R2OK!

mark occomore · Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 9955 Location: UK

Airline pilots have told the BBC they are increasingly concerned that fatigue is leading to potentially dangerous incidents in the air.

The BBC heard from 32 pilots who said they had flown while unfit. Some blamed the situation on the intensity of work and managers ignoring their concerns.

Some 81% of pilots surveyed by union Balpa said fatigue had affected them.

UK-registered pilots may not fly more than 900 hours per year and there is no evidence this is being exceeded.

Industry groups say the airlines have an "exemplary safety record".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6236810.stm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a little concerning..

firewirefred · Guest

mark occomore · Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 9955 Location: UK

firewirefred · Guest

The reasons why reports such as these are commissioned is often that BALPA (and others) are trying to put pressure on operators to up the ante in terms of salaries and conditions. If airlines are concerned about pilots and co-pilots nodding off mid-flight they could put in the equivalent of the train-driver's "dead man's handle" - something that requires a response every xx seconds or whatever.

Anyhow, I thought fly-by-wire systems were in part a solution to this problem? I was on a business flight to Athens recently on an Airbus A320 and later learned that not only was all the flight auto-piloted but the landing was very likely on auto-pilot as well.

Like I said, there's often an ulterior motive to this "report" thing.

Cherskiy · Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject:

There already is a 'deadmans handle' fitted to most airliner joysticks - they usually start to shake before a stall occurs.

I think BALPA do have it right when they draw attention to the limited time crew have for rest periods between flights, especially in the low-cost end of the market - turnaround times can be as little as 25 minutes or so, which often means that the flight crew don't even get a chance to leave the cockpit. Although the pax may leave once the aircraft gets attached to the airbridge, the crew still have to do paperwork, the usual housekeeping calls with the ground handlers, book the outgoing slot and the pre-flight checks so there's practically no time to even get a few minutes' peace. Do this for six or seven sectors in a row and you can see where the prospects of tiredness creep in, especially if there's a delay or an unforseen route change which can happen.

FBW isn't always a solution since you need someone alive and kicking to tell whether the computer is trying to kill you and your passengers - remember the A.320 that flew into the trees at Mulhouse back in 1988? The FBW system controlling the engines decided not to respond to manual inputs. It was amazing only 3 people died in that incident. Studies have also shown that FBW controlled aircraft can have a slight tendency to roll or pitch in a wave-pattern, making it almost impossible for the pilot to control his aeroplane with the precision needed.

Some aircraft do have auto-land fitted - the various categories and types in use are as follows:

Category I - A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height not lower than 60 m (200 ft) above touchdown zone elevation and with either a visibility not less than 800 m or a runway visual range not less than 550 m. An aircraft equipped with an Enhanced Flight Vision System may, under certain circumstances, continue an approach to CAT II minimums. [14 CFR Part 91.175 amendment 281]
Category II - Category II operation: A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height lower than 60 m (200 ft) above touchdown zone elevation but not lower than 30 m (100 ft), and a runway visual range not less than 350 m.
Category III is further subdivided
Category III A - A precision instrument approach and landing with:
a) a decision height lower than 30 m (100 ft) above touchdown zone elevation, or no decision height; and
b) a runway visual range not less than 200 m.
Category III B - A precision instrument approach and landing with:
a) a decision height lower than 15 m (50 ft) above touchdown zone elevation, or no decision height; and
b) a runway visual range less than 200 m but not less than 50 m.
Category III C - A precision instrument approach and landing with no decision height and no runway visual range limitations. A Category III C system is capable of using an aircraft's autopilot to land the aircraft.
In each case a suitably equipped aircraft and appropriately qualified crew are required. For example, Cat IIIc a fail operational system is required, Cat I does not. A Head-Up Display which allows the pilot to perform aircraft maneuvers rather than an automatic system is considered as fail operational. Cat I only goes off of altimeter indications for decision height, the Cat II and Cat III approaches go off the radar altimeter for a decision height.

Cat I - any basic aircraft in the world with an Instrument Landing System receiver and a half competent pilot
Cat II - 146, some old 737-200s
Cat IIIa - 737-200ADV, all new 737s, Avro RJ
CAT IIIb - 747, 757, 767, 777, A.320 etc.

Obviously the crew has to be trained on CatIII before the autoland can be used as well - this is extra to a CPL's IFR rating, plus there's got to be a Cat.III qualified ILS in place. Not all destinations are suitably equipped, nor are all runways at Cat.III equipped airports.
_________________
Author: “To the Ends of the Earth: A Snapshot of Aviation in North-Eastern Siberia, Summer 1992”
(Free to read via Kindle Unlimited)

gfloyd · Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject:

What is the acceptable level of risk? Its probably acceptable as long as its not the plane that you are on that crashes.
_________________
His name was ernie ........ and he drove the fastest milk cart in the west.....

PJ in Kent · Joined: 11 Dec 2006 Posts: 1102 Location: Go on, guess!

They should try driving a lorry for a living if they want to talk about fatigue.

Pit ponies were treated better- in fact, so were the canaries
_________________
He's not the Messiah- he's a very naughty boy!

Rachel · Guest

Flying isn't inherently dangerous, it's just very unforgiving when things go wrong. I look at it like this. If you get on a plane, you have slightly less than a 50/50 chance of getting to your destination alive. You're in a very complicated machine built by a contractor or several contractors who provided the cheapest quote for the work. Many planes are the result of multi-national "co-operation" on the design and manufacture with all the various parts made in many countries using drawings and instructions in many different languages. What could possibly go wrong? On top of that most, if not all modern aeroplanes have computer controlled systems which "fly" the plane ............... software written by spotty teenagers.

<Tower> Roger Charlie 1, You're clear to land on runway 04

< Pilot> Roger! ...< Pilot thinks...> ok press this .. pull back on that , feather the throttle a little, check horizon bar- beautiful- , a touch more flap and wheels down........ Oh!

<Pilot> errrrrr victor ..

<Victor> yes

<Pilot> what does, System Error! Global reconfiguration in process..... Please wait.... mean?......

<Victor> We'll be landing early but late for lunch.

I prefer the train .... went by train from Dorset to Rome a while back, left home 11am, train to London(Waterloo), hopped across the station onto the Eurostar to Paris.. changed station in Paris ( Taxi) , got on a sleeper to Rome it was cheaper than flying with BA - no airports, no passport checks, no bag checks, had dinner in Paris on the way, a nice man made me breakfast on the train , I stepped out the station in Rome into glorious sunshine and I'd walked no more than 500 yards from when I'd left home.

If I'd gone on the plane ... I'd have had to go to bed early the day before to get up at 4 am, to drive to Heathrow, pay to park my car for a week, hang around forever in a room full of police with guns wating for the plane ... eventually land in Rome , wait ages to get my bag( if they hadn't lost it), get through their checkpoints , then discover that you're actually 40 miles away from Rome and have to get a train to end up in the same place as getting the train from home.

Ok so it took me a little longer but I arrived fresh as a daisy having had a good night's kip and didn't see any police with a gun until my second day in Rome.

iknewdavidjacobsmum · Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 336

Interesting, as this is in one of todays Norwegian national newspapers
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/business/article1856435.ece

Briant · Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:09 am Post subject:

Rachel, if you had less than a 50/50 chance of getting there alive, I think no one would be flying anywhere! Rolling Eyes

Rachel · Guest

Briant,

people: generally speaking( of course) are stupid creatures. We fly without a thought because we can. The fact that good-luck plays a major part in staying in the air doesn't seem to worry many people at all. I've not yet had a "trouble free" flight.

Cherskiy · Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:30 am Post subject:

And think about all of the problems you don't get to hear about - instruments that fail but don't necessarily delay/prevent the flight, near misses with birds/other aircraft, etc. etc. Flying, as Rachel says, is dangerous - it's just that the law of averages allow most people to get away with it each year.

It's no wonder the engine is the only thing that stops whining once the aircraft lands.
_________________
Author: “To the Ends of the Earth: A Snapshot of Aviation in North-Eastern Siberia, Summer 1992”
(Free to read via Kindle Unlimited)

Briant · Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject:

I've flown over the Grand Canyon in a sixteen seater aeroplane with the wind blowing us all over the sky. I kept everyone amused by singing Buddy Holly songs!

Cherskiy · Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject:

Watching little stones bouncing off the propeller blades and the bottom of the fuselage as we landed on a shingle strip next to a river (because the 'normal' landing field in a meadow was flooded!) was my 'best' flying experience. For many of us onboard, it was a 'buttock-clenching moment'. Shocked

_________________
Author: “To the Ends of the Earth: A Snapshot of Aviation in North-Eastern Siberia, Summer 1992”
(Free to read via Kindle Unlimited)