Being well-rested is too costly.

C150J

Well-Known Member
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704133804575198362614488940.html


By ANDY PASZTOR

Reducing pilot fatigue is a top priority for U.S. airline regulators. But new rules are being delayed by disagreements within the Obama administration over whether the anticipated safety improvements would justify the cost to airlines.

When U.S. Federal Aviation Administration chief Randy Babbitt last summer launched a drive to update decades-old rules covering how many hours a day U.S. airline pilots can fly or remain on duty, the agency hoped to release draft regulations by early 2010.

That date later slipped by several months, but Mr. Babbitt and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood continued to say that keeping sleepy pilots away from the controls was essential. With Congress also prodding the FAA to move quickly, they talked about expedited White House review of regulatory changes.

Now, according to industry and government officials, the proposed changes are snagged by a dispute between the FAA and the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Budget officials have informally told the FAA that the proposal's projected cost to airlines wasn't justified by the anticipated safety benefits, according to people familiar with the details. As a result, there could be further delays in agreeing on a package.

The FAA's proposals could cost carriers billions of extra dollars through the next decade. But if the agency scales back the proposal to reduce likely costs, FAA and outside experts fear it would undercut basic safety goals. If that happens, some pilots' unions have threatened to oppose the entire package.

The tussle already has added to the friction between aviation regulators and officials at the budget office. Unless high-level administration officials break the logjam, people familiar with the details said, public release of the proposed rules could be delayed for months.

The FAA continues to push for speedy action. But according to the latest projected timetable released by the Department of Transportation, it could take until fall to issue a draft rule. Fielding public comments could take months longer.

An FAA spokeswoman said Wednesday that the proposed rules "are in administration coordination," but she declined to elaborate. "This is a complex issue and we want this done right," she said.

Department of Transportation officials also have declined to provide details about the timetable. A spokesman for the budget office said it hadn't yet received a formal request for review and "we don't have a specific time frame." The spokesman declined to comment on discussions that have taken place with regulators.

The FAA wants to jettison outdated rules that set uniform limits on pilot work schedules, replacing them with more flexible rules based on scientific studies about what causes fatigue.

Labor and management representatives agreed on the broad outlines of such an approach last September, giving the FAA more confidence that it could come up with a package that had a good chance of gaining final approval.

The proposals seek to limit flight hours and the length of duty days based on the time of day, internal body clocks of pilots and how many takeoffs and landings they are scheduled to perform in a 24-hour period.

Such changes, intended to bring U.S. requirements more in line with European cockpit-fatigue rules, would be particularly costly for commuter airlines. Those carriers fly shorter routes and tend to give pilots more grueling schedules, with multiple takeoffs and landings each day.

The dispute over cockpit-fatigue rules is part of a broader debate over how to measure prospective safety improvements when U.S. commercial aviation already is so safe that there aren't any fatal accidents in some years.

FAA regulators consider cockpit fatigue one of the most pressing safety hazards and point to a long list of harrowing incidents and accidents in which fatigue was a significant factor. In recent years, lawmakers, federal investigators and outside safety experts have intensified their calls for new fatigue regulations. Under the FAA's proposals, cargo and charter operations also would face tighter restrictions on pilot shifts.

Mr. Babbitt has championed efforts for change in the wake of the February 2009 crash of a Colgan Air turboprop near Buffalo, N.Y., that killed 50 people. Both pilots had limited sleep the night before the crash.

Write to Andy Pasztor at andy.pasztor@wsj.com
 
It would be a shame if ticket prices went up a few dollars so pilots were rested. Not to be "Betty buzzkill" but another accident will happen and pilots will be blamed. People buy insurance for every part of their lives and airlines buy new airplanes that are SAFER and more efficient, heaven help us when we fly multi million dollar jets but passengers won't spend a couple bucks for the main part of the operation.
 
It would be a shame if ticket prices went up a few dollars so pilots were rested. Not to be "Betty buzzkill" but another accident will happen and pilots will be blamed. People buy insurance for every part of their lives and airlines buy new airplanes that are SAFER and more efficient, heaven help us when we fly multi million dollar jets but passengers won't spend a couple bucks for the main part of the operation.

Well its the computer that flies it. The passenger told me yesterday and he stayed at a holiday inn express.
 
Well its the computer that flies it. The passenger told me yesterday and he stayed at a holiday inn express.

Although I certainly don't let those statements get to me, it's like saying that al physicians do these days is write prescriptions: no medical introspection/skill is required any more to practice medicine. Some people are so ignorant!
 
It would be a shame if ticket prices went up a few dollars so pilots were rested. Not to be "Betty buzzkill" but another accident will happen and pilots will be blamed. People buy insurance for every part of their lives and airlines buy new airplanes that are SAFER and more efficient, heaven help us when we fly multi million dollar jets but passengers won't spend a couple bucks for the main part of the operation.

Yup. I can't believe how much cash the FAA has spend on their professionalism campaign, along with cracking down on the training programs at various airlines. Yet when it comes down to it, even a well trained and highly scrutinized pilot at the end of a 16hr duty day will be tired. The truth is if nothing changes, nothing will change. Fatigue related accidents will continue to happen, and those who were in a position to make aviation safer yet wilted under political pressure will be just as at-fault as the bleary-eyed pilots at the controls.
 
Snap to it, then.


Politicians= Lawyers that have been fed after midnight.

Oy vey. ;)

humming-gizmo.jpg


You're dating yourself :)
 
The market place has demaned the pricing structures currently being used.

The market place can not support an increase in ticket prices.

The market place, due to their actions, does not want safety. They want cheap.

The End.

Thank You,

Capitalism.
 
I've always been kind of torn on this issue. As much as I want more pilot friendly schedules, I can't help but to also take into account the business point of view. Here is the bottom line: airplanes are not exactly falling out of the sky every day now are they? We can change the regs but one thing we will never be able to change, until an appropriately perfected robot pilot is invented - still decades away) is the fact that we are human and every now and then we frack up! Most of the time those frack-ups result in little more then missed radio calls, incorrect read-backs etc. But once every blue moon we get a 3407. New rules will not change the statistics. And I think that is the point the airlines are making and it is not a bad one. We have to think about what we want more. Better schedules or better pay. Because we are not gonna get both and neither will stop the inevitable once every few years part 121 crash.

I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, no hatin please!
 
I've always been kind of torn on this issue. As much as I want more pilot friendly schedules, I can't help but to also take into account the business point of view. Here is the bottom line: airplanes are not exactly falling out of the sky every day now are they? We can change the regs but one thing we will never be able to change, until an appropriately perfected robot pilot is invented - still decades away) is the fact that we are human and every now and then we frack up! Most of the time those frack-ups result in little more then missed radio calls, incorrect read-backs etc. But once every blue moon we get a 3407. New rules will not change the statistics. And I think that is the point the airlines are making and it is not a bad one. We have to think about what we want more. Better schedules or better pay. Because we are not gonna get both and neither will stop the inevitable once every few years part 121 crash.

I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, no hatin please!

RSG,

Definitely no hating intended, but have you ever been involved with your airline's safety program? I can assure you that, on a weekly basis, serious mistakes are being made, and that most occur after duty-hour #10. Had a controller, fellow pilot, mechanic, or dispatcher not caught the error, loss of life/bent metal would've occurred. Call me corny, but the "swiss cheese model" of error trapping is incredibly accurate, and all we need is a tired workforce to let all the holes line up. I can't tell you how many times it has come down to one "slice of cheese" that traps the error.


The issue you present (airplanes not falling out of the sky daily) is aviation's absolutist view on error: if no one dies, we don't have a problem. In safety programs, we routinely categorize the severity and catastrophic likelihood of each event we review. It is disturbing to analyze how many incidents could have easily resulted in tragedy. Luck is one of the most understated forces in aviation when it comes to pilot fatigue.


On another note, we as a profession need to address our longevity and health. Sleep deprivation and unpredictable schedules (time shifting, etc.) have been causally correlated to high blood pressure, type II diabetes, irritability, and premature death. If a factory floor can have three shifts, why are pilots forced to work 14-16 hours at a time? According to polls, most people consider being treated fairly the most important aspect of job satisfaction. We have been slighted for years when it comes to rest rules (how is post-flighting the aircraft and waiting for the hotel van considered rest?).


One of the most pertinent studies on fatigue shows that judgement, located in the prefrontal cortex, is one of the first victims of sleep deprivation. I'll never forget a former student of my father, who told me that he was so tired in his medical residency, he hoped one of his patients would just die so he could go home and sleep.

If we know fatigue is a problem (which has killed over the past 20+ years), we have a responsibility as a profession to address it.
 
Back
Top