JBLU Fatigue Hot Water

[stuckingfk]

Originally Posted by Maximillian_Jenius

FTW=

Forget the World, Fu*k the World, For the World, or Face the World

[averyrm]

In gamer-speak it's For The Win

[mpenguin1]

Originally Posted by pilot602

20 years as a dispatch/scheduler/planner etc. NOT a pilot.

So if I sat in your office for two days once every six months I'd know all the intracacies and "what it's really" like to do your job? Man ... you must have a pretty easy/cushy job if in just a few hours, a couple times a year, could convey to me what it's really like to work that job long term ...

No, if you sat next to me for 2 days, you would have a general idea as to what goes on in the office.

As to me, you may be surprised, I have plenty of time sitting in the jumpseat of 747's, 8 years worth, so, yes, I have a general idea as to what goes on in the jumpseat. In case you want to know in total hours, I lost track after about 500 hours....

Arguing semantics really doesn't adress the issue I pointed out. Got a real argument for that?

Yeah I may seem a little aggressive on this topic but it just really irks me when someone who really has no clue (a few hours a year really doesn't cut it, especially when the dispatcher has his or her choice of what legs/trips to ride on) tells me what I should be willing/able to do.

You have me at a disadvantage, I can not match your anger & I am not arguing, just simply discussing, I have a general idea as to what goes on in the cockpit of an airplane and the challenges of long duty days, multiple landings, etc.

[CFIse]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

Trust me, you don't want your family in the back of an A-320 after the crew's been on duty for 13 hours and on their 10th hour of flight time during a storm on arrival into JFK.

Why does the fact that they have flown 10 hours and not 8 hours make it unsafe? I might agree that the fact that they've been on duty for 13 hours makes it unsafe, but that's being done all the time so it can't be that unsafe.

A 2 leg day with 10 hours of flight - even with the big scary thunderstorms at JFK - doesn't seem that much to ask. Unless you're actually flying a plane from the late 1930s, cruise in todays modern flight deck is not exactly high workload. If this is leg 6 of 7 then I agree extra flight time over 8 hours might be a problem because the crew will have spent a lot of time in a high workload situation.

How you write a regulation that allows what has been proven to be safe (and I don't say 10 hours of flight has proven to be safe, but I don't say 8 has either) and prevents what would be dangerous is beyond me. But to knee-jerk reaction and say 10 hours under any circumstances is unsafe is not, I think, correct.

And just to round the whole thing out - I HAVE flown 9:50 between required rest and I DID make the final approach into Atlanta with thunderstorms in the area. I have no idea what I flew in 24 hours that day, but my recall is the overnight wasn't that long, so probably more.

Kudos to Jet Blue for actually STUDYING the issue and not just saying "lazy damn pilots, make them fly 10 hours".

[mpenguin1]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

Trust me, you don't want your family in the back of an A-320 after the crew's been on duty for 13 hours and on their 10th hour of flight time during a storm on arrival into JFK.

That is not what makes me nervous, what makes me wonder is how the pilot gets to where his trip starts.

I have seen pilots jumpseat (they lived in ANC, but, JFK was his base), ANC-SEA-LAX-ATL-JFK, to fly a JFK-ORD-LAX leg, 12 hours off & then fly LAX-HNL-NAN (Fiji)

By the time the pilot hit LAX, he was probably awake for 24 hours......

[bike21]

Originally Posted by CFIse

Why does the fact that they have flown 10 hours and not 8 hours make it unsafe? I might agree that the fact that they've been on duty for 13 hours makes it unsafe, but that's being done all the time so it can't be that unsafe.

A 2 leg day with 10 hours of flight - even with the big scary thunderstorms at JFK - doesn't seem that much to ask. Unless you're actually flying a plane from the late 1930s, cruise in todays modern flight deck is not exactly high workload. If this is leg 6 of 7 then I agree extra flight time over 8 hours might be a problem because the crew will have spent a lot of time in a high workload situation.

How you write a regulation that allows what has been proven to be safe (and I don't say 10 hours of flight has proven to be safe, but I don't say 8 has either) and prevents what would be dangerous is beyond me. But to knee-jerk reaction and say 10 hours under any circumstances is unsafe is not, I think, correct.

And just to round the whole thing out - I HAVE flown 9:50 between required rest and I DID make the final approach into Atlanta with thunderstorms in the area. I have no idea what I flew in 24 hours that day, but my recall is the overnight wasn't that long, so probably more.

Kudos to Jet Blue for actually STUDYING the issue and not just saying "lazy damn pilots, make them fly 10 hours".

Good points, you have been at the end of your rope too it sounds on certain days. So lets say hypothetically, that 10 hours (block) is allowed for 3 legs or less a day. What if those legs are extended big time due to delays? And lets say it is your last leg of the day, you are legal to start so off you go. Now you have been waiting for a ground stop at your destination, and are just within legal limits to depart. Off you go with a few minutes to spare on the 16 hour duty limitation (upon reaching destination). Now once enroute, you start getting delay vectors, then run around thunderstoms, do some holding once closer in and finally are on approach with weather down to mins, wind is howling, etc.

How safe does you feel? You have been on duty for 15:23 hours and have blcoked about 12 of those hours. At the beginning of the day, you were legal and you still are. But due to unforseen delays, etc you are now flying ragged.

My belief is simply this, 8 hours and 16 duty are limitations. And just that. Our companies already push this and when the weather gets bad, we get extended day after day and push our limits way too much. Lets at least keep it how it is or better yet, push for better rules. Not worse!

Originally Posted by mpenguin1

That is not what makes me nervous, what makes me wonder is how the pilot gets to where his trip starts.

I have seen pilots jumpseat (they lived in ANC, but, JFK was his base), ANC-SEA-LAX-ATL-JFK, to fly a JFK-ORD-LAX leg, 12 hours off & then fly LAX-HNL-NAN (Fiji)

By the time the pilot hit LAX, he was probably awake for 24 hours......

As pilot602 pointed out, you are not on the line flying everyday. I am not discounting your years of experience in this industry, and this certainly isn't an attack. But c'mon, we are pushed hard enough some days as it is. As you mentioned in your last post, pilots that commute are already tired sometimes starting on day 1. I just love getting in planes with guys who have already been up since 3am for the commute and didn't get to bed until late b/c of kids, family, packing, etc.

Until you are responsible for the lives of everybody in the back, day in - day out then I would suggest you rethink your position. Do you really want your family on plane with a crew that has had min rest for 3 days in a row flying a 15 hour duty day? I know this an extreme example, but it happens. All too often.

And don't get me wrong, I am for research and new ideas. But this one seems like just another way to make us a generic commodity.

[mpenguin1]

Originally Posted by bike21

As pilot602 pointed out, you are not on the line flying everyday. I am not discounting your years of experience in this industry, and this certainly isn't an attack. But c'mon, we are pushed hard enough some days as it is. As you mentioned in your last post, pilots that commute are already tired sometimes starting on day 1. I just love getting in planes with guys who have already been up since 3am for the commute and didn't get to bed until late b/c of kids, family, packing, etc.

Until you are responsible for the lives of everybody in the back, day in - day out then I would suggest you rethink your position. Do you really want your family on plane with a crew that has had min rest for 3 days in a row flying a 15 hour duty day? I know this an extreme example, but it happens. All too often.

And don't get me wrong, I am for research and new ideas. But this one seems like just another way to make us a generic commodity.

Looking at my previous posting, which had to do with Jetblue wanting to have their crews do the JFK-LAX-JFK turn, my first comment was allow them do it, by increasing the max flight time, but, decrease the crew duty time.

If I really wanted my family to feel safe, I would feel more comfortable knowing that the pilots were actually living at the same place that they were based out of.

Probably the one thing the scared the hell out of me, was a pilot that jumspeated from South Africa, 4 hour nap & then flew a fully loaded 747 to Anchorage, now, that scared the hell out of me.

So as to what goes on in the cockpit, I don't want to know, sometimes, ignorance is bliss.

[bike21]

Originally Posted by mpenguin1

Looking at my previous posting, which had to do with Jetblue wanting to have their crews do the JFK-LAX-JFK turn, my first comment was allow them do it, by increasing the max flight time, but, decrease the crew duty time.

If I really wanted my family to feel safe, I would feel more comfortable knowing that the pilots were actually living at the same place that they were based out of.

Probably the one thing the scared the hell out of me, was a pilot that jumspeated from South Africa, 4 hour nap & then flew a fully loaded 747 to Anchorage, now, that scared the hell out of me.

So as to what goes on in the cockpit, I don't want to know, sometimes, ignorance is bliss.

What goes on in the cockpit stays in the cockpit! I kiiid kiiiid

Seriously though, it might be something to consider on a 2 leg only basis, when certain conditions are met, at specific carriers, say 12 hour max duty, etc.

Again, it is something to ponder however it seems if we give an inch...

[mpenguin1]

Originally Posted by bike21

What goes on in the cockpit stays in the cockpit! I kiiid kiiiid

Seriously though, it might be something to consider on a 2 leg only basis, when certain conditions are met, at specific carriers, say 12 hour max duty, etc.

Again, it is something to ponder however it seems if we give an inch...

Who knows change could be a good thing, the reg that I would like to see removed is that Legal to start, to complete nonsense....

[bike21]

Originally Posted by mpenguin1

Who knows change could be a good thing, the reg that I would like to see removed is that Legal to start, to complete nonsense....

Aye, aye cap'n!! I agree with you there 100%! How many times have I heard crew support say, "but your legal". Oh, if I had a nickel....

[CFIse]

Originally Posted by bike21

Good points, you have been at the end of your rope too it sounds on certain days. So lets say hypothetically, that 10 hours (block) is allowed for 3 legs or less a day. What if those legs are extended big time due to delays? And lets say it is your last leg of the day, you are legal to start so off you go. Now you have been waiting for a ground stop at your destination, and are just within legal limits to depart. Off you go with a few minutes to spare on the 16 hour duty limitation (upon reaching destination). Now once enroute, you start getting delay vectors, then run around thunderstoms, do some holding once closer in and finally are on approach with weather down to mins, wind is howling, etc.

How safe does you feel?

And those are valid points as well. If a change in the regulations can be written to make flying safer or at least as safe, while increasing flight time allowed then I say go for it. The trick is going to be writing that regulation in such a way that companies don't find a way to abuse it. I believe that there are schedules where the flight time can be increased and the operation will be as safe or safer than current. I can also see situations in which we're just expanding a boundary and pushing closer to an unsafe operation. The devil is in the details.

As another poster mentioned - if we're going to fly more than 8 then we've got to get maximum duty reduced (for at least more than 8) and if, from time to time, that causes JBLU to end up with a plane and crew in LAX who aren't legal due to duty time limitations to bring the plane back, well so be it, that's the risk the company takes for playing on the edge.

[tonyw]

Seeing how there are NASA studies showing a detoriation in ability just by being awake for 12 hours...

Hell, man. Today, I got up at 7AM, went and played flag football at 8:00 AM, and then rushed home, showered, and changed into my work clothes. Then I worked from 10:30 AM until 7:30 PM, with an hour break.

I was a worthless piece of crap by the end of the day. I was so freaking worthless that one drink pretty much got me ripped.

Now, is that really how you want someone who is responsible for hundreds of lives to be operating?

[ROFCIBC]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

Capt. Dave Bushy, who championed fatigue-reducing programs as vice president of flight operations before leaving the company earlier this month for another carrier, said JetBlue and the rest of the industry "can be a lot smarter when it comes to scheduling and the use of science," instead of just "living with 40-year-old regulations that don't enhance the safety equation."

Doug, oh swarthy one....

This very topic came up on the YGTBSM boards...and I posted a comment....regarding our "beloved" Dave "screw you" Bushy....

If it's permissible I will cut/paste and add it here....

I await your decision, oh swarthy one! with baited breath....so to speak! woo hoo!

[fo4ever]

Originally Posted by CFIse

Kudos to Jet Blue for actually STUDYING the issue and not just saying "lazy damn pilots, make them fly 10 hours".

No Kudos from me.

My problem is with the way JBLU chose to "study" the issue.

This should be done in a SIMULATOR, not on a revenue flight with passengers on board.

Study this issue with trans-cons, but also include an 8 leg day of out and backs from a major airline hub.

Study the issue, fine. But NOT with REVENUE PASSENGERS! Remember a change to the FAR's applies to ALL airlines, regardless of the stage length they fly.

[Doug Taylor]

Go for it J-Mick!

[mpenguin1]

Originally Posted by fo4ever

No Kudos from me.

My problem is with the way JBLU chose to "study" the issue.

This should be done in a SIMULATOR, not on a revenue flight with passengers on board.

Study this issue with trans-cons, but also include an 8 leg day of out and backs from a major airline hub.

Study the issue, fine. But NOT with REVENUE PASSENGERS! Remember a change to the FAR's applies to ALL airlines, regardless of the stage length they fly.

Using a full flight simulator would not be a fair test on the side of the pilots, there is much more stress that take place in the cockpit of an aircraft.

Just a couple of things about this testing:

* It was safe (there was a safety pilot in the jumpseat)
* It was irregular
* It seemed to be blessed by the local FAA, but, not by the main FAA Office.
* The test were manned by Jetblue volunteers.

These types of test could be useful as the FAR's are due for an overhaul.

[mpenguin1]

Originally Posted by ROFCIBC

Doug, oh swarthy one....

This very topic came up on the YGTBSM boards...and I posted a comment....regarding our "beloved" Dave "screw you" Bushy....

If it's permissible I will cut/paste and add it here....

I await your decision, oh swarthy one! with baited breath....so to speak! woo hoo!

Where are the comments?

[OldTownPilot]

Originally Posted by mpenguin1

These types of test could be useful as the FAR's are due for an overhaul.

The overhaul needs to be in the other direction. 14 hours Duty (12 scheduled), 10 hours rest, and none of this reduced rest malarkey.

[surreal1221]

Great. . . if this goes where I hope it never does. . . my commute will be much harder.

[Doug Taylor]

Originally Posted by mpenguin1

Using a full flight simulator would not be a fair test on the side of the pilots, there is much more stress that take place in the cockpit of an aircraft.

Just a couple of things about this testing:

* It was safe (there was a safety pilot in the jumpseat)
* It was irregular
* It seemed to be blessed by the local FAA, but, not by the main FAA Office.
* The test were manned by Jetblue volunteers.

These types of test could be useful as the FAR's are due for an overhaul.

Gotta pull out the bullcrap flag.

You've got pro pilots saying that it was doofus.

Passengers aren't paying for 'irregular ops' to experiment with fatigue.

The local FAA isn't running the show and some of the feds that approved it are, rumor has it, no longer working for the FAA.

How do you know they were volunteers?

Plus a 'safety pilot' in the jumpseat. I'm not sure where a safety pilot factors into the chain of command. Overriding the captains decisions? Pinch hitter if the FO takes a uncommanded microsleep siesta?

[mpenguin1]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

Gotta pull out the bullcrap flag.

You've got pro pilots saying that it was doofus.

Passengers aren't paying for 'irregular ops' to experiment with fatigue.

The local FAA isn't running the show and some of the feds that approved it are, rumor has it, no longer working for the FAA.

How do you know they were volunteers?

Plus a 'safety pilot' in the jumpseat. I'm not sure where a safety pilot factors into the chain of command. Overriding the captains decisions? Pinch hitter if the FO takes a uncommanded microsleep siesta?

Doug

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal that talked about the Jetblue testing, but, you have to register, so I found this:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...ue_pilots.html

Pilots who had volunteered for the experiment flew for more than the eight hours per day that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations permit. Some flew for as many as 10 to 11 hours, the newspaper said.

As far the FAA approval of the testing, gotta admit, I have never heard of anything like this before, but, they must have had some sort of approval, they were doing the testing for an extended period of time. As far as some people losing their jobs, who knows?

[Doug Taylor]

I highly doubt if the FAA specifically "allowed" a US part 121 domestic crew to fly a scheduled 10 to 11 hours with fare paying passengers onboard.

The POI may have turned a blind eye, but is he still with the FAA?

[jtrain609]

And the POI doesn't have the ability to exempt a carrier from the FAR's eh? That is unless they applied to get their ops specs changed and then the FAA approved it, but I can't imagine that a single POI could approve a change like that with a carrier that large.

I mean...you hate freedom, Doug!

[mpenguin1]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116138760170199478.html

[jtrain609]

Right, that's because they broke the rules. A POI can't just go and circumvent the FAR's on a whim. The airline, the POI and the FSDO should have ALL known better.

You know now that I'm thinking about it I'm not even sure if you can get your ops specs to bend the rules that much eh? I mean ops specs simply allow you to do things, it doesn't allow you to completely through out the base rule book (the FAR's).