At the Aviation subcommittee of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearings this week, pilot fatigue was front and center. Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV), committee chairman started off the hearings auspiciously with his prepared statement.
Stories of pilots anonymously admitting to nodding off, or even a case last year where both pilots fell asleep while flying a commercial aircraft on a short flight, highlight the need to confront this issue directly and immediately. It is just not acceptable to imagine putting your entire family on a flight where there is any possibility that the flight crew has not received enough rest.
The American people expect the pilots flying their plane to be completely awake and alert. It is about safety plain and simple – the safety of our airways, the safety of our pilots and most importantly the safety of the traveling public.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Texas), the ranking member, hinted at the complexity of the coming hearings.
While seemingly a simple topic, fatigue is actually a very multi-faceted problem that will take a complex approach to properly address, especially given the varied type of operations airlines conduct. The difference between long haul international flights and multi-leg domestic flights is quite significant, but never-the-less needs to be addressed.
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), the subcommittee chairman, noted the nation’s poor efforts at dealing with pilot fatigue. His opening statement indicated that these questions have been at the top of the National Transportation and Safety Board’s (NTSB) “most wanted list” for 19 years, since the list was created, the current rules have been in effect for 40-50 years with little change and that fatigue has been cited as a contribution to 20 aircraft accidents since 1989.
These hearings are a part of a series of safety hearings called for by the aviation subcommittee after the Colgan Air tragedy in Buffalo on Feb. 12, 2009.
The committee lined up witnesses from the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the Air Transport Association (ATA) and the Flight Safety Foundation.
The interplay between the FAA the pilots unions and the airlines and fatigue experts was fascinating. Pilots needs and wishes and the airline needs often conflict. Both organizations claim that they are acting strictly in the interest of safety, but from different points of view. The FAA in the meantime often serves as a referee between the airlines and the pilots.
ATA wants as cautious approach to changes a possible. The pilots’ association claimed in its testimony that the industry and the FAA have already been far too cautious. ALPA claims it is time for action.
We receive daily reports of scheduling that causes pilots to be virtual “zombies.” The domestic flight and duty rules were last amended in 1985 with the promise that the FAA would revisit these rules in two years. Twenty-five years later we are still waiting to review them.
That date, 1985, is not a misprint. These issues have been discussed and studied for two decades. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued 70 fatigue-related safety recommendations which were the result of major accident investigations, special investigations, or safety studies that identified operator fatigue as a factor,” since 1989.
Even more astounding, according to the ALPA testimony, is the fact that
The current rules for International and Supplemental Operations were promulgated in 1954 when the DC-3 aircraft was state-of-the-art. At that time, it was not uncommon to carry a radio operator and mechanic on the aircraft. Today, the Airbus 380 airplane carries 600+ passengers 8,200 miles at a speed of 560 miles per hour. Times and equipment have changed but the flight and duty time rules have not.
Basically, the airlines and pilots are coming at this from different sides of the table. The FAA is stuck in the middle.
Airlines want to squeeze as much flying out of their pilots as possible for the salaries they are paid, claiming efficiency and lower prices for consumers. Pilots, or course, want to have as many limits as possible on the airlines’ definition of their duty day, claiming passenger safety.
Airlines want as long a lead-time as possible before any changes are enacted because of “new policies requiring programming and training.” Pilots want quick actions that mitigate fatigue factors as soon as possible.
The subcommittee hearing added in the witness from the Flight Safety Foundation discussing a more effective fatigue risk management system based on science with fewer fixed rules and more flexible responsibility from the both airlines and the pilots. Unfortunately flexibility can not be legislated and such a free-form approach doesn’t seem to be the likely outcome of the discussions between the FAA, pilots and the airlines.
There are plenty of aspects to this pilot fatigue matrix that need examination. One ironic kink in pilot’s pay has lowly-paid regional pilots flying far more stressful duty days than highly-paid long-distance international pilots. Because seniority is everything for the union pilot, the more experience a pilot has, the fewer take-offs and landings that pilot has to make and the higher the pilot’s pay goes. It is counter-intuitive, but a fact of life.
Testimony of the Flight Safety Foundation noted this problem of lower pay for higher workloads.
Another area that calls for more research is that of high-frequency/high-cycle operations. An eight-hour work day means two different things for the ultra-long range operator and the regional operator. Multiple take offs and landings over that time period can lead to a higher level of fatigue due to the higher work load activities.
After operating under rules promulgated back in 1954, it appears that the FAA is ready to announce a new set of rules. Originally the proposal was to be issued at the end of this year, however, during this hearing, the FAA announced that the rulemaking will delayed another month. It is now expected to be released at the end of January 2010, then opened for comments.
Another change has been the rewriting of the International Civil Aviation Organization, (ICAO) regulations that the U.S. is bound to follow. Our current rules, according to all the players at the hearings, are simply not based on science and therefore do not comply with the ICAO standard.
Subcommittee Chairman Sen. Dorgan, was insistent that the FAA move on these regulations quickly. His displeasure with even the 30-day delay announced by the authority was clear.
Between international treaties and a Senate watchdog doing its jog, it appears that changes to fatigue rules and regulations are finally on their way.
Pingback: Quick Roundup « A Coffee and a Pipe
Pingback: uberVU - social comments