FAA Allows Longer Pilot Shifts on Some Flights
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somewhere Over America
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA Allows Longer Pilot Shifts on Some Flights
In Boon to Airlines, FAA Allows Longer Pilot Shifts on Some Flights
By: ANDY PASZTOR
December 6, 2006; Page A5
With airlines relying increasingly on extended global routes, U.S. air-safety regulators have set an important precedent by allowing pilots to fly longer than normal shifts on certain nonstop trips.
The Federal Aviation Administration took the first step late last month by permitting some Delta Air Lines Inc. pilots to be scheduled behind the controls for a total of more than the current eight-hour limit during a single workday.
It issued special operational rules covering Delta's daily flights between Mumbai, India, and New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport that will allow the carrier to complete the trips without having to add an additional flight crew beyond the four pilots normally required on shorter international routes. It is the longest nonstop flight for any U.S carrier, scheduled for a maximum of about 16.5 hours. With weather and other complications, the flight could last 17 hours or more, and officials estimate that some pilots could end up flying about 40 minutes longer than the usual cutoff.
Industry and government officials anticipate a spate of similar requests from other carriers to ease flight-time limits on so-called ultralong-range runs. The changes could lay the foundation for potentially significant labor-cost savings as more U.S. airlines scramble to open up longer, more profitable routes.
Peggy Gilligan, a senior FAA safety official, said the Delta flight "is a very good example of what we are going to do" with subsequent requests and is "an indication of how we are going to stay ahead of what technology will allow these planes to do."
The latest rules have sparked skepticism from some pilot groups partly because the outside fatigue-prevention expert Delta used, consultant Mark Rosekind, championed efforts last year that allegedly skirted flight-time restrictions for JetBlue Airways Corp. pilots on domestic flights. JetBlue has said safety wasn't compromised. Mr. Rosekind's office said he was unavailable. The JetBlue flights were the subject of an Oct. 21 page-one article in The Wall Street Journal.
Pilot unions "are very upset with the FAA" because there was no opportunity to formally comment on the decision, said Don Wykoff, a Delta captain and spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association. The union "would have liked to have a second opinion" from another expert, he said. Delta worked closely with the FAA and others "to be able to offer customers the convenience of this direct flight under the same top-tier safety standards" used on every flight, said Steve Dickson, vice president of flight operations.
Captain Wykoff, who heads the union's group analyzing flight time issues, said that while the FAA informed pilots about the change it didn't do enough to seek meaningful input from them. As carriers enter new territory with flights longer than 16 hours, he said, pilots should be given "more of an opportunity for dialogue."
FAA officials said approvals initially will be made on a case by case basis but broad industry-wide rules are expected to be established later.
For the Mumbai-New York run, extra precautions required by the FAA include longer-than-usual mandatory rest periods prior to takeoff, use of other fatigue-prevention techniques and two specified sleep breaks totaling eight hours for each pilot during cruise. There are other unique rules specifying extensive rest periods after the flight, as well as in the event it is canceled. Flight attendants also are mandated to get extra-long rest periods before and during the flight. Delta has pledged to collect data and file regular reports with the agency.
The FAA's Ms. Gilligan said the decision tracks similar moves by foreign carriers, some of which allow flights longer than 16 hours with four-person crews. It reflects the latest scientific data about managing fatigue and improved cockpit technology and "sets out very detailed requirements" to ensure Delta pilots get adequate rest before and during the flight, she said in an interview earlier this week.
Existing flight-time limits for cockpit crews were "adopted decades ago, when airplanes were not capable of flying anywhere near 16 hours," the agency told Delta in a November 21 letter. FAA documents show that under some circumstances, the total duty time for pilots on the twin-engine, extended-range Boeing 777 flying from Mumbai to JFK could stretch beyond 20 hours, which includes both flight time and nonflight duties. Special overhead sleeping berths are available to provide rest for pilots and flight attendants.
Under the latest rules, Delta isn't required to carry more than the standard two pilots and two reserve pilots used on many international routes. In the past, the agency has given narrow waivers for pilots to be scheduled for slightly more than eight hours flying time at a stretch. But those were for shorter routes, generally across the Atlantic Ocean. In Delta's case, the agency says some India-U.S. flights will be allowed to take off even if the projected time from gate to gate is close to 18 hours.
The moves comes after years of work by the FAA and pilot groups to create a uniform set of enhanced maintenance, operational and equipment requirements for all jetliners flying long-distance routes. Those rules are expected to become final around the end of the year.
Write to Andy Pasztor at [email protected]1
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116537273116641898.html
By: ANDY PASZTOR
December 6, 2006; Page A5
With airlines relying increasingly on extended global routes, U.S. air-safety regulators have set an important precedent by allowing pilots to fly longer than normal shifts on certain nonstop trips.
The Federal Aviation Administration took the first step late last month by permitting some Delta Air Lines Inc. pilots to be scheduled behind the controls for a total of more than the current eight-hour limit during a single workday.
It issued special operational rules covering Delta's daily flights between Mumbai, India, and New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport that will allow the carrier to complete the trips without having to add an additional flight crew beyond the four pilots normally required on shorter international routes. It is the longest nonstop flight for any U.S carrier, scheduled for a maximum of about 16.5 hours. With weather and other complications, the flight could last 17 hours or more, and officials estimate that some pilots could end up flying about 40 minutes longer than the usual cutoff.
Industry and government officials anticipate a spate of similar requests from other carriers to ease flight-time limits on so-called ultralong-range runs. The changes could lay the foundation for potentially significant labor-cost savings as more U.S. airlines scramble to open up longer, more profitable routes.
Peggy Gilligan, a senior FAA safety official, said the Delta flight "is a very good example of what we are going to do" with subsequent requests and is "an indication of how we are going to stay ahead of what technology will allow these planes to do."
The latest rules have sparked skepticism from some pilot groups partly because the outside fatigue-prevention expert Delta used, consultant Mark Rosekind, championed efforts last year that allegedly skirted flight-time restrictions for JetBlue Airways Corp. pilots on domestic flights. JetBlue has said safety wasn't compromised. Mr. Rosekind's office said he was unavailable. The JetBlue flights were the subject of an Oct. 21 page-one article in The Wall Street Journal.
Pilot unions "are very upset with the FAA" because there was no opportunity to formally comment on the decision, said Don Wykoff, a Delta captain and spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association. The union "would have liked to have a second opinion" from another expert, he said. Delta worked closely with the FAA and others "to be able to offer customers the convenience of this direct flight under the same top-tier safety standards" used on every flight, said Steve Dickson, vice president of flight operations.
Captain Wykoff, who heads the union's group analyzing flight time issues, said that while the FAA informed pilots about the change it didn't do enough to seek meaningful input from them. As carriers enter new territory with flights longer than 16 hours, he said, pilots should be given "more of an opportunity for dialogue."
FAA officials said approvals initially will be made on a case by case basis but broad industry-wide rules are expected to be established later.
For the Mumbai-New York run, extra precautions required by the FAA include longer-than-usual mandatory rest periods prior to takeoff, use of other fatigue-prevention techniques and two specified sleep breaks totaling eight hours for each pilot during cruise. There are other unique rules specifying extensive rest periods after the flight, as well as in the event it is canceled. Flight attendants also are mandated to get extra-long rest periods before and during the flight. Delta has pledged to collect data and file regular reports with the agency.
The FAA's Ms. Gilligan said the decision tracks similar moves by foreign carriers, some of which allow flights longer than 16 hours with four-person crews. It reflects the latest scientific data about managing fatigue and improved cockpit technology and "sets out very detailed requirements" to ensure Delta pilots get adequate rest before and during the flight, she said in an interview earlier this week.
Existing flight-time limits for cockpit crews were "adopted decades ago, when airplanes were not capable of flying anywhere near 16 hours," the agency told Delta in a November 21 letter. FAA documents show that under some circumstances, the total duty time for pilots on the twin-engine, extended-range Boeing 777 flying from Mumbai to JFK could stretch beyond 20 hours, which includes both flight time and nonflight duties. Special overhead sleeping berths are available to provide rest for pilots and flight attendants.
Under the latest rules, Delta isn't required to carry more than the standard two pilots and two reserve pilots used on many international routes. In the past, the agency has given narrow waivers for pilots to be scheduled for slightly more than eight hours flying time at a stretch. But those were for shorter routes, generally across the Atlantic Ocean. In Delta's case, the agency says some India-U.S. flights will be allowed to take off even if the projected time from gate to gate is close to 18 hours.
The moves comes after years of work by the FAA and pilot groups to create a uniform set of enhanced maintenance, operational and equipment requirements for all jetliners flying long-distance routes. Those rules are expected to become final around the end of the year.
Write to Andy Pasztor at [email protected]1
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116537273116641898.html
Paxing All Over The World
Peggy Gilligan, a senior FAA safety official, said the Delta flight [snip] "an indication of how we are going to stay ahead of what technology will allow these planes to do."
Ultra longhaul flying (flights in excess of 16 hours) has been around for some time now. Singapore Airlines I believe are the leaders in this field operating non-stop flights to and from Changi to LAX and EWR. Emirates and Air Canada also have A340-500 aircraft and may also operate such flights. The flight time limitations have been laid down by ICAO after research done by Massey University in NZ. Although only two crews are carried, the rest periods are organised so that the crew work in shifts, with each crew having at least two periods away from the flight deck, one of which must be at least four hours. Feedback from SIA would suggest that this is infinately better than operating SIN-LHR (about 14 hours) with the rest split half and half with crews arriving much less tired than their normal longhaul compatriates.
It would be useful to examine actual (not predicted) alertness levels of crews during Ultra Long Range flights. Especially crews that have been locked into these schedules for 180 days or more as opposed to crew members are just starting to fly ULR flights and haven't been worn down as much by the constant sleep deprivation. It would be revealing to survey spouses and other family members in an effort to learn what damage these operations exact on quality of life and crewmember health.
Dr. Gander at Massey University would have made specific recommendations on pre and post flight rest as well as the inflight rest periods. Were her recommendations incorporated by the FAA in full or did the FAA pick and choose which recommendations the FAA hoped the operators would not strongly object to?
And what do the pilots at SIA think about all this since they're the ones who actually have to do it? Has anyone asked for their opinions and more importantly - are any regulators interested in what these pilots on the front line of ULR have to say?
Or for that matter the Flight Attendants? It's been said that up to 80% of the flight attendants flying the SIN - LAX and SIN - EWR flights have applied for a transfer away from this schedule.
Dr. Gander at Massey University would have made specific recommendations on pre and post flight rest as well as the inflight rest periods. Were her recommendations incorporated by the FAA in full or did the FAA pick and choose which recommendations the FAA hoped the operators would not strongly object to?
And what do the pilots at SIA think about all this since they're the ones who actually have to do it? Has anyone asked for their opinions and more importantly - are any regulators interested in what these pilots on the front line of ULR have to say?
Or for that matter the Flight Attendants? It's been said that up to 80% of the flight attendants flying the SIN - LAX and SIN - EWR flights have applied for a transfer away from this schedule.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA gives up on DFW China route
American Airlines gives up quest for nonstop China flights
American Airlines has given up its quest to fly nonstop from Dallas/Fort
Worth Airport to China, airline executives said Friday.
The Fort Worth-based carrier has asked the Department of Transporation for
permission to revise its application for China service, which originally
requested nonstop service from D/FW to Beijing. The airline now says it
wants the flight to begin in North Texas, but stop in Chicago before
continuing to China, where a new flight crew would take over.
The change would allow American to make the flight without a special
agreement from its pilots union. Under the airline’s current contract with
pilots, any trip longer than 16 hours requires a side agreement with the
union.
But so far, union leaders have refused to sign off on the D/FW flight, which
exceeds 16 hours, without getting some contract improvements. And American
management, meanwhile, has refused to grant any contract changes in return
for pilots’ cooperation on the China flight.
The stop in Chicago would allow American to fly the route without the
union’s blessing. The return trip, however, would be nonstop because
prevailing winds make it a shorter flight.
If the transportation department refuses to allow American to revise its
application, the airline will withdraw its bid entirely, executives said.
“Even with the modification, it bears repeating that American’s route
request will offer the maximum public benefits for the valuable and limited
opportunity available in the U.S.-China market and will provide much-needed
competitive balance,” said Gerard Arpey, American’s chairman and chief
executive, in a prepared statement.
Fort Worth Mayor Mike Moncrief echoed Arpey’s argument. “It’s
important to keep in mind that American’s proposal to fly from DFW to
Beijing and back, even with a stop in Chicago on the outbound leg, will
provide the greatest positive impact to the economies of Texas and the
southern United States and should be awarded by DOT,” he said in a
prepared statement.
Even if granted, the change could seriously hurt American’s chances to win
the route. Three other airlines are competing for the single China flight,
which will begin next year. All three already have agreements with their
pilots to fly the route.
Continental Airlines wants to fly from Newark Airport to Beijing; Northwest
Airlines has applied to fly from Detroit to Shanghai; and United Airlines
has requested service from Washington, D.C. to Beijing.
The flight is available because of an aviation treated negotiated with China
in 2005. One new flight will be allowed in 2007, and the transportation
department is expected to announce the winner around the end of the year.
American has spend months gathering support from members of Congress and
local officials from across the nation. The strength of the airline’s
argument has been that it could provide convenient, one-stop service to
dozens of cities through its hub at D/FW.
The stop in Chicago seriously undermines that argument. Many cities already
have two-stop service to China on existing flights.
But D/FW Airport officials said the proposal remains strong, even with the
change.
“Even with through service to China, it’s a far better proposal than
offered by the three airlines that are competing for the next China
route,” said Jeff Fegan, the airport’s chief executive, in a statement.
If it is forced to withdraw its application, American officials said they
would try again for the 2008 service. But that route will be far more
competitive, because it will also be open to bids from cargo airlines and
passenger carriers that don’t already have service to China, such as Delta
Air Lines.
Increasing service to Asia has been a major priority for the airline in the
last few years. American won a major victory last year when it received
permission to fly from Chicago to Shanghai. That flight launched in April.
"Can't we all just get along"
American Airlines has given up its quest to fly nonstop from Dallas/Fort
Worth Airport to China, airline executives said Friday.
The Fort Worth-based carrier has asked the Department of Transporation for
permission to revise its application for China service, which originally
requested nonstop service from D/FW to Beijing. The airline now says it
wants the flight to begin in North Texas, but stop in Chicago before
continuing to China, where a new flight crew would take over.
The change would allow American to make the flight without a special
agreement from its pilots union. Under the airline’s current contract with
pilots, any trip longer than 16 hours requires a side agreement with the
union.
But so far, union leaders have refused to sign off on the D/FW flight, which
exceeds 16 hours, without getting some contract improvements. And American
management, meanwhile, has refused to grant any contract changes in return
for pilots’ cooperation on the China flight.
The stop in Chicago would allow American to fly the route without the
union’s blessing. The return trip, however, would be nonstop because
prevailing winds make it a shorter flight.
If the transportation department refuses to allow American to revise its
application, the airline will withdraw its bid entirely, executives said.
“Even with the modification, it bears repeating that American’s route
request will offer the maximum public benefits for the valuable and limited
opportunity available in the U.S.-China market and will provide much-needed
competitive balance,” said Gerard Arpey, American’s chairman and chief
executive, in a prepared statement.
Fort Worth Mayor Mike Moncrief echoed Arpey’s argument. “It’s
important to keep in mind that American’s proposal to fly from DFW to
Beijing and back, even with a stop in Chicago on the outbound leg, will
provide the greatest positive impact to the economies of Texas and the
southern United States and should be awarded by DOT,” he said in a
prepared statement.
Even if granted, the change could seriously hurt American’s chances to win
the route. Three other airlines are competing for the single China flight,
which will begin next year. All three already have agreements with their
pilots to fly the route.
Continental Airlines wants to fly from Newark Airport to Beijing; Northwest
Airlines has applied to fly from Detroit to Shanghai; and United Airlines
has requested service from Washington, D.C. to Beijing.
The flight is available because of an aviation treated negotiated with China
in 2005. One new flight will be allowed in 2007, and the transportation
department is expected to announce the winner around the end of the year.
American has spend months gathering support from members of Congress and
local officials from across the nation. The strength of the airline’s
argument has been that it could provide convenient, one-stop service to
dozens of cities through its hub at D/FW.
The stop in Chicago seriously undermines that argument. Many cities already
have two-stop service to China on existing flights.
But D/FW Airport officials said the proposal remains strong, even with the
change.
“Even with through service to China, it’s a far better proposal than
offered by the three airlines that are competing for the next China
route,” said Jeff Fegan, the airport’s chief executive, in a statement.
If it is forced to withdraw its application, American officials said they
would try again for the 2008 service. But that route will be far more
competitive, because it will also be open to bids from cargo airlines and
passenger carriers that don’t already have service to China, such as Delta
Air Lines.
Increasing service to Asia has been a major priority for the airline in the
last few years. American won a major victory last year when it received
permission to fly from Chicago to Shanghai. That flight launched in April.
"Can't we all just get along"
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a non-pilot may comment: I'm not a pilot, "played with the toys" at Cranebank (BA Training Centre) and in Lancing (where they were built) but never for more that a couple of hours, so not in a position to comment objectively. My concern these days is more from a SLF point of view.
I supported your argument some long ago when the FE/P3 was dropped., and I support you now. I have worked "ghosters" of 24 or more hours - I know that I was pretty shattered at the end. But if I was not working at peak efficiency (and I know that I wasn't), at least I couldn't cause a disaster.
Eight and a half hours into a very boring flight, tiredness has set in, previous sleep was uncomfortable due to aircraft noise. Imagine a situation - let's take something like GOL/Legacy - and perhaps the aircraft have lights on that may be visible from a couple of miles away, for a brief moment, One pilot spots a light and breaks right (sorry, maybe the rule is left?) and two aircraft fly past each other at an embarrassingly small separation. Fatigued pilot (and I am not for one brief instant suggesting anything about the topical example mentioned) and the lights are not spotted as quickly - DISASTER.
How much extra would it put on the cost of my ticket to have a flight deck crew of 5 or 6, instead of 4? (can anyone quote a figure?) I'll happily pay it!
I don't want my pilots "stretched", even a little bit. I know that, "in days of old", pilots flew the aircraft for most of the time, and now it is mostly done by the electronics; in some ways this is a retrograde step (IMHO) as pilots do not normally need to be so active. Yet it is vital to safety that they (you) are alert. Being bored out of your minds for 8 hours is not good for alertness, and I don't want the guy "up front of me" in that situation.
Hope you don't mind my inputting my ten whatevers worth, and I'll stand corrected if any errors posted above.
ExSim
I supported your argument some long ago when the FE/P3 was dropped., and I support you now. I have worked "ghosters" of 24 or more hours - I know that I was pretty shattered at the end. But if I was not working at peak efficiency (and I know that I wasn't), at least I couldn't cause a disaster.
Eight and a half hours into a very boring flight, tiredness has set in, previous sleep was uncomfortable due to aircraft noise. Imagine a situation - let's take something like GOL/Legacy - and perhaps the aircraft have lights on that may be visible from a couple of miles away, for a brief moment, One pilot spots a light and breaks right (sorry, maybe the rule is left?) and two aircraft fly past each other at an embarrassingly small separation. Fatigued pilot (and I am not for one brief instant suggesting anything about the topical example mentioned) and the lights are not spotted as quickly - DISASTER.
How much extra would it put on the cost of my ticket to have a flight deck crew of 5 or 6, instead of 4? (can anyone quote a figure?) I'll happily pay it!
I don't want my pilots "stretched", even a little bit. I know that, "in days of old", pilots flew the aircraft for most of the time, and now it is mostly done by the electronics; in some ways this is a retrograde step (IMHO) as pilots do not normally need to be so active. Yet it is vital to safety that they (you) are alert. Being bored out of your minds for 8 hours is not good for alertness, and I don't want the guy "up front of me" in that situation.
Hope you don't mind my inputting my ten whatevers worth, and I'll stand corrected if any errors posted above.
ExSim
Paxing All Over The World
Pax speaking. ESG I agree and I would also prefer to pay good money for good staff being treated in a goodly manner by the airline but history (ancient and modern) tells us that the very considerable majority of pax only want the cheapest ticket. That is irrespective of whether they are in Y or C.
Airlines know this and are doing all they can to reduce costs to keep ticket prices down and profits up. This process is now ingrained in the business.
I also agree with the observation by GlueBall that a/c cabins become less attrative with time. The longest sector I have done was HKG~LHR (with rerouting for bad weather) at 15hrs 10mins and by the end of it the Y cabin was not a pleasant place to be. There is just too much junk and waste paper and smelly bodies and I would not contemplate 16/17 hours.
HOWEVER, the carriers know that many biz pax WILL pay for the long single sector and the numbers of this category of flight will continue to increase. Our choice is to be quite sure how long a sector we are embarking upon and deciding if we would rather take a different route and make a stop over. Most (99%?) will take the long single sector.
Overall, I would not expect the loss of a/c due to such operations will be any greater than in the usual 12/14 hour sectors. Why do I say that? The modern experience shows tht to be the case.
Airlines know this and are doing all they can to reduce costs to keep ticket prices down and profits up. This process is now ingrained in the business.
I also agree with the observation by GlueBall that a/c cabins become less attrative with time. The longest sector I have done was HKG~LHR (with rerouting for bad weather) at 15hrs 10mins and by the end of it the Y cabin was not a pleasant place to be. There is just too much junk and waste paper and smelly bodies and I would not contemplate 16/17 hours.
HOWEVER, the carriers know that many biz pax WILL pay for the long single sector and the numbers of this category of flight will continue to increase. Our choice is to be quite sure how long a sector we are embarking upon and deciding if we would rather take a different route and make a stop over. Most (99%?) will take the long single sector.
Overall, I would not expect the loss of a/c due to such operations will be any greater than in the usual 12/14 hour sectors. Why do I say that? The modern experience shows tht to be the case.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet another SLF, sorry!
Particularly since it eliminates one take-off and one landing, statistically the most risky sections of the flight.
Overall, I would not expect the loss of a/c due to such operations will be any greater than in the usual 12/14 hour sectors. Why do I say that? The modern experience shows tht to be the case.
UPS pilots (757/767/DC-8 A-300...) tell me that they have no crew bunk on their airplanes. Many legs might last longer than eight hours.
They carry only freight, so why would "our friends at the FAA" be concerned?
Our friends use a cost/benefit ratio to analyze how many people die or do not perish as a result of certain mandated changes to aircraft equipment or crew rest changes.
They carry only freight, so why would "our friends at the FAA" be concerned?
Our friends use a cost/benefit ratio to analyze how many people die or do not perish as a result of certain mandated changes to aircraft equipment or crew rest changes.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having worked overseas for 15yrs+ I do not miss the archaic FAA ftl"s one bit...unless things have changed drastically, limitations did not take into account local times reporting for duty, the number of sectors flown, and any difference in time zones when calculating rest requirements...has it changed?
Feedback from SIA suggest that the pilots there find that the rest patterns they have adopted allow them to stay much more alert throughout the whole flight compared to "normal" longhaul operations where rest tends to be "half and half". As regards their family life, I think that they have much more time at home with them because the length of the sectors limits them to two trips a month normally, each of 5/6 days, leaving the rest of the month to play with the kids.
Fly3, - would that feed back be from SIA pilots who are regularly flying the SIN - LAX or SIN -EWR flights - or from SIA management or the regulator who believe everything is "just fine"? The SIA pilots I've talked to (who are actually flying these schedules since inception) mention being unable to obtain uninterrupted rest during layovers or afterwards at home and a general tired feeling most of the time including at home after the flights. They told me they found themselves developing the airplane sleep/wake patterns and being unable to shake those off on their layovers and days at home. They do like the two sleep periods instead of one on the airplane. They also consider the humidifier a major fatigue reducer.
Psychophysiological entity
Well, 16 hour days is where I came in, on multiple trips to Ostend, Jersey and the like.
On one occasion, I hid the slumped body of ‘our girl' behind the radio rack, so that she wouldn't be seen flopping about by the 40+ passengers. We were in a DC3.
For a time it seemed that things were improving, but now...well, who knows?
It's your world now. Beating the bean-counters, is it seems, what it's all about. Reasoned argument, carful planning of the airline's most important asset (erm, that you folks) and taking advantage of the modern miracles of metallurgy and micro-electronics, it should be a breeze. But hey, you're driving a machine that cost hundreds of millions of bucks........the sums don't add up! Sorry, you're f
On one occasion, I hid the slumped body of ‘our girl' behind the radio rack, so that she wouldn't be seen flopping about by the 40+ passengers. We were in a DC3.
For a time it seemed that things were improving, but now...well, who knows?
It's your world now. Beating the bean-counters, is it seems, what it's all about. Reasoned argument, carful planning of the airline's most important asset (erm, that you folks) and taking advantage of the modern miracles of metallurgy and micro-electronics, it should be a breeze. But hey, you're driving a machine that cost hundreds of millions of bucks........the sums don't add up! Sorry, you're f
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: in a house
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another brilliant move to save a dollar…and after all the talk surrounding the dangers of fatigue. This is not the military, we do not need to be that task oriented.
Slave driver - £30 ?
Slave driver - £30 ?
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and then...
Whilst reading our company safety mag focusing this month on fatigue i couldnt help but laugh at the suggestion that we pilots are responsible for managing our fatigue. This whilst i was on a 10 hr "stick", 12 hr duty day, which was only legal because, now wait for it, it was a 2 sector pattern. The same stick time would have required another pilot if it was only 1 sector!!!!!
Now as short naps are not condoned on our flight decks by crew, i was wondering how to manage my desire to shut my eyes and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
From the stinky harbour.
Now as short naps are not condoned on our flight decks by crew, i was wondering how to manage my desire to shut my eyes and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
From the stinky harbour.
