Jblue Testing Pilot Performance Over 8 Hours

[skyflyr69]

my neighbor says JBLUE will soon be testing the "stress" /health levels of its pilots flying transcon to determine if they can go beyond 8 hours in one day.
is this true? if so and JBLUE convinces the FAA that it is safe then i see pilots being allowed to fly more than 8 hours in a day.
talk about productivity. wow!

 

[downline7]

my neighbor says JBLUE will soon be testing the "stress" /health levels of its pilots flying transcon to determine if they can go beyond 8 hours in one day.
is this true? if so and JBLUE convinces the FAA that it is safe then i see pilots being allowed to fly more than 8 hours in a day.
talk about productivity. wow!

The primary reason for it is to allow the pilots to do *daytime* transcon turns like the F/A's do. The F/A's do transcon turns to SAN, ONT, LGB, LAS, OAK, and for example JFK-DEN-BOS, JFK-LGB-IAD etc. (SEA, and SMF are layovers only) If they can allow the pilots to do the same it would be cost effective to the company (no hotel to pay for, less per diem, etc.) and they would be super productive for them. 8 a month would be between 80-95 hours or so depending on the month.

 

[BlueFlyer21]

jetBlue is not the one pushing for this change, it is the PILOT GROUP. I'd venture to say that jetblue's pilot group is the one of the only airlines pilot group pushing for this rule. jetBlue pilots want the change for themselves, but cannot see the ramifactions this change would have industry wide. Even if jetblue gets a "waiver" every other airline will jump on the band wagon.

I think generally it is a bad idea - and will not come to fruition.

 

[mweiss]

Provided there isn't a negative safety consequence, what is bad about this?

 

[iflyjetz]

Provided there isn't a negative safety consequence, what is bad about this?

But there is negative safety consequence to increasing the number of flight hours in a day. ... one need only look at the AMR fatal accident in Little Rock to understand how a longer duty results in greater fatigue.
For those arguing that the duty day will not increase, I say hogwash. In a perfect world, there would be no delays on the transcon turns. But this is not a perfect world. Rules are not and should not be designed for a perfect world.

Step back for a moment and think about the proposed rule change and apply it to any job. Let's take an office worker. The typical day is 9 hours with one hour lunch break. Increase that to 11 hours with a one hour lunch break. Do you really think that someone is still operating at or near peak efficiency those last two hours of work? Do you really want a tired pilot shooting an approach in dicey weather? I don't.

 

[mweiss]

I agree, but isn't that what the testing is for? To see if there is a safety issue?

 

[iflyjetz]

I agree, but isn't that what the testing is for? To see if there is a safety issue?

The problem with 'testing' is that it will not account for all conditions, nor is it likely to include the lowest common deminator.
I've flown some damned long missions and had very long duty days in the AF; to the point where I have fallen asleep after a mission and did not wake up for another 26 hours. The safety margin was minimal; the higher risks involved in those operations should not migrate to commercial avaition; it is a recipe for disaster. There were some missions where I felt 'but for the grace of God go I.' I've never felt that way in commercial aviation.
Is it REALLY neccessary to push the envelope on this? Why not just use augmented crews, as is currently authorized under FAA rules?

 

[AA80Driver]

I agree, but isn't that what the testing is for? To see if there is a safety issue?

There have been tests...Nasa Ames Fatigue Countermeasures (Dr. Mark Rosekind). Whoever is leading this charge should take a look at the work they've already done.

 

[dgs]

Rest assured that the team working this project has all the NASA information and more at their fingertips. They have studied it very carefully. In fact, that research is exactly the basis for some of the things we are looking at.

 

[AA80Driver]

Rest assured that the team working this project has all the NASA information and more at their fingertips. They have studied it very carefully. In fact, that research is exactly the basis for some of the things we are looking at.

Who is the "team" looking at this? What are their qualifications in the human factors area?

I'd be interested in how they apply Nasa's research in this area. I'd probably be more interested in how this concept could packaged in regulation so that it promoted safety across air carrier operations.

 

[Diesel8]

AA80Driver,

Though I do not know all the people on this project, I do know, that what they are trying to do is commendable.

All I ask, is that you give them a chance, to come up with some solutions. We all know, that the FAR's and safety does not always go hand in hand. Who knows, it may even end up improving both of our lives.

 

[AAviator]

And totally screwing the commuter guy who will fly 10 instead of 8 legs a day.

 

[Diesel8]

AAviator,

Actually, what they are trying to do, is study fattigue. In the end, that may very well mean, that the study finds that flying eight legs a day is to be discouraged. Of course, if that was the case, would you be willing to let the Eagle guys fly only six legs a day and how would the Eagle
guys feel about that?

 

[Farley]

And totally screwing the commuter guy who will fly 10 instead of 8 legs a day.

Nice logic flow. I'm with you, I see exactly where you came up with this scenario...ok, I'm lying. What are you talking about?

 

[AA80Driver]

Nice logic flow. I'm with you, I see exactly where you came up with this scenario...ok, I'm lying. What are you talking about?

I think that many of us would agree that the archaic rules governing fatigue in this industry could use a complete overhaul. That said, I'm skeptical that a specific exemption to the existing rules would end up enhancing or maintaining the current level of safety in the industry. It may be that the current mgmt team at JB would apply such authority responsibly, but other mgmt (and potentially future JB mgmt) will not be so inclined when safety clashes with financial performance. I see it as a slippery slope.

I am interested in learning more about what JB proposes, who's doing it, their qualifications and the science behind it.

It would be noble if JB & SWA used their leverage as the media darlings to push for a complete overhaul of flight duty regs...something thats stagnated for years due to ATA opposition.