Kirksville: duty cycle and professionalism

On the specious assumption you haven't already seen the news reports,
see
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-01-24-crashinvestigation_x.htm

and myriad others, as the NTSB findings are now widely reported:


"A pair of wisecracking pilots on duty for 14½ hours made several
grave mistakes just before crashing more than a mile from a runway in
Missouri, killing themselves and 11 others, federal investigators said
Tuesday."


/dps

Let's not start a "trial by press" espeically with the dramatized report
in USA Today. Start by looking at the NTSB report itself for the
actual facts. Note that the NTSB conclusions are not admissable
evidence because they are hearsay. A jury must be presented with the
facts and allowed to draw its own conclusion.



wrote:
On the specious assumption you haven't already seen the news reports,
see
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-01-24-crashinvestigation_x.htm

and myriad others, as the NTSB findings are now widely reported:


"A pair of wisecracking pilots on duty for 14½ hours made several
grave mistakes just before crashing more than a mile from a runway in
Missouri, killing themselves and 11 others, federal investigators said
Tuesday."


/dps

Stubby wrote:

The summary http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAR0601.htm
contains

quote
9. The pilots failed to follow established procedures to
effectively monitor the airplane's descent rate and height above
terrain during the later stages of the approach and relied too much on
minimal external visual cues. Although descent rate and altitude
information were readily available through cockpit instruments, both
pilots were largely preoccupied with looking for the approach lights.

10. The pilots' nonessential conversation below 10,000 feet mean sea
level (msl) was contrary to established sterile cockpit regulations and
reflected a demeanor and cockpit environment that fostered deviation
from established standard procedures, crew resource management
disciplines, division of labor practices, and professionalism, reducing
the margin of safety well below acceptable limits during the accident
approach and likely contributing to the pilots' degraded performance.


11. Compliance with sterile cockpit rules may have resulted in an
increased focus on standard procedures and professionalism during the
accident flight.

12. The captain should have, but did not, arrest the airplane's
rapid descent when they reached the MDA, and the first officer should
have, but did not, challenge the captain's descent below the minimum
descent altitude.
/quote

Note that the NTSB conclusions are not admissable
evidence because they are hearsay.

No, they are expert testimony the way a psychologist's conclusions
would be if a psychological evaluation was ordered by the trial judge
[in a case where there was someone to be evluated].

AIUI, in a trial the expert would be expected to show what evidence led
to the conclusions, and that the conclusions follow from the evidence
according to the expertise of the subject area. Opposing counsel might
bring in other experts to offer testimony that different conclusions
might be reached.

A jury must be presented with the
facts and allowed to draw its own conclusion.

A jury could certainly be presented with the facts: cockpit voice
tape, duty logs, check-in/check-out records at the hotel, the papers
the crew signs and returns to the ground staff, etc. The same stuff
the NTSB report draws its conclusions from.

/dps

Stubby wrote:
Let's not start a "trial by press"

By the way, I wasn't putting anyone on trial. I was alerting the group
to the release of the findings, and noting that it is a cautionary
tale. I'm sure that the report is very sobering to currently active
pilots who read it. One hopes that it is sobering to the people who
schedule air crews, also.

I'm also sure that my posting is very redundant in that the gentle
readers probably already read one or more of the 222 news postings
about the NTSB conclusions.

/dps

In article .com,
wrote:

I'm sure that the report is very sobering to currently active
pilots who read it. One hopes that it is sobering to the people who
schedule air crews, also.

As one who works for a commuter airline flying 19-seaters, I assure you
it won't be. These people truly care only about what's legal -- what
they can get away with -- rather than what's safe. If I'm legal to
start work at 10pm, fly an hour and a half, get five hours of
still-on-duty "sleep" from 11 to 4 in the break room at the airport (no
hotel), and then fly six legs from 4am to 2pm, then they'll assign it.


As long as I don't exceed 8 hours of scheduled flight time between my
8-hour "rest" periods, then it's perfectly legal. And after my 8
hours, another 16 hour ballbuster -- I just need a couple of extra
hours of "compensatory rest," for all it's worth.

And if I delay my showtime because I'm exhausted, I'm legitimately in
fear of my job. If I show up late twice in a 12-month period, I get
three days off without pay. A third time and I'm fired. Things like
that are why airline pilots unionize -- pay is just a small part of it.

This is the kind of "safety culture" these pilots were dealing with.
Yeah, they screwed up. But the FAA is *not* helping things by clinging
to rest rules that have KILLED PEOPLE. Remember the American flight
into Little Rock? On duty over 15 hours. Very unsafe.


I'm looking at leaving the airlines altogether, to work for one of the
fractional jet operators. Interestingly enough, they're covered under
FAR 91 Subpart K, and they have different rest rules. The big part
121 carriers can reduce rest (which *includes* the ride to and from the
hotel) to just 8 hours. Fractional jet operators? 10 hours rest, bare
minimum.

Ironic that flights carrying five executives require better-rested
pilots than airliners with a couple hundred people, don't you think?



Rant over. I'm on a break before my last leg of a "short" 14-hour,
7-leg day of hand-flying, and I need a nap. Thanks for reading.

quote
15. On the basis of the less than optimal overnight rest time
available, the early reporting time for duty, the length of the duty
day, the number of flight legs, the demanding conditions (non-precision
instrument approaches flown manually in conditions of low ceilings and
reduced visibilities) encountered during the long duty day (and the two
previous days), it is likely that fatigue contributed to the pilots'
degraded performance and decisionmaking.



16. Existing Federal Aviation Administration pilot duty regulations do
not reflect recent research on pilot fatigue and sleep issues,
increasing the possibility that pilots will fly in a fatigued
condition.
/quote

[...]
This is the kind of "safety culture" these pilots were dealing with.
Yeah, they screwed up. But the FAA is *not* helping things by clinging
to rest rules that have KILLED PEOPLE. Remember the American flight
into Little Rock? On duty over 15 hours. Very unsafe.

The value of reports such as this is that they can provide the basis of
action to improve the regulations; IIRC, the Washington Times article
on this noted that planned improvements in the rest rules were tabled
because the airline industry didn't reach a consensus [and the FAA
didn't force one].

Rest rule problems are present throughout the transportation
sector...railroad crews have the same issue of having to count the taxi
time to the hotel as rest time. Truck driver rules were changed for
the worse just a few years ago (something like no longer having to
allow for x seperately but with the understanding that schedulers would
compensate by doing y, which they didn't).

Rant over. I'm on a break before my last leg of a "short" 14-hour,
7-leg day of hand-flying, and I need a nap. Thanks for reading.

Sometimes we need those rants so that we can get the naps.

Best wishes.

/dps

wrote:
Truck driver rules were changed for
the worse just a few years ago (something like no longer having to
allow for x seperately but with the understanding that schedulers would
compensate by doing y, which they didn't).

Happily, I found a reference that explains things better than my recall
circuits did...an improvement was offset by a dis-improveent, as
described by Rep. James L. Oberstar of Minnesota:

"hours gave every driver the opportunity for 8 consecutive hours
of uninterrupted sleep every day, the scientifically-determined
amount of rest needed to promote alertness behind the wheel.

The new rules also provided drivers with adequate time off
at the end of the work week to achieve restorative sleep. The
34-hour restart gave them time for two periods of uninterrupted
recovery sleep before the beginning of the next work week.

On the other hand, I was concerned by the FMCSA's decision
to increase allowable driving time from 10 hours to 11 hours
each day. More time behind the wheel does not reduce fatigue
or advance highway safety."

in the article "Fighting Fatigue" from "NTSB JOURNAL OF ACCIDENT
INVESTIGATION, WINTER 2005; VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1" (pg 11).

Some studies have shown that the 11th hour of duty has a
disproportionate number of accidents. See
http://www.engr.psu.edu/NewsEvents/n...ate=11/15/2005,
for instance.

"[11/15/2005] Risk higher for truckers in eleventh hour
University Park, PA-The crash risk for truck drivers in the last
hour of a now legal 11-hour day behind the wheel is more than three
times higher than during the first hour, a Penn State research team has
found."

/dps