Plane Conversations

In college, I took a class called International Strategies and Security.  I believe that I may have been the only non-military student in the class which, for a civilian, turned out to be like a Tom Clancy novel – only it lasted for a whole semester.  We discussed technology that just blew my mind.  I had no idea the things that were possible and I’m sure that what blew my mind then is Stone Age compared to what is possible now.

So yesterday, we talked a little bit about test flights Alaska Airlines is conducting to be greener both environmentally and economically.  I think that there is a lot to celebrate with that.  My one concern with their reliance (and more, with NextGen’s reliance) on satellite technology is the increase in solar storms projected over the next few years.  I am curious to see how the technologists will handle it.

Since the systems do rely on satellite communication, they will be vulnerable to solar flares and storms, the kind we discussed back in March, which brings me back to the same concerns I expressed then.  With so many new pilots being trained using only glass cockpits and satellite approaches, what happens when those systems are compromised?  Worse, what happens when those systems are compromised and the pilots don’t know it?  NextGen, RNP, OPD and RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum) are all designed to increase efficiency by tightening up the airspace.  This precision puts more aircraft into smaller spaces.  Well, if a pilot was flying along a flight path ten years ago, he might have encountered another aircraft along the same path; but, since neither of them was flying with today’s degree of precision, there was still likely to be a safe distance between the aircraft.  However, with todays’ greater precision, the space is greatly reduced.  If all systems are operating as advertised, that’s no problem.  In fact, it’s positive situation.  However, if solar flares contaminate the positioning information, an aircraft may be hundreds of feet off position and not know it.  If two aircraft are in the same situation, but are separated by only a few hundreds of feet to begin with, well, you do the math.

The Federal Aviation Administration recently awarded $125 million to Boeing and other companies to develop greener aircraft, fuels and technology.   As aircraft become more advanced and the Gee-Whiz factor in them increases, by definition, they get further away from the simple, stick-controlled Stearman.  I love the advances, don’t get me wrong.  I just know that a great many young pilots are learning on advanced equipment and may not be learning some of the manual basics of their predecessors.  For now, the young group still has access to pilots trained without all of the gizmos.  Those pilots are available to act as mentors and assist the younger generation of aviators in gaining some wisdom, an invaluable asset, as Billy Minkoff pointed out last week.  His example of the new, accessible very light jet and microjet is perfectly appropriate here.  As precision flying gets more precise and pilot training gets further removed from non-precision equipment, without mentoring, how do we avoid the dangers of corrupted satellite data?

What technology and training do we develop to slow or halt the current trend as expressed by CFM Director of Operations Dwayne McMurry, “It used to be that the last words on a cockpit voice recorder were ‘Oh, (explicative)!’  What you hear these days is, ‘What’s it doing now?’ “

Johnny Paycheck has lost his position as Poster Child for the disgruntled worker.  The country singer has been replaced by former JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater whose antics would have been really funny – in a movie.

As my boss, Allen Howell said, “I personally find it pitiful that a flight attendant who can’t take it anymore thinks it is OK to pull the emergency exit slide to leave the aircraft and his job all at the same time. It is even more frustrating that he is made out to be some kind of hero for doing what he did.  Everyday flight attendants get rude and sometimes extreme hostile treatment from frustrated passengers but two wrongs don’t make it right. What does it say for the state of the airline industry when it gets to this?  The stunt will cost the airline, JetBlue, thousands of dollars in damage and more importantly it was a reckless and unprofessional act that does not need to be glamorized. This could have easily turned bad and someone could have gotten hurt.”

Anyone who has worked in customer service for more than 20 minutes has had a fantasy of creating just such a scene as the one Slater did – publicly humiliating an adult for poor behavior, grabbing a cold beer and disappearing into the mist, fog or just plain slamming the door.  As a responsible, professional adult you leave it in the realm of fantasy.  Slater caused thousands of dollars in expenses when he deployed that slide.  Mechanics at JetBlue will have to repack the slide, which is a great deal more complicated than folding up a map and stowing in your glove compartment.  There are explosives and inspections involved.  That aircraft is now out of service until it can be made airworthy again. 

It’s not that I don’t understand his frustration and his anger at these passengers who, by some accounts, acted like spoiled children.  I experienced it first-hand when passengers threw credit cards, briefcases, garment bags and even a bag of brick samples at me; however, there are methods to handle this situation – specifically airport police.  For instance, when the passenger hit Slater with her luggage, she interfered with the ability of a crew member to perform his job function.  This is a federal offense, folks.  Rather than throwing a hissy fit, he could have had her arrested upon arrival in New York, or he could have had her removed from the aircraft in Pittsburgh, where the incident occurred.  He chose not to do that.  He chose to wait until the aircraft arrived at JFK and create a public scene and a potentially deadly situation.  His behavior could very well have injured someone on the ground. 

Even if he looked out of the window and didn’t see anyone before he deployed the slide, he couldn’t possibly have had a clear view of the whole area involved.  Stand at a third storey window and look down.  Can you see the foundation of the building?  No, you can’t.  And he couldn’t see anyone standing in the area where he was about to launch an emergency slide.  His behavior was impulsive and reckless, not professional.

Yet, as I write this, Slater’s childish temper tantrum has earned him over 150,000 fans on Facebook.  The number will likely be mind-boggling by the time you read this. 

As Allen said, “If  Mr. Slater wanted to quit he should have walked off the flight and turned in his notice and gone home.  Something is wrong with this society when we glorify this type behaviour with media fanfare  and a social media frenzy.  Whatever happened to professionalism even in the face of adverse conditions?”

A vastly expanding civilian Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) market is leading to the day when UAVs must be allowed to operate freely in the National Airspace System (NAS). The main obstacle preventing this from happening is the distrust of the ability for a UAV to avoid collisions with manned aircraft. There has been a vast amount of effort put into researching UAV Detect Sense and Avoid (DSA) systems with the hope that an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) can be achieved for unmanned compared to manned flight. The current debate is what type of DSA will provide the required level of safety to prevent increasing the hazard to manned aircraft operations.

There are many different types of DSA systems currently undergoing research, from visual cameras interpreted by humans to automatic detection systems incorporating lasers. ASTM International, an organization that develops industry consensus standards such as those that govern Light Sport Aircraft design, has released a standard (F2411-07) on the requirements for an Airborne DSA system that specifies the minimum capabilities of a DSA. However, this ASTM standard does not (and should not) mandate what type of system must be used.

The overriding question regarding what type of DSA will eventually be used is whether or not the pilot operating the vehicle should be “in the loop”. Can a UAV’s computer detect an aircraft and maneuver to avoid a collision automatically as effectively as a pilot on the ground could view a high resolution video screen and perform the same operation? There are many factors that must be considered before this question will be appropriately answered, such as pilot/computer response times and communication latency. However, a human has the ability to make decisions based on variables that may never have been identified as pertinent by a computer software engineer. Thus, a human interaction with the DSA system may not be the most “precise” option, but probably the most dynamic. Will we ever see 100% autonomous UAV operations in the NAS? Only time will tell.

Over the last two days we’ve looked at a few of the concerns and ramifications for pilots taking advantage of the amnesty offered.  We’ve outlined the immediate effects of claiming amnesty and contemplated some of the possible long-term effects.  What is the big picture, then?

A professional pilot has a huge amount of time and money invested in his career.  He probably has at least an undergraduate degree, has a few thousand hours of flight time (many of which he’s paid for himself), some type-ratings that he may have paid for, flight instruction certifications, air transport pilots certifications, etc., and he probably won’t make it to that single digit percentage of pilots making six figures.  To give over control of that career to someone in an office 700 miles away doesn’t sit well with pilots as a group.  There are too many examples of pilots being honest about transient health conditions, having their medicals revoked, being grounded and even losing their jobs.  Any kind of communication to the FAA about physical status is carefully considered since it’s much easier to get your ticket pulled than it is to get it reinstated.  

On the other hand, a pilot voluntarily puts himself under the authority of the FAA when he chooses this career.  In a conversation with Dr. Greg Pinnell, we discussed the differences in perception and treatment for a pilot who admits a drug or alcohol addiction and seeks treatment and one who fails a random drug test or breathalyzer.  The first is offered rehabilitation and continued employment.  The second is immediately released.  What’s the difference between the two pilots?

Dr. Pinnell suggested that it was maturity and discretion.  The pilot who admits a drug or an alcohol problem is mature enough to know that he needs help and oversight.  The pilot who just gets caught either doesn’t have the discretion to realize he has a problem or he simply doesn’t care.  Would you put your child or your mother on the plane with the second pilot?  I wouldn’t.

Now apply that same thought process to the pilot who admits that he has a condition – through no fault of his own – that can, if left untreated, cloud his judgment.  He seeks treatment and realizes that the nature of his condition may require on-going treatment and regular monitoring.  Because he recognizes that he has voluntarily put himself under the authority of the FAA and, thus, must abide by their regulations, he discloses both the condition and the treatment.

Do we or should we require some maturity and discretion in pilots?  We must, regardless of whether they fly a single-passenger Husky or a small-town-with-wings Boeing 777.

Having been in the industry and heard all of the nightmare stories of pilots’ livelihoods being threatened by hold-ups and foul-ups in bureaucracy, I can understand why a pilot would not want to report his diagnosis and course of treatment to the FAA.  However, when you remove sentiment and opinion for the equation, the bottom line is this:  if a person voluntarily puts themselves under the authority of some entity, he cannot abide by that entity’s rules only when they suit his own purposes.  So, in this case, if a person chooses the career of a pilot, he must abide by the FAA’s medical regulations no less than he must abide by their procedural ones.  If the forms to obtain an airman’s medical certificate ask about mental, chronic or other conditions, they must be completed truthfully.  And, as the FAA’s regional medical office pointed out, if a pilot continues a course of non-disclosure and the FAA somehow finds out about it, the FAA will come after him in criminal actions.

The purpose of this blog site is to provoke thoughts and conversation.  Sometimes, as I research and write, I challenge my own beliefs and original notions.  In general, I believe in minimal government intervention and interference, and I started writing this series with that belief firmly influencing my opinion on this subject.  After having spoken with professionals on both sides of the issue and gotten many points of view, I can’t say that I still hold that opinion quite as firmly.  Bear in mind, however, that I am not a pilot; so, sitting on the sidelines, throwing out an opinion is an easy thing for me to do. 

Depression is a serious illness that kills, whether it’s a short-term condition when the wheels come off of your life or a life-long struggle with physiological origins. It’s a health issue that, if present in anyone, must be addressed.  If it’s present in a pilot, it must be addressed on all appropriate levels.  As I’ve stated in my initial post on this subject, at some point we have to trust the government agencies in control of transportation or we have to stay home.  The costs of being wrong are just too high.

 As always, we welcome your questions, concerns and comments, whether identified or anonymous.

(previous installment)

Yesterday, we looked at some of the immediate concerns regarding taking advantage of the FAA’s amnesty offer for pilots who have been diagnosed with one of three kinds of depression and who are taking one of the four approved medications.  So now, that we’ve discussed a few of the immediate concerns, our focus shifts to long-term ramifications.

Ongoing issues

Several sources in administrative positions told me that a pilot’s confession of previous non-disclosure calls into question the ethics of the pilot.  For a pilot to claim amnesty under this policy change, he must have been successfully treated with the medication for at least 12 months.  This means that a pilot holding a first class medical has lied at least one time, likely more, in filling out paperwork with his Aviation Medical Examiner.  The pilot has perjured himself on a federal document, which is a federal offense.  It’s not unreasonable, then, for a supervisor to wonder, “If you’ve hidden this, what else are you hiding?”  “Will you be objective enough to remove yourself from flight status if you are unsafe to fly?” 

This kind of ethics question can undermine a pilot’s relationship with their current employer, no doubt, particularly if the relationship falls into the category of Less Than Warm and Fuzzy to begin with.  In a perfect world, it wouldn’t be an issue - the pilot’s denial of depression and treatment would be an event independent of any others.  But, we don’t live in that world.  We live in this one with all of our own human frailties, biases and prejudices as well as those of the people we work with and for.  And, even if a pilot’s current employer is enlightened enough to see depression as a condition to be treated rather than something to be feared or stigmatized, what about the next one?  Aviation is a notoriously fluid industry with companies starting up, failing and changing with a regularity that would alarm people in many other fields.  If a pilot has a diagnosis of major depressive disorder and takes Celexa daily for the rest of his life, what if he is passed over for a new position or for a promotion based on that medical waiver?  The pilot is not legally required to reveal the nature of his special waiver, but, in many circumstances, he may feel socially compelled to.  If that admission in itself is used to justify termination or stagnation, at the moment, it does not appear that the pilot has any recourse.  However, as I’ve said, HR rules are changing quickly and constantly; so, that issue may be addressed shortly either proactively or as the result of litigation.

Just as the private sector is filled with imperfect beings; so, is the FAA.  People lose files; they go on vacation; they shuffle the priorities of their work days.  Sometimes, in that process, a pilot’s file goes missing or it ends up at the bottom of the stack.  To the FAA agent in Oklahoma City, it’s a file folder.  To the pilot, it’s how he pays his mortgage and feeds his children.  To the one person, it’s all in a day’s work.  To the other, it’s the sharpest focal point of his life.  Most of us who have worked closely with pilots in an operational setting have either known personally or known of a pilot who has had a special waiver of some kind.  We’ve seen their process of dealing with it ranging from being a regular struggle to being a constant nightmare.  It’s no wonder the pilots are expressing concern and even some distrust of the FAA.  These pilots are under the care of their own physicians for this diagnosis and treatment regimen.  Many of them see the FAA’s actions as redundant, intrusive, or even a threat to their livelihoods.

While disclosure may appear to be a threat to a pilot’s livelihood, there are consequences to be considered if that path is to be followed.  The FAA’s Regional Flight Surgeon’s office pointed out that if a pilot chooses the path of non-disclosure and he is involved in an accident or an incident, toxicology tests will reveal the presence of anti-depressants.  Regardless of the cause of the event, his non-disclosure leaves him especially vulnerable to criminal actions by the FAA and to civil actions by passengers or even the company he works for.  If the accident is fatal, his family may not receive appropriate insurance or death benefits and his estate could be targeted in civil actions due to his perjury.  So, the pilot has protected his career in the short-term, but left his family in a real mess.

On the one hand, you have a person who feels like he must lie to protect his job, his reputation and his status.  On the other hand, you have a government agency with the right and the responsibility of oversight.  At this early stage of this new special waiver, we’re seeing huge amounts of wariness on the one side and an inability to offer concrete assurances on the other.  Until those two sides can get closer together, I’m not sure how successful the program will be in getting pilots to open up about their conditions, furthering one of the stated goals of the policy which is to remove the stigma from depression.

So far, we’ve considered the immediate effects of claiming amnesty and some of the longer term ramifications.  Tomorrow, we will conclude this series by looking at the issue as a whole.

As always, we welcome your questions, concerns and comments, whether identified or anonymous.

(previous installment)      (next installment)

In a post on April 11, I mentioned the FAA’s April 5 policy shift on the legality of pilots taking certain anti-depressants.  I anticipated some chatter, and was surprised at how little there was on the internet.  However, some real activity took place behind the scenes in phone calls and emails directly to me.   My original thought was, “Great!  Treatment options for a serious condition.”  I naively missed the complexities of the issue.  While my main focus was on the actual treatment of the condition, pilots, employers and human resources professionals had some very real concerns and some good questions about the disclosure of it:

• How long can a pilot expect to be off work while the feds in Oklahoma City monitor him/her? 
• Will a company be required to hold the pilot’s position for his return?  Will his job be protected?
• How will companies feel when one of their pilots admits to taking anti-depressants?
• What are the potential long-term effects of this declaration in a pilot’s relationship with his current employer / future employers / the feds?

 Immediate issues

For the answers to the first two questions, I turned to Dr. Gregory Pinnell, a board certified family practitioner licensed in Michigan, and to a representative from the FAA Southern Region’s Flight Surgeon’s. Dr. Pinnell is an EAA Aeromedical Council member, senior aviation medical examiner, Flight Surgeon for the USAFR and an instrument-rated private pilot.  He also teaches for Western Michigan University College of Aviation. 

The FAA is offering an amnesty period of six months during which pilots who have already been taking one of the four approved medications for one of the three approved diagnoses.  According to Dr. Pinnell, pilots who take advantage of that amnesty period and who have been stable on one of the approved medications can expect to be grounded for between one and three months while his medical case is reviewed by an HIMS-trained Aviation Medical Examiner.  A pilot with a new prescription for one of the medications can expect to being grounded for one year while his conditioned is monitored.  While each pilot’s case will be examined and considered on its own merits, Dr. Pinnell believes that the one year mandatory grounding may be too conservative.  In a study mentioned by the FAA as evidence for this new policy, patients achieved stabilized conditions in 20 to 36 weeks, which Dr. Pinnell believes to be a more reasonable time-frame.  He believes that this somewhat arbitrary number will be questioned at the upcoming Aerospace Medical Association annual meeting, to be held in Phoenix from May 9 to 13, 2010.  Each pilot must show successful treatment in order for his medical certificate to be reinstated.  If this pharmaceutical course of treatment is discontinued, a pilot’s medical certificate may be reinstated three months after cessation of treatment with no evidence of recurrence of the depressive symptoms.  Dr. Pinnell stressed that, at this time, there are only three depression diagnoses and four drugs which qualify the pilot for a medical waiver.  Neither every depressed condition nor every antidepressant qualifies. More detailed information and required documentation may be found on an FAA Q&A site.

So, with the prospect of being grounded for one to twelve months, any reasonable pilot would be concerned about his job security, particularly in this climate where many, many pilots are either unemployed or employed in non-flying positions.

I spoke with Dr. Pinnell, the FAA’s Southern Region Flight Surgeon’s office and several Human Resource professionals about that very question.  The answer is that the policy shift does not contain any kind of job protection provision along the lines of those in the FMLA, as covered by the ADA, or as present in Employee Assistance Programs.  While the FAA “expects” airlines to treat these special issuances just as they would other medical waiver, there seems to be no requirement at this time.  However, Human Resource laws, rules and guidelines change at head-spinning speed; so, probably the safest course of action for any pilot taking advantage of the amnesty or with a new prescription is to check with your human resources department.  Your company may go further than the law requires, but it’s not a bad idea to read through the current requirements of the FMLA, the ADA or your EAP.  If you have short or long-term disability coverage or loss of license disability coverage, you might want to review those policies, as well.  One source pointed out that pilots must remember their rights.  They are not required to disclose the nature of the special waiver – just that they have one.  It could be for depression, diabetes or any other condition covered by the special waiver program.  The pilots I spoke with reminded me that this might work in an airline or large fractional setting, but in a flight department with four or five line pilots, the question of the nature of the waiver is harder to dodge and may cause further issues on a personal level, regardless of HIPPA.

This is a thorny issue all the way around, to be sure.  The bottom line on how long a pilot can expect to be grounded is one to twelve months.  He’ll need to do a great deal of homework with his HR department and disability insurance carriers to determine employment and fiscal issues.  Tomorrow we will look at the longer range issues.

 As always, we welcome your questions, concerns and comments, whether identified or anonymous.

A couple of months ago, my son announced that he “needed” this particular red sweatshirt.  It was absolutely vital that he have it.  In fact, civilization as we know it might actually end, should he not get this shirt.  Since I know that he has a closet full of sweatshirts, albeit none of them red, I didn’t see this as a crisis of need, more like a crisis of want.  In the interest of saving civilization, I told him that we could pick that up on our next trip to the mall; however, he would need to pay for it out of money he’d earned.  Hold the phones!  Money he’d earned?!  Magically, the crisis evaporated; the sweatshirt was no longer needed.  Civilization was saved.

Last week, US Airways CEO Doug Parker announced that maybe the airlines don’t need the NextGen ATC system they’ve been clamoring for.  ATW Online quotes Parker as saying at the carrier’s media day in Phoenix,”There is not a capacity issue in the United States right now as it relates to air traffic control, so putting in place NextGen ATC, while it makes all the sense in the world, isn’t going to save the airlines dramatic amounts. . .So our position is so long as we have to pay for [flight deck equipment], we prefer not to have it.”  And a recent Washington Post editorial indicates that US Airways is not alone in it’s unwillingness to foot the bill to retrofit their fleets with the necessary equipment.  In a rebuttal to the editorial, the Air Transport Association’s James May says that the article misses the point, that airlines are already paying billions in taxes into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and that the FAA is the one who will realize multiple millions in savings; so, the government should be the one to pay for aircraft upgrades.

The logic eludes me on this one.  Why should the government pay to upgrade a private asset, even if the upgrade is to allow the asset to communicate with a government infrastructure?  The funds in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund won’t cover the costs of building, launching and maintaining all of the satellites required for the improved ATC system.  Personnel retraining, alone, is going to be a massive government expense.  In the end, overall savings will eventually cover these costs.  The airlines have lobbied for NextGen implementation saying that the more direct routes will reduce fuel costs, allow for better fleet utilization and, perhaps even reduce the number of ATC delays, allowing the scheduled airlines to operate more efficiently.  They should, therefore, be able to operate more profitably.  May doesn’t believe that airlines should pay for decreased government costs, but he somehow thinks it makes sense to require that the government (or better yet, general aviation through user fees) should have to pay for decreased airline costs?  Again, I fail to see the logic.

Interestingly, the Washington Post editorial points out that, in 2007, Southwest Airlines was the first carrier to commit to using its own money to retrofit its aircraft and that more than 60% of their fleet will be NextGen ready within the next few weeks.  Who has more credibility here - US Airways, a carrier that has lost money hand over fist for the past several years or Southwest Airlines, a carrier that has used innovative practices to turn a profit during the same time period?

Whether it’s a teen-ager, a corporation, or a government, it’s always easy to spend other people’s money.  You can easily measure commitment to a belief or project when you see how many of their own resources an entity is willing to use to see it through.

In this case, it looks like only the airlines that are interested in operating even smarter are the ones that are already the most profitable.

We recently posted an article on the new pilot duty rules that will address pilot fatigue issues. Hopefully, the Obama administration will take the politics out of it and focus purely on safety. That remains to be seen as they have involved the Presidents Office of Management and Budgeting in the process which, in my opinion, should be left up to the safety and flight operations experts in the industry and the FAA.  

I asked our Director of Fight Operations, Dwayne McMurry, to weigh in on the subject. He has been a pilot operating under Far 135 (Air Charter Rules) for 25 plus years and has served in a management capacity for FAR 135 operations with our company for close to 20 years. Dwayne holds an ATP with 8000 plus flight hours and type ratings in Learjet, Lear 45, Cessna 650 and 525, and Beechcraft BE300.  He continues to fly as a Captain and manages the flight operations for our company; so, he has perspective from both management and pilot viewpoints.

Here are Dwayne’s thoughts about the issue of duty time and pilot fatigue:

For the most part, regulations today only regulate what a flight crewmember does while on duty.  Rules for drug and alcohol use are in place regulating one’s actions outside of a duty period; so, they ultimately affect the periods during company duty assignments.  To my knowledge, there is no pre departure test that can be administered that indicates the level of rest a pilot has received.  

No set of regulations will ever eliminate fatigue in the cockpit.  Mitigation of fatigue starts with the pilot.  This should be complemented by a set of reasonable regulations.   A pilot should be professional and understand that he/she must present themselves well-rested, ready and able to perform all duties associated with fight, in both mind and body.  Does this mean commuting across the nation within 24 hours of a flight should be prohibited?   Maybe; maybe not.  What is the difference between commuting across the country, then reporting to work, or returning home on a flight across the country from a vacation and reporting to work the next morning for a flight?  It’s not about the commute.  It’s about the rest needed before flight. 

Then the big question becomes: what is rest?  Time away from the job is not necessarily rest.  I’ve heard more than one person say they had to come back to work after a vacation in order to get some rest.

Commuting … There are several stresses involved when a pilot commutes to work.  The pilots that commute know all too well that the airlines they fly are sometimes unreliable.  They are often late, sometimes flights are canceled, and, quite frequently, they are full or overbooked.  A pilot riding Space Available is typically placed in a state of stress hours if not days before ever reporting to work.   What time do I have to leave to catch a flight in order to make it to work and how soon before I have to fly will I arrive?  Can I get on a particular flight; will it be on time?  What if I can’t get on the flight; is there an alternate flight I can take?  What do I do if all my plans fail?  These are all questions that may go through the mind of a commuting pilot.  Needless to say, if he doesn’t make it to work, his job may be on the line.  A pilot may leave early enough, even a day before he/she is scheduled to fly, but by doing so could bring on stress because of the added burden placed on him/her by their spouse because they aren’t home.  It all adds up. And may I add that this will only get more stressful as airline load factors rise with the reduction in capacity of the system. When load factors exceed 80% the reliability of getting to work on your own airline is going to become increasingly risky.

The crutches we lean on ….I’ve heard several comments lately from other flight crewmembers as to how they combat fatigue.  Snacking, energy drinks, coffee, naps haveall been suggested to combat fatigue during a flight or a series of flights.  These really don’t combat fatigue; they simply mask it.  Before the flight, plenty of rest and nutritious food seem to be a reasonable preventative measure for fatigue.  Another crutch seldom mentioned is technology.  In today’s modern aircraft, the technology we have at our disposal relieves the fatigue of having to hand fly the aircraft, shoot instrument approaches, calculate performance, diagnose and solve system malfunctions.  We have more information at our disposal in the way of weather reporting, airport information, communications and automated aircraft systems monitoring than ever before.  When used properly, it all reduces fatigue during flight. 

Some of the things CFM does to mitigate fatigue ….We require our pilots to live within 45 minutes of the airport.  Fatigue from commuting is not an issue with us.  We fly 99% of all our operations with two crewmembers.  This reduces the workload associated with a flight, thus reducing fatigue.  We plan all our trips to begin and end within a 14-hour period.  We are realistic in our scheduling.  We consider that a pilot who has been on duty from 10 pm to 6 am may not be rested and ready to report for duty at 4pm that day even though he/she is legal to do so.  We provide day rooms for our crews during long days.  We provide a full staff of personnel including maintenance, dispatch and management, which are available to the pilot anytime to assist in the decision making process.  We are aware that major life changes such as the birth of a child have an effect on a crewmember’s performance,;so, we try to be flexible when it comes to these events with time off.  Ultimately, we give the pilot the final say in determining whether he/she is rested and ready to fly, even when the regulations say they are legal to fly. 

I appreciate Dwayne’s input from a professional pilot and flight department manager’s perspective.  

As I have stated in previous posts, I am a free market capitalist and believe the government needs to stay out of the way in most areas of business such as legislating whether you can charge for carry on bags. That is a market issue that needs to be left up to the airlines and their customers. Nobody gets hurt if Spirit Airlines charges a fee for carry on baggage.  However, when it comes to regulations of our industry that center on safety, the government needs to provide well thought out regulations that are evenly enforced across the industry. We are operating on a 60-year-old set of rules that are vague in their wording and no longer adequately address safety and the issue of pilot fatigue. The technology and capabilities of today’s aircraft and the air transportation system make this a new day and the new day needs a new and better set of rules. The pilots and traveling public deserve no less.   

What do you have to say about this?

Andy Paztor of the Wall Street Journal in an April 22 Article writes:

“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.”

I find it interesting that the administration is suddenly concerned about the cost of the new duty rules and the White House OMB is now in the decision tree for rules that affect the safety of flight for airlines.

What expertise does the OMB have in areas of safety?  

The committee formed by the FAA to come up with a new rule set was comprised of FAA, labor union representatives and industry representatives including experts in the areas of safety and fatigue. It would seem that this group would have a better grasp of the issues at hand than the OMB would.

I guess the concern is that this will cost the airlines billions. But what we all know is that the cost will be passed on to the traveling public, anyway.  We need to be prepared to pay more money to fly if we want to keep it safe. The public needs to get used to the idea that maybe it is worth a few more dollars per ticket to have a safe crew up front guiding the aircraft they are riding on.   

The current rules for crew duty time have been in place since the 1940s when aircraft could not fly the distances they fly today. The airlines of the 40s were not the same airlines we fly on today.  One would hope that we have learned a few things about safety, not just with aircraft design, but also with the human factors involved in flight.

Originally the FAA was prepared to issue a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) this month; but, now, that has been pushed out to this Fall. I wonder how long this will drag out as the wheels of bureaucracy grind?  

Is Safety on Hold?  

Just ask the stranded business travelers and tourists in Europe!

The Icelandic volcano (with the name that is hard to spell, much less pronounce) causing disruption to air travel in Europe has brought the importance of air travel to the forefront. Thousands if not hundreds of thousands of travelers were stranded trying to get home to or from Europe. Business and leisure travelers alike were grounded with no options for travel if they were leaving the continent.  Even U.S. President Obama was forced to miss the State funeral of Polish President Lech Kaczynski as a result of the ash.

Europe has the world’s most developed transportation infrastructure with high speed trains, excellent highway systems and airports, but when you are traveling to and from the continent you still have to cross water. That only happens by boat or air. The boat takes days and the air – a few hours!

The system of air travel not only employs millions across the world but it also supports the global economy by connecting businesses across the globe and by bringing tourists to many economies reliant on tourism for economic health.

Reuters News reports that “the International Air Transport Association (IATA) estimates that the crisis caused by a volcanic ash cloud above Europe cost airlines revenues of more than $1.7 billion by Tuesday.”

This is just the direct economic impact to the airlines, and in no way considers the impact to the business travelers who were stranded on one side of the pond or the other. What about the lost productivity? Even with today’s knowledge of human productivity values, there is probably no way to measure this cost; but, common sense says that  it has to be immense.

On a small scale,  and in terms that directly relate to my business, our Vice President of Business Development, Bill Minkoff, had planned to be in Prague this week at a meeting of business aviation companies. There is no way to tell how many opportunities to connect with aviation entrepreneurs in Eastern Europe we missed because of the disruption. Bill had hoped to get valuable face time with our Eastern European counterparts, making connections for future opportunities. He had also planned to stop for a meeting in Italy. The Italian meeting may be rescheduled for a few weeks from now when things settle down; but, the Prague trip (and its opportunities) is just gone.

When I think about the value of airlines and the air mass transit system, I believe that their greatest value is in their international travel options. Even with all of the problems of the airline system as a whole, international routes are the most effective and efficient in moving people, and they are the most difficult to replace with an alternate form of travel when things go wrong.

News sources commented that private jet travel soared during the shut down of airline travel since private jet operators had the flexibility to fly out of airports that were not closed by the ash and to take advantage of small windows of weather opportunity that the airlines, with their inflexible systems, could not. The charter operators in some regions may have gotten a boost from this crisis; but, even with their increased activity, they could not even begin to meet the needs of the stranded travelers.

Richard Branson said in an interview on National Public Radio that he feels confident that the European Union aerospace authorities will come up with solutions to mitigate the impact should this or other volcanoes create trouble in the future. The biggest key is identifying how much ash can be in the air before safety of flight is compromised. Based on the losses of the past week and the possibility of a recurrence, I am confident that EASA will research this and come up with good data to avoid unnecessary grounding of flights.  

Here in the United States, we can always get in our cars and drive.  In some cases, we might not spend much more time driving than we would have if we had flown. On 9/11, when all flights were grounded, I was stuck in Pennsylvania just south of Pittsburgh. We were fortunate to be able to get a car and made it home in 12 hours.  The same principle applies in Europe if you are staying on the continent.  The trip may take longer, but driving is still an option.

In today’s global economy, air travel is irreplaceable when it comes to moving people around the planet.

A volcano eruption on an island nation in the middle of the North Atlantic would seem to be a geographically isolated event.  In the past week, we  have found out differently.  We must take better care of improving the system of airline travel  we have created over the past 75 years if we want to prevent an economic crisis caused by another “isolated event.”