A Question for Blue-Aid Drinkers?

[UpNDownGuy]

AKAAB-

I don't think you get it. This is a safety issue, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with profit sharing or "the JetBlue culture."


You can continue to argue about your various points if you choose to do so, but it is all imagined evils and made-up demons. Until you see just what the exemption entails, what the controls and protocols are, and what the scientific data is to support or detract from the application, you are simply tilting at windmills


I have to disagree. I do not need "scientific data", with or without "controls and protocols" to confirm what I already know as a fact. I have thousands of hours of empirical data to support my claim. During my career, I have flown international as a 2-4 man crew, transcontinental trips as a member of a two man crew, 3 man augmented crew, Hawaii turns, and now fly international as member of a 3-man crew. During that time, I have felt my own reactions to extended duty, and observed it's effect on my fellow crewmembers. There is no getting around it: Any pilot's abilities diminish the longer he/she is on the flight deck. There are no exceptions, regardless of how much you like your company. This is not an "imagined evil" or "made up demon"; it is a fact. What I cannot imagine is flying an early morning transcon westbound in the winter, only to have to turn around and go back with only 2 pilots. Lunacy, pure and simple.


What I do know is that Emory (Teamsters?) had almost the same program in 1995.

I confess my ignorance. I didn't even know Emery had any 2 pilot airplanes. I thought they only flew the DC-8 and DC-10, both 3 man airplanes. If they had a similar exemption, then I completely disagree with their having it as well.



Ultimately, if the program is approved, tested, and adopted, it will still be up to the pilots to decide if it is better than morning-out, daytime sleep, and redeye back to base.

I have done MANY of these trips, and even if you only get a few hours of sleep, it makes a huge difference. You will never convince me that JetBlue can provide an equivelant level of safety doing turns.

I think that it is admirable to attempt to "think outside the box". I think it is sheer stupidity to re-learn what the rest of industry already knows.

 

[G4G5]

I'm amazed at the level of inane speculation about JB's possible exemption to the 8 hour flight day. I've read all of the posts and no one here has even gotten slightly close to the truth - including JB pilots! Baseless speculation is a waste of all of our time.

You can continue to argue about your various points if you choose to do so, but it is all imagined evils and made-up demons. Until you see just what the exemption entails, what the controls and protocols are, and what the scientific data is to support or detract from the application, you are simply tilting at windmills.

JB is not afraid to think outside of the box and look for solutions to problems. Simply assuming something can't be done, or shouldn't be explored because the rest of the industry thinks so is not the JB culture. That said, many ideas that never make it to these JB bashing boards are proposed, studied, and rejected.

What I do know is that Emory (Teamsters?) had almost the same program in 1995. Funny, I don't remember much chatter about them ruining the industry. Is that because they were union? (What year did they unionize?) This idea was originally proposed by JB pilots, not management. Before I saw some of the particulars of the program, I was just as concerned as some others are. However, if what I've been told comes to pass, the program will benefit the pilots in a safe manner, create the opportunity for more quality-of-life, not change the staffing levels one iota, and will save some hotel costs - which is good for my profit sharing.

Ultimately, if the program is approved, tested, and adopted, it will still be up to the pilots to decide if it is better than morning-out, daytime sleep, and redeye back to base. If the pilot group is not happy with it, like some other programs that have been tested, it will be ended. However, I would be greatly surprised if that happens.

AKAAB

How does this improve safety? How does even working more hours in the same day improve safety?

Please tell us.

 

[Skank]

Upanddownguy,
You say that you have "thousands of hours of empirical data" supporting your conclusions. What you describe is thousands of hours of anecdotal experience. While your anecdotal experience may be of great value, it is not correct to call this empirical data. What the industry needs is a data base of empirical data so that we can start making rules based on safety-minded data- not anecdotal information, not ALPA style "productivity", and not ATA style "productivity."

 

[UpNDownGuy]

English 101

Webster's 2000 ed.

empirical (adj.) 1. derived from experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. in medicine.


I stand by my original post.

 

[AKAAB]

G4G5 - As you know, I usually don't reply to your posts as I'm convinced you usually oppose anything JB does. With that said, this time you asked a valuable question:

"How does this improve safety? How does even working more hours in the same day improve safety?

First - I am not at all involved in the project - so I am primarily trying to make the point that many of you are trying to judge without valid information. However, I have asked those involved some questions about it and am satisfied that the project is at least worth exploring to determine it's viability.

Your argument is based on the assumption that 8 hours is the magic number that delineates safe from unsafe. In fact, it is simply an arbitrary number, like age 60 for retirement, that was picked without significant study of the human factors involved. Since then, NASA and other agencies have done considerable research into fatigue factors. Your perception is that simply adding hours is less safe. If that were the only factor, I might agree with you. Perceptions are tricky - for example, the public's perception is that airplanes are not as safe as cars.

Again, I caution all to be careful when you assume you know the nuts and bolts of the proposed exemption. As for safety, as long as the controls are in place to prevent certain operations - such as flying through Circadian lows, and carefully monitoring of human factors - then I believe a West Coast turn is going to be just as safe, or safer, than a 0700 JFK-LGB, motel for 10-11 hours for a daytime sleep (attempted nap), then a redeye back to JFK. I've done these flights and they are extremely fatiguing. I've also flown Part 91, 12-hour flight/18-hour duty day, West Coast turns and had no significant fatigue issues - primarily because it was a scheduled out-and-back that did not interrupt my normal sleep patterns. The most fatiguing flights to me were the corporate roadshows; 6-9 cities a day for 3 to 4 days - usually with a redeye or two in the middle, and a redeye at the end to get everyone home from the West coast.

The salient point has already been submitted earlier on this forum; a two-leg out and back for 10-11 hours of flight and 13 hours of duty is less fatiguing than an eight-leg, 14 hour duty day.
AKAAB

 

[Skank]

In science, empirical data are derived from numbers, observations, etc. I acknowledge your experience and its value, but what is needed in rulemaking is science. The current system lacks scientific basis. That is my point. Quoting Webster's doesn't make your info any less anecdotal.

 

[thav8r]

Emery in fact did request and was approved for an exemption that allowed its crewmembers to operate utilizing domestic scheduled rules as opposed to domestic supplemental. The primary reason for the grant of the exemption was to prevent precisely what we are talking about specifically circadian flips. Domestic Supp rules forced the Emery pilots into operating not only circadian flips, but also extended layovers, which in fact contributes to sleep deficit. Empirical data, (yes hard scientific studies run by Dr. Paula Tsung University of Ohio and NASA) confirmed that extended layovers in and of themselves not only contributes to sleep deficit, but makes acclimation to circadian transitions through the period defined as a circadian low more difficult.

At that time everyone opposed the exemption despite the fact that hard data sanctioned by the FAA, NTSB, NASA, the Flight Safety Foundation, University of Texas at Austin, University of Ohio, and Stanford University Medical Center Sleep Disorders Clinic confirmed that operating under domestic supp rules not only made no sense, but contributed to a quantifiable and measurable decrease in safety. Ultimately the exemption was approved and the net result was a huge improvement in the quality of schedules, days on, days off and even more important that ever non-existent and not discussed safety gremlin--the commute.

Contrary to popular belief, or the assumed belief, there is hard empirical (yes scientific studies, valid data, calibrated instruments on live human beings in cockpits while flying and while sleeping) that supports every aspect of an exemption request that prevents circadian flips. That is why EVERY country in the world, except for France and the US have moved away from flight time and established a formula for duty time + cycles + time of origin (circadian baseline) as the means for determining what is reasonable and safe from a work standpoint.

Logic (and data) supports the concept that operating 8+ cycles with 8 hours aloft and 16 hours of duty with duty beginning at 2300 is inherently less safe than one that begins at 0900. Having said that, and once again logic (and data) supports the notion or concept that its not unsafe to begin a pairing at 0900 fly west, come east and end your day at your circadian baseline having flown NOT MORE than 2 cycles and receiving 12 hours off to sleep on your own baseline circadian low and receive an opportunity to sleep through your own period of circadian low. Not conjecture, experience, but hard data supported by NASA, FSF, Ohio State, and numerous other hard studies too numerous to mention. The most significant of which involved wiring a statistical sampling of pilots to measure their sleep and alertness responses (both inside and outside the cockpit) measuring brainwave activity to determine the quality and amount of REM sleep, and T-wave data followed by coordination testing which established alertness and tendencies to exhibit episodes of "micro-sleeps" which is in fact the medical issue that is exhibited with extended period of sleep deficit (read circadian transition disturbance). The alternative to this is a daylight departure (short duty day) followed by an attempt at a day sleep, followed by a redeye, followed by another day sleep, followed by a evening departure and night sleep and a day sleep. Optional to that, would be 24-hour layovers, which in fact has been scientifically proven NOT to work. The MINIMUM period established by science and data to acclimate to a circadian transition is 3 days with at least two periods through the circadian low of the new circadian baseline. It was finally this data that convinced the Canadians (who have historically been light-years ahead of the US on flight and duty time issues) to adopt a system that finally ties duty, to circadian, to cycles and encourages schedules that enhance your opportunity to sleep and rest while penalizing those schedules that are produced during the known periods of maximum risk and reduced safety margins.

Assuming the data, the studies, and findings are found to be valid, the concept of a carrier(s) or pilot group(s) taking advantage of that concept and moving towards an improvement in safety margins and quality of life should not be shocking, or the subject of scorn and ridicule. The idea of improving safety AND quality of life should not be mutually exclusive.

An exemption (or even a regulatory change) that encourages multiple cycles and extended hours aloft does not make sense and is completely invalidated by scientific data and would not be approved. By the same token, the same concept taken with the idea to operate through the period defined as a circadian low would also make no sense and would not be supported by data.

Finally, by and large the same science that brought us today’s flight and duty time rules is now refined, with modern instruments, testing techniques, statistical analysis, computers, and yes accident data, that tells us changes should be made along the lines that the exemption is exploring. To repudiate the new science, and data, makes a mockery of the argument that supports the very foundation of what is currently in place. Ultimately, ridiculing the current Science also repudiates the previous Science and therefore completely invalidates current regulatory restrictions. There is a significant difference between destroying the old for the sake of destruction and selfishness, and adjusting that very same reality to new data, refined data, and a new environment with the primary goal of enhancing safety and reducing risks.

To do any less would be compromising safety for absolutely no gain whatsoever and that is what our profession has never been about.

 

[Mr.Aviation]

jetBlue pilots are the biggest Kool-Aid drinkers this industry has ever seen!!!

 

[Skank]

Mr. Aviation,
Intelligent post. And yes, the koolaide is good.

 

[TonyC]

Look, General, you and I both know there's nothing magic about 8 hrs of flying. In certain circumstances, 6 hrs of flying can be more fatiguing than 12. Address that, why don't you?

I agree. There's nothing magic about any of the flight time or duty limitations, so we should just get rid of 'em all. Instead of FARs, we should just all agree that when an individual pilot gets too tired to fly, he should say so. Crew scheduling will then be obligated to find a replacement for him on the spot. Oh, and the Company should then find a luxury hotel room for the fatigued pilot, wherever he may be, so that he can rest for the next duty period, whenever that may be. And since only the pilot can determine when he's rested (nothing magic about rest rules either), he'll call Crew Scheduling when he's ready to go again. (Can you imagine how many pilots would suffer chronic fatigue in Florida?!?!)

If you disagree, then don't bid those lines. I don't bid redeyes because I don't tolerate them very well (I'm usually too tired to enjoy my day off after flying them), but some pilots love them.

Seniority bidding (umm, wait, you don't have that, do you?) is always a good way to protect the senior pilots and leave the unsafe stuff for the junior pilots. After all, the junior pilots DESERVE to die, since they're junior, right?