The Australian today QF - NY what pax want.

[Rated De]

Originally Posted by Derfred

As you would well know, there was an extensive study over a decade ago involving crew members wearing wrist monitoring devices, maintaining logs, and even conducting simulator sessons immediately after long-range ops to assess their fatigue-affected competency. It involved a lot of volunteer work from pilots and was conducted with the leading Australian sleep institute at Adelaide University.

When the report came out, it presumably contained answers that the Company did not like, and apparently even the Mafia would have been impressed at how quickly, quietly and deeply the report was buried - never to be seen again.

So, does anyone wonder why they are a little short on volunteers for this latest “study”?

"One only launches an enquiry when one knows the answer in advance"

There may well be a 'study'. Presumably the data is being collected and the sample parameters set by a reputable third party that create a valid data sample from which statistical inferences can be drawn that are VALID.
As Mr Derfred explains there is an ocean of difference between the Adelaide Sleep Institute conducted study and a company study, that surprisingly is 'short of volunteers'.
Could you please enlighten us as to which firm the company and presumably your representatives, have contracted to independently collect, collate and interpret that data?

[maggot]

That study is old technology


Oh wait

[Beer Baron]

Originally Posted by Rated De

Presumably the data is being collected and the sample parameters set by a reputable third party that create a valid data sample from which statistical inferences can be drawn that are VALID.
As Mr Derfred explains there is an ocean of difference between the Adelaide Sleep Institute conducted study and a company study, that surprisingly is 'short of volunteers'.
Could you please enlighten us as to which firm the company and presumably your representatives, have contracted to independently collect, collate and interpret that data?

The firms contracted for the study are Alertness/CRC and Pulsar Informatics.

For those concerned about the resulting data being buried, it is very important to understand that this study is also being managed by AIPA. They have gone to great pains to ensure that neither Qantas or the firms conducting the study ‘own’ the data. AIPA initiated the study and have insisted on full access to the data from day one.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

They will only be interested in Pax data because those are the poor bastards who pay for the experience. Bad experience, pax no go. Pax no go, company make no money. Crew get paid, so crew go regardless.

[Rated De]

Originally Posted by Beer Baron

The firms contracted for the study are Alertness/CRC and Pulsar Informatics.

For those concerned about the resulting data being buried, it is very important to understand that this study is also being managed by AIPA. They have gone to great pains to ensure that neither Qantas or the firms conducting the study ‘own’ the data. AIPA initiated the study and have insisted on full access to the data from day one.

Thank you for the insight.
It would be of benefit, if further insight could be provided as to the empirical data being sourced, the coverage of both pilots and route and more importantly what duration of panel data will be collected?
If it is that the data collected covers the whole network, not specific routes, all crew involved and indeed continues to do so for a number of years the observations may be sufficient, from a statistical viewpoint, to make meaningful inferences.

This could, if properly structured be a study of some importance, provided there are sufficient observations, over sufficient time covering all possible route and roster combinations to make a meaningful contribution to the understand of fatigue and its long term impact.
Has AIPA a statistician to assist with the sample construct?

[Beer Baron]

It would be of benefit, if further insight could be provided as to the empirical data being sourced, the coverage of both pilots and route and more importantly what duration of panel data will be collected?
If it is that the data collected covers the whole network, not specific routes, all crew involved and indeed continues to do so for a number of years the observations may be sufficient, from a statistical viewpoint, to make meaningful inferences.

Ahhh... No.
If you actually need that info you can speak to your boss or union representative and get the information directly. But sadly too many posters on here just want to sling **** regardless of the facts.

‘Pilots aren’t being studied, it’s an outrage!
Oh, they are but the study is not independent.
Ok, it’s independent but it’s gonna be a cover-up.
Alright, not a cover-up, but if I’m not told about and happy with every single methodology of the study then I revert to my first statement that IT’S AN OUTRAGE!’

It doesn’t really matter what I tell you, you’ve decided long ago that everything that Qantas (and AIPA) do is a scam or a c0ck-up and I don’t think you are prepared to accept otherwise. I’ll correct your gross inaccuracies but I’m not going to change your mind.

To borrow a phrase from the younger generation; “Haters gonna hate”

[krismiler]

ULH is making Emirates B777 Pilots leave in droves, they can only stand it for so long. Most Pilots who have been doing LH for many years look at least 10 years older than their actual age and will probably be dead in their late 60s. Having a successful career and getting a wide body command at an early age can be very bad for your health. At least the QF Pilots live at home and are protected by employment legislation and unions, unlike the EK crews.

The health implications of ULH need investigating in greater depth, this would undoubtedly result in recommendations for strict cut backs well below current limitations, possibly even only allowing a few years of ULH flying. This might not suit the Pacific Barons or the company but other occupations with a toxic or dangerous environment are heavily regulated.

[FightDeck]

Originally Posted by krismiler

ULH is making Emirates B777 Pilots leave in droves, they can only stand it for so long. Most Pilots who have been doing LH for many years look at least 10 years older than their actual age and will probably be dead in their late 60s. Having a successful career and getting a wide body command at an early age can be very bad for your health. At least the QF Pilots live at home and are protected by employment legislation and unions, unlike the EK crews

The health implications of ULH need investigating in greater depth, this would undoubtedly result in recommendations for strict cut backs well below current limitations, possibly even only allowing a few years of ULH flying. This might not suit the Pacific Barons or the company but other occupations with a toxic or dangerous environment are heavily regulated.

Agree with the last paragraph. Night flying alone and the resultant lack of sleep is a massive contributing factor to poor health. Add jet lag and flying to that and the problem is worse. Crew rest sleep is at best 3 hours if your lucky on a ULR sector as you won’t sleep both breaks. QF had protections to limit the effects of unhealthy night flying. It was called night credits and limited the flying you could do if scheduled at night. That was traded away by a union president which subsequently went on to represent Qantas in EBA negotiations. What a coincidence!
But the negotiating team fails to understand the significance and most pilots haven’t seen or comprehend how it will effect them.
The issue is not the unions access to the data.
Its that sunrise proposes close to 23 hour tours of duty in case of LHR direct.
Studying shorter sectors like LA or SFO isn’t close to what is being proposed.
Unless it’s identical it’s scientifically invalid.
Its neither as long, does not depart at the same time of day nor has the same time zone shift.
Plus you need to look at a crew member who’s potentially older, how many similar trips has he/she flown in a roster? What does the data say after a few years of doing that?
vast difference in doing such patterns depending on age.

[knobbycobby]

The company have little concern for crew health. No article in the media has mentioned anything other than gyms,beds,meals for passengers. PER-LHR they briefly looked at it.
The crews on the 787 thought they’d work less on 145 hours but hey presto they are doing 175 and that’s not including any factoring for night flying. Wonder how their health will be in 5-10 years.
But hey some tool TRE who flies one trip every few months at most says it’s ok on Qrewroom so that’s all the science you need.
The fatigue study undertaken does not look at the worst patterns flown and they are nothing close to what is being proposed.
PER-LHR may be close however it’s still short 4-5 hours in duty time. That’s only 33% of the study input too.

It would never be legal by any other global regulator.
Talk to the AIPA welfare representatives and see the increase in cancer and long term sickness rates for long haul pilots on the 330/747/380.
Hopefully AIPA consider culminative fatigue of doing these, and do a proper mission specific analysis, however I suspect they will sign anything due to fear of missing out. In fact I’m sure it’s all agreed upon and they are just going through the motions.
Sure they will say to the regulator pilots can go fatigued etc etc.
But Pilots don’t call fatigued and the company know this. In both the company’s eyes and now AIPAs you get the same credit for flying a day flight to HKG or PER as you will to fly a 23 hour duty all night.
Gotta love the science in that.

[Rated De]

It doesn’t really matter what I tell you, you’ve decided long ago that everything that Qantas (and AIPA) do is a scam or a c0ck-up and I don’t think you are prepared to accept otherwise. I’ll correct your gross inaccuracies but I’m not going to change your mind.

Gross inaccuracy?
What is disingenuous is whether or not the study AIPA and the company engage in meet acceptable statistical norms.
The established norms to provide a valid statistical comparison, would presumably include long term monitoring and follow up to see whether the impact of the proposed route structure on an individual's health outcome.

It isn't a scam or cock up, it is an incomplete statistical and therefore invalid sample, which without proper design renders zero assistance for the poor souls who will be exposed to these tours of duty.
A robust method and statistically sample size with sufficient time series observations, would go a long way to addressing at present what is unknown.

Does this study meet that threshold?

If what knobbycobby alludes to is correct, there may well be a correlation between the way patterns and flying is conducted and long term health.

It would never be legal by any other global regulator. Talk to the AIPA welfare representatives and see the increase in cancer and long term sickness rates for long haul pilots on the 330/747/380.

Correlation is not causation, but study design problems usually mean that the study findings are biased, hypothesis formulation and answering is voided and any outcome is not statistically relevant.
If your union has access to long term and increasing sickness, then a long term study would be the way, self evidently, to address, and for all pilots infer, that long term long range flying has no long term health impacts.
A study as being discussed here, does not meet the study design requirements to address a research question into long term health outcomes from long haul flying.

[JPJP]

Wouldn’t it be amaaaazing if AIPA worked with other unions that have been studying long haul flying ? Unions that have established safe, conservative rules that don’t allow the airlines (like Qantas​​) to fly to the absolute limits that ‘regulators’ allow. Why reinvent the wheel ? The solution has been around for decades - Better rest facilities, longer rest, more time off between trips, better hotels that facilitate rest, and well trained experienced crews.

Yes, that means more time off and more pay. If FLID wants to dance at sunrise, it’s going to cost him money.

AIPA already knows the answer. The obstacle is Qantas management, and to some extent a small proportion of Qantas pilots that think like big fish in a tiny bowl.

Originally Posted by ExtraShot

I don’t have many problems with the QF LH contract, its a fairly healthy one,.

It’s legal to fly the Atlantic with two pilots. Delta (and others) don’t allow it. Why ?Because it’s not consistently safe, if there’s delays it doesn’t work, and the pilots contract says so.