A Question for Blue-Aid Drinkers?

[Mr.Aviation]

Skank:

Enjoy the cult!

 

[Skank]

Mr. Aviation,
Thumbs up to you. Thanks, I do, and will continue to enjoy the "cult." I was in another cult previously, but I was rescued. My head is still shaved, and I still have a lot of the green clothing we wore in that particular cult. Have a nice day.

Military and proud of it!

 

[TonyC]

Ultimately, ridiculing the current Science also repudiates the previous Science and therefore completely invalidates current regulatory restrictions.

WOW, thav8r. That was some post, especially for your first. Looks like you might have joined the forum for the sole purpose of posting that, even. I'm impressed.

Although the quote I've extracted from your post was near the end, I was still paying attention, and think I might be able to translate it into laymen's language.

If you're opposed to changing the rule, you must, in effect, support it's abolition.

Does anybody else here smell management?

 

[thav8r]

Thanks for the compliment Tony C but you don’t smell management, and no, it’s not my intent to post and hide.

The point of my post was to have a coherent discussion that extends beyond rumor, innuendo and name-calling. Every change or attempted change does not bring with it the demise of what has been gained (and in some cases lost) in the past. The point of change (in most cases) is to learn from previous mistakes and hopefully prevent them from recurring, or alternatively minimizing the impact. That ultimately is the point of root cause analysis. Guantanamo Bay started it, and Little Rock hardened the arguments.

No one has the right answer on how best to deal with our circadian issues. One end of the spectrum states categorically that all graveyard, night-work, and shift-work should be eliminated. At the other extreme is the “it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Somewhere in the middle is a workable solution that helps us, and prevents abusive scheduling. The concept of 8/24 has already been argued and interestingly enough, everyone has agreed that this particular number is not a magic bullet. 8 hours IS too much if its preceded by 8 or more cycles that originates late at night. However, 8 MIGHT not be the right number if the only alternative is a circadian transition or an extended layover that still doesn’t resolve the rest issue assuming its preceded by no more than 2 cycles. Again, the data supports this as one reasonable alternative. What I find offensive is that its OK not to schedule for more than 8, yet if needed or unplanned for, you are legal and safe to exceed that number without regard to cycles, circadian issues or anything else. So, ultimately if you haven’t planned on it, you are stuck with it but then if you plan for it you aren’t safe. The arguments just aren’t rationale. If its unsafe to exceed 8, then it should be unsafe under ANY circumstances in the same way that Whitlow clamped a limit on 16 both proactively and retroactively and I might add rightly so. What is interesting is that the basis of that argument found its genesis in the very studies that support a change to the current rules.

So without being coy, let’s see if I can translate into my own pea-brain the laymen’s translation to your response and the pertinent quote; if anyone supports the change, then by inference that individual or group is Management and therefore the enemy?

 

[G4G5]

AKAAB [/i]
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.

G4G5
Well I just got back from Europe so I am bit tired (8.4 in 24, 1 leg, Milan-NY). First off, you really need to read my other post on this subect. It would have been very easy to jump on the, "bash B6" bandwagon but I have stayed clear of that. Safety to me is the issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

G4G5
The research that you refer to is how to keep pilots awake and safe. No where have I ever read any data that supports extending the 8 in 24 will premote safety. It just doesn't exist.

Nasa and Ames refer to sleep countermeaures. Not extending the 8 in 24 rule. Preception is tricky, like the preception that flying more time and working longer days within a 24 day, could ever be misconstrued as being safe. Age 60 is one thing, plenty of data is available to show that people are healthier and living longer (just look at life expectancy at the turn of the century and medical conditions). Their is no data out their that supports the idea that people need less rest or working longer is safer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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.


G4G5
That is why a relief pilot should be available for these flights. NASA Ames countermeasure folks have scientific data that shows getting a nap in route does help. That a third pilot does help, and that getting up and moving about does help. Again I caution you, nowhere does there exist any data suggesting that eliminating the 8 in 24 rule will improve safety.

Stop for a second and look at what you are asking:
4am - get up, which requied you going to bed at 8pm the night prior
430- depart home
530-arrive JFK
600- Arrive for sign in
700- Depart for LGB, 6.0 in route
1300- Arrive LGB
1400 - Depart for JFK, 5.2 in route
1915 - Arrive JFK
1945- Pax off aircraft, 11:45 duty day
2015 - depart crew parking lot
2115 - Arrive home

This is best case. What are you going to feel like the next day?
How much did you really improve Q of L? To bed at 8pm, then fly 5000 miles and work 11:45. Sure you are home but what do yo feel like the next day? How many of these can you do in a week? A month? A year? You know that plenty of folks will be doing more then one a week. Especially if you stick an FL turn in the middle of twwo trans cons. You could get 30 hours in 3 days. How usefull will you be on that last leg home?

What happens when they change the departure time to 11am? I know that landing at 11 pm is not my normal body clock. My 6 month old has me in bed by 9pm. What about the commuter who now discovers that he can stay home an extra day if he takes the red eye out to JFK and gets in at 6am for his 9am sign in?

Removing the 8 in 24 does NOTHING to improve safety!

 

[G4G5]

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.

G4G5
Hello, I am not trying to look for an argument. I am only trying to educate myself. Could you please provide a link to Dr. Paula Tsung research. When I ran a Google search, nothing came up. When I went to the University of Ohio's web site and searched for her, nothing came up. I thought that possibly it could have been Ohio State, and still nothing.

I agree about the 10 hour layover, it may not be the answer for everyone, but does it hurt more then extending the 8 hour in 24 hour restriction? You will have a difficult time proving that that theory. Their is Empirical data as you suggest, regarding circadian lows and the short rest period. But I have not been able to find any data supporting the removal of the 8 in 24. Most of the data is based upon Fatigue Countermeasures. Sure flying during your circadian low is less safe. So, NASA suggests not doing it or changing the schedule. They do not suggest extending the amount that you fly. Sure their is data that suggests 10 hours in a hotel is the answer. NASA Ame's answer is a 24 hour rest break, NOT eliminating that rest break completely.

from what I have seen at on the NASA Ames web site
http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/zteam/

Or the Flight Safety foundation web site

Their is no data that supports the concept, that increasing the duty day and removing the 8 in 24 will improve safety.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

G4G5
What NASA Ames does suggest is a relief pilot to extend duty days:

"A NASA/FAA countermeasure study empirically demonstrated the effectiveness of a planned cockpit rest period in improving performance and alertness in long-haul flight operations (6). Flight crews who were provided a planned 40-minute nap opportunity (resulting in an average of 26 minutes of sleep) subsequently exhibited improved physiological alertness and performance compared to flight crews not receiving the nap opportunity. The crewmembers napped one-at-a-time in a three-person cockpit with minimal disruption to normal flight operations and no reported or identified concerns regarding safety. The benefits of the nap were observed throughout the critical descent and landing phases of flight. The planned nap appeared to provide effective and acute relief from significant sleepiness experienced by crews in three-person nonaugmented flight operations."

You may argue all you want that a rest break does not help. The above quote was provided by Michael B. Mann, Deputy Associate Administrator,Office of Aero-Space Technology, NASA to Congress on 8/3/99 for a hearing into pilot fatigue.

The answer is not making two pilots work harder or longer. If JetBlue wants to make the East-West-East coast turn, then do like every other airline does, schedule a relief pilot. This does not work for B6, because they have no first class and no dedicated rest area. All the folks flying Trans con's for decades have acquired some knowledge. They stop because it's safer, not because they are lazy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

G4G5
When you refer to other countries around the Globe do you refer to domestic or international work rules? Because their is not a country in the world that has the vastness of the greater 48. If you are in Germany or another European country, an East-West coast turn can be accomplished in the time it takes to fly from JFK to LGB. The rules of other countries don't necessarily come into play because, how many modern countries around the globe have Domestic flight service comparable to the 2500/5000 mile NY/Calf. flights that we are talking about? For most of the countries around the globe cycles come into play not flight times. Where else on the globe, is their hourly domestic service like the LAX-NY market?

What NASA does suggest is short hourly activity breaks. Get out of the seat move about and stretch. Nowhere is their any data that suggest eliminating that 8 in 24 is safe. Nowhere is their any data that making folks fly longer days is safer. What NASA does mention is that your typical low points during the day are between the hours of 3-5am and 3-5pm. What will most folks, (flying a Trans con turn) be doing between the hours of 3-5am. Getting up and commuting to work. What will most folks be doing during their next low at 3-5pm? Flying the second leg of their Trans Con turn, getting ready to descend into some of the busiest airspace in the world, into JFK during their peak International departures.

I do agree with you, a pilots desire to improve quality of life should not have anything to do with safety

 

[enigma]

Well I just waded throught this entire disappointing thread. Some of you should be ashamed of the way that you have presented yourselves.

Now to the subject at hand. Way, Way back, somewhere in the first couple of pages, a JB pilot made claim that this proposal would increase quality of life because it would allow a pilot to put in his hours in fewer days and in turn gain more days off. I must point out that this argument contains one serious leap of faith, and I think a serious flaw in logic as well. You see, the only way that flying more hours in a calender day will allow you more days off, is if you maintain the current limit on weekly/monthly flight time. If your management decides next year that those of you who only work ten days a month are not being productive enough, and petitions the FAA for an exemption from the 30/7 rule, you may find yourselves working a few more days than you bargained for. It's a leap of faith to waive one flight time limit without also either guaranteeing (sp?) the other or appropriately modifiying the other.

It seems quite illogical to me, for you to want for one rule(limitation) to be bent and at the same time rely on another rule (limitation) to protect you. It's obvious that your QOL will improve only if you maintain, or improve, the maximun time to be flown in a week.

With that said, I don't really have a problem with the concept you are trying to develop. If the proper safeguards are in place, I think it could work to everyones advantage.

EXCEPT,
I don't think that you will ever be able to have ironclad safeguards. For now, the JB pilots are counting on the good will of their bosses, and I hope for your sakes that your bosses are worthy of your trust. However, human nature being what it is, I can see where this could really open a large can of worms.

So here's my plea. If the JB pilot force is asking for this privilege, please make absolutely certain that the practice is exceptionally well regulated. Before I would feel safe, I would want to know that the legs would always be limited (two), that the 30/7 rule would/could never be repealed, that this must take place during normal waking hours (base time), that these trips are limited to no more than six (or so) per month with none back to back, and many more limits that I don't have the brain power to figure out at the present.

It's late and my brain is dull after reading seven pages of insults, bye.

regards,
enigma

 

[jetblue320]

So here's my plea. If the JB pilot force is asking for this privilege, please make absolutely certain that the practice is exceptionally well regulated. Before I would feel safe, I would want to know that the legs would always be limited (two), that the 30/7 rule would/could never be repealed, that this must take place during normal waking hours (base time), that these trips are limited to no more than six (or so) per month with none back to back, and many more limits that I don't have the brain power to figure out at the present.

It's late and my brain is dull after reading seven pages of insults, bye.

regards,
enigma

Enigma,

Your plea contains the framework we are using in our efforts. Without resurrecting this thread, and all of the JB bashing that it contained, rest assured that if and when this thing becomes a reality (notice I said if because it is up to the Fed's, not us) it will be tightly regulated and monitored. Pretty much like everything we all do in this business.

Have a good one.

 

[thav8r]

G45:

Thank you for a relevant and cogent post. It’s nice to go beyond the typical bashing and elevate this discussion with some facts as opposed to rumor and innuendo. The clear inference from all this is that an attempt to modify or review flight and duty time rules is not just a self-motivated or selfish attempt. This subject is one in which two intelligent individuals can discuss and reach very different conclusions from the same data. This is not an attempt to rewrite the data; it’s a matter that even experts with the best intentions can agree to disagree on.

Now, without being argumentative, I would ask you to be careful in stating categorically that there is nothing within the zteam link that discusses more than 8 in 24. In fact, there are several discussions and documents within that link that address this very issue and nothing suggests 8 as a hard and fast number assuming other restrictions are put in place.

Having said that, the documentation lays out an extraordinarily tough protocol that is precedent setting in nature. It is a protocol that even those that generally disagree have agreed on. The methods and methodology that utilizes science, physiology, data, testing, monitoring, overview, regulatory analysis and various other protocols suggests a process for developing and maintaining a tailored and RESTRICTED program. The same documents that you allude to, also discuss the fact that a one-shoe-fits-all approach is no longer relevant in today’s environment and encourages innovative approaches to dealing with the issue of fatigue and fatigue countermeasures. That is why those documents also suggest that a protocol for a tailored program based on an operators particular schedules and systems is part of the fatigue countermeasures program to enhance safety while minimizing risks. No matter what you do with flight and duty times regulations, whether its 8/24, 6/24, 10/24 or any combination, it wont be enough to manage risks. It will take a multi-pronged approach that pulls science, regulations, education, monitoring (both internal and external, active and passive) to continually review and manage the process. That is the only way that we will manage risks and reduce the level of fatigue that we currently experience. No one in the Industry is doing that. JB intends to utilize all those tools (and then some) to achieve the end goals suggested by all the literature and data and protocol.

Again, there is one other point we should all be careful about—that being raising the commute gremlin. The very same group that insists on calling bunk sleeping time as duty, and time aloft, insists on evading that same classification when commuting on the very same aircraft utilizing the very same bunks and or seats. We can’t continue argue both sides of the same argument with different results and interpretations. Duty either begins when it legally begins and ends when it legally ends, or we run the risk of extending it into areas that we don’t want. Wake time at home, going to the parking lot, and other issues are certainly relevant and I won’t argue that they play a role in the world of fatigue and fatigue countermeasure analysis. However, if we open that Pandora’s box, we wont be able to stop it and ultimately there will be a huge price to pay. So, having said that, duty begins when it legally begins, and ends when it legally ends. The rest has to be left to the best intentions of the individual aviator and his/her commitment to personal and professional integrity.

As a final thought, the commute question you pose is already happening on a regular basis., not just at JB but everywhere else. The lets stay up all day crowd who then commute on the redeye, hang around the crew room, followed by another trek West, followed by a day sleep followed by another redeye crowd is out there. Do we really want to bring the commute discussion into this? We have been dodging that bullet for years and hopefully we will continue to do so.


Again, thanks for elevating this discussion beyond the bashing and irational.

 

[dgs]

It is not the rules that can make a schedule unsafe, but the implementation of the rules. Just because something can be done (by the book), doesn't mean it is wise or best to do so. Likewise, completely legal trips may not be the safest option. I routinely flew 10-hr to 14-hr flights with an unaugmented crew within a 16-hr crew duty day in a previous life. The key to success was your circadian rhythm. The research clearly supports this. A 5-hr flight on the back side of the clock after having just flown a day trip (with all the legal rest requirements) can be much more exhausting than a 10 to 12-hr roundtrip transcon flown mostly during normal daylight hours. Personally, I'd much rather fly JFK-LGB in the morning, and turn back to JFK to arrive that evening than try to day sleep in LGB and do a redeye back to JFK the following night.

Unfortunately, trying to legislate common sense seldom works. You just can't cover all the possibilities without making the regulations incredibly complex. However, the European solution seems to make a lot more sense than FAA rules that allow some very tiring trips. Maybe we need to take some baby steps before overhauling our entire system of rules on crew rest and flight time.

The guys who are working for this change at jB are trying to improve pilot quality of life and safety. They also happen to be the same pilots who build our trip pairings. They are not management pilots trying to "screw" the work force. Quite the contrary, they are line pilots on the scheduling committee who are trying to improve our personal productivity and quality of life. If these pairings are popular, they will continue. If nobody likes them, the scheduling committee would react accordingly. Personally, for the reasons stated above and based on what I've seen with our flight attendants, I think these trips will be very popular and will go very senior.

We can't control how other companies might pervert any rule changes we ask for, but that doesn't mean the changes aren't a good idea that enhance both safety and productivity. Ultimately, if the FAA approves this exemption based on scientific data, we should claim it as a victory and a step in the right direction to improve our lives and our performance, as better rested pilots.