) that don`t allow one to rest completely.

ZZZzzzzzzz

[Huck]

I had a senior captain wake up one time and tell me to quit reading.... :D :D :D

[SentryIP]

Hey Huck,

Same situaton has happened to me before, too. War Eagle! AE 1979.

SentryIP

[Traffic]

Noddy is no doubt a frequent visitor to many a flight deck during cruise. The consequences are notmally less life threatening than roaring along a quiet country road but disturbing nonetheless.

The following is an account of an accident that happened at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in 1993.

Further detailed studies following this accident revealed that the crew had been on the back end of a inhumane roster for the previous three days which was further complicated by u/s aircraft and a/c changes.

By the time they got to Guantanomo they were zombies. The most interesting thing is the captain when interviewed said he could see it all unravelling before him but was so zombie-like he was actually powerless to do anything about the situation. He just sat there in a state of semi-euphoria waiting for the impact.

This is the most frightening aspect of excessive tiredness, the complete loss of reflexes and survival instincts.

When airlines continue to push the envelope on rostering and expect everyone to have the constitution of of a NASA astronaut then there are going to be body bags eventually.

FWIW


Date:18.08.1993
Time:16.56 EDT
Type:McDonnell Douglas DC- 8-61
Operator:Kalitta International
Registration: N814CK
C/n: 46127/510
Year built:1969
Total airframe hrs: 43947 hours
Cycles: 18829 cycles
Crew:0 fatalities / 3 on board
Passengers:0 fatalities / 0 on board
Total:0 fatalities / 3 on board
Location:Guantanamo NAS (Cuba)
Phase:Final Approach
Nature:Freight
Flight:Norfolk NAS, VA - Guantanamo NAS (Flightnumber 808)

Remarks:
Flight 808 took off from Norfolk at 14.13h for a cargo flight to Guantanamo Bay. The flight and
arrival into the Guantanamo terminal area was uneventful. At 16.34, while the flight was
descending from FL320, radio contact was established with the Guantanamo radar controller.
The radar controller instructed flight 808 to maintain VFR 12miles off the Cuban coast and report at East Point. The runway in use was Runway 10. The flightcrew then requested a Runway 28 approach, but changed this back to a Runway 10 approach a couple of minutes later. Clearance was given at 16.46h with wind reported at 200deg./7kts. The runway 10 threshold was located 0,75mile East of Cuban airspace, designated by a strobe light, mounted on a Marine Corps guardtower, located at the corner of the Cuban border and the shoreline. On the day of the accident,the strobe light was not operational (both controller and flightcrew were not aware of this). The aircraft was approaching from the south and was making a right turn for Runway 10 with an increasing angle of bank in order to align with the runway. At 200-300ft agl the wings started to rock towards wings level and the nose pitched up. The right wing appeared to stall, the aircraft rolled to 90deg. angle of bank and the nose pitched down. The aircraft then struck level terrain1400ft west of the approach end of the runway and 200ft north of the extended centreline.
PROBABLE CAUSES: "The impaired judgement, decision-making, and flying abilities of the
captain and flight crew due to the effects of fatigue; the captain's failure to properly assess the conditions for landing and maintaining vigilant situational awareness of the airplane while maneuvering onto final appoach; his failure to prevent the loss of airspeed and avoid a stall while in the steep bank turn; and his failure to execute immediate action to recover from a stall.
Additional factors contributing to the cause were the inadequacy of the flight and duty time
regulations applied to 14 CFR, Part 121, Supplemental Air Carrier, international operations, and the circumstances that resulted in the extended fligh/duty hours and fatigue of the flight crew members. Also contributing were the inadequate crew resource management training and theinadequate training and guidance by American International Airways, Inc., to the flightcrew foroperations at special airports such as Guantanamo Bay; and the Navy's failure to provide asystem that would assure that local tower controller was aware of the inoperative strobe lightso as to provide the flightcrew with such information." (NTSB/AAR-94/04)

[Capt Snooze]

Wouldn't happen in my cockpit!

:D

[Throtlemonkey]

A few years ago I was on night shift filling Ag Aircraft with chemicals, working with
some truly insane pilots who flew under power lines at three in the morning. One
morning after a 15 hour shift I left work for home and despite the numerous coffees, I fell asleep at the wheel - I woke up in time to see the ditch I was to hit then got knocked out by the steering wheel, next thing it was a paramedic who woke me and told me I was goingto be ok so I went back to sleep.

So Beware you might get through the flight but will you survive the drive home ?

[kippa]

I have flown too many night flights where napping was prohibited and the result was three completely knackered crew on final approach concentrating not only on the approach but on keeping their eyes open. Good company chaps I am sure but not practical for a safe operation.

I like the open approach.. Guys I am sha$$ed, I need ten minutes shut eye. The other guy is aware that he has the ship. Ten minutes later,awake, rejuvinated and adding to flight safety as opposed to struggling to keep eyes open and subtracting from safety.

If it is structured I believe napping to be a sound practice.

[whalecapt]

Wouldn't happen in your cockpit Capt Snooze? :rolleyes: You probably wouldn't even know! :D

[enginefailure]

i'm not totally sure but i believe trains stop, if there isn't pushed a button permanently by the traindriver (or something like this).

So, how about a button in the cockpit which has to be pushed every 10 minutes (either by cpt or fo).
Otherwise: Master caution alert !!!!!!
Wake up, everybody !

on the other side:
if you feel tired on longhaul, why don't you ask the flight attendants "Please look after us every 10 minutes" ? too painful ?

just an idea ......

or via the intercom:
"Dear passengers. We are happy that you choose flying with xxx on our flight from yyy to zzz. If you remark any unusually maneuvers or noises, do not hesitate to come to the cockpit asap!"

[ 04 September 2001: Message edited by: enginefailure ]

[ 04 September 2001: Message edited by: enginefailure ]

[Dropp the Pilot]

Couldn't agree more, Chatham.

You might be interested to know that if you are fortunate enough to travel on a 777, the airplane monitors the pilots for activity. After a certain interval (depending on phase of flight), if it doesn't see enough activity on the various cockpit switches, it asks for a pilot response. If there is none, it makes a tone and caution lights illuminate. Very shortly thereafter, if there is no response, there is a master warning which I can guarantee you will wake the dead.

Nice, huh?

[scanscanscan]

Traffic....Nose down, 90 degree bank, hit the ground, DC8, all the pilots lived?
Wow thats cool!

[Mert]

Engine failure, I'm not sure how it works in other countries, but in the US the locomotives have a system like you describe, if there are no control inputs over a determined period of time ( maybe 5 to 10 minutes ) an alarm sequence will begin, first it is a strobe light of low intensity with no audio, over a period of a few seconds the strobe becomes moree intense and an audio alarm starts softly then gets progressively louder until the engineer silences the alarm. If after a period of time from the beginning of the alarm no action is taken the system causes the train to make an emergency stop ( if you weren't awake by then that'll sure wake you up! )
Unfortunately instead of keeping the crews awake and alert all it seems to accomplish is that it teaches conductors and brakemen to sleep through anything, and the engineers learn this skill as well as how to subconciously silence the alarm without interrupting their sleep as well.

:)

[DrSyn]

In addition to DtP's post on the 777, I can confirm that later model 767-300s also have a PILOT RESPONSE monitor which, if ignored, will eventually trigger the siren.

Since Casablanca installed their radar (Allah be praised), eliminating the need for VHF PX, I have had a number of EICAS advisories on the sector between Canarias and Lisbon. It often comes up on longer oceanic legs, of course. I hasten to add that it has not had to run the full program on my shift, by the way!

Most UK loco cabs have a loud "buzzer" which sounds every couple of minutes and is cancelled by either a hand or foot switch. Failure to respond results in train power cut-off and application of the brakes. Due to the (generally) higher density of signals on UK tracks than in the USA, Mert's 5-10 mins would result in an unacceptable number of SPADs (Signals Passed at Danger) - ONE is unacceptable!

If the Driver (Engineer) and Fireman both fell asleep on one of our steamers, the fire would go out :) - I don't recall seeing the system fitted on any of our restored locos, but am open to correction.

[Grandad Flyer]

People always assume its only a long haul problem, but bear in mind that certain UK companies operate regular mixed duties culminating in something like an early followed by a night Tel Aviv or night Paphos. The mixed duties only increase the fatigue felt and although there is a bit more interest when there is a landing in the middle, its still a long sector. With 10 hours of flying and a very short turn around in the middle, you find yourself at 6am trying to keep your eyes open on the way home. Night Canary Islands are bad too because you often spend a long time with nothing going on on the radio, just calling a reporting point when you reach the Canaries or Portugal.
Many of our crew admit they have fallen asleep on the drive home. As my car insurance premiums are higher due to my occupation I can only assume there is a high incidence of accidents amongst crew driving home after a long duty.
At least long haul crews do their 10-11 hours of flying and are taken to a hotel bed. And generally they start the duty rested.
When you've had a run of earlies, then you want to go to bed early as you are tired, but then you wake early and are meant to go back to bed to get the sleep in ready for your night report.
Its crap!
I think perhaps companies and the CAA should issue approved guidelines on flight deck naps. And I think more aircraft should have alarms.
Best of all would be if rostering actually had to work our hours for a month to see what works and what doesn't.
I also heard recently that its known that 1 hour in the air is as tiring as 2 hours work on the ground, due to the pressurisation/ environment causing additional fatigue.

[sudden twang]

Went to the doctor the other day .
He asked what the problem was and I said that I had this dream that I was flying a 744 over the pond . Well whats wrong with that he asked ? Well when I awoke , I was still only at 40W.
Old one I know but how true ??

[Wiley]

If ever there was a thread where all respondents should re-read the red writing at the bottom of the page it's this one.

This is a thread built for some tabloid 'journalist' to come out with some lurid headlines quoting - or misquoting - comments made here.

[MasterGreen]

Yes, but it also a thread that highlights some of the worse fears of all of us. The rules and limitations are being built and used by people who have no practical idea of the real problems.

I would agree that a perfectly rested pilot / operator can handle the duty times laid down by the current system. However the problem of "creeping fatigue" is one that we all recognise and cope with day in and out. We cope and almost never speak up. Why - don't ask me? - I don't either. I see my peers coping, so I think it is my special problem.

I have been doing this for 32 years now and I know all the tricks and symptoms, I cope. But if I was really honest with myself I would be asking harder questions. As I get older it becomes harder - not only am I less able to handle it, but we are working more and worse patterns in the name of economy. Eventually the graphs will cross.

So where does this go ? My company does not have any recognition for "bad" blocks. They are just duty times by and bye. But some duties are real stuffers on the fatigue graph. I have no problem with working my share, but sometimes the combinations are a real problem. No-one listens, and this significant problem to flight safety goes on and on.

This is a thread that should continue ....

MG

[Self Loading Freight]

It worries me. I've caught enough 6am flights to pretend not to notice when the crew look rougher than me -- although the triple espresso at the gate coffee bar can be a bit of a give-away.

So, what does everyone want to do about it? Random fatigue testing in the cockpit, like breathalysers? Tiredness is a safety issue much like alcohol or drug abuse, and if crew are unwilling or unable to refuse to fly if they feel unsafe then some other form of safeguard must happen or we'll have reform by tombstone again. Or should there be some sort of anonymous reporting system aimed at producing stats that can be used to back up a reform campaign? Or will it take some lurid scare story?

R

[Kaptin M]

You're right, SLF, many a time after an all night (meaning a 10 1/2 - 12 1/2 hour flight) with a morning arrival, I often used to think "I wonder how confident the pax would be, if THEY knew how WE feel right now - during one of the critical phases of flight!"

As for the captain who doesn't allow his crew to sleep - he needs to do some research into the subject, and perhaps then he might realise that just because the other crew member(s) eyes are not closed, that doesn't necessarily equate to him being fully awake and reliable.

If you're tired, TELL the other guy that you NEED to sleep.

There's nothing wrong with setting one of those noisy old alarm clocks, if you think there's a chance that the other chap will nod off when he should be awake.

[Busta]

Yes this thread should continue; it's adressing the single most important issue in commercial aviation at the moment.

Allowable flight deck 'napping' and 'wake up devices' are looking at the problem from the wrong end; a bit like taking aspirin to stop the headache instead of buying a bigger hat!

The proper solution as we all know is a combination of realistic FTL's, appropriate rostering and adequate crew ratios.

Few things matter very much, most things don't matter at all.

[GenAv]

Beleive it or not, but i too have succummed to the odd nap whilst flying. Fortunately i was single pilot ops so no-one was there to scare. The first couple of times it happens it does come as a shock to you however after you get the knack of it, it's really not that much of a drama. My first experience was when I was doing a ferry flight a few years ago in a C172 from thailand to Aust. I had been up all hours the night before with two lovely oriental ladies (money well spent) and a bottle of Vodka and woke feeling a little tired. Looking in the mirror i realised my eyes looked like **** holes in the snow but i had to deliver this aircraft back to it's owners so i departed. After about 8hours flying a started getting heavy eyelids and then that was it until i heard the stall warning going on and off intermitently. I woke and found i had dozed off and lost several thousand feet but apart from beeing pissed off that i'd have to climb all that way back to height, nothing was wrong. It was then that i realised the stall warning has 2 functions. 1) notifying the pilot of an impending stall condition and 2) a very simple wake up device. If you are flying single pilot and require 40 winks than go ahead. BUT MAKE SURE YOUR HAND IS TIED TO THE CONTROL COLUMN. This is very important as after a minute or two of sleeping your whole body will relax and your hand will fall back against your body, pulling the controls back and stalling the aircraft. Stall warning goes off and you wake up. Get back on height and do it again. You can do this many times and when you get to your destination you arrive fresh and ready for your next international ferry flight. I like to call this technique "macro-naps". These are far more productive than micronaps as you get longer periods of Z's. ;)

[Bob Hawke]

GenAv, hope your owner had good insurance.

[Busta]

Genav

I hope youv'e retired.

[Self Loading Freight]

GenAv--

I'm not sure that technique is applicable to civil aviation, although it has a certain elegance. Not sure that the stall warning would do much good in icing, engine failing or anything else that upset the normal smooth running of events, either.

It's also interesting that you think a long period of sleep is better than a short one. Sleep (and fatigue) are imperfectly understood, although quite a lot is known. Micronaps can be better for recovering alertness than sleep where a later cycle is entered only to be interrupted. (aside: I seem to remember that Napoleon claimed to go for very long periods without sleep, except for tiny moments where he deliberately dozed off holding a spoon above a teatray. The noise of the spoon hitting the tray woke him up, much refreshed. Or so he said.)

I wonder how many pilots know as much about *how* tiredness and sleep affect them as they do about the systems of their aircraft?

R

[Traffic]

GenAv

I am intrigued.

You obviously practised this in dual configuration prior to departure (vodka-assisted)...but what actually happens when you tie your own hand to the column (stone-cold sober) and the buzzer goes off?

Great of you can pull it off.

Many years ago there was a Welsh ex-fleet air arm driver by the name of Moody-Jones. On the top of his old navy helmet were the words.."dig here for MOO". I suggest you getv one made up..it will make it easier to dig you out...

Happy stalling. :rolleyes:

[ExSimGuy]

Av, Sounds a great idea!

But as SLF on a commercial carrier, I'd much prefer more than 2 pilots on a long sector - same as I'd prefer more than two donks! (Did someone mention ETOPS in the thread regarding the Transat incident? Maybe after 2 flame-outs the drivers would have realised there was a fuel problem earlier and configured feed to keep the 3rd one going)

(Have to admit that I landed safely after doing an 8-hour transatlantic yesterday on a 767 - but I'd still have preferred a 3-holer)

[Checkboard]

Nice post Av. In all seriousness, I knew a guy once who flew freight (newspapers) in a 172RG with a "wing leveller" autopilot (i.e. single channel aileron only).

He used to set his wristwatch alarm, then place the watch inside his headset earcup, and sleep in flight (single pilot at night) for twenty minutes or so, until the alarm woke him up. :eek:

Wasn't you was it? ;)

[FreighterJock]

Hei,GenAv....And you even BRAG about it??????I Think you are in the WRONG forum,You better go to the WANNABES'....CHEERS and HAPPY STALLS :eek:

[PPRuNe Towers]

FJ - GenAv is a self appointed wind up artiste to the site.

[Traffic]

8 hrs and still in the snooze and at cruise in a C172..guess we all knew it wasn't Dick Smith on a rtw sojourn.

Was fooled by the BKK pre-flight checks which looked pretty standard.

[ttesna]

As most of us long range pilots will agree,especially those with charter/or freight airlines,(no luxury for 3/4 crew)
that 12 hr,flight time, 2 pilot back of the clock is very tiring,especially on the return leg/s.(naturally min rest in between)
The built-in a/c protection is risky,(ie not touching any system button etc for 30 mins,or the secal dinging in the back ground asking for your late position report.A good investment is a small egg? timer,they are cheap,easy to set,ie 20,30 mins,and will save you a visit to the chief pilots office.
Even though you ask your crew member "ARE YOU OKAY",set the time for the next position report etc,i can assure you its peace of mind.(IT MAY WAKE HIM UP TO)
I see no problems with one pilot of a multi crew team having 20 or 30 mins shut eye tme to time,it is a safer operation especially if you have to shoot a vor or ndb at the destination.
:eek:

[stablepowerset]

I did know of an F/E on a certain multi engine transport a/c with cavernous hold who used the egg timer set at 50 mins on vibrate to wake him up to fill in his log!!! worked for him.
On a serious note the company i work for does suggest that on night sectors the cabin crew should visit the flight deck at least every 20 minutes, admitedly on an empty frame trying to find one of them awake down the back can be sporting sometimes!!!
Honesty however has to be the best policy!! if your tired say something, have a snooze, but dont forget if your tired then probably so is everybody else so let them have there turn as well.
on a personal note last time i went to sleep in the seat i got woken up by a no.2 eng fire warning!!! tended to have a long term psychological effect in dissuading me from sleeping on the job!!!

[NotMyJob]

Better to be rested than tested. Policy should and probably will migrate towards more rational use of managed "catnaps". :cool:

[Ignition Override]

Traffic: very good point you made on page one. That terrible duty period was just one of many at such carriers. This is only a tiny tip of a gigantic iceberg, which our FAA prefers not to know about, unless many more revenue passengers die (at the same time) because of it.

That was the first accident of a US air carrier where the NTSB blamed crew fatigue as the primary cause. The MD-83 accident at Little Rock (KLIT) caused the FAA (our "Tombstone Agency", as former DOT Inspector General Mary Schiavo reminded us) to finally include a scheduled rest period among consecutive duty days/night-because people died, not cargo: and this after decades of ignoring the reality, due to their priority of indirectly subsidizing the airlines' cost structures. I've twice flown with two FOs recently who flew either Kallita's DC-8 or Learjet. The guy from Florida who flew the Lear for about five years, said that at the end of a 14-hour duty period (with no scheduled or actual rest period/s), they sometimes had to fly for several more hours on a ferry flight, when empty. They were somtimes on duty 20-24 hours or so with no rest period. The US FARS allowed this (still do?), because there were no passengers or cargo (Part 91, versus 135 or 121).

I just finished a trip tonight with a guy who flew DC-8s at Kallita, and he said again that one DC-8 had NO elevator deflection, as indicated by a cockpit gauge. Connie allegedly claimed that the pilots didn't understand the system-but the plane would not have rotated for takeoff! All three plus the mechanic stood together, stood up to the company owner and refused to fly the plane, while convincing him that the plane would not fly-he then either repaired the system or found a spare plane. I wonder how accurate his DC-8 fuel gauges are. Even the better carriers don't trust them much.

Once, he allegedly flew a Lear solo, and when an FAA inspector saw him upon arrival at an FBO and asked where his First Officer was, the guy said he did not need one, closed the door and taxied out for takeoff. That is pretty much the version which the former Kallita pilot told me.

Guvnor: were the DC-8s which you flew well-maintained?

[ 07 September 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]

[A and C]

With 25 years in this industry the first 18 on the ground working a 3 shift system and then 5 years night cargo i did not have to much of a problem wih fatigue as all the shift times were "allmost regular" but when i changed fleets i found that the roster was about as stable as a south american goverment and fatigue started to set in.

At first i tryed to ignore this rapidly increasing problem (after all it was the first time i 22 years in aviation and i did not want to admit even to my self that i could not "hack it")but the evidence was to big to egnore ,and when the company started keeping me on my feet (quite leagaly)for 26 hours when returning from a weeks flying just to save a few £ on an airline ticket i had had enough.

I left that company for a lower pay job and got my life back , im sure that if i had not taken the action i did i would of killed myself driving home or worse.

On reflection it seems to me that it is not the hours that you work (within reason)but the work/sleep patern that is the problem.

[Zulu]

There is a wealth of evidence out there that a 20/30 minute 'power-nap' is safer than fighting fatigue and 'nodding-head' syndrome.

Do a www.google.com (http://www.google.com) search with "NASA" and "Rosekind", and you'll find numerous references to studies done in this area.

Typical quote:

"Working with the Federal Aviation Administration, NASA researcher Mark R. Rosekind scheduled sequential 40 minute naps for the pilots, co-pilots and flight engineers of commercial 747s over the ocean. Then naps were to prepare them for descent and landing, the most hazardous segments of the flight. Napping crew members, who slept an average of 26 - 40 minutes, were much more alert following their snooze than non-nappers. Then performed better, bringing clearer thinking and greater quickness to their tasks. Those who did not nap experienced almost four times as many "microsleeps" - naps lasting seconds, when the brain involuntarily dozes off."

[chrislamb]

So the PanAm idea of having a dog on the flight deck to both keep the pilot awake and to stop the 1st officer from touching anything important, didn't catch on ??

[Paterbrat]

Nice one GenAv. Yes the preflight procedures did tend to add authenticity.
Along with the dog in the cockpit didn't they have also carry a duck and a cat. Duck to throw out and follow when lost, and the cat was for IFR, throw it out and watch which way the feet pointed for ground orientation.
I do remember a certain gent at a pilot forum years ago dropping lots of jaws as he praised his autopilot because he explained that he could set it then go back and have a sleep having set his big alarm. He meant it too.
Had a girlfriend who worked PanAm and came back from a South American run where the Captain had been doing the PR tour of the cabin when some passenger asked what time they were landing. Capt looks at watch, goes pale and excuses himself. F/O and F/E fast asleep, destination overshot.
Happened in EAA inbound to Dar when a passenger noticed that brown had turned to blue underneath and asked hostess to investigate. Two gents up front were both in the land of nod.
Woke up one morning on a long direct across Monckton sector and found everybody else asleep, was pretty horrified and now opt for declared short spells rather than involuntary lapses. As Forrest Gump so succinctly put it **** happens.
Edited for major spelling and to say, loved the flying pigs on # 1's posting but they look as though they have only got one wing had to look real close to spot t'other

[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: Paterbrat ]

[Tom the Tenor]

Where is our friend, SKYDRIFTER these days? He is most well read on this subject of fatigue and would have loads to say on the matter and knows well how the FAA treats the issue in America.

[brockenspectre]

I am not a commercial pilot so would like to know what are the "rules" for flying hours.

I have been told that some charter pilots can even find themselves spending a lot of time being ferried from their home airport to another to run some "there and back" flight to be ferried home again. In such a circumstance I have been told that the pilot "hours" for work purposes do NOT begin as s/he gets in the minibus prior to a few hours boneshaking road journey to the aircraft but when they arrive at the departure airport!!

Is this correct?

:D

[PAXboy]

Do folks recall the car manufacturers testing Infra-Red eye check system?

mounted on the dash, the unit was calibrated to the driver and then pulsed IR every one or two(?) seconds. If the eye dissappeared, then an alarm sounded. Obviously, the driver could have been changing radio or something so silences the alarm. I don't think they had an auto-stop (ala train) fitted.

Problem is, if the airlines fitted this - they would be admitting that their scheduling was not conducive to good health!

Pprune could start selling branded Pprune Clocks that fit into the top pocket and vibrate ;)

[DCDriver]

Having recently been involuntarily retired from 3-crew longhaul in favour of 2-pilot electric gameboyjets I have much regard for the 3rd man, especially when fatigue sets in during the wee small hours over the ocean.
Allowing one person to nap while the other two watch the shop has always seemed the sensible way to deal with it.
However, flew with a particular F/E some years back who was always asleep by 20W even on a daytime w'bound out of the UK. This got a bit tiresome after a while,so I crept round the back of his seat to test the fire bell, while the F/O watched gleefully for his reaction......of which there was none- just more snores. When he finally awoke he was presented with a "Death on Board" form.

[802j668]

I think the problems in this area are possibly one of the most profound and worrying facing our industry at the moment. The bottom line would seem to be that management and industry gurus have become obsessed with the fancy gizmos and bells and whistles that technology has given us and forgotten that pilots are human beings evolved over millions of years to operate mostly in daylight. To treat us simply as another link in a mechanistic process is good for the profit margins short term but over the long term will undoubtedly be disastrous, if indeed it has not already been. How many accidents have been put down as 'pilot error' when in fact should read 'pilot totally knackered through fatigue at the end of the summer season but still within hours'? Quite a few I should imagine. Human rest needs and sleep pattern disruption problems have been studied in great depth, particularly in the military. The way we operate presently is dangerous (do you think falling asleep on base leg is safe - I've done and I was the Captain) and until our industry takes less notice of accountants and more of pilots then I fear for the worse. Most MDs are accountants so I suppose the living dead will prevail.

[purple haze]

sorry for my ignorance,

but how would a three crew operation work,

itsnt a pilot only allowed to fly for a max. of 8hrs so wouldnt three pilots be too few.

wouldnt the min. required be four to maintain that regulation?

or is it that the pilots have very short breaks of a couple of hours and take it in turns to rest.

are there always 2 pilots on f/d at all times and how does it work when the f/e is there?


cheers

[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: purple haze ]

[Ignition Override]

Brokenspectre: Unless enough revenue passengers have died recently to help the FAA justify including ferry flights as "flight duty", it is very possible that flights with no passengers, even a flight from LAX to BOS, could still be considered something OTHER than duty. This could be after a 14 hour day flying passengers and/ or cargo, with no rest period in between.

Or, those passengers in back might have a flightcrew which has been through ten hours of continuous duty with no intervening rest period, before their "delicate pink bodies" step onboard for a eight hour flight.

This was not uncommon (at least until recently), and happened for decades with the blessings of the US FAA. Think about it: their primary mandate was to "promote aviation" and make as few changes as possible to the system, being a very unwieldy over-bloated bureaucracy.

You have all seen pictures of a swollen dead cow in a river or pond, with a methane psi high enough to start a JT8-D engine ( APU: 36 psi at sea level, ground starter: 25 psi min.). Any apparent similarities between floating dead mammals (especially bloated, hairy pink pigs) and the gigantic US FAA bureaucracy are merely coincidental. Did someone out there just utter the phrase "the public feeding trough"?...This is not to critique the many nice guys/gals with the FAA who have pilot or FE backgrounds, possibly other operational experience, and who do a very reasonable job "on the line", along with the ATC personnel etc.

[ 10 September 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]

[ 11 September 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]

[scanscanscan]

SKYDRIFTER....Is probably feeling like a piece of chewed string and crapped out in his uniform on his bed, that is if he actually made it outa the bathroom, and is now awaiting his pickup for, a two crew 12hour night duty, delayed TBN.
This I was told is tirdness and normal, and not fatigue, which the regulations guard against and is not normal.

[Ignition Override]

Recently, the American Airlines pilots' union, the APA, filed some sort of grievance against their company because of flight planning at lower altitudes (less headwind), in order to reduce enroute time and avoid the FAR requirement for a third crewmember to be on board. Apparently such flights have more trouble with weather on those routes, as is easy to imagine (and more fuel burn). That was my impression from either Internut or media articles.

What is the latest on this?

In an industry which has been changed from a service into a commodity business, none of this really surprises me. Once, when a former majority stockholder visited a B-757 (with Pratt&Whitney engines) cockpit while enroute, the Captain descended while seeking a smoother altitude. After asking the Captain for the difference in fuel burn (on the "progress page"), the co-owner's only reaction was something like "that will cost me xxxx dollars". What a classy response. Those CPA backgrounds are really paying off regarding attitudes towards passenger service (or lack of).

[cribble]

My mob have a "Controlled Pilot Rest" regime, agreed by CAA and built in to SOPs. Among the constraints/procedures are:
a. No level changes
b. FAs briefed to visit the flight deck at regular intervals
c. Reccommended max of about 45 min (enables rest but prevents deep sleep-lets the person be effective again, post wake-up, in about 10-15 min).
Needless to say these rest periods take place mainly on back-of the-clock long haul, outside of VHF range. :cool: