Where does this leave Professional Pilots ??
m_c,
I am quite well aware how "normal" rostering patterns lead to aircrew fatigue.
I was merely pointing out that someone who had a fatigue-related accident on the way home (particularly during a long journey) would be poorly placed to defend themselves if they had knowingly driven "whilst absolutely ******ed" (not my words).
I am quite well aware how "normal" rostering patterns lead to aircrew fatigue.
I was merely pointing out that someone who had a fatigue-related accident on the way home (particularly during a long journey) would be poorly placed to defend themselves if they had knowingly driven "whilst absolutely ******ed" (not my words).
Guest
Posts: n/a
......And isn't that the point of this whole thread, that daily we are put in the situation where we "knowingly" drive without sufficient rest. Put there by our rostering departments who, at least in my case, use days off merely as a buffer between 2 duties.
The moralizers amongst us say that if we know we are tired then we shouldn't drive. Yeah. Fine! But that would most of us on the streets in short order and, quite frankly, is not a viable solution. I know personally, if I fly all night and don't get to bed before the sun comes up, then I'm just not going to sleep til that night. My mind is just not interested. Body wants to sleep, mind says 'it's day time, time to get up'. So that makes even the hotel rest seem impractical, not to mention the expense.
I think what bothers most posters on this thread is that with the direction taken by the legal system these days, it will not take much of a leap for a keen lawyer, of the mindset of PowerRanger, to be applying these same arguments to one of us who becomes involved in a serious accident after one of the many duties described above, using the argument 'you knowingly......' or 'it was your final responsibilty.......'. This is fairyland stuff, we all know it. But the scary part is that the legal system is moving more and more in the direction of 'someone MUST be held responsible' and fairyland is where they're headed.
I'm not 'knackered' for nothing!
The moralizers amongst us say that if we know we are tired then we shouldn't drive. Yeah. Fine! But that would most of us on the streets in short order and, quite frankly, is not a viable solution. I know personally, if I fly all night and don't get to bed before the sun comes up, then I'm just not going to sleep til that night. My mind is just not interested. Body wants to sleep, mind says 'it's day time, time to get up'. So that makes even the hotel rest seem impractical, not to mention the expense.
I think what bothers most posters on this thread is that with the direction taken by the legal system these days, it will not take much of a leap for a keen lawyer, of the mindset of PowerRanger, to be applying these same arguments to one of us who becomes involved in a serious accident after one of the many duties described above, using the argument 'you knowingly......' or 'it was your final responsibilty.......'. This is fairyland stuff, we all know it. But the scary part is that the legal system is moving more and more in the direction of 'someone MUST be held responsible' and fairyland is where they're headed.
I'm not 'knackered' for nothing!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the FAA mandates defined availability periods and rest periods for US domestic flights, pilots pulling reserve on international routes are available to fly 24 hours a day, with NO defined duty or rest period. The FAA . . . geez.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the posts here are looking into the big picture; some are fixated on small detail. Perhaps it would be beneficial to restate what should be discussed, I’ll try but I’m sure some will try and correct me.
In light of the court proceedings regarding a person being in control of a vehicle when knowingly fatigued causing death or injury. How should pilots address the liabilities regarding the position the employer puts them in by the current rostering systems.
If we are taking the problem seriously we need to look at how we can break the cycle that could lead to an undesired, fatigue induced, chain of events. This calls for appreciation of everybody’s responsibility not to just blame the person who ultimately screws up. It is easy in these circumstances to only look at the poor fool who was the one who got caught out by his actions but that does not do anything about all the other accidents just waiting to happen.
From the pilots point of view this means complaining about poor rostering at least once and in writing. Any company, which ignores a written notification of a safety issue, deserves all it gets. Make sure a copy of the letter can be found if anything happens to you. It then means trying to do something your self if the company doesn’t.
An earlier suggestion about cheap accommodation is the way forward but have you thought of organising it yourselves. Approach the company and the airport authority, see if the company will match any funds raised and will the authority provide free space. The simplest answer is probably the type of accommodation that the mining companies in WA use lovingly referred to as “dongas”. Basically they are transportable units often little more than converted containers split into a number of bedrooms. Arrange fund raising events to get them started. Find out if there are any safety organisations or other companies that will sponsor them. Don’t just stick to your own company, get together with others it’s a common problem.
Up until recently I was purely SLF, I am currently learning to fly, but due to my age will probably never make it into the professional fraternity. I don’t therefore know of the union arrangements you guys have but they should be willing to coordinate your efforts. I know this seems simplistic but it can be done and is better than waiting for someone else to solve your problems for you. In Oz staff often have what are termed as “Busy bees” (I think that’s right) where they get together to improve their own facilities at work so it can be done.
I’ll get off my soapbox now; sorry if this was a little long winded.
In light of the court proceedings regarding a person being in control of a vehicle when knowingly fatigued causing death or injury. How should pilots address the liabilities regarding the position the employer puts them in by the current rostering systems.
If we are taking the problem seriously we need to look at how we can break the cycle that could lead to an undesired, fatigue induced, chain of events. This calls for appreciation of everybody’s responsibility not to just blame the person who ultimately screws up. It is easy in these circumstances to only look at the poor fool who was the one who got caught out by his actions but that does not do anything about all the other accidents just waiting to happen.
From the pilots point of view this means complaining about poor rostering at least once and in writing. Any company, which ignores a written notification of a safety issue, deserves all it gets. Make sure a copy of the letter can be found if anything happens to you. It then means trying to do something your self if the company doesn’t.
An earlier suggestion about cheap accommodation is the way forward but have you thought of organising it yourselves. Approach the company and the airport authority, see if the company will match any funds raised and will the authority provide free space. The simplest answer is probably the type of accommodation that the mining companies in WA use lovingly referred to as “dongas”. Basically they are transportable units often little more than converted containers split into a number of bedrooms. Arrange fund raising events to get them started. Find out if there are any safety organisations or other companies that will sponsor them. Don’t just stick to your own company, get together with others it’s a common problem.
Up until recently I was purely SLF, I am currently learning to fly, but due to my age will probably never make it into the professional fraternity. I don’t therefore know of the union arrangements you guys have but they should be willing to coordinate your efforts. I know this seems simplistic but it can be done and is better than waiting for someone else to solve your problems for you. In Oz staff often have what are termed as “Busy bees” (I think that’s right) where they get together to improve their own facilities at work so it can be done.
I’ll get off my soapbox now; sorry if this was a little long winded.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: London
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VStall has not missed the point - his advice is v. pertinent.
It is the act of driving whilst fatigued that the court will investigate - not the causes of the fatigue. Crewing did not crash the car - the driver did.
The driver (killer) would be branded a pariah forever, though the inevitable sentence might be reduced by a sucessful plea of mitigation.
Such pleas need not include :
1. We like living in Cornwall
2. Hotels are so expensive
3. My social life is in ruins
4. Tee off was brought forward
5. Everybody else does it
6. Life is unfair
Please don't assume I'm moralising - the very nature of our job involves risk management. Just agreeing with VStall that on the day of reckoning it will be the driver on trial not the Chief Pilot.
It is the act of driving whilst fatigued that the court will investigate - not the causes of the fatigue. Crewing did not crash the car - the driver did.
The driver (killer) would be branded a pariah forever, though the inevitable sentence might be reduced by a sucessful plea of mitigation.
Such pleas need not include :
1. We like living in Cornwall
2. Hotels are so expensive
3. My social life is in ruins
4. Tee off was brought forward
5. Everybody else does it
6. Life is unfair
Please don't assume I'm moralising - the very nature of our job involves risk management. Just agreeing with VStall that on the day of reckoning it will be the driver on trial not the Chief Pilot.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point of view here is as much a problem as the case. You are looking at the criminal case and that is only how long you spend behind bars. The real question here is money. The airline has it but if they can protect themselves or deflect blame on to you then it becomes how much you have got.
Would you like to find yourself behind bars and your wife and/or children destitute because your estate was wiped out in compensation. Look at the OJ case it wasn’t the criminal charge that got him it was the compensation case that crippled him.
Forget mitigating circumstances, they are just a way of minimising the inevitable. Even a receipt to show you have contributed to a fund to raise money to alleviate the problem is a better defence than “my social life is in ruins” it shows an acknowledgement of the problem and a positive attempt to reduce the risk.
I know my previous post may seem a little naive but it is valid and provides a defence which makes the employer the more attractive target for compensation claims. The interesting thing is the figures if you follow my suggestion and apply the earlier suggested figure of GBP 10.oo (sorry this keyboard doesn’t have a pounds sign) then assuming 8 hrs for the fee and four bedrooms to a transportable that brings in 120 per day or 840 per week or 43,680 per year that is a lot of money for a transportable unit, heck you could buy a house for that in some areas. Even if this didn’t include bedding let’s face it if you knew the facility was there but you needed a sleeping bag you’d be quite willing to carry one, wouldn’t you??
Set up a trust fund…. Take destiny into your own hands!
Don’t just stand in the dock and try to blame your employer, jet lag, anything but you!!
<img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
edited because I was naive about the spelling of naive!
[ 20 December 2001: Message edited by: gunner b 1 2 ]</p>
Would you like to find yourself behind bars and your wife and/or children destitute because your estate was wiped out in compensation. Look at the OJ case it wasn’t the criminal charge that got him it was the compensation case that crippled him.
Forget mitigating circumstances, they are just a way of minimising the inevitable. Even a receipt to show you have contributed to a fund to raise money to alleviate the problem is a better defence than “my social life is in ruins” it shows an acknowledgement of the problem and a positive attempt to reduce the risk.
I know my previous post may seem a little naive but it is valid and provides a defence which makes the employer the more attractive target for compensation claims. The interesting thing is the figures if you follow my suggestion and apply the earlier suggested figure of GBP 10.oo (sorry this keyboard doesn’t have a pounds sign) then assuming 8 hrs for the fee and four bedrooms to a transportable that brings in 120 per day or 840 per week or 43,680 per year that is a lot of money for a transportable unit, heck you could buy a house for that in some areas. Even if this didn’t include bedding let’s face it if you knew the facility was there but you needed a sleeping bag you’d be quite willing to carry one, wouldn’t you??
Set up a trust fund…. Take destiny into your own hands!
Don’t just stand in the dock and try to blame your employer, jet lag, anything but you!!
<img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
edited because I was naive about the spelling of naive!
[ 20 December 2001: Message edited by: gunner b 1 2 ]</p>
Power Ranger and gang: Just because Captains have defined, but limited authority over their planes (except in an emergency), does not imply that we, or the First Officers or Flt. Engineers, can often, or on a regular basis, just call our Crew Schedulers on impulse and say "I'm pretty tired due to the jerks in the next room last night, whose noise preceded our 11 "continuous duty" hours ago, and need to leave after the next landing for a hotel room-if no other pilots can substitute, that's too bad").
It is not that easy. Only naiive laymen believe that we are more than "liabilities on a financial balance sheet". With many large companies we are viewed as a labor commodity, pure and simple, no matter how shiny our gold or white stripes. The "Naval Officer" image is merely a facade for the publics' peace of mind.
Anyone who thinks that fatigue can always be quantified/qualified or that counting on sympathy from one's employer is a simple matter, has never done this job and therefore has no job experience whatsoever which can bolster any (academic) claim that refusing to continue with a flight duty period is a simple decision to make. Only a civilian or military line pilot, in contrast with those who observe the business from outside the cockpit, understands the reality of business revenue, or "hacking the mission". One of my FOs once stayed on continuous duty as Learjet Captain for 30 hours (Connie Kallita cargo ops), without a rest break, because no relief Captains were available at certain cargo stops, and he felt that he could push himself, in order to move the freight.
There are those who do this job and those who don't: these two categories are totally separate from each other. Riding on jumpseats or flying actual simulators are clearly no substitute. Anyone with a little extra cash can buy some computer games and fly simulated combat missions or delude themselves also into thinking that they can easily comprehend the reality outside their windows. Considering changing traffic, fuel, weather decisions based on very limited information while flying a Shorts 360/F-27/B-737/DC-9... In good or bad weather with various, changing combinations of systems problems, changing braking action, winds with various levels of caffeine and blood sugar, can quickly endanger your career if you (or the Dispatcher or ATC) figure something wrong, which nobody notices and corrects, or you slide off a runway, or you bypass one questionable airport in favor of a more distant suitable airport (ie "why was it not suitable?") due to a possible pax heart attack, in which the passenger soon dies or is crippled from a massive stroke. "Why couldn't you begin an approach for an almost max crosswind landing on a wet runway after an NDB approach with no VASI etc?"
Any attorney can find fault with any decision we make, based on interpretation of compliance or "willful disregard of...some tiny obscure regulation buried within a stack of books and manuals"
1) Let's see the non-cockpit "aviation experts", who are so often lionized by the media, go fly their simulators in real conditions with real systems, with partially blocked radio calls.
2) When the airlines recall the furloughed pilots who now or will soon have no more paycheck and then begin hiring, these "experts" are welcome to submit a resume/CV and application form for a Flight Officer position. Maybe enough time on a cable or sattelite tv (telly) remote control device will somehow add to one's pilot "instrument time".
My company is an "equal opportunity employer". Welcome aboard.
[ 21 December 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]
[ 21 December 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]</p>
It is not that easy. Only naiive laymen believe that we are more than "liabilities on a financial balance sheet". With many large companies we are viewed as a labor commodity, pure and simple, no matter how shiny our gold or white stripes. The "Naval Officer" image is merely a facade for the publics' peace of mind.
Anyone who thinks that fatigue can always be quantified/qualified or that counting on sympathy from one's employer is a simple matter, has never done this job and therefore has no job experience whatsoever which can bolster any (academic) claim that refusing to continue with a flight duty period is a simple decision to make. Only a civilian or military line pilot, in contrast with those who observe the business from outside the cockpit, understands the reality of business revenue, or "hacking the mission". One of my FOs once stayed on continuous duty as Learjet Captain for 30 hours (Connie Kallita cargo ops), without a rest break, because no relief Captains were available at certain cargo stops, and he felt that he could push himself, in order to move the freight.
There are those who do this job and those who don't: these two categories are totally separate from each other. Riding on jumpseats or flying actual simulators are clearly no substitute. Anyone with a little extra cash can buy some computer games and fly simulated combat missions or delude themselves also into thinking that they can easily comprehend the reality outside their windows. Considering changing traffic, fuel, weather decisions based on very limited information while flying a Shorts 360/F-27/B-737/DC-9... In good or bad weather with various, changing combinations of systems problems, changing braking action, winds with various levels of caffeine and blood sugar, can quickly endanger your career if you (or the Dispatcher or ATC) figure something wrong, which nobody notices and corrects, or you slide off a runway, or you bypass one questionable airport in favor of a more distant suitable airport (ie "why was it not suitable?") due to a possible pax heart attack, in which the passenger soon dies or is crippled from a massive stroke. "Why couldn't you begin an approach for an almost max crosswind landing on a wet runway after an NDB approach with no VASI etc?"
Any attorney can find fault with any decision we make, based on interpretation of compliance or "willful disregard of...some tiny obscure regulation buried within a stack of books and manuals"
1) Let's see the non-cockpit "aviation experts", who are so often lionized by the media, go fly their simulators in real conditions with real systems, with partially blocked radio calls.
2) When the airlines recall the furloughed pilots who now or will soon have no more paycheck and then begin hiring, these "experts" are welcome to submit a resume/CV and application form for a Flight Officer position. Maybe enough time on a cable or sattelite tv (telly) remote control device will somehow add to one's pilot "instrument time".
My company is an "equal opportunity employer". Welcome aboard.
[ 21 December 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]
[ 21 December 2001: Message edited by: Ignition Override ]</p>
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my last life I had a Senior GM Flt Ops who said in a pilots meeting that 'our only recourse as pilots is to go sick'. In the good old days pilots didn't like to go sick. Whether it was a professional thing, a macho thing or a combination who knows (I'm gulty too!) but my point is unless the sick rate of any given airline has gone beyond a predetermined limit they (management) are not accountable. All you have to do is say 'I'm reporting sick due to insufficient rest'. If everybody does it then the company has to address the problem. The trick is to get everyone to agree and act!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: England
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is amazing to me just how many people are lining up to have a pop at me for daring to assert that Hart was solely and totally responsible for the deaths of 10 men.
Yes, of course had there been a crash barrier there this would never have happened. But this misses the point entirely.
There was no barrier. Hart fell asleep. Hart killed 10 men.
His falling asleep was no mere unfortunate medical condition. It happened because he chose not to sleep during the previous night.
He made all his own choices and now he must deal with the resulting consequences.
I say again - PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
It is not my intent to offend anybody here I promise. And I am sorry if I sounded a little rabid in earlier postings.
But I will never be silenced from making observations on a subject that has the potential to affect us all. Budvar take note.
Your question concerning driving home very tired is a monumental own-goal.
If you choose to do something knowing that you are not fully competent to do it then damn right you're irresponsible.
How could you possibly think anything different??
As for not commenting on professionalism. Sorry, old boy. It will be a cold day in hell before you gag me.
I have no doubt that 99% of all pilots are extremely professional. They do a difficult job well in the vast majority of cases.
But if you think you can whitewash the antics a few bad apples because the majority are of the required standard or better then I have serious concerns about you.
I pray I never fly on your aircraft.
Finally, to all you who choose to insult me. Carry on if you wish. All you do is undermine your own professionalism.
And to you amateur psychologists - no, I'm not a traffic policeman or a traffic warden or any other uniformed jobs-worth. Sorry boys. And neither am I a short-arse.
I am 6'1", mid-thirties, incredibly fit and very good looking!
I also work in aviation and can fly.
Keep guessing.
[ 21 December 2001: Message edited by: PowerRanger ]</p>
Yes, of course had there been a crash barrier there this would never have happened. But this misses the point entirely.
There was no barrier. Hart fell asleep. Hart killed 10 men.
His falling asleep was no mere unfortunate medical condition. It happened because he chose not to sleep during the previous night.
He made all his own choices and now he must deal with the resulting consequences.
I say again - PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
It is not my intent to offend anybody here I promise. And I am sorry if I sounded a little rabid in earlier postings.
But I will never be silenced from making observations on a subject that has the potential to affect us all. Budvar take note.
Your question concerning driving home very tired is a monumental own-goal.
If you choose to do something knowing that you are not fully competent to do it then damn right you're irresponsible.
How could you possibly think anything different??
As for not commenting on professionalism. Sorry, old boy. It will be a cold day in hell before you gag me.
I have no doubt that 99% of all pilots are extremely professional. They do a difficult job well in the vast majority of cases.
But if you think you can whitewash the antics a few bad apples because the majority are of the required standard or better then I have serious concerns about you.
I pray I never fly on your aircraft.
Finally, to all you who choose to insult me. Carry on if you wish. All you do is undermine your own professionalism.
And to you amateur psychologists - no, I'm not a traffic policeman or a traffic warden or any other uniformed jobs-worth. Sorry boys. And neither am I a short-arse.
I am 6'1", mid-thirties, incredibly fit and very good looking!
I also work in aviation and can fly.
Keep guessing.
[ 21 December 2001: Message edited by: PowerRanger ]</p>
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia (UK expat)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PowerRanger
On a point of order, only a verb can have "voice" (i.e. active or passive); an adjective cannot be active. Indeed, neither can an adverb, which is the part of speech of the word you were referring to: "obnoxiously". Adjectives qualify nouns and adverbs qualify verbs (oddly enough).
Additionally the use of the verb "ignore" was very much active and not passive. In grammar, the voice determines whether it is the subject or the object of the sentence that receives the action of the verb. In 150Aerobat's posts, the object of the sentence was "posts" and the verb was very much actively describing the fact that you appeared to be ignoring them.
I think it may be you who is a little confused.
Doesn't anyone bother learning grammar these days?
On a point of order, only a verb can have "voice" (i.e. active or passive); an adjective cannot be active. Indeed, neither can an adverb, which is the part of speech of the word you were referring to: "obnoxiously". Adjectives qualify nouns and adverbs qualify verbs (oddly enough).
Additionally the use of the verb "ignore" was very much active and not passive. In grammar, the voice determines whether it is the subject or the object of the sentence that receives the action of the verb. In 150Aerobat's posts, the object of the sentence was "posts" and the verb was very much actively describing the fact that you appeared to be ignoring them.
I think it may be you who is a little confused.
Doesn't anyone bother learning grammar these days?
Just a numbered other
PR
I have read this thread again, looking for the 'insults' you feel have been levelled at you. The only insults appear to have flowed in the opposite direction.
I politely asked you a while back:
"Now PR, would you let me know how my views (which you don't have to agree with, but you must admit are reasonably and calmly argued) place my passengers in peril?"
You now make similar comments about Budvar. Please explain the logic behind these insults.
I say again, nothing in life is simple, and even in the modern 'blame culture', no risk assessor alive could have foreseen Harts actions leading to the incredible chain of events that they did. He is a scapegoat for the failings of a bigger system. Note I am not holding him blameless either.
I have read this thread again, looking for the 'insults' you feel have been levelled at you. The only insults appear to have flowed in the opposite direction.
I politely asked you a while back:
"Now PR, would you let me know how my views (which you don't have to agree with, but you must admit are reasonably and calmly argued) place my passengers in peril?"
You now make similar comments about Budvar. Please explain the logic behind these insults.
I say again, nothing in life is simple, and even in the modern 'blame culture', no risk assessor alive could have foreseen Harts actions leading to the incredible chain of events that they did. He is a scapegoat for the failings of a bigger system. Note I am not holding him blameless either.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Power Ranger, you revel in the anonymity which is your right. However; a small wager. I will send you £20 worth of beer vouchers if you can prove to me that you are not ex British Airways admin. On the other hand, if you don't, or can't, offer a denial - then you send me the same number of vouchers. Deal?
PS. Not sure how we administer this, but worth a shot.
PS. Not sure how we administer this, but worth a shot.
