Pilots and work shifts.

[icarus]

I'm am curious if anyone ever has had or currently has concerns with regard to the amount of hours a pilot has worked before your flight. There's been press in the past about some pilots working very long shifts and how such working conditions pose a possible security threat to all on an airplane during that time.

Is there someone at the airline that would be able to offer any information regarding how much time a pilot has worked prior to your flight, and if so, do you have any recourse regarding this (being put on a different flight etc.).

 

[OKW Lover]

There are fairly stringent FAA controls, as well as contractual controls, over how much a pilot may fly.

I'm not the least bit worried about it.

 

[bavaria]

I'm not worried either. I HAVE had cockpit crew 'go illegal' during a long on the ground delay.

I am sure that ExPirateShopGirl will come along soon and tell you not to worry.

(By the way, that is why flying at the end of a month can be a gamble, as cockpit crew near their max hours for the month. NWA often has challenges with this, as they don't have enough crew to cover their schedule)

 

[roliepolieoliefan]

My DH works for the airlines and pilots work about 40 hours / month. yea, a month not a week. Give or take.

I'd be more worried about how much they had to drink prior to your flight then their work schedule.

 

[ExPirateShopGirl]

I am sure that ExPirateShopGirl will come along soon and tell you not to worry.

NOT TO WORRY!

(There.. how was that? )

Now first off... not all pilots' unions are created equal, though they all regulate much about pilots' hours and working conditions.

Pilots who fly for major airlines generally fly between 75 and 90 hours a month. Every month, pilots will put in their choices for bidlines, which are sequences of trip pairings for the following month. Bidlines are awarded based on seniority. Most bidlines are scheduled 2 days of flying, two days off for most of the month. Most trips are booked in pairs, i.e, fly out of base airport one day and back into base airport the next. Then two days off. There is usually one 3 or 4 day trip in the month. Pilots are paired up for the 'trip' and they will alternate flying legs. There is a minimum number of hours designated for crew rest between outbound and return trips.

Example. You have a flight out of JFK at 7 pm headed to SFO. In all probability, the pilots on your flight haven't worked a cockpit in about 70 hours.

Say you're in SFO and you are taking the 10 pm red-eye to NYC. Your crew flew into SFO (after being off for 70 hours) about 23 hours earlier. Moral of this story??

NOT TO WORRY! (sorry, couldn't resist! )

 

[DebbieB]

Is there a maximum number of hours per day, followed by a mandatory rest period? I know I've had early morning flights that were delayed because the crew was late due to the mandatory rest period (8 hours?).

 

[ExPirateShopGirl]

Interesting. I don't know of a single pilots' union that negotiated 40 hour work months...

My DH works for the airlines and pilots work about 40 hours / month. yea, a month not a week. Give or take.

I'd be more worried about how much they had to drink prior to your flight then their work schedule.

 

[ExPirateShopGirl]

FAA Part 14 regulations require a minimum of 10 hours of rest immediately prior to a scheduled duty period.

Is there a maximum number of hours per day, followed by a mandatory rest period? I know I've had early morning flights that were delayed because the crew was late due to the mandatory rest period (8 hours?).

 

[roliepolieoliefan]

Interesting. I don't know of a single pilots' union that negotiated 40 hour work months...

I can only go by what DH says. I'm sure it may have changed since 9 /11 and contracts were renegotiated.

DH has been in the airline industry for many many years and seen lots of changes. Like I said prior, there are alot of things about the pilots that bother me when I fly, but their working schedule is definetly not one of them.

 

[ExPirateShopGirl]

I can only guess that your DH isn't in the ALPA or the APA or the SWAPA. No airline would survive with 40 hour per month pilot contracts. Even the FAA says pilots can fly up to 100 hours per month. Perhaps it only seems to your DH that pilots fly 40 hours a month. The hours pilots fly before and after 9/11 have not changed substantially. The number of pilots flying has. I've been in the airline industry for many many years and I too have seen changes. What is it about pilots that bothers you? Personally, I don't know a single group of individuals who love what they do more than pilots.

I can only go by what DH says. I'm sure it may have changed since 9 /11 and contracts were renegotiated.

DH has been in the airline industry for many many years and seen lots of changes. Like I said prior, there are alot of things about the pilots that bother me when I fly, but their working schedule is definetly not one of them.

 

[MrMarv]

I've never worried about it either; between the FAA rulebook and the rulebooks of their respective unions, pilots are taken very good care of, although lots of them (and other airline employees) have had to make some sacrifices income-wise due to the long-running boom-or-bust cycle of the US airline industry.

 

[roliepolieoliefan]

I can only guess that your DH isn't in the ALPA or the APA or the SWAPA. No airline would survive with 40 hour per month pilot contracts. Even the FAA says pilots can fly up to 100 hours per month. Perhaps it only seems to your DH that pilots fly 40 hours a month. The hours pilots fly before and after 9/11 have not changed substantially. The number of pilots flying has. I've been in the airline industry for many many years and I too have seen changes. What is it about pilots that bothers you? Personally, I don't know a single group of individuals who love what they do more than pilots.

And what actually do you do? Are you a pilot?

And I sorely have to disagree with your last sentence. I have seen many many disgruntled pilots since the contract renegotiations after 9/11. Most are pretty ticked that their pensions are gone and their salaries were cut in half.

Glad the ones you know are still loving what they do, but thats sure not the case in this neck of the woods.

 

[ExPirateShopGirl]

Loving what you do for a living and being satisfied with your compensation are two different things. I think anyone would be disgruntled if their retirement was taken away and their salary was cut in half. Especially when they continue to fly 75-90 hours a month... the same number of hours they flew before 9-11.

Thankfully DF (currently flying B757s, previously A300s, B737s, and MD-80s) and I (Legal/Risk) are employed by a major carrier that hasn't filed bankruptcy like some carriers have had to do to reduce their pension and salary obligations under union contracts.

Now... which airline is it whose pilots only fly 40 hours a month?

And what actually do you do? Are you a pilot?

And I sorely have to disagree with your last sentence. I have seen many many disgruntled pilots since the contract renegotiations after 9/11. Most are pretty ticked that their pensions are gone and their salaries were cut in half.

Glad the ones you know are still loving what they do, but thats sure not the case in this neck of the woods.

 

[icarus]

Thank you for the responses.

 

[grimley1968]

I'm am curious if anyone ever has had or currently has concerns with regard to the amount of hours a pilot has worked before your flight. There's been press in the past about some pilots working very long shifts and how such working conditions pose a possible security threat to all on an airplane during that time.

Is there someone at the airline that would be able to offer any information regarding how much time a pilot has worked prior to your flight, and if so, do you have any recourse regarding this (being put on a different flight etc.).

The NTSB, I think, found that the pilots who took off from too-short runway 26 in Lexington, KY last year did not have the required amount of rest the night before. This was a pre-dawn flight, and crashed into a stand of trees across the road from the airport before it cleared more than 25 feet off the ground. Runway 26 is meant for small planes like I fly (I'm a private pilot), and would barely even be sufficient for a Cessna Citation jet to take off from, let alone a Boeing airline jet. Everyone who has ever flown out of Lexington even once (I started my training there) knows that runway 26 is only for use by small piston-engine planes and not for jets. Runway 4-22 is the proper runway. There's absolutely no confusing these two runways, even on the ground. For an experienced pilot and copilot to not realize/see/ascertain this fact is direct evidence, IMHO, that those pilots were half-asleep when going through their checklists, engine run-up, etc. Some blame has been laid on the tower there at LEX, but it's still in the end up to the pilot to look and see what runway they're getting on.

I don't know if airlines are being more strict about rest policies since this crash, but it's something I worry about, even more so being a private pilot.

 

[ExPirateShopGirl]

Crew rest was not an issue in the Comair crash. Cockpit crew had more than completed a legal crew rest period prior to the crash. Still pilot error, though.

The NTSB had several recommendations following the release of its final report. Most recommendations had to do with the installation and/or implementation of runway heading awareness procedures and a modification to clearance orders.

The NTSB, I think, found that the pilots who took off from too-short runway 26 in Lexington, KY last year did not have the required amount of rest the night before. This was a pre-dawn flight, and crashed into a stand of trees across the road from the airport before it cleared more than 25 feet off the ground. Runway 26 is meant for small planes like I fly (I'm a private pilot), and would barely even be sufficient for a Cessna Citation jet to take off from, let alone a Boeing airline jet. Everyone who has ever flown out of Lexington even once (I started my training there) knows that runway 26 is only for use by small piston-engine planes and not for jets. Runway 4-22 is the proper runway. There's absolutely no confusing these two runways, even on the ground. For an experienced pilot and copilot to not realize/see/ascertain this fact is direct evidence, IMHO, that those pilots were half-asleep when going through their checklists, engine run-up, etc. Some blame has been laid on the tower there at LEX, but it's still in the end up to the pilot to look and see what runway they're getting on.

I don't know if airlines are being more strict about rest policies since this crash, but it's something I worry about, even more so being a private pilot.

 

[grimley1968]

Crew rest was not an issue in the Comair crash. Cockpit crew had more than completed a legal crew rest period prior to the crash. Still pilot error, though.

The NTSB had several recommendations following the release of its final report. Most recommendations had to do with the installation and/or implementation of runway heading awareness procedures and a modification to clearance orders.

Unless someone was in the bedroom with those pilots monitoring their sleep, I stand by my belief that those pilots could not have been fully awake while they were preparing to take off on that runway.

I'm a pilot with less than 100 hours in my logbook, and even I would have to only be minimally conscious to realize runway 26 is not runway 22. Daytime, nighttime, anytime: those two runways look absolutely nothing alike. Even in my little Cessna 152, I have a heading indicator, a magnetic compass, a GPS unit, the completely different look of a short runway even at night, and finally the paint on the runways that tell me the runway numbers. Commercial jets have even more indicators of the runway they're on. The painted runway markers were there the entire time, before and after the crash. Those pilots had to be extremely sleepy. There's no other logical explanation for ignoring the multitude of indicators that they were on the wrong runway before going full throttle.

I know a few people at Bluegrass Airport, and unfortunately a couple of the victims of that crash, and while it's true the taxiway markings were poorly marked (at the time), I hated that those people at Bluegrass Airport had to be blamed by some people for that crash, when it was pure and simple pilot error by pilots who should not have been in the cockpit.

 

[ExPirateShopGirl]

Legal crew rest and adequate sleep are two different things. One is federally regulated and the other is entirely subjective. You say fatigue, I say inattention. The cockpit recording is consistent with the latter, not the former. Crew assigned to fly are to be checked in at the station a set period of time before the flight. Pre-flight involves inspecting the equipment, ordering fuel, programming the route, among other things. It's not as if they awakened, rolled out of bed and got into the cockpit. They knew which runway they needed to be on, they even readback and reconfirmed. In fact, at some point during their takeoff roll they crossed the correct runway and still didn't clue in. They were chattering away. People who are not yet fully awake tend to limit their conversation to only that which is necessary. I might be able to agree with one being sleepy, but not both. The vast majority of airline transport pilots are consummate professionals with thousands of hours in the cockpit rather than 100. Unfortunately, that experience can also work against them. They are human.

The sad fact is that if the tower had been fully staffed they likely would have caught the error the pilots made. Doesn't make tower personnel responsible, just adds to the totality of the tragedy.

It tears you apart when people you know and respect are involved in accidents like these... and it never gets any easier. DF has been flying professionally for 23 years, 7 in the Navy and 16 with AA. I've been with them since 1994.... this isn't the first incident that's touched our lives, and I'm sorry to say it won't be the last.

Unless someone was in the bedroom with those pilots monitoring their sleep, I stand by my belief that those pilots could not have been fully awake while they were preparing to take off on that runway.

I'm a pilot with less than 100 hours in my logbook, and even I would have to only be minimally conscious to realize runway 26 is not runway 22. Daytime, nighttime, anytime: those two runways look absolutely nothing alike. Even in my little Cessna 152, I have a heading indicator, a magnetic compass, a GPS unit, the completely different look of a short runway even at night, and finally the paint on the runways that tell me the runway numbers. Commercial jets have even more indicators of the runway they're on. The painted runway markers were there the entire time, before and after the crash. Those pilots had to be extremely sleepy. There's no other logical explanation for ignoring the multitude of indicators that they were on the wrong runway before going full throttle.

I know a few people at Bluegrass Airport, and unfortunately a couple of the victims of that crash, and while it's true the taxiway markings were poorly marked (at the time), I hated that those people at Bluegrass Airport had to be blamed by some people for that crash, when it was pure and simple pilot error by pilots who should not have been in the cockpit.