US carriers contest pilot rest rules on ULH

[dagger]

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/ar...5187&Symbol=CAL

In the Wall Street Journal story, this pertains to routes where flights may exceed a 16-hour threshold. AA and CO argue that the rule should not apply to routes that routinely involve flights under 16 hours and only occasionally exceed the 16-hour limit.

Delta agreed to a two-day break on such routes while AA and CO are arguing that one day is sufficient because these flights are double crewed to begin with.

[Guest rattler]

It would seem to me that on a 16hour + flight with time zone changes, it would only be prudent to give the crew a 2 day rest.

As a passenger, who has conducted business trips with only a limited rest period (time zone + ) before entering my meetings, I can attest to the negative effects of limited rest coupled with a major time zone change.

Pushing the fatigue envelope is not wise.

[dagger]

It would seem to me that on a 16hour + flight with time zone changes, it would only be prudent to give the crew a 2 day rest.

As a passenger, who has conducted business trips with only a limited rest period before entering my meeting, I can attest to the negative effects of limited rest coupled with a major time zone change.

Pushing the fatigue envelope is not wise.

That may be so, but the issue seems to be more about trying to reconcile different situations. Depending on which airport a flight to Mumbai originates, it could routinely exceed a 16-hour threshold, or only occasionally.

[handyman]

It would seem to me that on a 16hour + flight with time zone changes, it would only be prudent to give the crew a 2 day rest.

As a passenger, who has conducted business trips with only a limited rest period before entering my meeting, I can attest to the negative effects of limited rest coupled with a major time zone change.

Pushing the fatigue envelope is not wise.

I don't know if you have done many ULH flights with a 15/16 hour time-zone change but I can assure you that a 48 hour break makes it much more difficult to recover back home. I know AC does almost minimum rest in HK and that is not desirable either! We do about a 30 hour layover and I must say it's pretty much perfect for a balance between rest and recovery of jet-lag when home.

[handyman]

In the Wall Street Journal story, this pertains to routes where flights may exceed a 16-hour threshold. AA and CO argue that the rule should not apply to routes that routinely involve flights under 16 hours and only occasionally exceed the 16-hour limit.

We use 10% of the flights as a rule to determine if changes are needed. IE. if less than 10% of flights exceed the limit then we use Captains discretion to extend up to a possible max of 3 hours. If it's only occasional, I feel it's a good compromise between crew limits and operational requirements.

[dagger]

We use 10% of the flights as a rule to determine if changes are needed.  IE. if less than 10% of flights exceed the limit then we use Captains discretion to extend up to a possible max of 3 hours.  If it's only occasional, I feel it's a good compromise between crew limits and operational requirements.

AA is arguing that on its ORD-DEL route, it exceeds 16 hours only one sixth of the time. I don't know if that means one flight per week, or regularly during a given season. Mumbai aside, the longest route in question appears to be Newark-Hong Kong where CO says it mostly manages to get in under 16 hours. The rest issue aside for a moment which is important, part of the issue in dispute seems to be whether 16 hours is an absolute, or as per your policy, something for which a modest number of exceptions is tolerated. The other issue is a question of whether the US will have a uniform policy, or one which might disadvantage one hub vs another. For example, were DL to fly Atlanta-Shanghai, it would trigger the ULH limit while Chicago-Shanghai doesn't, giving one carrier an advantage over another. AC, having more northerly hubs, might gain an edge over more southerly hubs. For example, as I read the great circle mapper, Toronto-Hong Kong is about 250 miles shorter than Newark-Hong Kong, meaning AC would not trigger a limit as often as CO flying to HKG.

The third issue appears to be one of rule-making. Instead of following a practice of proposing a rule, entertaining discussion, putting out a proposed rule, entertaining comment, and then issuing a final rule, the FAA appears to have seized on a precedent with DL and tried to apply it retroactively to other carriers.

[handyman]

AA is arguing that on its ORD-DEL route, it exceeds 16 hours only one sixth of the time. I don't know if that means one flight per week, or regularly during a given season. Mumbai aside, the longest route in question appears to be Newark-Hong Kong where CO says it mostly manages to get in under 16 hours. The rest issue aside for a moment which is important, part of the issue in dispute seems to be whether 16 hours is an absolute, or as per your policy, something for which a modest number of exceptions is tolerated. The other issue is a question of whether the US will have a uniform policy, or one which might disadvantage one hub vs another. For example, were DL to fly Atlanta-Shanghai, it would trigger the ULH limit while Chicago-Shanghai doesn't, giving one carrier an advantage over another. AC, having more northerly hubs, might gain an edge over more southerly hubs. For example, as I read the great circle mapper, Toronto-Hong Kong is about 250 miles shorter than Newark-Hong Kong, meaning AC would not trigger a limit as often as CO flying to HKG.

The third issue appears to be one of rule-making. Instead of following a practice of proposing a rule, entertaining discussion, putting out a proposed rule, entertaining comment, and then issuing a final rule, the FAA appears to have seized on a precedent with DL and tried to apply it retroactively to other carriers.

1/6th would exceed our 10% rule and trigger a need for changes however, we use a 18 hour limit for a 4man crew vice 16 hours.

[Dork]

I have to laugh. Most normal folks get tired after a 1 hr timezone change. How did the family do on the last "spring forward clock change" this month ?

Try 14 hr timezone changes, poor food, noise, and other pressures and see how you feel. Most folks couldn't handle it even if they were carried and pampered for the whole pairing.

Let's just squeeze another dime out of the operation and see what happens. Who needs pay, a pension, crew rest, well trained crews, a good aircraft and days off.

Bang once there is an aircraft prang where is Nigel that bean counting airline executive anyway when you need him. Oh yeah comfortably tucked in his mansion's bed dreaming of scams.. er stock options.

Reminds me of a great retired USAF Pilot I used to get aerobatic training from. He would always say before we got into the bird..."Just remember...this thing can kill us today if we let it." He never lost respect for aviation.

Nigel and his types have lost respect for the aircraft and those who fly them. It is all about the almighty buck now.

One bean... two beans.... Bunker Time

[Guest rattler]

I don't know if you have done many ULH flights with a 15/16 hour time-zone change but I can assure you that a 48 hour break makes it much more difficult to recover back home. I know AC does almost minimum rest in HK and that is not desirable either! We do about a 30 hour layover and I must say it's pretty much perfect for a balance between rest and recovery of jet-lag when home.

Experience based on trips to SIN and KUL ex YVR with connections (same day) in NRT or HKG. Long days, short sleep periods.

[Guest prob30]

With respect to the physiological limits of the human body, all due respect dagger, but what does the location of airlines' hubs have to do with rest on ULH operations? Can we just for once allow the safety of the passengers to trump the political implications of a particular cutoff hour because it may or may not 1/6 of the time inconvenience a carrier? 10 years hence it will be a moot point anyway as the airlines in question will have no doubt consolodated.

Let's stick with the best, safest rule and worry about the economic implications afterward..or let's maybe not. Flight safety should not be only in case of profitability! Have we learned nothing?!

[handyman]

Experience based on trips to SIN and KUL ex YVR with connections (same day) in NRT or HKG. Long days, short sleep periods.

then you know how the cronic fatigue sets in and lingers for a long time. Like I said, a 48 hour layover makes the fatigue last longer when I get home IMO.

I so agree with Dork...I hear people often complain about a 2-3 hour time zone change jet-lag. What a joke!

I often say how easy our job is but...the fatigue and poor eating/sleep habits takes years off our lives IMO. ULH is not a job to carry to the 60's unless your retirement plan is to die at 61-62.

[UpperDeck]

And everyone knows that it was easy to party until 3:00 am and be at work bright eyed and bushy tailed at 7:00 am (same day!) when you were 20----not so easy at 35 and impossible at 50.

So---why aren't there studies that examine whether long-haul flights MIGHT be more safely operated by younger pilots? Is the prevailing interest safety---or preserving access to bigger metal?

[Guest rattler]

And everyone knows that it was easy to party until 3:00 am and be at work bright eyed and bushy tailed at 7:00 am (same day!) when you were 20----not so easy at 35 and impossible at 50.

So---why aren't there studies that examine whether long-haul flights MIGHT be more safely operated by younger pilots? Is the prevailing interest  safety---or preserving access to bigger metal?

Now if you could only combine the resilience of youth with the years of experience provided by the older pilot..... Or is that why the new age rules talk about allowing an older pilot to continue as the PIC but insist that the FO must be under 60????

[dagger]

With respect to the physiological limits of the human body, all due respect dagger, but what does the location of airlines' hubs have to do with rest on ULH operations? Can we just for once allow the safety of the passengers to trump the political implications of a particular cutoff hour because it may or may not 1/6 of the time inconvenience a carrier? 10 years hence it will be a moot point anyway as the airlines in question will have no doubt consolodated.

Let's stick with the best, safest rule and worry about the economic implications afterward..or let's maybe not. Flight safety should not be only in case of profitability! Have we learned nothing?!

Simply that a flight to a particular destination from one hub might be ULH flying, while a flight to the same destination from a different hub might not, but the airlines in question don't want to have to serve the same destination on different terms. I thought that was plain enough from what I posted.

[J.O.]

Simply that a flight to a particular destination from one hub might be ULH flying, while a flight to the same destination from a different hub might not, but the airlines in question don't want to have to serve the same destination on different terms. I thought that was plain enough from what I posted.

That argument just doesn't wash. You play with the hand you're dealt, or in this case, with the cards you pulled from the deck. If airline "A" has an airplane type that will fly a route from here to there in less than the duty time limits, while airline "B" has chosen a slower type that can't do it, airline "B" cannot expect an exemption from the rule. The same rule must apply here.

[dagger]

That argument just doesn't wash. You play with the hand you're dealt, or in this case, with the cards you pulled from the deck. If airline "A" has an airplane type that will fly a route from here to there in less than the duty time limits, while airline "B" has chosen a slower type that can't do it, airline "B" cannot expect an exemption from the rule. The same rule must apply here.

I'm not arguing for their position, only saying that is their position.

[Guest prob30]

Yes well put me down for saying that position is ridiculous.

Air Canada, due to it's headquarters being in Canada probably uses more deice fluid than any other carrier in the world- does this mean we should apply for relief from deicing safety regulations on the basis of financial hardship? Didn't think so.

[dagger]

Yes well put me down for saying that position is ridiculous.

Air Canada, due to it's headquarters being in Canada probably uses more deice fluid than any other carrier in the world- does this mean we should apply for relief from deicing safety regulations on the basis of financial hardship? Didn't think so.

So for the sake of argument, you disagree with the position adopted by Handyman and his carrier (a leading global airline), namely that

1) a two-day layover could be worse than a one-day layover; and

2) a 10% exception allowance for modest breaches of the 16 hour threshold is accepted by the flight crews as fair and safe.

[Guest prob30]

I agree with the 10% policy, as it is standard in many countries, including Canada. Of course in Canada TC has not the resources or interest in policing duty extensions on any kind of meaningful basis.

As for 2 day being worse than 1 day, unfortunately it is irrelevant as to what type of layover is preferable for recovery once home and on days off, which is what handyman stated. Duty rest should be sufficient to allow the safe operation of the flight, not necessarily to make sure the crew is also well rested on wakeup the next day for an 8am tee time back home.

I cannot say whether I agree or disagree with that thesis, just that I support the use of physiological/medical data in determining duty regulations and do not support a carrier's lobbying on an economic basis for exemptions from rules intended to put safety ahead of greed.

[dagger]

I agree with the 10% policy, as it is standard in many countries, including Canada. Of course in Canada TC has not the resources or interest in policing duty extensions on any kind of meaningful basis.

As for 2 day being worse than 1 day, unfortunately it is irrelevant as to what type of layover is preferable for recovery once home and on days off, which is what handyman stated. Duty rest should be sufficient to allow the safe operation of the flight, not necessarily to make sure the crew is also well rested on wakeup the next day for an 8am tee time back home.

I cannot say whether I agree or disagree with that thesis, just that I support the use of physiological/medical data in determining duty regulations and do not support a carrier's lobbying on an economic basis for exemptions from rules intended to put safety ahead of greed.

I took his comment on layover to mean that the impact of a two-day layover in the middle of a trip is worse than a one-day layover when you get home and shake off the effects. This correlates with my own travel experience. If you fly through multiple time zones and stay away no more than a day, the body clock doesn't have time to fully adjust to the new circumstances. The longer you are abroad, the greater the jet lag upon your return home.

[Guest prob30]

I would tend to agree as well, but feel that how one recovers once home is basically irrelevant to the discussion. It is a nice consideration for quality of life, but not a requirement in my opinion.

[Moon The Loon]

I took his comment on layover to mean that the impact of a two-day layover in the middle of a trip is worse than a one-day layover when you get home and shake off the effects.

What has not been stated here and what is missing from the understanding of those who don't do this time-zone-hopping like long-haulers (pilots and F/A's) is the layover period itself. The worst layover after a 12+ hour flight, is a 24 hour layover. The "best" are 12-14 or 30-32. A 48 hour, although not as bad as 24 is not great either but at least there is some recovery time.

??? you ask?

Well after your flight, you are bagged and want to sleep. Maybe you force yourself to stay up for 4 hours. This being the case on a 24 hour layover, you awake fully refreshed 12 hours before your report time. You end up going back to work tired. On a 12-14 hour layover, you can get to the hotel, have a meal if desired, sleep your full complement, awake, have breakfast then go to work. Just like normal people. Same applies to a 30-32 hour layover: you have time for a "second sleep."

Hope that helps clarify the fatigue issue among non-flyers.

I'm a little spoiled these past few years as North American FAA/TC regulators could learn a thing or two about European flight and duty time limitations.

[dagger]

I would tend to agree as well, but feel that how one recovers once home is basically irrelevant to the discussion. It is a nice consideration for quality of life, but not a requirement in my opinion.

I guess my question would be that if there is a good onboard crew rest situation, with double crews, and a full 24 hour layover overseas, does the two day layover make a qualitative difference in crew rest and hence safety. I suspect it's hard to generalize on this topic. The bunk facilities on a 777 are, if I understand correctly, going to be superior to the bunk or sleeping arrangements on the aircraft they tend to replace.

[handyman]

I guess my question would be that if there is a good onboard crew rest situation, with double crews, and a full 24 hour layover overseas, does the two day layover make a qualitative difference in crew rest and hence safety. I suspect it's hard to generalize on this topic. The bunk facilities on a 777 are, if I understand correctly, going to be superior to the bunk or sleeping arrangements on the aircraft they tend to replace.

I have done both, 24 and 48 hour layovers and the simple answer is NO!

24 hours is lots but as I said earlier, I believe AC is only giving crews in HK 18 hours or less!

Superior...I don't know about that. They are new and look nice but no lav upstairs on the 777 is a drag. The bunk in the 744 is great.

[Guest rattler]

Interesting observation in the news today.

http://news.netdoctor.co.uk/news_detail.php?id=18105492

Airline crew 'risk ill health'

Those who frequently travel long distances aboard airlines risk negative health effects, according to scientists.

A team at Liverpool John Moores University looked at more than 500 articles about flying and health in order to arrive at their conclusions.

In addition to jet lag, cabin crew members reported menstrual irregularities and gastrointestinal illnesses, as well as mental health problems such as moodiness and even brief psychotic episodes, the study reveals.

Interruptions to sleep cycles and hormonal patterns when travelling across times zones are cited by the researchers as the primary causes of the reported problems.

Lead author professor Jim Waterhouse wrote: "Deficits of cognitive performance and increases in psychotic and major affective disorders have also been described.

"Such effects have not been reported in healthy travellers whose experience of time zone transitions is far less extensive than those who regularly travel long distances."

For each time zone crossed, it takes about a day to recover, according to the NHS.