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.

 

[TonyC]

The key to success was your circadian rhythm. The research clearly supports this.

I don't believe anyone will argue that rules based on science that incorporate the effects of circadian rhythms would be far batter overall than arbitrary limits based on well-intentioned yet less well-informed advocates of safety of flight. However, removing one of these arbitrary rules in favor of NO rule hardly accomplishes that goal.

Unfortunately, trying to legislate common sense seldom works. You just can't cover all the possibilities without making the regulations incredibly complex.

You acknowledge that the best solution will be, by its very nature, complex. How, then, can you advocate the simple removal of a strict rule as part of a solution to your problem. (As far as I can tell, the only problem you seek to alleviate is the LGB layover followed by a LGB-JFK redeye.)

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.

Again, I must ask: How does removing a sensible limit qualify as a "baby step" in the quest to overhaul the current system into a complex set of rules that recognize circadian rhythms?!?!

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.

In the utopian Blue world, it must seem that everything WILL work out the way you dream, and if by some incredibly minute chance it does not, all will STILL be well. It will be a simple matter to go back to the FAA and ask them to reinstate the rule, or rescind the exemption, and all will be well. Of course, the ONLY trip that will be affected is the JFK-LGB-JFK trip, and pilots will always have full control over pairing construction and scheduling parameters. In fact, you could probably have the FAA incorporate that language into the exemption you seek, just to be sure, right?

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.

That's exactly right, you cannot control how other companies WILL pervert any rule change. And you can NOT control how JetBlue will pervert the rule change, either.

BUT, you can pat yourself on the back as you arrive in the JFK terminal area at the end of your 16 hour day and look at the TCAS targets that surround you. They also will be affected by any rule change, and may not fare as well in the rest department as do you, with your blue pairings and blue schedules. Just like you, they'll be more "productive," and just like you, they'll be the worse for the wear. Look at the TCAS again. How many of those crews will be fully rested, and how many will be the victims of your rule change, stretched beyond limits of fatigue in the quest of productivity? How many will be safe? How safe will you feel?


P.S. I couldn't help but notice the personal pride you showed in supporting an effort to make yourself "more productive." Productivity is essentially a measure of how much work can be extruded from a commodity for how little cost. That would make YOU, the pilot, the commodity. Even JetBlue considers you to be a commodity, a cost center. Don't fool yourself. If you really want to be more productive, why not offer to work for half pay? That would double your productivity, right?

You ought to talk to some folks that used to live in a purple utopia. You might be surprised.

 

[USNFDX]

Tony C

Nail on the HEAD!

Excellent post.

 

[dgs]

However, removing one of these arbitrary rules in favor of NO rule hardly accomplishes that goal.

How, then, can you advocate the simple removal of a strict rule as part of a solution to your problem.

You exactly missed the point that we will not be asking to delete the rule. Any request for an exemption will come with extensive conditions and protocols that are designed specifically improve rest and safety by more closely matching circadian rhythms. I think that is a step in the right direction.

BUT, you can pat yourself on the back as you arrive in the JFK terminal area at the end of your 16 hour day and look at the TCAS targets that surround you. They also will be affected by any rule change, and may not fare as well in the rest department as do you, with your blue pairings and blue schedules. ... How many will be safe? How safe will you feel?

To the extent that these rule changes (note I didn't say deletions) improve safety by ensuring BETTER rested crews (including me), I'm pretty comfortable entering the terminal environment under those conditions. BTW, we enter the terminal environment at JFK every day with TCAS targets that have just flown over the pond from all over the world, some with very long duty days. That's life in this business. I, for one, would prefer to be better rested to deal with any of their mistakes.

 

[Beerme]

BTW, we enter the terminal environment at JFK every day with TCAS targets that have just flown over the pond from all over the world, some with very long duty days. That's life in this business. I, for one, would prefer to be better rested to deal with any of their mistakes.

Don't forget, those other TCAS targets that just crossed the pond are augmented to help prevent the fatigue factor we're discussing and also promote safety.

 

[Daedalus]

P.S. I couldn't help but notice the personal pride you showed in supporting an effort to make yourself "more productive." Productivity is essentially a measure of how much work can be extruded from a commodity for how little cost. That would make YOU, the pilot, the commodity. Even JetBlue considers you to be a commodity, a cost center. Don't fool yourself. If you really want to be more productive, why not offer to work for half pay? That would double your productivity, right?

I don't know what dictionary you use to define "productivity" but it indicates, in part, the basis for your opinion. Productivity improvements increase efficiency which allows airlines in a capital intensive industry to remain financially solvent, and grow. This is a big reason why JB is doing well amid a sea of financial ruin by many of its competitors. JB pilots are evaluating if specific exemptions to the FARs will make their flying both safer and more productive.

To say that JB obtaining such an exemption will only open the door for abuse and perversion of the FARs is hyperbole and flawed logic. If this was in fact the case then there would be ample evidence of such behavior, and the responsibility to enforce such abuses would fall upon the FAA, not for JB to cease and desist in its efforts to improve its own operations. It sounds like you're saying that the system of rules cannot be followed, therefore JB has no right to make further changes to a precarious operating environment. If true, then there is a much bigger problem that exists, yet no one in the profession is doing anything substantive to fix it....of course all in the name of improving safety.

If JB's pilots and management can work together effectively to bring about solutions to their operations that work to improve safety and efficiency, then they should be allowed pursue such actions. Even if the majority of other airlines cannot work in the same manner due to their own self-induced dysfunctionality brought on by years of abuses and greed by both sides. Nor despite structurally different operational setups (i.e., LCC point-to-point versus legacy hub-and-spoke).

If jetBlue pilots can fly 8-10 hours within a 14 hour crew duty day, when everyone else can only fly 7-8 hours in the same 14 hours, then the burden does not fall upon JB, but those who must adapt to the most capable operator.

The naysayers haven't convinced me yet.

 

[TonyC]

I don't know what dictionary you use to define "productivity" but it indicates, in part, the basis for your opinion.

I don't know why you'd want to quibble over the definition of "productivity," but I'm perfectly happy to go there.

PRODUCTIVITY
Pronunciation: `prowduk'tivitee


WordNet Dictionary

. Definition: [n] the quality of being productive or having the power to produce
. [n] (economics) the ratio of the quantity and quality of units produced to the labor per unit of time


. Synonyms: productiveness

. Antonyms: unproductiveness

. See Also: fecundity, fruitfulness, ratio




Webster's 1913 Dictionary

. Definition: \Pro`duc*tiv"i*ty\, n.
The quality or state of being productive; productiveness.
--Emerson.

. Not indeed as the product, but as the producing power,
. the productivity. --Coleridge.




Biology Dictionary

. Definition: Amount of production over a given period of time. Expressed as a rate such as g/m2 per day, kg/ha per year, etc.

Glossary

. Definition: the amount of work a person accomplishes in a given period of time.

(As you read the "economics" definition, remember that you, the pilot, are the LABOR.)

Since your pay is based on time, I stand by my assertion that productivity is a ratio of how much work you (the pilot) do, relative to the amount of money the company pays you. If your goal is, as you assert, to improve productivity, why aren't you willing to work for less money? If you are unwilling to work for less money, there must be another motive.

. (By the way. If you get to do these single duty period double-transcons, will JetBlue cease to offer to the flying public the option of taking the red-eye LGB-JFK? Or will there still be some poor (less productive?) schmuck stuck flying the redeye anyway?)

To say that JB obtaining such an exemption will only open the door for abuse and perversion of the FARs is hyperbole and flawed logic.

To think that it will NOT open the door for abuse and perversion in naive.

If JB's pilots and management can work together effectively to bring about solutions to their operations that work to improve safety and efficiency, then they should be allowed pursue such actions.

Agreed. We all applaud you for the wonderful way that you get along with your management, and the successes you are enjoying. Don't expect us, though, to hold that same dreamy-eyed gaze at you while you try to make rule changes that will jeapordize our safety.

If jetBlue pilots can fly 8-10 hours within a 14 hour crew duty day, when everyone else can only fly 7-8 hours in the same 14 hours,...

I'll use a word I used before. Naive. (Look it up in a dictionary if you care.)

The naysayers haven't convinced me yet.

Consider the score even, then. You haven't convinced us either.

Shall we take a vote??

 

[active_herk]

here is a poll for you Tony C

Tony C

Here is a poll so we can all see how everyone feels.

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?threadid=23502

 

[G4G5]

I don't know what dictionary you use to define "productivity" but it indicates, in part, the basis for your opinion. Productivity improvements increase efficiency which allows airlines in a capital intensive industry to remain financially solvent, and grow. This is a big reason why JB is doing well amid a sea of financial ruin by many of its competitors. JB pilots are evaluating if specific exemptions to the FARs will make their flying both safer and more productive.

To say that JB obtaining such an exemption will only open the door for abuse and perversion of the FARs is hyperbole and flawed logic. If this was in fact the case then there would be ample evidence of such behavior, and the responsibility to enforce such abuses would fall upon the FAA, not for JB to cease and desist in its efforts to improve its own operations. It sounds like you're saying that the system of rules cannot be followed, therefore JB has no right to make further changes to a precarious operating environment. If true, then there is a much bigger problem that exists, yet no one in the profession is doing anything substantive to fix it....of course all in the name of improving safety.

If JB's pilots and management can work together effectively to bring about solutions to their operations that work to improve safety and efficiency, then they should be allowed pursue such actions. Even if the majority of other airlines cannot work in the same manner due to their own self-induced dysfunctionality brought on by years of abuses and greed by both sides. Nor despite structurally different operational setups (i.e., LCC point-to-point versus legacy hub-and-spoke).

If jetBlue pilots can fly 8-10 hours within a 14 hour crew duty day, when everyone else can only fly 7-8 hours in the same 14 hours, then the burden does not fall upon JB, but those who must adapt to the most capable operator.

The naysayers haven't convinced me yet.

And none of the JetBlue folks have been able to answer this question?

How is it safer? How does removing the 8 in 24 restriction make this industry safer?

Until any of you can answer that question, you need to re evaluate your position.

 

[G4G5]

Re: here is a poll for you Tony C

Tony C

Here is a poll so we can all see how everyone feels.

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?threadid=23502

No need for a pole just email your opinion to:

[email protected]

She is in charge of the Fatigue Countermeasures Group, aka Zteam at the NASA Ames Research center


Melissa M. Mallis, Ph.D. is a NASA Research Psychologist and is the Principal Investigator for the Fatigue Countermeasures Group. She received her B.S. in Physics from Villanova University, her Ph.D. in Biomedical Science from Drexel University and completed a pre-doctoral fellowship, under the direction of Dr. David F. Dinges, at the Unit for Experimental Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. As part of her doctoral training, Dr. Mallis was a contributor to US Air Force multi-center project on countermeasures for jet lag and sleep deprivation in which she reviewed various fatigue-detection technologies and alerting countermeasures. She also conducted, for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Highway Administration, the first systematic, controlled, double-blind validation trial on six promising biobehavioral technologies designed to predict varying alertness/fatigue levels. Her current research focuses on the detection of fatigue with the use of fatigue and alertness monitoring technologies, the evaluation of performance effects of fatigue, and the evaluation of fatigue countermeasures on human performance and alertness levels.


I am sure that the FAA will be asking NASA for thier advice and if enough people make their opinions know, I am sure that the voices of the many will out weigh the voices of the few.

If this ever gets to the FAA's NPRM status, then you will really see a puplic out cry on the subject. Please feel free to post her email on your companies intra web site, I did it at my airline.

 

[B190Captain]

As one unamed FAA official said, "The Federal Aviation Regulations are written in blood."

Not Kool-Aid.

Even the FAR's that we presently abide by are pretty tough especially for us 121 commuter dogs. Why change things for the worst?

If approved, other airline management groups will follow, NOT GOOD!!

 

[Daedalus]

Tony:

Thanks for taking the bait and expending a little effort to educate me on the definition of productivity. However, you missed the point I was trying to make. That is while you may consider yourself as a commodity at your company (like the boxes you fly in your airplanes), it doesn't mean that it's universally applied like some law of physics everywhere else.

Since it's safe to say that you've never stepped a foot onto jetblue's property, it's easy to understand why you would think the way you do about how jetblue management may view their employees. Again, conventional "wisdom" gets turned on its head when casual observers make such generalizations with jetBlue's CURRENT operating philosophy. Taking a page from SWA, jetBlue's management views their employees collectively as assets, not a commodity, in how the airline executes it's business plan.

Why make this point on this thread? Because it serves as a basis for how jetBlue managers and pilots can come together to study methods for making the business run more effectively without suspecting that there are hidden agendas or ulterior motives lurking on either side. You know....it's that thing called trust. A very rare and precious "commodity" in this or any other business.

Unlike you (and others) who come from backgrounds where "trust" is only gained through contractual enforcements, and hardball tactics of negotiating, you are spring-loaded to hold a suspicious view as to the reasons for JB pilots' motives in this case. Meanwhile, I believe JB pilots are trying to find ways to make their system work better for reasons that are unique to their operations and concerns. They presently don't have to carry the same "baggage" around that you all seem to have about the true motives of management (good vs evil). Its not because they don't understand human relations or how airlines really work, but most likely because they find themselves in a remarkable situation that may only come around once in very few people's lifetimes. Don't label them as naive because they are trying something that is impossible for most of you to duplicate.

Yes, I agree the FARs have been written with the blood of others past errors, and good intentions, but as I stated before not all airlines operate the same way, with the same schedules, and the same efficiencies. Yet they must all work under a generic set of operating rules known as the FARs. I think that all JB pilots are doing at this point is studying the possibility of how specific exemptions to these generic rules can help their specific operations run more efficiently and safely.

PERHAPS you need to give them the benefit of doubt for a moment. Let them study this without your biased opinions being thrown at them in a way that reminds me of a schoolyard pushing match by a bunch of young males feeling the first pulses of testosterone course through their loins.

G4G5, you say that JB pilots have not answered your demand for how this improves safety. Yet just a few posts back DGS gave you his answer. Did you not read it? Or do you just refuse to accept that what he posted has any validity?

I for one think he gave a good consideration as to why this could help IMPROVE SAFETY for some JB pilots. You, and others, haven't answered the question as to how flying more hours during a specified amount of crew duty period (i.e. 14 hours) is more dangerous than flying fewer hours in the same period of duty.

GO ahead and take your poll if it makes you feel better. But I don't think it has any significance either way in this forum.

Everyone else can cry and scream and wrap themselves in the banner of safety, but its just a bunch of background noise by people who very likely have other interests at heart. You see I am inclined to suspect people's declared concerns as the reason for what really motivates them. It is much more plausible that you and others feel threathened by what could happen even if it's demonstrated that jetBlue's pilots can come up with a feasible exemption that works for them. Again they have no obligation to resist making improvements to their operations for the sole purpose that other airlines and pilot groups would be unable to participate equally under the same exemptions.

For the record, I am not a jetBlue pilot, but a former ALPA member and current furloughee.

 

[G4G5]

Maybe you should read my post. DGS offers his opinions as to why he feels that he would rather fly a trans con turn. That's fine he is entitled to his opinion and I am not interested in making this a B6 bash session.

What he completely fails to mention is how this will improve safety and that's my question to you.

NASA Ames is very clear. They have technical data supporting the FACT that a relief pilot helps to improve safety on extended duty days (see above post). What they DO NOT say, is making two pilot fly more hours is safer.

NASA Ames is also clear in their opinion that the 10 hour layover is not the answer. BUT their advice is NOT to completely eliminate it. Some rest is better then No rest at all. (see above post)

NASA Ames also is clear with their representation of circadian rythm. It's always best to stay on your own clock. But how does JetBlue plan to do that? Is my clock the same as a 55 year old pilot out in Calf who commuted in last night or is it the same as 30 year old guy who has 3 kids. You can't possibly come up with a "One rule fit's all" for extending the 8 in 24.

One thing that NASA Ames is clear on is that you have two circadian low points during the day. Between 3-5am and 3-5 pm. With the extension of the 8 in 24 you are now asking pilots to be awake and active during both if their low points. What will most folks be doing between 3-5 am, commuting to work for thier 6am sign in, disturbing their circadian rythm. What about 3-5pm, most likly getting ready to descend into the worlds busiest airspace after flying all 8+ hours, 4000+ miles.

What's stoping them from commuting in on the red eye the night prior to a turn?

How many of these turns will you do in a week? A month? A year?

What's stopping a pilot from doing a 11:30 flt time, trans con turn on Mon, then a (5:45 flt time) Fl turn on Tues followed by another Trans con turn on Wed? Almost 30 hours in 3 days. Please, how does this improve safety?

Improving quality of life at the expense of safety is unaccepatble.

So, once again.
How is it safer? How does removing the 8 in 24 restriction make this industry safer? You and all of the other JetBlue pilots have failed to answer that one simple question.

If it's not safer then why do it?

 

[G4G5]

Improving productivity is fine, I think it's something that we all should try to do for our airlines. Cleaning cabins or flying more efficient, you pick it. Just as long as we operate within the confines of the FAR's. They are their for a reason. Safety.

The productivity advantage, that most of you refer to, will be short lived. The day after this is passed, your advantage will be lost. Do you think for a minute that SW will not be flying ISP/PVD/BAL/ECT-LAX/OAK as soon as they can? For cheaper? Do you think that Airtran and Frontier will just give in because they can't do LGA-LAX turns? Or will they start them out of one of the other NY airports (maybe even JFK)? What about the majors, they can operate the same turns on their high density, lower cost, 757's (Song's 199 seats) or 767's? What about the regionals of the world? How long will it take before AA has Eagle operating ERJ 195's out of JFK to LAX and back? Why stop at LA? The other majors can start to SFO/OAK, SEA, SAN. Jet Blue doesn't have enough equipment to keep up if everyone starts doing it.

You are actually inviting increased competition. Because to think that no other airline will be doing this is absurd. They all will and some are poised to take advantage of it at JetBlues expense.

Let's try and keep this in perspective. If you want to improve QofL, that's fine, who doesn't. But try to remember Nelman's big picture. You will soon have plenty of equipment to maximize your 8 in 24 and 30 in 7. Today you only have 45-55 aircraft. How many will you have in the next few years?

Their will be plenty of time to increase sequence productivity. What about LGB-JFK-ATL? A 15.5 hour two day works for most of us. My point is, as the airline gets larger the sequences will improve and so will your QofL.

Doing this now just opens a can of worms that does not need to be opened and what's worse, once it's open, it can never be closed.

 

[Super 80]

While I understand the Jet Blue pilots want to simplify their life a little more and correspondingly make their company more efficient, any incremental savings they achieve with an exception to their Ops Specs will only serve to drag the entire industry down until the FAR's mean nothing and everyone wants an exception to the rule.

This demeans the entire profession and the Jet Blue pilots should know that their actions have repercussions beyond their immediate needs. Getting a win in the short term could end up costing you more than double in the long term.

Fly safe, fly smart.

 

[DCitrus9]

To reiterate or summarize much of what has been said:
This is a slippery slope you are treading on. It may seem to help your schedule now, but if you can work 12hrs a day insteady of 8, why not 45 a week instead of 30. Pretty soon you are expected to fly 125 hours a month just to pay the mortgage. Even if this is not your intent, it is the Pandora's box you are playing with. If you think otherwise, I will be blunt and tell you you are delusional. I have seen a quote on this board that 80% of JetBlue pilots are ex Mil. To me this says you may have a large percentage of folks unaccustomed to Management's nasty tactics. All may seem rosy now, but I GUARANTEE it will bite you and every other 121 pilot in the a$$.
If you're really worried about safety, fight to ban your daytime naps and prevent flying through your "cycle". Flying 12 instead of 8, yeah that's safety

 

[RShebib]

This has been an amazing thread to read.....the most amazing thing to me is the fear in all the airlines of JB. They are asking for an exemption--for themselves. The arguement that what they do will affect the rest of the industry is absurd. The other airlines management may try to implement the exemption, but isn't that why you pay the $$ into your union funds? If the pilots at your airline don't want this exemption, then fight to keep it out of your next contract.

I am new on this board and read a lot of the "Blue Coolaid" and how the JB pilots/FA walk lock-step with what their Mgmt asks. Why do the rest of you care? If they're not asking for a FAR change, get OVER IT!! If anyone is drinking the cool aid it's the old paradigm following, I won't/can't change my ways pilots who are attacking JB and their employees.

Your anger is obvious---someone has come in and is stirring the pot and you're afraid it might affect you---it MIGHT, but after what the last 2 years has shown, maybe it would be for the best....stop running around being scared/jealous at what JB is accomplishing and concentrate on making your airlines a better place to work.

 

[TonyC]

Fast learner???

This has been an amazing thread to read.....the most amazing thing to me is the fear in all the airlines of JB. They are asking for an exemption--for themselves. The arguement that what they do will affect the rest of the industry is absurd.

...

Your anger is obvious---someone has come in and is stirring the pot and you're afraid it might affect you---it MIGHT, but after what the last 2 years has shown, maybe it would be for the best....stop running around being scared/jealous at what JB is accomplishing and concentrate on making your airlines a better place to work.

Another thread - AlbieF15

Originally posted by RShebib (on the above-linked thread)
Being a F-16 pilot...I have to admit...I have NO idea what that ["8 in 24" rule] is...yet......but I'm learning....so no, I have no opinion on it yet.......

It appears that you didn't take long to form an opinion of a matter about which you admit knowing nothing. Your righteous indignation is a bit misplaced, in my judgment.

Again, Congrats on the interview - - concentrate on getting a job for now, then study this topic, THEN weigh in with an educated opinion.

GOOD LUCK !

 

[RShebib]

Tony...

You're right, I know very little on the day to day operations of the airline industry....I was not trying to impart my wisdom (or lack there of) on the specific subject.......just my overall impression of how people have reacted to what JB is attempting to accomplish...thanks for the words on the interview.....should be an exciting 50 minutes!!!

 

[FlyingToIST]

Dizel8 said:
"Start at 8 in the morning, fly to LGB arrive at 3 pm EST, an hour turn, leave at 4pm EST, be home by 9 EST. 13 hrs of duty, 11 hours of flying, 2 legs, 2 landings. I'll take it!"

if this is going to be limited to "only daylight" hours then it is a long shot even in the summer time. i don't think it will happen, and I don't think it should happen either..

 

[AKAAB]

Dead Thread!

Geez - had to go all the way back to October 8th to revive a dead thread? I think we pretty much covered all the angles on this.

AKAAB

PS - "freelance" is the American spelling. Cheers!