Crew Fatigue : Own Up or Man Up?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kettering
Age: 49
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
While I accept that our military aircrew are more likely to be of a higher calibre than some of their civvy counterparts, that does not change the fact that human beings have a certain tolerance to fatigue. This is completely unrelated to their level of experience and skill so I refuse to agree that different expectations should be made of military aircrew than their civilian counterparts. There may be different levels of fatigue caused by the aircraft itself and the situation experienced in the previous days but the fact remains that no pilot, however well trained, experienced and rested, will be able to continue to function at a safe level for extended periods of time. That's why the rules are there
While I accept that our military aircrew are more likely to be of a higher calibre than some of their civvy counterparts, that does not change the fact that human beings have a certain tolerance to fatigue. This is completely unrelated to their level of experience and skill so I refuse to agree that different expectations should be made of military aircrew than their civilian counterparts. There may be different levels of fatigue caused by the aircraft itself and the situation experienced in the previous days but the fact remains that no pilot, however well trained, experienced and rested, will be able to continue to function at a safe level for extended periods of time. That's why the rules are there
Forgive an old Rigga who is now in QA and Airworthiness for a civil company....
Tourist said:
"We would all agree, I think that the output level of training from the military flying training system is far superior to the civvy minimum cost route."
Wouldn't it be nice to think that, after all that superior training, some superior pilot morals came out of the other end too?
Surely it's not too much to ask for superior trained pilots to care about their performance drop when ill prepared for the mission ahead.
Yes, you are in the military, and there are some occasions when there is a 'military need' to complete a task, but these are relatively few and far between. All the other occasions described here can be put down to "performance pressures" and if you managed to tie more than a few to that label you would be a poor 'captain' in any case.
Tourist said:
"We would all agree, I think that the output level of training from the military flying training system is far superior to the civvy minimum cost route."
Wouldn't it be nice to think that, after all that superior training, some superior pilot morals came out of the other end too?
Surely it's not too much to ask for superior trained pilots to care about their performance drop when ill prepared for the mission ahead.
Yes, you are in the military, and there are some occasions when there is a 'military need' to complete a task, but these are relatively few and far between. All the other occasions described here can be put down to "performance pressures" and if you managed to tie more than a few to that label you would be a poor 'captain' in any case.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Albion
Age: 44
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, the rumour mill is a wonderful thing...
Dear sweet Tourist, you're so far off beam it's rib-tickling. To purvey factually incorrect rumours as truth, whilst branding a long-serving, experienced captain as a 'disgrace', is a little rum, no?
'Hosties', as you so eloquently describe the hard-working cabin crew who do their best to make the unedifying surroundings of a Tristar a little more comfortable, will be the ones guiding you out of the aircraft should a fire break out, or, say, helping you (given that you seem to be something approaching moronic) put your oxygen mask on should the aircraft depressurise because its older than the wheel and its flying with lots of lovely red stickers all over the flight-deck. Its all well and good to spout tosh, but thats the kind of attitude that will put pressure on the inexperienced captain to extend just that little bit too long and fly his barely serviceable aircraft on a twenty-hour day into a dark, wintry and charmingly icy Brize on a Sunday morning, and bring together all those titillating factors into one horrifying accident. Then you have the largest loss of UK armed forces since WW2, and all for the sake of someone talking billy on a website, hmm? It's all fun and games still someone makes a three-engined hole in the ground.
'Hosties', as you so eloquently describe the hard-working cabin crew who do their best to make the unedifying surroundings of a Tristar a little more comfortable, will be the ones guiding you out of the aircraft should a fire break out, or, say, helping you (given that you seem to be something approaching moronic) put your oxygen mask on should the aircraft depressurise because its older than the wheel and its flying with lots of lovely red stickers all over the flight-deck. Its all well and good to spout tosh, but thats the kind of attitude that will put pressure on the inexperienced captain to extend just that little bit too long and fly his barely serviceable aircraft on a twenty-hour day into a dark, wintry and charmingly icy Brize on a Sunday morning, and bring together all those titillating factors into one horrifying accident. Then you have the largest loss of UK armed forces since WW2, and all for the sake of someone talking billy on a website, hmm? It's all fun and games still someone makes a three-engined hole in the ground.
I certainly feel that the skill in this is the ability to differentiate between operational neccessity and pressonitis. The former is the preserve of the professional aviator; the latter the curse of the career chasing, promotion hungry individuals we have all worked for at some time. I would rather fly with the captain who has more concern for the effect his sortie has on the campaign effort that his career prospects.
Tourist, people in glass houses....If there is one abiding image that has stayed with me through the years of posting on the Iraq Hercules thread, the Afghanistan Nimrod thread and the Mull of Kintyre Chinook thread it is a scene that tucumseh described. He was then a Civil Servant at the MOD concerned with the provision of airworthiness. He and other team members were summoned by an RAF 2* who was their ultimate boss. Not to put too fine a point on it, they were individually harangued by the 2* for failing to accede to his orders to ignore their mandated duty to comply with MOD Airworthiness Regulations, but none the less to declare them fulfilled. No doubt he would have told those who expressed their doubts to "man up". The real men in that room were those who carried on in defiance of his illegal order to ensure that at least their bit of airworthiness was provided for. The cost to date of the failure of the UK Military
Airworthiness Authority to ensure that its own Regulations are complied with amounts, by my calculation, to 60 lives lost; 29 in the Mull Chinook, 7 in the two colliding Sea Kings, 10 in the Hercules and 14 in the Nimrod. You and what you stand for is what is wrong with the MOD and Military Aviation today. Flight Safety is about avoiding avoidable accidents so that aircraft and crews remain available for Military Operations. The total enemy presence in those 5 crashes was most probably a single round that penetrated a needlessly unprotected fuel tank.
Airworthiness Authority to ensure that its own Regulations are complied with amounts, by my calculation, to 60 lives lost; 29 in the Mull Chinook, 7 in the two colliding Sea Kings, 10 in the Hercules and 14 in the Nimrod. You and what you stand for is what is wrong with the MOD and Military Aviation today. Flight Safety is about avoiding avoidable accidents so that aircraft and crews remain available for Military Operations. The total enemy presence in those 5 crashes was most probably a single round that penetrated a needlessly unprotected fuel tank.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 2nd Aug 2009 at 23:40.
Thread Starter
Tourist,
You're not AOC2Gp are you?
Joking aside, I'm touched that you hold RAF multi engine pilot training in such high regard. Unfortunately your post demonstrates that you have absolutely no experience of it or, I suspect, direct involvement with any sort of military aviation other than as a passenger. At least I would hope not!
Consequently your opinions relating to decisions made by crews or the complexity of the task they carry out are worth a good ignoring.
However, assuming that you might have been transported by RAF AT at one time or another, your opinions taken in the context of those of a passenger are worth taking note of. They clearly show why RAF AT will always have a less than startling reputation with their customers. Because the decisions made for reasons of fatigue, weather, serviceability etc are the final preserve of the captain. He will act in the interest of your saftey, but if you think you know better, then you will always be dissapointed with the call.
Take it from me , you don't know better
Cheers, Arty
You're not AOC2Gp are you?
Joking aside, I'm touched that you hold RAF multi engine pilot training in such high regard. Unfortunately your post demonstrates that you have absolutely no experience of it or, I suspect, direct involvement with any sort of military aviation other than as a passenger. At least I would hope not!
Consequently your opinions relating to decisions made by crews or the complexity of the task they carry out are worth a good ignoring.
However, assuming that you might have been transported by RAF AT at one time or another, your opinions taken in the context of those of a passenger are worth taking note of. They clearly show why RAF AT will always have a less than startling reputation with their customers. Because the decisions made for reasons of fatigue, weather, serviceability etc are the final preserve of the captain. He will act in the interest of your saftey, but if you think you know better, then you will always be dissapointed with the call.
Take it from me , you don't know better
Cheers, Arty
Thread Starter
Tourist,
Sorry if I over-relegated out of the aircrew set. You may well be an aircrew mate, but I maintain that you don't know much about operating fat planes or the training system that produces their pilots. I hope that will be enough to negate any requirment for willy waving.
Two points for you to ponder:
1) These days, an RAF multi co-pilot will have recieved a shorter course, involving less hours, and FAR less academic tuition than his civvy counterpart. Some years ago it was publicly stated that we no longer train for excellence, merely adequacy. To think that military aircrew possess inate ability far in excess of civilian aviators is conceeted in the extreme.
2) The (very well respected) captain who called a stop to his day at Seeb did so in the knowledge that his crew duty would expire over four hours before he landed at Brize. This coupled with the fact that he and his crew had been unable to rest properly during the day prior to departure prompted him to make the most sensible decision I have seen for some time.
I know that you would disagree with the decision made in point 2, but for that reason, you would not be trusted with the lives of 230+ passengers and crew.
Cheers.
PS, You're right about one thing, Flying a Tristar about is no more tricky than flying an airliner.....
It is an airliner.
Sorry if I over-relegated out of the aircrew set. You may well be an aircrew mate, but I maintain that you don't know much about operating fat planes or the training system that produces their pilots. I hope that will be enough to negate any requirment for willy waving.
Two points for you to ponder:
1) These days, an RAF multi co-pilot will have recieved a shorter course, involving less hours, and FAR less academic tuition than his civvy counterpart. Some years ago it was publicly stated that we no longer train for excellence, merely adequacy. To think that military aircrew possess inate ability far in excess of civilian aviators is conceeted in the extreme.
2) The (very well respected) captain who called a stop to his day at Seeb did so in the knowledge that his crew duty would expire over four hours before he landed at Brize. This coupled with the fact that he and his crew had been unable to rest properly during the day prior to departure prompted him to make the most sensible decision I have seen for some time.
I know that you would disagree with the decision made in point 2, but for that reason, you would not be trusted with the lives of 230+ passengers and crew.
Cheers.
PS, You're right about one thing, Flying a Tristar about is no more tricky than flying an airliner.....
It is an airliner.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
I'm sat here writing an HF course lesson plan on Fatigue and Stress, working my way through all the evidence from RAFCAM and DARS, and I have to say that it is hardly surprising that the accident rate is on the up again. Some of the attitudes on here, that the task is more important than safety is astounding.
Yes, if there are people on the ground in immediate danger or people on the ground who will die if not immediately airlifted, push the limits, I have. The problem we have now is that some people believe any in theatre tasking, whether an actual operation or in support of an operation, is cart balance to ignore the rules. Some people have even stated that some of the rules should be thrown out, perhaps you should take a little bit of time to work out exactly why the rule is there and what happened for the rule to be created. The rules are not there to hinder you, they are there to keep you safe and alive.
After 12 hrs your mental capacity is at 90%, after 18 hours you are at 60%, after 24 hours you are at 40%. You are 4 times more likely to have an accident if you work more that 13 consecutive hours. This is all based on having a proper rest cycle; with disturbed rest the figures are much worse.
Some people need to grow up and realise that sleep and rest rules are there for a purpose, killing you, your colleagues and destroying one of our scarce assets is not big and it's not clever.
Yes, if there are people on the ground in immediate danger or people on the ground who will die if not immediately airlifted, push the limits, I have. The problem we have now is that some people believe any in theatre tasking, whether an actual operation or in support of an operation, is cart balance to ignore the rules. Some people have even stated that some of the rules should be thrown out, perhaps you should take a little bit of time to work out exactly why the rule is there and what happened for the rule to be created. The rules are not there to hinder you, they are there to keep you safe and alive.
After 12 hrs your mental capacity is at 90%, after 18 hours you are at 60%, after 24 hours you are at 40%. You are 4 times more likely to have an accident if you work more that 13 consecutive hours. This is all based on having a proper rest cycle; with disturbed rest the figures are much worse.
Some people need to grow up and realise that sleep and rest rules are there for a purpose, killing you, your colleagues and destroying one of our scarce assets is not big and it's not clever.
Last edited by Sideshow Bob; 3rd Aug 2009 at 11:54.
Tourist:
That's just something I'll have to live with. In 40 years of aviation, both military and civil, the people who made me most nervous were not the wet behind the ears newbies but people like you that "know". On the whole they have been driven out of the civil flight decks by the likes of CRM, but they seem to be well in evidence in the military still, witness Wratten, Day and yourself. The reason I "dragged" the Sea King tragedy in (and it isn't my "personal Airworthiness crusade", its the Armed Forces Airworthiness problem whether they acknowledge it or no) is that in concert with the Chinook, Hercules and Nimrod those two aircraft lacked airworthiness at the time of the accident. That airworthiness deficiency, just as with the Chinook, the Hercules and the Nimrod had a direct bearing on the circumstances of the accident. That the respective BoI's were reluctant to acknowledge that strikes me as a comment on them, and Military Air Accident Investigation in general, rather than anything else. What has all this to do with enforcing Flight Time Limitations? Those five accidents are an example of what happens when Senior Officers renege on their duty, in this case to enforce Military Airworthiness Regulations. What you propose for Tristar captains would inexorably lead eventually to a similar outcome. Keep the aggression for the enemy and stay safe if at all possible, please.
Chugalug
Quite frankly,I despise your attempt to drag the Bagger crash into your personal Airworthiness crusade. I know, and every RN crew knows what caused that crash,and it was not the aircraft.
Quite frankly,I despise your attempt to drag the Bagger crash into your personal Airworthiness crusade. I know, and every RN crew knows what caused that crash,and it was not the aircraft.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Tourist wrote:
Two little sayings come to mind:
The whole purpose of military flying training is because we want a far larger margin of competence over the safety level under normal circumstances. In fact we want excellence.
- Truly superior pilots are those who use their superior judgement to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills.
- It's better to be down here wishing you were up there, than up there wishing you were down here.
Champagne anyone...?
Folks, whilst my original postings may have been a bit OTT (if so I apologise but claim being “tired and emotional” post det in mitigation 
) there was no intent to “willy wave”, be macho, chase medals or to incite others to flagrantly break published rules. To reiterate, the rules are there for a reason and yes, there is a command chain that bears the brunt of the responsibility, however the aircraft captain (or Commander or whatever bullsh*t bingo word we’re using today) has a responsibility to effectively apply the rules balancing both the needs of the crew and the needs of the task. To reiterate my point - If you’re physically too tired/sick/ginger to operate then you don’t, regardless of how vital that pallet of bubble wrap may be. If, however, you use a rigid application of the rules to get a nightstop somewhere nice (and I’m not accusing anyone of anything here – just making an observation borne of 15 years AT flying) then you are not the sort of person that should be operating a military aircraft.
Earlier comments about being “macho” or “medal chasing” display a fairly poor grasp of reality. Anyone who considers AT flying to be macho probably needs something of a chat with themselves. The views on and subsequent application of CDT regs in theatre will differ between fleets; the C130 crew that lives in KAF for about 6 months of the year will be used to and accept the minor disturbances that go with being on det much more readily than will the Tristar crew that drops in very often but doesn’t stay there. Similarly the Chinook pilot that flies into some scary HLS 3 times a day dodging RPGs et al will have a much different viewpoint to both the above. Who's right?
You twist my words. If I’m exhausted, haven’t had a hot meal in 4 days (because the “support” staff don’t understand that we don’t all work 9 to 5) and got no sleep in the last rest period because I’m sharing accommodation with the admin day shift who spend the day playing corridor football then I will quite happily go and stand in front of the pax and tell them the trip’s canx because the Imaginary Air Wing can’t manage their crews properly and I’m knackered. If, on the other hand, I decide that I didn’t receive my full “8 hours available for sleep” (because I was disturbed once) and that I'm not going to fly because of it then I shouldn’t be able to hold my head up. Again, rules is rules but if you’ve got a brain in your head you should be able to interpret them effectively. If not, cut along.
No one disputes the cumulative effects of lack of decent sleep coupled with continuous, under-arousing repetitive, dull tasking; we’ve all done it and we’ve all seen performance nose-dive as the effects accumulate. Anyone working in our world should (and/or “has a duty to”) be aware of this and the gruesome consequences of ignoring it. But I come back to original point – military aircraft captains are not droids and as such have a duty to effectively apply the rules that protect them from this (as do senior commanders) and not to just cherry pick whichever reg will get them down to the hotel pool quickest. There has to a difference between military and civvy pilots - surely?? If not then lets cut our loses, blow a load of cash sticking DAS on Monarch's 767 fleet and get them to operate the airbridge. I'd have no problems getting delayed by a civvy crew's concerns over crew duty because they are, er, civilians (plus they'd probably have it written in the contract that the crew be replaced asap and the aircraft/pax kept moving)....
And we wonder why the rest of the military have such a dim view of the RAF AT fleet....
PS. Just to reiterate for the hard of thinking:
1) I know the command chain must bear responsibility for overworking crews and extending their CDT.
2) I know that being sleepy can be v dangerous when flying.
3) I know we can't pick and choose which rules we like or don't like.
4) I believe that military AT pilots should have the moral courage not to just blindly accept rules in black and white but to interpret them where necessary and to make accurate and honest assessments of their ability/fitness to operate their military aircraft in support of operations.
) there was no intent to “willy wave”, be macho, chase medals or to incite others to flagrantly break published rules. To reiterate, the rules are there for a reason and yes, there is a command chain that bears the brunt of the responsibility, however the aircraft captain (or Commander or whatever bullsh*t bingo word we’re using today) has a responsibility to effectively apply the rules balancing both the needs of the crew and the needs of the task. To reiterate my point - If you’re physically too tired/sick/ginger to operate then you don’t, regardless of how vital that pallet of bubble wrap may be. If, however, you use a rigid application of the rules to get a nightstop somewhere nice (and I’m not accusing anyone of anything here – just making an observation borne of 15 years AT flying) then you are not the sort of person that should be operating a military aircraft. Earlier comments about being “macho” or “medal chasing” display a fairly poor grasp of reality. Anyone who considers AT flying to be macho probably needs something of a chat with themselves. The views on and subsequent application of CDT regs in theatre will differ between fleets; the C130 crew that lives in KAF for about 6 months of the year will be used to and accept the minor disturbances that go with being on det much more readily than will the Tristar crew that drops in very often but doesn’t stay there. Similarly the Chinook pilot that flies into some scary HLS 3 times a day dodging RPGs et al will have a much different viewpoint to both the above. Who's right?
The problem we face now is that many captains genuinely believe that they "will not be able to hold their head up high"(to quote StopStart) if they decide not to extend their crew duty or bend the rules to the same effect.
No one disputes the cumulative effects of lack of decent sleep coupled with continuous, under-arousing repetitive, dull tasking; we’ve all done it and we’ve all seen performance nose-dive as the effects accumulate. Anyone working in our world should (and/or “has a duty to”) be aware of this and the gruesome consequences of ignoring it. But I come back to original point – military aircraft captains are not droids and as such have a duty to effectively apply the rules that protect them from this (as do senior commanders) and not to just cherry pick whichever reg will get them down to the hotel pool quickest. There has to a difference between military and civvy pilots - surely?? If not then lets cut our loses, blow a load of cash sticking DAS on Monarch's 767 fleet and get them to operate the airbridge. I'd have no problems getting delayed by a civvy crew's concerns over crew duty because they are, er, civilians (plus they'd probably have it written in the contract that the crew be replaced asap and the aircraft/pax kept moving)....
And we wonder why the rest of the military have such a dim view of the RAF AT fleet....
PS. Just to reiterate for the hard of thinking:
1) I know the command chain must bear responsibility for overworking crews and extending their CDT.
2) I know that being sleepy can be v dangerous when flying.
3) I know we can't pick and choose which rules we like or don't like.
4) I believe that military AT pilots should have the moral courage not to just blindly accept rules in black and white but to interpret them where necessary and to make accurate and honest assessments of their ability/fitness to operate their military aircraft in support of operations.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4) I believe that military AT pilots should have the moral courage not to just blindly accept rules in black and white but to interpret them where necessary and to make accurate and honest assessments of their ability/fitness to operate their military aircraft in support of operations.
I would add that an ability to defend vigorously and if necessary, publicly any actions taken, would be advantageous.
(This comes of course from an ex mudmover who had no pax to consider and where just about every flight bent if not broke some rule or other, including fatigue issues.)
Stoppers, I'm somewhat perturbed that you share accommodation with those who commit Kevball, even though it might be in a corridor. Did you learn nothing when you were one of my students...
A reasonable sentiment, one might think. However, 'selective observance' of GASOs will one day bite you on the arse. If the rules don't let you do your job, press for the rules to be changed - don't just 'interpret them' to suit your situation. For to do that is a recipe for disaster; when the cack hits the fan, your superiors will turn their backs on you. Trust me on that one!
4) I believe that military AT pilots should have the moral courage not to just blindly accept rules in black and white but to interpret them where necessary and to make accurate and honest assessments of their ability/fitness to operate their military aircraft in support of operations.
Wise words Beags. The force strong in you is think I.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost versus results
With 25 years and 10,000 hours in the military - including over 6000 hours on multi-engined jets in all pilot capacities including OCU instruction, IRE, ACO responsibilities etc - I found myself relatively late in life (mid 2005) starting out as a twin-jet airline captain.
I would have to say that I would previously have assumed that the military training system better prepared people and more ruthlessly weeded out the weaker candidates for the Right Hand Seat of large aircraft. I would also have to say that I was wrong about that. I have not ceased to be impressed by the overall standards and abilities of the young First Officers I fly with on a daily basis. Compared to their RAF brethren, they will not have had to go quite as far into "stick and rudder" basics - but their level of technical knowledge, situational awareness and general airmanship is every bit as good and, on average, probably better.
It is worth remembering that a lot of these young people have put themselves into considerable debt to get where they are, and jumped through a lot of selection hurdles after completing their courses. Their level of motivation is often very high, and they have also been learning to fly for all that time and gaining pretty concentrated experience - as opposed to the distractions and hiccups involved in becoming an Officer first and a pilot second.
The civilian pilot also builds hours and numbers of flights rapidly, and thereby quickly gains familiarity with the working environment, the aircraft and the "tricks" of the trade. While abilities vary of course, the airline use of CRM and adherence to SOPs tends to iron out most individual inadequacies.
I would have to agree with some of the posters on here that any assumption that the RAF way of training things results in a higher quality output is really based just on ignorance of the facts. I really would have been glad to have had most of these guys and girls on my Squadron.
I would have to say that I would previously have assumed that the military training system better prepared people and more ruthlessly weeded out the weaker candidates for the Right Hand Seat of large aircraft. I would also have to say that I was wrong about that. I have not ceased to be impressed by the overall standards and abilities of the young First Officers I fly with on a daily basis. Compared to their RAF brethren, they will not have had to go quite as far into "stick and rudder" basics - but their level of technical knowledge, situational awareness and general airmanship is every bit as good and, on average, probably better.
It is worth remembering that a lot of these young people have put themselves into considerable debt to get where they are, and jumped through a lot of selection hurdles after completing their courses. Their level of motivation is often very high, and they have also been learning to fly for all that time and gaining pretty concentrated experience - as opposed to the distractions and hiccups involved in becoming an Officer first and a pilot second.
The civilian pilot also builds hours and numbers of flights rapidly, and thereby quickly gains familiarity with the working environment, the aircraft and the "tricks" of the trade. While abilities vary of course, the airline use of CRM and adherence to SOPs tends to iron out most individual inadequacies.
I would have to agree with some of the posters on here that any assumption that the RAF way of training things results in a higher quality output is really based just on ignorance of the facts. I really would have been glad to have had most of these guys and girls on my Squadron.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, apart from Tourist, we all seem to be in general agreement that
1. fatigue kills
2. a lot of civvies are very good aviators
3. not all Service-trained pilots are 'flying gods'
4. Service ac are 'well-worn'
most importantly, don't EVER trust senior officers!
Fly Safe
Flip
1. fatigue kills
2. a lot of civvies are very good aviators
3. not all Service-trained pilots are 'flying gods'
4. Service ac are 'well-worn'
most importantly, don't EVER trust senior officers!
Fly Safe
Flip
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London Village
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
Fatigue is fatigue. Civvy or military. It makes no odds to the loved ones if you stack it in and 200+ die. You only need to look at the differences in CDT between 2Gp and Civvy operators to realise our rules are already way in excess of anything they would consider working before we even think about extending our CDT. Studies into fatigue have been conducted by people way cleverer than me or, judging by the tone of your posts, you.
Fatigue is fatigue. Civvy or military. It makes no odds to the loved ones if you stack it in and 200+ die. You only need to look at the differences in CDT between 2Gp and Civvy operators to realise our rules are already way in excess of anything they would consider working before we even think about extending our CDT. Studies into fatigue have been conducted by people way cleverer than me or, judging by the tone of your posts, you.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wilts
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nat Geographic channel aired the tale recently of China airlines flight which nearly crashed.
cause:
Crew fatigue..
aircraft 747 callsign Dynasty 006 was at FL410 en route to LAX.
relief crew allowed the operating crew to get heads down for rest period.
a/c capt returned to flight deck due to being restless. rejoined later by his 2 other crew.
they encountered CAT and No 4 engine flamed out..
re-light was attempted at FL410 on capt orders...
a/c started to roll right and was not counteracted by capt using left rudder..
crew believed both ADI's had failed, airspeed was decaying all the time.
aircraft "flipped" on its back and believed to hit speed of sound on the dive..
possibly hitting 5g
crew recovered aircraft at 10,000ft....
aircraft suffered structural damge but crew landed it safely..
wings were bent up by several inches...
NTSB and FAA stated crew fatigue led to near loss of aircraft..
Capt had flown several routes in last 2 weeks and flew through 16 time zones which contributed to lack of judgement..
what this does show though, is the 747 is quite a tough jet !!
cause:
Crew fatigue..
aircraft 747 callsign Dynasty 006 was at FL410 en route to LAX.
relief crew allowed the operating crew to get heads down for rest period.
a/c capt returned to flight deck due to being restless. rejoined later by his 2 other crew.
they encountered CAT and No 4 engine flamed out..
re-light was attempted at FL410 on capt orders...
a/c started to roll right and was not counteracted by capt using left rudder..
crew believed both ADI's had failed, airspeed was decaying all the time.
aircraft "flipped" on its back and believed to hit speed of sound on the dive..
possibly hitting 5g
crew recovered aircraft at 10,000ft....
aircraft suffered structural damge but crew landed it safely..
wings were bent up by several inches...
NTSB and FAA stated crew fatigue led to near loss of aircraft..
Capt had flown several routes in last 2 weeks and flew through 16 time zones which contributed to lack of judgement..
what this does show though, is the 747 is quite a tough jet !!
Tourist - as a SAR boy who has done lots of 0400 sorties I can tell you I am not at my best then but I have the ability to say no as the captain if I feel the crew is too fatigued to be safe.
BUT, because we adhere to fatigue rules and maximum flying times during the day to preserve our capability at night, it is only likely to occur when there has already been several hours of operational (SAROPS) flying. That is when the rules and proper supervision help - if you have already had a long crew duty day and done a shedload of flying, you are fatigued (whether you know and admit it or not) and as such you are probably the worst person to make the decision about whether or not to continue flying. Your judgement and ability to balance risk/reward is severely affected by the insidious nature of fatigue - that is why the rules are there, to protect you from yourself. Plenty of crews have completed demanding SAROPs and then fallen asleep/frightened themselves on the way home during low arousal transits when they should have landed away from base and got a hotel.
So, do I think breaking crew duty/flying times is a good idea? No.
Do I think supervisors and senior officers ought to look after their crews interests more robustly? Yes
Do I think one of the reasons this thread is running is because everyone at the coalface knows we are under-resourced in theatre? Yes
Don't slag others actions off when you don't know the circumstances, fatigue levels are difficult to assess, either in yourself or in others so erring on the safe side is a pretty good maxim.
BUT, because we adhere to fatigue rules and maximum flying times during the day to preserve our capability at night, it is only likely to occur when there has already been several hours of operational (SAROPS) flying. That is when the rules and proper supervision help - if you have already had a long crew duty day and done a shedload of flying, you are fatigued (whether you know and admit it or not) and as such you are probably the worst person to make the decision about whether or not to continue flying. Your judgement and ability to balance risk/reward is severely affected by the insidious nature of fatigue - that is why the rules are there, to protect you from yourself. Plenty of crews have completed demanding SAROPs and then fallen asleep/frightened themselves on the way home during low arousal transits when they should have landed away from base and got a hotel.
So, do I think breaking crew duty/flying times is a good idea? No.
Do I think supervisors and senior officers ought to look after their crews interests more robustly? Yes
Do I think one of the reasons this thread is running is because everyone at the coalface knows we are under-resourced in theatre? Yes
Don't slag others actions off when you don't know the circumstances, fatigue levels are difficult to assess, either in yourself or in others so erring on the safe side is a pretty good maxim.