JBLU Fatigue Hot Water

[Doug Taylor]

Pilot-Fatigue Test Lands JetBlue
In Hot Water
Airline Pushed FAA Limits
On Cockpit Time but Failed To Tell Passengers on Planes
By ANDY PASZTOR and SUSAN CAREY
October 21, 2006

Last year, thousands of JetBlue Airways passengers became unwitting participants in a highly unusual test of pilot fatigue.

Without seeking approval from Federal Aviation Administration headquarters, consultants for JetBlue outfitted a small number of pilots with devices to measure alertness. Operating on a green light from lower-level FAA officials, management assigned the crews to work longer shifts in the cockpit -- as many as 10 to 11 hours a day -- than the eight hours the government allows. Their hope: Showing that pilots could safely fly far longer without exhibiting ill effects from fatigue.

The results of the test haven't yet been made public -- they are expected to be published by the end of the year -- and JetBlue executives say even they don't know the findings. But the experiment has landed JetBlue in hot water while fueling a fierce debate within the airline industry about how long pilots should be allowed to stay at the controls.
[Bulleted List]

At a time when every airline is itching to cut costs, squeezing more flying time from pilots has become a huge financial issue for carriers. But it is also a hot topic for regulators: The National Transportation Safety Board has cited pilot fatigue as an increasingly important factor in aviation accidents.

It has been nearly 18 months since the novel experiment, but the test -- along with the FAA's ultimate conclusion that it amounted to a backdoor effort to skirt safety rules -- continues to roil parts of the aviation world. Senior FAA officials, angered by the move, privately say the airline's approach has backfired. Because of heightened emotions about the test, proposals to extend the workday for commercial pilots have been pushed even further down the list of priorities at the FAA, they say.

FAA headquarters heard about the test from pilot-union officials and their supporters. When the head office "became aware that JetBlue operated some domestic flights outside the standard rules, we immediately investigated and took corrective action," said James Ballough, head of flight standards for the agency. Mr. Ballough says officials are "confident that JetBlue's pilots are flying to the FAA's rules" now.

Another high-ranking FAA policy maker expressed his displeasure more bluntly: "We don't allow experiments with passengers on board, period."

The airline says it never intended to mislead anyone at the FAA, and the JetBlue spokeswoman chalked the situation up to "a miscommunication," though, she says, in retrospect the company understands "we have to widen the circle of consultation." JetBlue said: "Safety is our bedrock value. It is the fundamental promise we make, and keep, to our customers and crew members."

The spokeswoman says there were no in-flight emergencies during the test period, and safety was never compromised because a third pilot was always on board to take the controls if needed. The JetBlue pilots who participated in the experiment volunteered for the assignment.

The concept of measuring second-by-second reactions of JetBlue pilots in everyday flight conditions was championed by Mark Rosekind, a well-known sleep researcher who previously has worked as a consultant for a number of large U.S. and foreign carriers.

JetBlue looked to Mr. Rosekind and his Cupertino, Calif., consulting firm, Alertness Solutions, to help sell the data-gathering idea to regulators. The overall plan was laid out in early 2005 for the FAA's district office in New York, which is responsible for overseeing the New York-based carrier's operations and its 1,500 pilots. That office expressed support for the plan.

The two-pilot crews were equipped with specially designed motion detectors on their wrists to measure activity, and participated in tests with hand-held computing devices that issued random prompts and then recorded the speed of responses. All told, JetBlue says 29 pilots, including the backup aviators, participated in more than 50 data-gathering flights during May 2005. All of the flights were domestic, and a big portion were coast-to-coast trips.

The carrier says it proceeded under the assumption that local FAA officials had the power to approve the company's plans under so-called supplemental flight rules. Those rules specify that airlines flying longer distances must have at least one extra pilot on board so no single pilot flies more than eight hours in total. However, in the JetBlue test, even though each flight had a third pilot on board, the original crews stayed at the controls for more than 10 hours a day. None of the reserve pilots ever replaced a regular crew member.

"Passengers would be shocked that this was going on," says David Stempler, president of Air Travelers Association, an advocacy group for travelers. When travelers "buy tickets on commercial flights, they don't expect to be test pilots themselves."

JetBlue isn't unionized, but once preliminary information about the flights started leaking out, pilot union leaders were quick to react. Union supporters complained to FAA headquarters, where red-faced senior officials acknowledged they were never informed about the initiative. As soon as agency leaders understood the significance of the local decision -- and realized some of JetBlue's competitors likely would start jockeying for similar efficiencies and economic benefits -- they hit the roof. An FAA spokeswoman says local FAA managers didn't have any comment.

Airlines often get approval from FAA district offices for various routine matters. But senior agency officials say that both the local office and JetBlue should have known that this was an exception because of the long-running and controversial nature of the issue.

The FAA reprimanded JetBlue, ordered it to clarify procedures as well as flight manuals and Mr. Ballough personally chastised management. But the agency closed its investigation without imposing any monetary fines on the carrier. Since then, FAA officials say headquarters has ordered closer scrutiny by inspectors of all JetBlue operations.

A scheduling breakthrough by JetBlue would set an important precedent, because the current rules have been largely unchanged for decades. While the industry's safety record has improved dramatically over the years, airline executives and pilot union leaders have continued to spar over what regulatory changes are necessary. The process is complicated by dramatic increases in cockpit automation, ever-growing flight lengths and the extra wear on pilots who cross multiple time zones during a single flight.

Mr. Rosekind declined repeated requests for comment about the JetBlue test.

JetBlue and some of its pilots argue that longer flight shifts could actually improve the quality of life for pilots and perhaps enhance their alertness. Flying from New York to California and back in the same workday, they say, would allow crews to sleep in their own beds, enjoy better rest and avoid hotel stays at odd hours that tend to disrupt natural sleep rhythms.

Revised regulations could present JetBlue with economic advantages over carriers such as AMR Corp.'s American Airlines or UAL Corp.'s United Airlines. Those two carriers and other large airlines with long histories are constrained by union contracts sometimes calling for more-restrictive scheduling than what is allowed by the FAA.

JetBlue, which took wing six years ago and expanded rapidly and profitably despite a severe downturn in the overall industry, recently has been brought down to earth by two consecutive quarters of red ink. That prompted the carrier to throttle back its expansion on long-haul routes, add more short flights, beef up its management team and raise its fares. So far, the efforts have returned the company to modest profit, although it is expected to report a break-even third quarter next week. The airline is now the eighth largest in the U.S. by passenger traffic.

Current and former NTSB members say they were told after the fact that JetBlue had done tests on pilot fatigue. But board Chairman Mark Rosenker says he was never told that pilots flew beyond typical FAA limits. Richard Healing, who stepped down from the board last year, says JetBlue's "arguments may have some merit," but "they need to be validated as part of a comprehensive study" on pilot fatigue.

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."

Write to Andy Pasztor at andy.pasztor@wsj.com and Susan Carey at susan.carey@wsj.com

[SeanD]

Wow, is JetBlue that hard up to make money on every seat?

[I_Money]

Well there is an airline I will not fly again - is there grounds for a class action??

[bike21]

Yipee!! Let's all work longer days!!!

[pilot602]

Welcome to a non-union environment.

The JetBlue pilots who participated in the experiment volunteered for the assignment.

These asshats should lose their certificates.

IMHO the 8 hours of flight time is "ok." It's the damned duty day that really needs to be addressed. 15 hours is perfectly legal with "normal" rest, 16 hours is permitted with "reduced" rest.

I think the duty day should be no longer than 10 - 12 hours (thats still HALF of a damned 24 hour day). And instead of regulating it by "duty time" it should be mandated thrugh minimum required REST time I.E. each pilot will receive a minimum of 1X hours of duty free tim per CALENDAR day (none of the 24 hour bull#####).

Oh yeah but that would mean a company would need to employ more pilots which costs them money.

Bottom line > safety.

[bike21]

Originally Posted by pilot602

Welcome to a non-union environment.



These asshats should lose their certificates.

Word. What geniuses signed up for this? Are they trying to ruin all of our lives?!

[CFIse]

Originally Posted by bike21

Yipee!! Let's all work longer days!!!

Which is precisely the problem - that's not at all what the article said, and I doubt we're going to see longer than 16 hours on duty any time soon. However - it certainly can be argued that if you're going to keep pilots kicking around airports for 15/16 hours anyway, they might as well be flying.

Personally - if they reduced the duty period but flew me more, I'd be perfectly happy. The example given in the article of a trans-continental out and back - I think most pilots are perfectly capable of performing such a trip even if it does involve more than 8 hours of flying between rest periods. On an equal note, extending the flight time so I can do 6 out and backs to LGA in one day isn't likely to enhance safety.

So this "experiment" looks like it's pushed back any meaningful change in flight and duty times any time soon - which is a shame because however you look at it the regulations need some changes.

[pilot602]

Ever done an 8 hour flight, 14+ hour duty day?

Yeah... it sucks especially when its day four, of a four day, and scheduling thought a reduced rest the night before would be an exciting adventure for all involved!

Hell, the current rules wouldn"t be too bad if scheduling (and this is a universal truth) wasn't filled with retarded, one celled amobeas that have been oxygen starved and poked with cattle prods one too many times. In other words if scheduling would just build better pairings/lines/trips and not use the current rules to build just whacked retarded trips.

The latest trend where I'm at is an 8 leg day with no breaks ... i.e. all our turns are less than 30 minutes. You try sitting in a an airplane all day on these days the only time I get out, all day, is to do my walkarounds and usually about half way around they're boarding the pax.

[Doug Taylor]

Originally Posted by pilot602

Ever done an 8 hour flight, 14+ hour duty day?

I think a lot of folks don't realize that this is longer than many 767 international days. But the international pilots get a nap in a semi-flat rest chair (depending on the airline), a meal and have a third pilot.

The FAA's approach to domestic work rules is a joke.

[bike21]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

The FAA's approach to domestic work rules is a joke.

Exactly. And as pilot602 stated above, around 8 hours of flight time and a even a 12+ hour duty day with little to no breaks pushes you to the limit. Especially when on day 2+ day of a long 4 day.

IMHO we need shorter duty periods (16 hours is too long). Just ask one of the suits to stay in the office for the same time period. See how they feel about that. At my airline we cannot be scheduled over 14 hours unless the day drags on due to delays. I personally will never accept anything over 14 hours unless delays have plagued us and we 'have' to finish up. However, I will not hesitate to call in fatigued if I don't feel safe.

[pilot602]

The FAA's approach to domestic work rules is a joke.

Yup.

[Doug Taylor]

But all that followed by a 9 hour 'break in duty' is hunky dory! Woo! Doesn't matter if it takes you an hour to get to the hotel and pick up an hour prior to departure....

[mpenguin1]

Originally Posted by bike21

Exactly. And as pilot602 stated above, around 8 hours of flight time and a even a 12+ hour duty day with little to no breaks pushes you to the limit. Especially when on day 2+ day of a long 4 day.

IMHO we need shorter duty periods (16 hours is too long). Just ask one of the suits to stay in the office for the same time period. See how they feel about that. At my airline we cannot be scheduled over 14 hours unless the day drags on due to delays. I personally will never accept anything over 14 hours unless delays have plagued us and we 'have' to finish up. However, I will not hesitate to call in fatigued if I don't feel safe.

Please do not compare the work environment that takes place in a cockpit, it is rather insulting to the Pilots.

As to your question, "suits" do work over 10,12,14,16 hours, it is not uncommon for lawyers to work 18 hour days, 6 days a week.

I work in an office & normally work 12 hours per day & have been known to work 18 hours a day, but, I would never compare that to work that takes place in a cockpit.

[mpenguin1]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

The FAA's approach to domestic work rules is a joke.

Kind of funny the way things work out, the FAA Regs were meant to be guidelines, the airlines of course decided to treat them as the almighty...

As to the regs, there should be changes to the regs, it has been a while, but, some of the regs could go higher, while other could go lower.

There should be no reason why a crew could not fly a JFK-LAX-JFK, as long as it can be done under a 14 hour duty day.

So, you increase the flight time, but decrease the duty day, the pilots would like it as they would be able to flying accomplished in less days....

[pilot602]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

But all that followed by a 9 hour 'break in duty' is hunky dory! Woo! Doesn't matter if it takes you an hour to get to the hotel and pick up an hour prior to departure....

Or an 8:20 p.m. arrival for an 8:19 "layover" with a 4:40 a.m. show for an 8 leg day the next day.

Yeah we got our "rest" so we are good to go! FTW.

[Doug Taylor]

Lots of reasons why coast-to-coast roundrip transcons are a doofus idea, but it's almost lunch time and we're hitting the Indian buffet so I'll have to explain later!

[pilot602]

Originally Posted by mpenguin1

Kind of funny the way things work out, the FAA Regs were meant to be guidelines, the airlines of course decided to treat them as the almighty...

As to the regs, there should be changes to the regs, it has been a while, but, some of the regs could go higher, while other could go lower.

There should be no reason why a crew could not fly a JFK-LAX-JFK, as long as it can be done under a 14 hour duty day.

So, you increase the flight time, but decrease the duty day, the pilots would like it as they would be able to flying accomplished in less days....

Have YOU flown 8 hours?

Then don't tell us what we can or can't do ...

You want to see inefficiency in an airline look at the schedules. At scenic I averaged a 40% utilization (i.e. out of any given duty day I flew about 40% of it) so far at my new place I average maybe 50 to 60% (on a good day). 'Course at the new place I dont get paid for that remaining 50 to 40% of my time so it doesn't cost the company a dime to build RETARDED, F-ed up lines.

Biggest problem with scheduling is they have absoloutely no clue ... I had one tell me once "well this will give you a nice 6 consecutive day work block ..." FTW I don't WANT a 6-day work block! EVAR. Yet I'm sitting here on my second one for the month ...

[bike21]

Originally Posted by mpenguin1

Please do not compare the work environment that takes place in a cockpit, it is rather insulting to the Pilots.

As to your question, "suits" do work over 10,12,14,16 hours, it is not uncommon for lawyers to work 18 hour days, 6 days a week.

I work in an office & normally work 12 hours per day & have been known to work 18 hours a day, but, I would never compare that to work that takes place in a cockpit.

Umm...I wasn't comparing our duties to anyone. A long work day is a long work day no matter what you do. Whether you hammer nails (I have), sat at a desk (I have) or fly planes (as I do now). I was more referring to the upper management types, who I know have put in their fair share of time. However they would not be voting on ways to increase their own workdays now would they? I have friends who work in the corporate/medical/law world who work far more hours than we do a week. Doesn't mean it's any more safe or they have to like it.

[mpenguin1]

Originally Posted by bike21

Umm...I wasn't comparing our duties to anyone. A long work day is a long work day no matter what you do. Whether you hammer nails (I have), sat at a desk (I have) or fly planes (as I do now). I was more referring to the upper management types, who I know have put in their fair share of time. However they would not be voting on ways to increase their own workdays now would they? I have friends who work in the corporate/medical/law world who work far more hours than we do a week. Doesn't mean it's any more safe or they have to like it.

Oh, you know, I would be one of them Upper Management types, & if somebody told me that I can work more hours per day, to get more days off, you bet your arse that I would do it, so would most pilots.

[E_Dawg]

I can't believe you get PAID to be an AIRLINE pilot!

[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.

[mpenguin1]

Originally Posted by pilot602

Have YOU flown 8 hours?

Then don't tell us what we can or can't do ...

I am not telling anybody what to do, but, since I have been in the aviation industry for close to 20 year, I know a thing or two.

As for flying, nope, never flown a leg, but, I have been on bidline trips, at my prior airlines, whenever I went on business trip, we went on the same pairings as the pilots, so we would know how it felt.

Originally Posted by pilot602

]
You want to see inefficiency in an airline look at the schedules. At scenic I averaged a 40% utilization (i.e. out of any given duty day I flew about 40% of it) so far at my new place I average maybe 50 to 60% (on a good day). 'Course at the new place I dont get paid for that remaining 50 to 40% of my time so it doesn't cost the company a dime to build RETARDED, F-ed up lines.

Biggest problem with scheduling is they have absoloutely no clue ... I had one tell me once "well this will give you a nice 6 consecutive day work block ..." FTW I don't WANT a 6-day work block! EVAR. Yet I'm sitting here on my second one for the month ...

I have no comment, I have no idea what your airline trips look like, I am guessing the senior pilots get the better legs?

As for scheduling, most of the pairings are computer generated, and depending as to which airline you are with, a Crew Scheduler does not put together crew pairings, those are normally done by Crew Planners, so, I guess those would be the moron.

[Fly4Pay]

Originally Posted by pilot602

Ever done an 8 hour flight, 14+ hour duty day?

Yup... every other day for the last three months. No wait.. it was 11.5 hrs airborne, 16 hr duty day. With a two-pilot flight crew. I've been averaging about 135 hrs per month. How did I do this? I'm in the military.

Now, having said that, I don't want to continue doing it once I start up with the airlines (soon, hopefully--as in next spring). But as for whether it can be done (safely), it definitely can.

However, Doug is right about one thing--you're definitely not at the absolute top of your game at the end of days like this.

[pilot602]

Originally Posted by mpenguin1

I am not telling anybody what to do, but, since I have been in the aviation industry for close to 20 year, I know a thing or two.

As for flying, nope, never flown a leg, but, I have been on bidline trips, at my prior airlines, whenever I went on business trip, we went on the same pairings as the pilots, so we would know how it felt.

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 ...

I have no comment, I have no idea what your airline trips look like, I am guessing the senior pilots get the better legs?

On the aircraft I'm flying, not really.

As for scheduling, most of the pairings are computer generated, and depending as to which airline you are with, a Crew Scheduler does not put together crew pairings, those are normally done by Crew Planners, so, I guess those would be the moron.

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.