Recently, we were treated to the most excellent and inspirational five minutes of flying an airplane that we will ever see. The skilled pilot and crew who maneuvered a disabled jetliner to a crash landing in New York’s Hudson River without the loss of a single life is the stuff of legends, an event that will forever be held up as perfection in potentially fatal circumstances.
But this was a pilot and crew that clearly had all its faculties in perfect alignment. The airline industry can take pride in what happened, but it needs to focus on less positive matters.
The United Nations agency that sets standards for air transport is drawing up new safety rules to take into account what it labels a silent killer: Pilot fatigue. We’re told that over the past 15 years nearly a dozen fatal crashes and numerous close calls have occurred because of worn-out pilots. Safety experts compare this condition to drunken driving of a motor vehicle. Pilot fatigue was a cause of one of the deadliest crashes in aviation history — when a Korean Air Boeing 747 heading to Guam slammed into a hillside in 1997 and killed 228 people. How aware are most of us about that?
Air safety and pilot unions have for years pressed for tighter regulation and enforcement of working hours and rest periods. Scientific research says pilot fatigue is a factor in a fifth of all fatal crashes. Symptoms can include longer reaction times, short-term memory loss, impaired judgment and reduced visual perception. Imagine if any or all of these factors had figured in the process of guiding that plane in New York.
Pilots complain that mandated rest periods are now only calculated according to the time spent in the air rather than total time on duty. A pilot’s daily schedule might include only a short period of actual flying but 12 to 14 hours of total time on duty. This can include layovers, delays and mechanical difficulty that prolongs a flier’s presence.
Rosters sometimes call for a crew to work three or four straight days. Crew rest periods often include transit time to and from hotels and meal times, so that a nine-hour rest period might allow for only about six hours of sleep.
Sometimes cockpit naps are tried. Some regulations allow one pilot to nap while the other works during a cruise to keep both alert for landing. Does that raise any red flags?
Who wants to be a passenger on an airplane guided by somebody who is on the end of a series of 60-hour duty weeks? It happens, and that needs to be changed.
With pilot fatigue a factor in one-fifth of airliner accidents, it’s little wonder the United Nations along with air safety experts, including the pilots themselves, believe major changes are needed as soon as possible.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
I've seen the same thing argued about the trucking industry. Safety advocates complained when the amount of hours a trucker can drive in one day was increased from 10 to 11 hours. They said the same things about fatigue leading to more fatal accidents. However, that is not what happened--in fact fatal accidents went down per 100,000 miles driven.The reason why is unintended consequences. If you decrease the amount of hours pilots are allowed to work, then the airlines are forced to hire new pilots who are less experienced and more prone to error to make up for those lost hours. Costs also go up as well as prices, and that will cause more people to drive in instead of fly, and lead to more deaths because fatal car accidents are so common.My point is, this well-intended regulation might very well have the exact opposite effect, leading to more deaths and not less. Government intervention usually does this, making the problem even worse than it was.
mastercfi (anonymous) says…
No disrespect to truck drivers, I used to be one that hauled explosives. But, there is a huge difference in workload management and skills required to operate an aircraft. Aviating, navigating, and communicating is a tedious chore on any given day. However, add IMC (bad weather conditions), pressures to fly, along with systems problems, and you have a situation that can lead to catastrophic consequences. Especially when fatigues.Remember, in aviation, decisions and accuracy come down to absolute seconds, feet, and precise positioning, for outcomes to be successful.I've been on both ends. I have had my share of in-flight emergencies. All of which turned out well - obviously. However, I thought I had an emergency one day, after a long, hard day of mapping flying, and found myself unable to make sound a decision. I obviously sounded a little behind the power curve, because ATC asked me if I needed help. He could hear that I was sluggish. I wouldn't have been sluggish if i hadn't put in a tough day mapping, at high altitude.After that day, I developed a company flight profile to be used by all of my pilots. This profile put limits on our duty days, along with doing risk assessments, because of fatigue.Being in an aircraft, as the pilot, is NO place to be when fatigued. I don't like government intervention either. But i know that you, or me, wouldn't want to place our lives in the hands of a fatigues pilot. Everything is OK til something goes wrong. I plan for the day when something will go wrong.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
You miss my point. The people who are in the best position to make that decision are the pilots and the airlines, not the government. When the government makes that decision, you will end up with a worse result than if they had done nothing.
nomorebobsplease (anonymous) says…
Liberty, I have to argue that the airlines are probably not in the best position to make this decision. The airlines are about profits, and will cut corners anywhere they can to make those profits.Now, if I read the editorial correctly, the author indicates the PILOTS are for refiguring mandatory rest hours.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
nomorebobsplease (Anonymous) says… "Liberty, I have to argue that the airlines are probably not in the best position to make this decision. The airlines are about profits, and will cut corners anywhere they can to make those profits."How are plane crashes good for profits?
mastercfi (anonymous) says…
I don't like government intervention either. We have a saying, "I'm from the FAA, and I'm here to help"! Yes, the companies AND pilots need to strike a safe balance. The company, often, will try and eek out whatever it can to error towards profit. While pilots, often, will error towards being conservative - at least they should!The government (FAA) has regulations governing part 121 (airlines) and part 135 (charter), regarding rest periods. They also have it for flight instructors. However, the rest of the pilot population (general aviation) has to fend for themselves when it comes to flying safely (regarding fatigue). The pilot is ALWAYS the final authority as to the operation of an aircraft, always - according to the FAR's. However, companies will try and pressure pilots into flying unsafe. I know, I battle it everyday!Sometimes the government has to step in when companies and pilots can't "police" themselves. It's for the publics safety in the end. I presume that if companies and pilots can agree to agree, and keep the skies safe, then there would be no need for big brother (government) to interfere. I'm not sure where that line is.I also know that different companies, and certainly different pilots, have different opinions as to "what's safe", etc. The federal aviation regulations take a lot of the guesswork out, and ensures that we are all playing by same rules. All of those rules are government mandated, by the way. And were born because of fatalities, somewhere...
ArcticFlier (anonymous) says…
All three of you make good points regarding the need for regulation (keep in mind most, if not all of the FAR's (Federal Aviation Regulations) are written in blood), the desires of the company to make a profit, and the the desires of the crew not to kill anyone. It's up to the crew to pull the plug when they deem it necessary, but it's nice to have a company with the moral value to back that crew up when they do. Not all are that................... virtuous, shall we say. One thing I can add: Liberty, you ask when is a plane crash good for the profit of an airline. We fly every day virtually without accident or incident. It's a gamble on the part of the company to push the limits of what's safe. Seems the gamble has, for the most part, paid off in the end as we don't wreck every time we fly a bit tired. Might sound a bit callous on the part of the company, but I go back to what I wrote above; it's incumbent on the crew to call in 'not fit for further duty'. With over 17,000 hours in the air, I've called in 'not fit' a total of twice. It obviously is something that doesn't happen very often, but it's an ace, a freebie if you will, in every crew members back pocket that can and should be pulled when necessary.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Regardless, no one addressed my point. If the goal of this is to save lives, then it will likely have the exact opposite effect. But everyone gets behind something like this because it sounds good. It is a great example of liberals creating a problem where there isn't one. You are more likely to die in an accident on the way to the airport, more likely to die of a bee sting, or being attacked by a dog. etc. There is no problem here, but this type of regulation will create a problem.
ArcticFlier (anonymous) says…
Liberty.........that was my point. We don't need more rules. We have enough already. It's up to us to say enough when we are tired.