|
Aterpster, I think I read somewhere that they didn't have GPS. Is the Airbus non-GPS RNAV system so accurate that it would be "perfectly aligned"? Further, I doubt their SOP would have allowed autoflight, in LNAV, down to 100ft, especially at night.
Again, only the crew will know: PF went manual flight some nm's out from touchdown. There has been discussion that they programmed the FMC for a 'Bridge visual approach' (I think). Going manual would they leave the FD's ON. If so they would be linked to the FMC. So when they lined up with the taxiway the lateral mode FD might/should have been showing a strong 'fly left'. Equally the magenta line would have been off to the left. And my earlier comments about the PAPI's for 28R being well off to the left is still valid. It would seem there were lots of clues. Curious. I can't believe 2 pilots would fly an approach from 3-4nm without some scan inside. Perhaps AB operators of this older model can help here. |
We used to do IRS alignment on all turnarrounds in my company, now we do not.
I always check for drift as I regularly fly 3 to 6 hrs legs: the drift is always great and in the range of 1\4 to 1 mile, so , dependent on DME DME triagulation update that Airbus did NOT have an accurate LNAV position after 4 to 5 hrs flt from Toronto! The ILS drift ,on the other hand, is generally less then 1/10 degree per YEAR if I remember correctly from my Calibration Flights. Oh, and they killed the FD when the Cpt disconnected , ca 4 miles. Again I fly the odd visual, but generally with full automation to assure no OFDM trigger. Come to think of it the last one was to CPH and the A/C two places ahead of me made a G/A from a botched visual? If one wants to practice manual visual, providing the Company SOP let You, a busy International airport at night , at 03:00 BodyClock is not smart. As proven here. Regardless WTF the clearance was!!! Is this so hard to understand! |
RAT 5 We go F/D’s Off when going manual (All Airbus operator, Airbus SOP’s) and select the Bird on. They would have had no instrument back-up at that stage. As in, they’re visual and positioning the aircraft in accordance with what they see outside, not by what some lateral bar or needle is saying on the PFD. The F/D’s would’ve come back on automatically when TOGA selected. I’d be more interested to hear of their previous months roster, time asleep the previous 24hrs, etc. I think that is more applicable here in this incident. That video is just, wow. So close to the second tail. |
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 10144883)
Aterpster, I think I read somewhere that they didn't have GPS. Is the Airbus non-GPS RNAV system so accurate that it would be "perfectly aligned"? Further, I doubt their SOP would have allowed autoflight, in LNAV, down to 100ft, especially at night.
So, yes, a D/D/I airplane should be in as good as shape as a GPS/I airplane. 100 feet was to make a point. The rollout on final is at F101D at 1,200 msl. 3.5 miles from the AER. And, keep in mind this procedure is approved for IMC to as low as 1,000 and 3 with or without GPS provided: SFO Ceiling 1000' - VIS 3 With VIS 5 in Eastern Quadrant (030^ Clockwise 120^) and San Mateo AWOS Ceiling 2400' - VIS 5 [San Mateo AWOS info available from SFO Tower. If San Mateo AWOS inop, use San Carlos (KSQL) ceiling of 2400'-VIS 5; San Carlos ATIS on 125.9] |
If you'd indulge an SLF, I'm wondering about this:
The ALSF-2 was on at the time of the event according to the air traffic controller on duty except for the strobe in the white centerline bar lights Had the runway sequenced flashing lights been on it would have defined the landing runway |
NTSB to hold board meeting to determine probable cause of the Air Canada 759 near disaster:
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-rele...R20180831.aspx |
its a free for all!
A charter jet missed four taxiing airplanes by as little as 200 feet after it mistakenly lined up with a taxiway instead of the nearby runway, the National Transportation Safety Board said Thursday.
The Aug. 10 incident at Philadelphia International Airport is one of at least four similar cases since July 7, 2017, when an Air Canada plane missed four others on the ground in San Francisco by only a few feet. Collisions between airliners on the ground have been among the most deadly kinds of aviation accidents. A Gulfstream IV charter jet operated by Pegasus Elite Aviation was cleared to land on runway 35, but instead pilots aimed for a parallel stretch of pavement just to the left, the NTSB said in a preliminary report. The pilot aborted the landing and started climbing about 1/10 of a mile before the runway. It flew just 200 feet (61 meters) above an Embraer SA regional jet and then passed above the three other planes, NTSB said. In a 2017 incident, an Air Canada plane tried to land on a taxiway at San Francisco International Airport. The plane came within 59 feet (18 meters) of the ground and the first plane it passed over has a tail that is 56 feet high, according to NTSB and aircraft manufacturer data. NTSB is holding a meeting on Sept. 25 to conclude the cause of the San Francisco incident. The agency is also investigating an incident on Dec. 29 in which a Horizon Air flight landed on a taxiway in Pullman, Washington. No one was injured. Horizon is owned by Alaska Air Group Inc. A Delta Air Lines Inc. plane also lined up with a taxiway instead of the runway in Atlanta on Nov. 29, according to the NTSB. It came within 60 feet (18 meters) of the ground before climbing. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ine&yptr=yahoo |
Some excerpts from a synopsis of the NTSB's final report published at a hearing today, subject to editing.
Probable Cause The NTSB determines that the probable cause of this incident was the flight crew’s misidentification of taxiway C as the intended landing runway, which resulted from the crewmembers’ lack of awareness of the parallel runway closure due to their ineffective review of NOTAM information before the flight and during the approach briefing. Contributing to the incident were (1) the flight crew’s failure to tune the ILS frequency for backup lateral guidance, expectation bias, fatigue due to circadian disruption and length of continued wakefulness, and breakdowns in CRM and (2) Air Canada’s ineffective presentation of approach procedure and NOTAM information. Executive Summary On July 7, 2017, about 2356 Pacific daylight time (PDT), Air Canada flight 759, an Airbus A320-211, Canadian registration C-FKCK, was cleared to land on runway 28R at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), San Francisco, California, but instead lined up with parallel taxiway C.1 Four air carrier airplanes (a Boeing 787, an Airbus A340, another Boeing 787, and a Boeing 737) were on taxiway C awaiting clearance to take off from runway 28R. The incident airplane descended to an altitude of 100 ft above ground level and overflew the first airplane on the taxiway. The incident flight crew initiated a go-around, and the airplane reached a minimum altitude of about 60 ft and overflew the second airplane on the taxiway before starting to climb. None of the 5 flight crewmembers and 135 passengers aboard the incident airplane were injured, and the incident airplane was not damaged. The incident flight was operated by Air Canada under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 129 as an international scheduled passenger flight from Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport, Toronto, Canada. An instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the incident. The flight crewmembers had recent experience flying into SFO at night and were likely expecting SFO to be in its usual configuration; however, on the night of the incident, SFO parallel runway 28L was scheduled to be closed at 2300. The flight crew had opportunities before beginning the approach to learn about the runway 28L closure. The first opportunity occurred before the flight when the crewmembers received the flight release, which included a notice to airmen (NOTAM) about the runway 28L closure. However, the first officer stated that he could not recall reviewing the specific NOTAM that addressed the runway closure. The captain stated that he saw the runway closure information, but his actions (as the pilot flying) in aligning the airplane with taxiway C instead of runway 28R demonstrated that he did not recall that information when it was needed. The second opportunity occurred in flight when the crewmembers reviewed automatic terminal information system (ATIS) information Quebec (via the airplane’s aircraft communication addressing and reporting system [ACARS]), which also included NOTAM information about the runway 28L closure. Both crewmembers recalled reviewing ATIS information Quebec but could not recall reviewing the specific NOTAM that described the runway closure. The procedures for the approach to runway 28R required the first officer (as the pilot monitoring) to manually tune the instrument landing system (ILS) frequency for runway 28R, which would provide backup lateral guidance (via the localizer) during the approach to supplement the visual approach procedures. However, when the first officer set up the approach, he missed the step to manually tune the ILS frequency. The captain was required to review and verify all programming by the first officer but did not notice that the ILS frequency had not been entered. The captain stated that, as the airplane approached the airport, he thought that he saw runway lights for runway 28L and thus believed that runway 28R was runway 28L and that taxiway C was runway 28R. At that time, the first officer was focusing inside the cockpit because he was programming the missed approach altitude and heading (in case a missed approach was necessary) and was setting (per the captain’s instruction) the runway heading, which reduced his opportunity to effectively monitor the approach. The captain asked the first officer to contact the controller to confirm that the runway was clear, at which time the first officer looked up. By that point, the airplane was lined up with taxiway C, but the first officer presumed that the airplane was aligned with runway 28R due, in part, to his expectation that the captain would align the airplane with the intended landing runway. The controller confirmed that runway 28R was clear, but the flight crewmembers were unable to reconcile their confusion about the perceived lights on the runway (which were lights from airplanes on taxiway C) with the controller’s assurance that the runway was clear. Neither flight crewmember recognized that the airplane was not aligned with the intended landing runway until the airplane was over the airport surface, at which time the flight crew initiated a low-altitude go-around. According to the captain, the first officer called for a go-around at the same time as the captain initiated the maneuver, thereby preventing a collision between the incident airplane and one or more airplanes on the taxiway. However, at that point, safety margins were severely reduced given the incident airplane’s proximity to the ground before the airplane began climbing and the minimal distance between the incident airplane and the airplanes on taxiway C. The flight crewmembers stated, during postincident interviews, that the taxiway C surface resembled a runway. Although multiple cues were available to the flight crew to distinguish runway 28R from taxiway C (such as the green centerline lights and flashing yellow guard lights on the taxiway), sufficient cues also existed to confirm the crew’s expectation that the airplane was aligned with the intended landing runway (such as the general outline of airplane lights—in a straight line—on taxiway C and the presence of runway and approach lights on runway 28R, which would also have been present on runway 28L when open). As a result, once the airplane was aligned with what the flight crewmembers thought was the correct landing surface, they were likely not strongly considering contradictory information. The cues available to the flight crew to indicate that the airplane was aligned with a taxiway did not overcome the crew’s belief, as a result of expectation bias, that the taxiway was the intended landing runway. The flight crewmembers reported that they started to feel tired just after they navigated through an area of thunderstorms, which radar data indicated was about 2145 (0045 eastern daylight time [EDT]). The incident occurred about 2356, which was 0256 EDT according to the flight crew’s normal body clock time; thus, part of the incident flight occurred during a time when the flight crew would normally have been asleep (according to postincident interviews) and at a time that approximates the start of the human circadian low period described in Air Canada’s fatigue information (in this case, 0300 to 0500 EDT). In addition, at the time of the incident, the captain had been awake for more than 19 hours, and the first officer had been awake for more than 12 hours. Thus, the captain and the first officer were fatigued during the incident flight. Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) information was not available for this incident because the data were overwritten before senior Air Canada officials became aware of the severity of this incident. Although the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) identified significant safety issues during our investigation into this incident, CVR information, if it had been available, could have provided direct evidence about the events leading to the overflight and the go-around. For example, several crew actions/inactions during the incident flight demonstrated breakdowns in crew resource management (CRM), including both pilots’ failure to assimilate the runway 28L closure information included in the ATIS information, the first officer’s failure to manually tune the ILS frequency, and the captain’s failure to verify the tuning of the ILS frequency. However, without CVR information, the NTSB could not determine whether distraction, workload, and/or other factors contributed to these failures. Pictures from the hearing: |
Too much to ask to just put running rabbit approach lights at the end of every runway. Should be impossible to screw it up then ? |
Originally Posted by rmac2
(Post 10258576)
https://youtu.be/u59bJZEitRI
Too much to ask to just put running rabbit approach lights at the end of every runway. Should be impossible to screw it up then ? |
A lot of pilots are flying around with degraded performance capabilities due to rostering practices now days. A lot of pilots are reporting same. Nothing will change until reasonable hard legal limits are put in place to prevent fatigue. Will Canada take real steps to reduce fatigue? |
Originally Posted by rmac2
(Post 10258576)
Too much to ask to just put running rabbit approach lights at the end of every runway. Should be impossible to screw it up then ?
|
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10258471)
Some excerpts from a synopsis of the NTSB's final report published at a hearing today, subject to editing.
|
|
Originally Posted by rmac2
(Post 10258576)
https://youtu.be/u59bJZEitRI
Too much to ask to just put running rabbit approach lights at the end of every runway. Should be impossible to screw it up then ? Similar situation happened at London Gatwick TWICE, one with a based operator, with jets actually landing on the (fortunately vacant) taxyway, before some changes were made to procedures when a runway is advised as closed. I trust the enquiry here has looked closely at those cases. They also put a joggle in the relief taxyway so it looks crooked from the air. |
A visual approach at night is no laughing matter.
Flying one into SFO due to all the local aural and visual chatter does not make it easier. And then they were tired and/or became a bit complacent and were then way behind in setting up the airplane (i.e. putting the correct ILS app into the FMS, as soon as the ATIS said so, etc.) and being on the same page as a crew. It has happened to all of us in one way or the other - the sudden question: "WTF? How did I get here?!" BUT - they figured out they were wrong and went around - Problem solved. That - does not happen to all of us. |
Docket Updated
A significant number of new reports were posted yesterday on the NTSB Docket.
|
Originally Posted by Zeffy
(Post 10259398)
A significant number of new reports were posted yesterday on the NTSB Docket.
ACA-determined Probable Cause: "The Probable Cause of the ACA759 overflight incident was the flight crew’s misperception of SFO Taxiway C as Runway 28R during the approach. Contributing to the incident were: (1) San Francisco International Airport’s inadequate lighting of the runway environment, including lighting of the ongoing construction, to distinguish the normally-configured parallel runways from runway 28R and Taxiway C given the closure of runway 28L; (2) failure of the sole, combined local controller/controller-in-charge (LC/CIC controller) in the KSFO tower to provide any direction or information to the flight crew, following the flight crew’s request, until after the flight crew had already initiated the go-around; and (3) insufficient training and knowledge by the combined LC/CIC controller on use of available lighting resources and ADSE-X/ASSC capabilities." NTSB-determined Probable Cause: "The NTSB determines that the probable cause of this incident was the flight crew’s misidentification of taxiway C as the intended landing runway, which resulted from the crewmembers’ lack of awareness of the parallel runway closure due to their ineffective review of NOTAM information before the flight and during the approach briefing. Contributing to the incident were (1) the flight crew’s failure to tune the ILS frequency for backup lateral guidance, expectation bias, fatigue due to circadian disruption and length of continued wakefulness, and breakdowns in CRM and (2) Air Canada’s ineffective presentation of approach procedure and NOTAM information." |
Originally Posted by 73qanda
(Post 10258694)
A lot of pilots are flying around with degraded performance capabilities due to rostering practices now days. A lot of pilots are reporting same. Nothing will change until reasonable hard legal limits are put in place to prevent fatigue. Will Canada take real steps to reduce fatigue? When you say hard limits please give some idea's i.e. no flying between 02-06LT or what? IMHV reducing fatigue is a three way process - CAA AOC and crewmembers - what will you do e.g. was the Captain commuting pre flight or are we not allowed to go there? |
Originally Posted by Mr Angry from Purley
(Post 10259591)
Difficult to get a bigger picture unless you see the full roster - for all we know the Crew could have had 4 days off prior.
|
Wonderbusdriver - Quote
"BUT - they figured out they were wrong and went around - Problem solved." , 🤤🙄🤤 They missed their maker by a baw hair - so hardly problem solved . They got got more luck than you need to get 6 numbers up on the lottery . |
When you say hard limits please give some idea's i.e. no flying between 02-06LT or what? Hard legal limits in the regulations, just like truck drivers and taxi drivers have. Want to operate more than 8 hours stick time? Put a third crew member on. Want crew to fly between 0200 and 0600? No problem, x hours free of duty prior and x hours free of duty after. Max 28 hours duty in any 72 hour period. Max 3 significant circadian shifts per 30 day roster. ( not earlies/ one day off/ lates/ one day off/ earlies etc etc) Max of one single day off per roster, the rest as doubles etc etc etc IMHV reducing fatigue is a three way process - CAA AOC and crewmembers was the Captain commuting pre flight or are we not allowed to go there? |
ACA-determined Probable Cause: "The Probable Cause of the ACA759 overflight incident was the flight crew’s misperception of SFO Taxiway C as Runway 28R during the approach. Contributing to the incident were: (1) San Francisco International Airport’s inadequate lighting of the runway environment, including lighting of the ongoing construction, to distinguish the normally-configured parallel runways from runway 28R and Taxiway C given the closure of runway 28L; (2) failure of the sole, combined local controller/controller-in-charge (LC/CIC controller) in the KSFO tower to provide any direction or information to the flight crew, following the flight crew’s request, until after the flight crew had already initiated the go-around; and (3) insufficient training and knowledge by the combined LC/CIC controller on use of available lighting resources and ADSE-X/ASSC capabilities." |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10259572)
Includes a 37-page submission from Air Canada: Air Canada Submission to the NTSB in the Investigation of the Overflight of a Taxiway at San Francisco International Airport on July 7, 2017
ACA-determined Probable Cause: "The Probable Cause of the ACA759 overflight incident was the flight crew’s misperception of SFO Taxiway C as Runway 28R during the approach. Contributing to the incident were: (1) San Francisco International Airport’s inadequate lighting of the runway environment, including lighting of the ongoing construction, to distinguish the normally-configured parallel runways from runway 28R and Taxiway C given the closure of runway 28L; (2) failure of the sole, combined local controller/controller-in-charge (LC/CIC controller) in the KSFO tower to provide any direction or information to the flight crew, following the flight crew’s request, until after the flight crew had already initiated the go-around; and (3) insufficient training and knowledge by the combined LC/CIC controller on use of available lighting resources and ADSE-X/ASSC capabilities." 5.1.14. The ACA759 flight crew were likely affected by some degree of WOCL/Fatigue. 5.1.22. The lack of onboard GPS, HUD or software tools to assist with alignment placed the crew in a position where they would be susceptible to illusions and biases. Including erasing the CVR, it would appear that safety culture deficiencies are present up to the very top at ACA. |
ACA, that is an unfortunate submittal to the NTSB investigation. The runway still had a full set of runway lights and approach lights, and a LLZ, GS etc. The crew presumably had a RWY 28R position on the ND, but of course that may be subject to position errors depending on the status of the MMR/GPS equipment, although the aircraft is presumably fully compliant with ADSB out/in GPS position accuracy. 10 out of 10 for supporting your flight crew, but it is a poor response. Suspect the NTSB will be more supportive of the flight crew and the constraints on human perception that exist.
It is understandable that the crew may have an expectation of the visual cues that differs from reality when the configuration of the runways is changed. The NOTAM itself may assist in ensuring that does not occur, but it is not a direct defence against misperception by the flight crew. The crew would eventually detect the differences in observed features as they approached the assumed runway end, but there are common cues that occur on every approach, and these were perceived late in the sequence, and apparently simultaneously by the Captain and the FO. The error appears to have been perceived earlier by the crew in the aircraft on the taxiway, which is also understandable, they are stationary and at a reasonably low level of cognitive load at that time, just observing a mess developing. Intervention by the flight crew on the ground is fraught with delay and confusion, and at 200FPS, that translates to quite a potential for the aircraft to get close to the taxiway before taking any action. The controller had a pretty high workload, and appears to have never comprehended what the issue raised by the AC A320 crew really meant; the process of assimilating the A320 info, ascertaining the implications and responding takes time, probably much more than selecting TOGA on the ATS would have done. Even with multiple ATC officers, it is going to be an open question whether the interrogative from the A320 is going to trigger suspicions with the ATC officer that the flight crew have a S.A. error and are heading towards the weeds (and aluminium tubes). Upgrading EGPWS systems is a possibility, with the improved accuracy of the nav systems that is associated with ADSB, that could give improved cueing to the flight crew of alignment. You get better information from FOREFLIGHT than the ND on the Boeings or Airbus aircraft at this time. The technology certification cycle and cost is close to being a negative to flight safety as much as it ensures safety through compliance. Notice on the ATIS on the NOTAMS is of limited value, it may provide a cue to the visual aspect expected to be seen, but it is also subject to being lost in the noise of the rest of the operational information. The AC submission makes the case for continued ground based nav aids to be maintained, which would be nice to have, but is opposite to the trend of progressing towards SBAS approaches. A RNP-AR type approach would have given adequate guidance to the actual runway, at least to the same level of reliability as a LLZ which is subject to its own errors and interferences. ASDE would assist, but it needs to be alerting the ATCCO in such instances, or it is a passive tool only. Collectively, we as a group have been dealing with KSFO and it's oddities for a long time. While we appreciate the geographic issues that exist for this airport, it is remarkable how many bandaids exist in giving approaches to the airport. As much fun as Quiet Bridge and similar approaches are to fly, I'm not sure that they are collectively in the best interest of the public, they provide expediency but with a substantial increase in complexity of the task the crews face. At what point do the airlines and flight crew call it quits with dealing with simops, dependent parallel non aligned approaches, etc? Operating a cross runway for departure and two non compliant spaced parallel approaches and departures at the same time suggests it's time to get a new airport. This is not the first incident that came close to crews sharing cockpits, and it is unlikely to the the last at this airport. As much as I like Lefty O'Douls, the fare payers probably deserve a better infrastructure, or one that manages the operating tempo with more margin for error. |
Originally Posted by 73qanda
(Post 10259775)
Ok, for narrow bodies with no bunk; Hard legal limits in the regulations, just like truck drivers and taxi drivers have. Want to operate more than 8 hours stick time? Put a third crew member on. Want crew to fly between 0200 and 0600? No problem, x hours free of duty prior and x hours free of duty after. Max 28 hours duty in any 72 hour period. Max 3 significant circadian shifts per 30 day roster. ( not earlies/ one day off/ lates/ one day off/ earlies etc etc) Max of one single day off per roster, the rest as doubles etc etc etc I agree 100% . We can go there. If you commute and know it means you will have been awake for 19 hours on arrival then you are irresponsible imho. I have no idea if anyone commuted in this case. |
Thanks for posting that, I watched five or six minutes. All three (Regulator, Airline, Individual) appear to be dropping the ball in his story.....Captain as well. If that is anywhere near normal over there then no wonder people are making errors that well rested folk can’t comprhend. Regulator needs to set hard limits Airline needs to create/enforce commuting rules, Individuals need to live where they are based and if that is too expensive.....quit like that guy did. The wages would rise pretty quick. |
Originally Posted by 73qanda
(Post 10260679)
Thanks for posting that, I watched five or six minutes. All three (Regulator, Airline, Individual) appear to be dropping the ball in his story.....Captain as well. If that is anywhere near normal over there then no wonder people are making errors that well rested folk can’t comprhend. Regulator needs to set hard limits Airline needs to create/enforce commuting rules, Individuals need to live where they are based and if that is too expensive.....quit like that guy did. The wages would rise pretty quick. |
Canada is presently reviewing the daily maximum hours duty time/flying time rules. Truckers in Canada have better rules than Canadian aircraft pilots. The U.S. flight time rule is more favorable to the pilots.
|
Commuting will not go away. Airlines open and close crew domiciles. Also, family and other personal commitments usually prevent moving. People don’t normally commute to Airline jobs in the countries I’ve lived and flown in. Maybe 1% tops. |
Originally Posted by 73qanda
(Post 10261582)
Does it only exist because you can ride the jump seat though? People don’t normally commute to Airline jobs in the countries I’ve lived and flown in. Maybe 1% tops. |
Q
Originally Posted by 73qanda
(Post 10261582)
Does it only exist because you can ride the jump seat though? A basic standby on our own airline possibly costs more than a full fare with the Loco which often serves the same city pair, and a discounted full fare with our own airline can sometimes be only marginally more expensive than the staff standby,possibly jumpseat ticket, on the same flight....so I’d suggest lifestyle choices/base closures/employer changes plus the need for family stability have probably caused many to commute. |
People don’t normally commute to Airline jobs in the countries I’ve lived and flown in. Maybe 1% tops. |
Originally Posted by aterpster
(Post 10261687)
Jump seating makes it much easier. That came about in the mid-1980s when I was still working. Prior to that, on my airline at least, a commuter had to use his pass. Full airplane meant no ride on that flight.
At Pan Am I remember having a Delta pilot on the jumpseat over the pond. The Clipper Skipper asked the Deltoid why they didn't take other airlines' pilots on the jumpseat. 'We don't consider it professional' was the reply. Over time reciprocal jumpseat agreements spread but as always there is no good deal that a pilot gets that somebody doesn't abuse. Some folks would get must ride positioning tickets issued on another carrier, ride the jumpseat and refund or rewrite the ticket for personal use. And some non-sked cargo outfits would use the jumpseat to position crews for free. Or, so I'm told. Some carriers were better to me riding free internationally as a jumpseat rider than they were riding on a pass or a full fare positioning ticket it seemed. 9-11 messed up jumpseats, especially internationally, but with many U.S. airline domiciles over half of the pilots still commute more than 100 miles to the base. The commuting issue was kinda swept under the rug in the last revision of FAR rest rules but it should be part of the discussion in my opinion since some folks really push the envelope. Again, might not be a player in this SFO incident but I submit that it is an element of fatigue in many cases. |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10261961)
Back in the 1980's there were jumpseat airlines like Pan Am, TWA and Northwest that would take other carriers' pilots and in some cases dispatchers and mechanics. Other airlines, like United, would only take their own pilots and I believe Delta would not even take their own pilots at one time.
We couldn't ride our own jump seat without management authorization until late 1970s. Then, TWA-ALPA got the jump seat for TWA commuters only. Not for me since I lived within the defined local distance of LAX. Then, in early 1980s, with the retirement of pioneer "black knight" senior VP of Flight Ops, it became wide open. Some of it made me a bit uncomfortable. I never refused but insisted they take a cabin seat unless we were full. Interestingly, the "black knight" placed controllers ahead of TWA commuters in the late 1970s. Then, the PATCO strike and the controllers went behind TWA commuters and subsequently behind all commuters. |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10261961)
The commuting issue was kinda swept under the rug in the last revision of FAR rest rules but it should be part of the discussion in my opinion since some folks really push the envelope. Again, might not be a player in this SFO incident but I submit that it is an element of fatigue in many cases. In 1983 I got bounced to STL for several months. I always went from LAX to STL the day before and rented a hotel room. I was part of a small minority. |
Neither the Capt. nor the F/O had commuted. The Capt. was on reserve and got called in that day.
|
From the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority website; The FAA (2012, p. 359), reference to a 13 hour FDP could result in periods of wakefulness in excess of 16 hours before their FDP resulting in a human performance similar to that of an individual over the legal limit for alcohol consumption. • In their study quantifying the performance impairment associated with fatigue Lamond and Dawson (1999) identified that being awake for approximately 17 hours has a similar impairment on many aspects of performance as having a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.05%. Being awake for approximately 21 hours has a performance impairment equivalent to 0.10% BAC. |
Originally Posted by evansb
(Post 10261087)
Canada is presently reviewing the daily maximum hours duty time/flying time rules. Truckers in Canada have better rules than Canadian aircraft pilots. The U.S. flight time rule is more favorable to the pilots.
Why this is so should be a matter of an independant, objective examination say, of a Royal Commission like the Moshansky Commission way back in '89. so Canadians can know why their Ministry of Transport has succeeded in avoiding addressing this scientifically-established issue for so long. Virgil P Moshansky; Commission of Inquiry into the Air Ontario Crash at Dryden, Ontario (Canada) and another: Moshansky comments to the Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Committee, February 2007 It appears that no matter what happens, Canada is not serious about fatigue issues. PJ2 |
It is easy to tackle safety issues like CFIT, mid air collisions, loss of control, and so on. They typically have a fairly obvious cause and affect. Fatigue is a bit more nebulous. It is often a contributing factor but rarely, if ever, a sole cause of an accident. It can therefore be shuffled down the priority list when it invariably turns out that fixing fatigue issues is commercially inconvenient. There is also the fact that a pilot must not present to work in an unfit state. Whenever fatigue rears it’s head the authorities can always just say that the pilot was at fault for not getting adequate rest or standing themselves down. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.