Being well-rested is too costly.

C150J said:
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.
Click to expand...

Everything you stated is 100% correct! But the one thing all of it has in common is that it is all "what ifs" and "almosts." The close calls you point out happen everyday, but are in the vast vast minority. They also rarely result in an actual accident. That is my point. The system, even with its flaws, is working. And asking the airlines to accept billions of dollars worth of additional pilot salary liability without actual incidents or accidents happening frequently enough to justify new rules is not going to happen in the current economic/political environment of this country.

As stated above, money is more important than avoiding the maybe one less accident per decade that would result from better duty rules. I hate it, but that is how it is. Airlines use the actual crash statistics to hedge their bets on the lives of passengers. They always have and they always will. Until money is no longer the most important thing for humanity you are going to have 14 hour duty days!
 
C150J said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

I very much believe in Reason's model. Very good one.

As I'm reading RSG, and she can correct me if I'm wrong, is that it comes down to money. Right now, it's still affordable for the airlines and to an extent the FAA, to do nothing about this. Until such time comes that it's cheaper to do something to save you as crew and pax, then there's no incentive to do so. As is now and as has always been, if it's cheaper for the airlines and FAA to save you, they'll save you. If it's cheaper to do nothing and kill you, then they'll kill you.
 
RightSeatGirl said:
Everything you stated is 100% correct! But the one thing all of it has in common is that it is all "what ifs" and "almosts." The close calls you point out happen everyday, but are in the vast vast minority. They also rarely result in an actual accident. That is my point. The system, even with its flaws, is working. And asking the airlines to accept billions of dollars worth of additional pilot salary liability without actual incidents or accidents happening frequently enough to justify new rules is not going to happen in the current economic/political environment of this country.

As stated above, money is more important than avoiding the maybe one less accident per decade that would result from better duty rules. I hate it, but that is how it is. Airlines use the actual crash statistics to hedge their bets on the lives of passengers. They always have and they always will. Until money is no longer the most important thing for humanity you are going to have 14 hour duty days!
Click to expand...

I think you may be confusing "whatif's" and "statistical data shows or proves". Those are actually two different things. The result of this statistical data, and the resultant hole in the swiss cheese model, are some near misses and "almost". Since evidence shows a likely probability this hole will close with new regulations, those in the safety world are pushing for it. If we left airlines to their own devises safety would not be at as high a level as it is today.

I can only assume your argument was used back in the days when TCAS was considered. TCAS saved my bacon from a controller botched vector that led me into VFR traffic operating in an IFR environment. I came close to my death and I'm completely convinced the only thing that saved me, my crew, and the 30 something pax in the back was TCAS.

Change the God damn regs and be done with it. I'm tired of the hemming and hawing.
 
MikeD said:
I very much believe in Reason's model. Very good one.

As I'm reading RSG, and she can correct me if I'm wrong, is that it comes down to money. Right now, it's still affordable for the airlines and to an extent the FAA, to do nothing about this. Until such time comes that it's cheaper to do something to save you as crew and pax, then there's no incentive to do so. As is now and as has always been, if it's cheaper for the airlines and FAA to save you, they'll save you. If it's cheaper to do nothing and kill you, then they'll kill you.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This same thing, albeit more simplified, happens in the auto manufacturing industry. A car maker finds a flaw in one of their models. The engineers assign statistical value to how often that flaw will result in a crash. If the statistics demonstrate the crashes will occur so infrequently that the auto maker will spend less on the resulting lawsuits then they would spend on a recall...they do nothing. This is what happens with the airline industry everyday. We can cite almosts ans what-ifs until we are blue in the face. No matter how ugly or avoidable those "near misses" are...economically speaking..

We cannot get past the FACT that airplanes rarely crash!

New regs would cost billions to stop crashes that are not happening. If one cannot see how this fact is driving the issue toward its inevitable end of "no new rules" then one is not paying attention to the pulse of the world. Which is the noise the printing press at the US Mint makes every time a sheet of $20s gets printed.
 
The cost vs. safety issue disturbs me.

Surely, there is some risk in flying. Surely, the risk is extremely low.

Are we really doing our parts as the guardians of safety.. as pilots.. if we allow the sort of thinking that allows for a certain number of deaths so as to not impact the profit margin?

Remember Will Smith in the movie I, Robot?

The robot saved him from the car sinking in the lake, but not the little girl. The robot decided that Will Smith's character had a higher probability of living than the little girl. The little girl drowned.

Smith's character later remarks, "That was somebody's little girl- somebody's baby! Any chance of saving her was worthwhile."

The robot decided that the numbers did not warrant the effort. The higher numbers produced a greater outcome, i.e., profit for risk taken.

Do we really want to think like that?

When a plane crashes, and somebody dies.. that's somebody's something. Somebody's baby.

What does it say about us if we allow that to happen?
 
Firebird2XC said:
Do we really want to think like that?

What does it say about us if we allow that to happen?
Click to expand...

Not a matter of if we want to think like that as we have already allowed it to happen. At this point it's a matter of changing our ways before it's too late. This is a lead into an issue that is far bigger than just aviation safety.
 
Various reasons perhaps, but because the government and the airlines were scamming to make more money is not an acceptable reason.
 
mikecweb said:
That life isn't perfect and people die every day for various reasons.
Click to expand...


I've seen it first hand, for the worst reasons imaginable.

It is ugly and sad. It is one thing to talk about it. It's quite another to actually face the reality of it.

I hope you don't think I assume you incapable of understanding this, but I felt the point worth reiterating.

You're right though- that's the truth of the world. The world we all make.

Perhaps I'm being irrational, but that's how I see things like this. It's been said that "The rational man conforms himself to the world around him. The irrational man expects the world around him to conform to him. Therefore, all change in the world depends on the irrational man."

It's contrary to the way of the world, yes, but I think the preservation of human life is worthwhile enough to question our thinking on this subject.
 
Firebird2XC said:
I've seen it first hand, for the worst reasons imaginable.

It is ugly and sad. It is one thing to talk about it. It's quite another to actually face the reality of it.

I hope you don't think I assume you incapable of understanding this, but I felt the point worth reiterating.

You're right though- that's the truth of the world. The world we all make.

Perhaps I'm being irrational, but that's how I see things like this. It's been said that "The rational man conforms himself to the world around him. The irrational man expects the world around him to conform to him. Therefore, all change in the world depends on the irrational man."

It's contrary to the way of the world, yes, but I think the preservation of human life is worthwhile enough to question our thinking on this subject.
Click to expand...
I've seen people die Charlie but thanks for reiterating.
The fact remains that until planes fall out of the sky on a routine basis with the sole reason of fatigued pilots due to the current set of regulations no one is going to spend money to fix it.
You can quote Will Smith movies, philosophers, The Bible, the Qur'an, or a Maya Angelou poem but nothings going to change unless it makes sense financially.
Would you be willing to take a pay cut to work less so you are less fatigued at work?
Didn't think so.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the way it is.
The emotional appeal that lives are in the balance is a little much though. If pilots are fatigued they need to speak up.
 
mikecweb said:
If pilots are fatigued they need to speak up.
Click to expand...

Mike,

I agree with your post, as sad as it is. However, study after study has shown that sleep deprivation effects one's ability to self-diagnose. Kind of like going out to the bar with a friend, watching him get drunk, and then hearing him tell you he's fine to drive home. Simply put, pilots are unable to make fatigue determinations when it really matters.

Some European carriers have followed science, and now issue their pilots "fatigue cards." On the cards, there is a dichotomy that will lead you to determine if you're fatigued or not (by determining a sleep quantity look-back), and calling in tired yields no punitive response. At most American regionals, should you call in fatigued, you will NOT be paid for what you didn't fly.

Again, I totally understand what you're saying, and even agree that sometimes we're our own worst enemy. However, it would be nice if there were mechanisms in place (shorter duty days, consistent schedules) to prevent a lapse in human judgement.

J.
 
Why get fatigued in the first place? My company has told me that as long as I am professional I don't need more than 8 hours away from an airplane. It says so in the company manual. I will be in compliance at all times. Safety fourth!
 
Capitalism > Keeping people Safe.

Goldman Sachs will have a derivatives market available for it soon, don't worry.
 
mikecweb said:
I've seen people die Charlie but thanks for reiterating.
The fact remains that until planes fall out of the sky on a routine basis with the sole reason of fatigued pilots due to the current set of regulations no one is going to spend money to fix it.
You can quote Will Smith movies, philosophers, The Bible, the Qur'an, or a Maya Angelou poem but nothings going to change unless it makes sense financially.
Would you be willing to take a pay cut to work less so you are less fatigued at work?
Didn't think so.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the way it is.
The emotional appeal that lives are in the balance is a little much though. If pilots are fatigued they need to speak up.
Click to expand...


I must admit you're right. It IS the way it is. Pilots are speaking up though, in greater numbers than before. It's a process.

Pretty, flowery words will not change the fact that some people just won't care. Point conceded.

I suppose I still have to try. I might get some of them.

You can please some people some of the time, etc....:beer:
 
I asked Charlie this and he dodged it either on purpose or for whatever reason.
I ask everyone:
Would you be willing to take a pay cut for safety?
Yes i know we all don't make enough and wages have been cut down over the years but would you?
You can't sing the emotional appeals that safety is being trumped for money unless you would take a cut. If not you just expect everyone else to take a cut for safety. Doesn't that make you just as bad? The airlines can't make any less money than they do, so they'll pass it on to the passengers. The passengers aren't going to want to pay anymore for their tickets so they'll fly less.
 
mikecweb said:
I asked Charlie this and he dodged it either on purpose or for whatever reason.
I ask everyone:
Would you be willing to take a pay cut for safety?
Yes i know we all don't make enough and wages have been cut down over the years but would you?
You can't sing the emotional appeals that safety is being trumped for money unless you would take a cut. If not you just expect everyone else to take a cut for safety. Doesn't that make you just as bad? The airlines can't make any less money than they do, so they'll pass it on to the passengers. The passengers aren't going to want to pay anymore for their tickets so they'll fly less.
Click to expand...

That is definitely a tough question, Mike.

I certainly acknowledge that it's easier said than done. However, I would gladly work consistent 5-day/40 duty-hour weeks instead of 56 duty-hour 4-days, thereby lowering my theoretical hourly rate. My first day off is generally a "work hangover," anyways.

That being said, take a look at mainline contracts, and you'll see a lot of these safeguards already in place. To circumnavigate these protections, tremendous outsourcing to regionals has occurred, which has "lowered the bar" for our profession anyways. By instituting better rules, I'd contend that you might see more in-house flying, as regional operating costs will invariably increase (why pay someone else to do something you can do?).
 
mikecweb said:
I asked Charlie this and he dodged it either on purpose or for whatever reason.
I ask everyone:
Would you be willing to take a pay cut for safety?
Yes i know we all don't make enough and wages have been cut down over the years but would you?
You can't sing the emotional appeals that safety is being trumped for money unless you would take a cut. If not you just expect everyone else to take a cut for safety. Doesn't that make you just as bad? The airlines can't make any less money than they do, so they'll pass it on to the passengers. The passengers aren't going to want to pay anymore for their tickets so they'll fly less.
Click to expand...

I take a cut every time I call in fatigued.

They dock me the pay.

I can appeal to get it back, but there are no guarantees.
 
mikecweb said:
Hilarious.
Click to expand...

Touch a mikecweb nerve. . .or lordy!

Laughing.

Victory to Mike.

More importantly,

Why is the consumer not willing to pay more for safety? Much less the time saved premium that the airline yield and marketing departments have failed to build value in.

Why is it labors' role to foot the economic bill for improved safety?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top