Aircrew Fatigue
Cool as a moosp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Aircrew Fatigue
Yes FL I read the same article and thought the same. Very relevant to the airline industry. I also thought that his professionalism in taking the responsibility was profoundly moral, and yet he was not totally responsible.
I have observed several airline companies who have in the last few years instigated "Sickness Management Programs." Whilst the motive to wheedle out the slackers may have been understandable, the result has been appalling.
I have seen pilots and cabin crew at work who were fatigued to the point of incompetence, infectious, and working to the detriment of their recovery. If they had reported sick, they would have gone on the sacking list, and promotion would certainly have been curtailed.
Just ask your friendly crew member if he keeps chickens at home when he next sneezes on you on departing Ankara.
I have observed several airline companies who have in the last few years instigated "Sickness Management Programs." Whilst the motive to wheedle out the slackers may have been understandable, the result has been appalling.
I have seen pilots and cabin crew at work who were fatigued to the point of incompetence, infectious, and working to the detriment of their recovery. If they had reported sick, they would have gone on the sacking list, and promotion would certainly have been curtailed.
Just ask your friendly crew member if he keeps chickens at home when he next sneezes on you on departing Ankara.
Dir. PPRuNe Line Service
Re: Aircrew Fatigue
The official report on the Staten Island ferry accident is on the NTSB website at http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2005/MAR0501.htm
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Aircrew Fatigue
Tell you what, I am knackerered all the time with long haul. Fatigue is a major problem, coming back over the pond is now buggeirng me, maybe short haul is the next step for an easy life. Always remember "work to live" not "live to work".
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Strood, Kent
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Aircrew Fatigue
Funny thing ILS, I am finding the work on short haul very heavy going these days. Many "max duty hours, four sector days" and arduous tours (3, 4, 3 or 3, 4, 4, 3 or even 3, 4, 4, 4, 3! with lots of min rest down route) with earlier starts and later finishes than ever before during the summer 'high utilization' schedule. Add to that the unrealistic schedules and finishing an hour late most days in the summer...
Every day, I ask myself whether I should bite the bullet, take the pay cut and go RHS long haul. Apparently, there's more to life than money but someone tell my wife, please!
This industry just ain't what it was, and that's from near the top of the food chain too!
Every day, I ask myself whether I should bite the bullet, take the pay cut and go RHS long haul. Apparently, there's more to life than money but someone tell my wife, please!
This industry just ain't what it was, and that's from near the top of the food chain too!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Aircrew Fatigue
A letter in the Daily Mail 11/01/06
" Who'd be a bus driver? You could finish a shift one day at midnight and have to start one at 0530am the following day. If you refuse to drive because of fatigue or illness you're reprimanded. If you have an accident because of tirdness, its your fault. If you're late for work by more than ten minutes three times in a month, your fired. If you have to take time off for a medical or domestic emergency you're reprimanded.
You get one saturday off a month and 15 days holiday a year to be taken when instructed by the Company. And all for £6.75 an hour "
" Who'd be a bus driver? You could finish a shift one day at midnight and have to start one at 0530am the following day. If you refuse to drive because of fatigue or illness you're reprimanded. If you have an accident because of tirdness, its your fault. If you're late for work by more than ten minutes three times in a month, your fired. If you have to take time off for a medical or domestic emergency you're reprimanded.
You get one saturday off a month and 15 days holiday a year to be taken when instructed by the Company. And all for £6.75 an hour "
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Strood, Kent
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Aircrew Fatigue
Thanks for that Mr Angry... I suppose things could always be worse; how can just 5:30 rest be legal (let alone his travelling time to/from home)?
Then again, I bet your average bus driver (not Airbus, I might add) didn't spend £35k of his own money and work seven days a week for four years to get his licence.
I had certainly hoped for slightly better!
Then again, I bet your average bus driver (not Airbus, I might add) didn't spend £35k of his own money and work seven days a week for four years to get his licence.
I had certainly hoped for slightly better!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Aircrew Fatigue
Originally Posted by beaver eager
how can just 5:30 rest be legal (let alone his travelling time to/from home)?
-Daily rest periods
10 hours continuously must be taken between 2 working days. This can be
reduced to 8 1/2 hours up to 3 times a week.
So there you go, Mr Angry's post of a letter in the Daily Mail was not factual.
PP
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Strood, Kent
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Aircrew Fatigue
Maybe he meant finish at midnight, a single day off and then back in to an early start the following day.
Something we are all familiar with on shorthaul, n'est pas?
At least we have a 36 hour rule for a single day off at BA LGW (although it only covers 'industrial' days off - if the lovely Carmen blows a fuse and gives you more than the industrially agreed 11 days minimum, the extra days can be single days off with less than 36 hours between duties).
Something we are all familiar with on shorthaul, n'est pas?
At least we have a 36 hour rule for a single day off at BA LGW (although it only covers 'industrial' days off - if the lovely Carmen blows a fuse and gives you more than the industrially agreed 11 days minimum, the extra days can be single days off with less than 36 hours between duties).
Dead Tired - Flight International gets the point over fatuiging rosters
Well, they got there in the end. Now 'Flight' is discussing the problem in refreshingly plain language. The question is, will the CAA and AAIB now wake up to the fact that pilot fatigue is a killer? Will anybody in these institutions have the balls to speak up about the problem in the public interest ?
Read on . . .
Dead tired: 31 January-6 February.
Increasing numbers of accidents are citing pilot fatigue. While knowledge of its effects is growing, regulators are not listening
Accident reports timidly cite pilot fatigue as a causal factor rather than a cause because it can rarely be proven.
Even where it is given as a cause, science is never quoted as having provided the evidence that, under the circumstances, the crew would have been fatigued. When the US National Transportation Safety Board gave fatigue as the primary cause for the pilot mishandling that led to a Kalitta International McDonnell Douglas DC-8-61 freighter crash at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in 1993, it was a judgement based on the fact that everybody knows 18h is too long a shift for a safety-critical job, especially when the pilot had suffered recent disruption to his circadian rhythms as well.
At the time the NTSB criticised the special rules in the Federal Aviation Administration regulations on crew duty that allowed an international cargo operation like this to slip through the crew duty safety net.
What safety net? At Kirksville, Missouri in October 2004, 13 people died because FAA regulations allowed a crew to fly six sectors from an early start on a 15h crew duty day operating a commercial passenger schedule that terminated in a non-precision approach in marginal weather at night. And they would still allow it today.
Everybody knows that six sectors and 15h is too long a shift for a safety-critical job, but the FAA still stands by its 16h maximum for an unaugmented crew. The experts who study fatigue, however, liken the effect on a pilot’s decision-making capabilities to the results of having a blood alcohol level that would see a car driver criminally convicted. The driving offence is socially unacceptable; but, if a pilot is drunk on fatigue, that, apparently, is socially acceptable.
The NTSB has been trying to raise the profile of fatigue for years. Yet it is so lacking in faith in the FAA’s willingness to do anything to correct the situation, despite the flood of new scientific evidence on the effects of tiredness that, in the Kirksville report, it recommends pilots should be given lessons in “fatigue countermeasures”. That is, recognise that you must be seriously tired at this point in a duty day, and make due allowances for it. The situation is preposterous: it is like the NTSB’s road transport department advising those car drivers who insist on getting drunk that they should recognise their inebriation and manage its effects.
The trouble with fatigue and alcohol intake is that both of them significantly impair physical and mental capabilities at the same time as they reduce the critical ability to recognise the evidence of impairment.
When the FAA set 16h as its crew duty maximum there was less competition in the airline marketplace, and a limit that was intended to be used occasionally when a rostered duty day is prolonged by weather or technical delay is inevitably being approached more frequently. A state of denial is one of fatigue’s effects. Perhaps the FAA is tired.
Read on . . .
Dead tired: 31 January-6 February.
Increasing numbers of accidents are citing pilot fatigue. While knowledge of its effects is growing, regulators are not listening
Accident reports timidly cite pilot fatigue as a causal factor rather than a cause because it can rarely be proven.
Even where it is given as a cause, science is never quoted as having provided the evidence that, under the circumstances, the crew would have been fatigued. When the US National Transportation Safety Board gave fatigue as the primary cause for the pilot mishandling that led to a Kalitta International McDonnell Douglas DC-8-61 freighter crash at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in 1993, it was a judgement based on the fact that everybody knows 18h is too long a shift for a safety-critical job, especially when the pilot had suffered recent disruption to his circadian rhythms as well.
At the time the NTSB criticised the special rules in the Federal Aviation Administration regulations on crew duty that allowed an international cargo operation like this to slip through the crew duty safety net.
What safety net? At Kirksville, Missouri in October 2004, 13 people died because FAA regulations allowed a crew to fly six sectors from an early start on a 15h crew duty day operating a commercial passenger schedule that terminated in a non-precision approach in marginal weather at night. And they would still allow it today.
Everybody knows that six sectors and 15h is too long a shift for a safety-critical job, but the FAA still stands by its 16h maximum for an unaugmented crew. The experts who study fatigue, however, liken the effect on a pilot’s decision-making capabilities to the results of having a blood alcohol level that would see a car driver criminally convicted. The driving offence is socially unacceptable; but, if a pilot is drunk on fatigue, that, apparently, is socially acceptable.
The NTSB has been trying to raise the profile of fatigue for years. Yet it is so lacking in faith in the FAA’s willingness to do anything to correct the situation, despite the flood of new scientific evidence on the effects of tiredness that, in the Kirksville report, it recommends pilots should be given lessons in “fatigue countermeasures”. That is, recognise that you must be seriously tired at this point in a duty day, and make due allowances for it. The situation is preposterous: it is like the NTSB’s road transport department advising those car drivers who insist on getting drunk that they should recognise their inebriation and manage its effects.
The trouble with fatigue and alcohol intake is that both of them significantly impair physical and mental capabilities at the same time as they reduce the critical ability to recognise the evidence of impairment.
When the FAA set 16h as its crew duty maximum there was less competition in the airline marketplace, and a limit that was intended to be used occasionally when a rostered duty day is prolonged by weather or technical delay is inevitably being approached more frequently. A state of denial is one of fatigue’s effects. Perhaps the FAA is tired.
This worries me immensely. I am only an amateur pilot, but my work involves long hours and we are in a position where a mistake could cost many lives. Research has shown that your effectiveness drops sharply after 12 hours, and we talk a lot about "entering the 13th hour". Why should pilots be treated any differently?
But what is more fatiguing, an intercontinantal flight with lots of time zone changes, or lots of short sectors with more "stressful" take offs and landings ?
But what is more fatiguing, an intercontinantal flight with lots of time zone changes, or lots of short sectors with more "stressful" take offs and landings ?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sussex, England
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Int. LCC fatigue concerns
This was a reasonably well researched article regarding LCC work patterns and their attempt to reduce incidents by tailoring work patterns to suit the 'new' LCC model. 5/2 5/4 at EZY and 5/3 5/3 at RYR.
My dozen years in LC is where I am now coming from:
These are nice patterns for a few years, but in my experience, the stress levels start to build by about year 3 or 4 due to the pressure of operating at max alertness and total self reliance. You then become a trainer! Non stop, 100%training, day in day out, forever. 10 to 12 hour dutys everyday (13 to 14 in reality).
What the article misses is the fact that week to week fatigue levels are OK'ish, but long term fatigue and motivation levels drop off and are never restored. I suppose the best word to describe it is 'BURNOUT.' The type of burnout suffered by bankers and traders around the world.
Career progression is fast with TRI/E status achievable with 5 years airline experience! Once you get there what next? Motivation lost? Job satisfaction deteriorates.
I have not met many LCC pilots who genuinely believe they will be able to sustain this pace for 30 to 40 yrs.
So the end result is that at RYR we loose 10% of our pilots, 100 plus per year. They wander off believing they will find greener pastures or take a year cycling around the world then return. Hence the continuous training and low experience level across the airline which is a constant worry as we operate the most difficult operation in Europe bar none.
The answer is far from easy I know, especially with fuel prices high and yield so low due to competition. Managements hands appear tied to ensure that we will all survive in the long term. But, with an airline that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing, they need to flip that equation on its head and start to see both sides of the gate.
Several fatigue/sleep experts examined the EZY/RYR working patterns proclaiming them 'fantastic' steps forward in safety. Whilst they undoubtedly are, on a week to week basis, what about long term burnout issues? Can a pilot reasonably expect to live through a 35 year career in a European LCO?
My dozen years in LC is where I am now coming from:
These are nice patterns for a few years, but in my experience, the stress levels start to build by about year 3 or 4 due to the pressure of operating at max alertness and total self reliance. You then become a trainer! Non stop, 100%training, day in day out, forever. 10 to 12 hour dutys everyday (13 to 14 in reality).
What the article misses is the fact that week to week fatigue levels are OK'ish, but long term fatigue and motivation levels drop off and are never restored. I suppose the best word to describe it is 'BURNOUT.' The type of burnout suffered by bankers and traders around the world.
Career progression is fast with TRI/E status achievable with 5 years airline experience! Once you get there what next? Motivation lost? Job satisfaction deteriorates.
I have not met many LCC pilots who genuinely believe they will be able to sustain this pace for 30 to 40 yrs.
So the end result is that at RYR we loose 10% of our pilots, 100 plus per year. They wander off believing they will find greener pastures or take a year cycling around the world then return. Hence the continuous training and low experience level across the airline which is a constant worry as we operate the most difficult operation in Europe bar none.
The answer is far from easy I know, especially with fuel prices high and yield so low due to competition. Managements hands appear tied to ensure that we will all survive in the long term. But, with an airline that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing, they need to flip that equation on its head and start to see both sides of the gate.
Several fatigue/sleep experts examined the EZY/RYR working patterns proclaiming them 'fantastic' steps forward in safety. Whilst they undoubtedly are, on a week to week basis, what about long term burnout issues? Can a pilot reasonably expect to live through a 35 year career in a European LCO?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: u.k.
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post Jambo,
I think this is a very important issue to address and its about time the Caa brought the issue to the fore,not everyone has the ultimate goal of flying long haul;i personally still enjoy flying,so i dont think long haul would be for me,but i dont want to burn out after a few years in lo-co which i feel is inevitable when your so fatigued.
I think a lot of people leave lo-co for long haul out of disillusionment and know in themselves its unsustainable as a long term career,if you value your health in anyway!!
Not Everyone Is A Size queen you know..........
I think this is a very important issue to address and its about time the Caa brought the issue to the fore,not everyone has the ultimate goal of flying long haul;i personally still enjoy flying,so i dont think long haul would be for me,but i dont want to burn out after a few years in lo-co which i feel is inevitable when your so fatigued.
I think a lot of people leave lo-co for long haul out of disillusionment and know in themselves its unsustainable as a long term career,if you value your health in anyway!!
Not Everyone Is A Size queen you know..........
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that European pilots on 900hrs are that fatigued when US allows 1000 and Canada 1200, the subject of a very interesting Toronto Star article recently.
edit to fix link
edit to fix link
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting link MarkD. In the accompanying story (in the side box) it is interesting - and far from surprising - that when push came to shove the airline spokesman
Which is where the buck stops, even after you have allowed yourself to be pressurised into doing what you did not want to do. This carries a message for all concerned.
noted the decision to press on to Toronto was made by the flight's captain.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: over the hill
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the same CAA who devolved safety management to the airlines' own internal ISO 2000 or whatever it is self-audit process. Likely to be completely independant of management pressure, NOT!
The CAA dont care at all if pilots burnout - its your responsibility if you are fatigued, and your career if you succumb to intolerable management pressure to operate despite being fatigued and screw-up because of it. Heads you lose, tails you lose! Welcome to the New Aviation.
LCC pilot useage is totally unsustainable over a 30 year career, (and that LCC-style pilot usage is now common in scheduled carriers too - Big Airways have 900 hours-a-year A320 pilots now), and it is not until we have the appalling spectre of a hull loss clearly attributable to the kind of pressure pilots operate under now that the regulator, (ever a reactive body), will even think of doing anything about it. CAA = the friend of the Big Business Battalions. Little Pilots dont even feature on the radar. CAA view = "Take it or Leave it".
Flight's article was a brazen suck-up to the business view:- "everything's fine, thanks" and only hinted at the true state of affairs at carriers like RYR. The only concession was to suggest that airlines may have to think about offering flexible contracts to allow for the fact that a LCC pilot who has, SHOCK, a young family, (how dare he or she), may be unable to keep up the manic pace and so will have to take a pay cut and possible career ending compromise by seeking to fly less through the early child rearing years - when the need for money is the most acute - in order to cope.
I suspect that the CAA know that the system is creaking and that CAP 371 was NEVER intended as a rostering TARGET, but they are addicted to the airline cashflow that pays for the shiny Belgrano and all the Good Things that go on there-in. Corporate vision = "Dont Bite The Hand That Feeds You"!
The public enquiry that follows from a hull-loss that is attributable directly to institutionalised, roster-induced, pilot fatigue would, one hopes, direct that a TRULY ACCOUNTABLE CAA would be completely independant from the companies it regulated and be financed from general taxation. What exists at present is a cosy, mutually-parasitic arrangement utterly conducive to the kind of dangerous compromise we see now.
Take care out there. You are on your own.
The CAA dont care at all if pilots burnout - its your responsibility if you are fatigued, and your career if you succumb to intolerable management pressure to operate despite being fatigued and screw-up because of it. Heads you lose, tails you lose! Welcome to the New Aviation.
LCC pilot useage is totally unsustainable over a 30 year career, (and that LCC-style pilot usage is now common in scheduled carriers too - Big Airways have 900 hours-a-year A320 pilots now), and it is not until we have the appalling spectre of a hull loss clearly attributable to the kind of pressure pilots operate under now that the regulator, (ever a reactive body), will even think of doing anything about it. CAA = the friend of the Big Business Battalions. Little Pilots dont even feature on the radar. CAA view = "Take it or Leave it".
Flight's article was a brazen suck-up to the business view:- "everything's fine, thanks" and only hinted at the true state of affairs at carriers like RYR. The only concession was to suggest that airlines may have to think about offering flexible contracts to allow for the fact that a LCC pilot who has, SHOCK, a young family, (how dare he or she), may be unable to keep up the manic pace and so will have to take a pay cut and possible career ending compromise by seeking to fly less through the early child rearing years - when the need for money is the most acute - in order to cope.
I suspect that the CAA know that the system is creaking and that CAP 371 was NEVER intended as a rostering TARGET, but they are addicted to the airline cashflow that pays for the shiny Belgrano and all the Good Things that go on there-in. Corporate vision = "Dont Bite The Hand That Feeds You"!
The public enquiry that follows from a hull-loss that is attributable directly to institutionalised, roster-induced, pilot fatigue would, one hopes, direct that a TRULY ACCOUNTABLE CAA would be completely independant from the companies it regulated and be financed from general taxation. What exists at present is a cosy, mutually-parasitic arrangement utterly conducive to the kind of dangerous compromise we see now.
Take care out there. You are on your own.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSB fatigue study report
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2007/B20050121.aspx
Essentially says that a 'one size fits all' flight duty limits scheme can compromise safety if inappropriately applied.
Essentially says that a 'one size fits all' flight duty limits scheme can compromise safety if inappropriately applied.
