Don’t be so quick to lump airline pilots into that group. Only charter pilots would be that group. Most of the time, line pilots at the major airlines are flying a “line” (a schedule of specific flights, stopovers, and days off) so they know a couple of weeks ahead of time where and when they will be on duty. It’s only during “irregular ops” that they might not know when they will get sleep. Also, by law, they are limited to 80 hours per month “on duty” in the cockpit. Training time is not included in that limit.
If you mean arrest the owners and managers of companies who pressure workers to outlaw it I agree. It happened many times to me, “well, if you don’t feel comfortable I guess we’ll find someone else” as explicit as that, I was only feeding myself and didn’t have kids so I mostly called their bluff, but people with kids and mortgages etc. don’t have that luxury. The worst is pressure about hazmat, I couldn’t haul it because I am a diabetic but got pushed several times because they didn’t want to send a driver from the other side of Denver, that person should be arrested, you can kill people that way.
Not just charter flights, this program discussed the policy of the major carriers to farm out their flights to regional carriers that pay their pilots so poorly that they can’t afford motels or even their own apartments. The pilots on the Continental flight (flown by Colgan AIr) that crashed in Buffalo a few years back had not received a good night’s sleep in days, the co-pilot had commuted from Seattle to the East coast because she was so poorly paid she couldn’t afford to live on her own and lived with her parents.
Or maybe I should say, no rest for the arrested.
If this was facebook, I’d hit that like button thing for the above.
When the boards were turnign and burning, was when I felt the best. Life was simple - you go home, you sleep, you wake up, you go to work, you go home, you sleep, you go to work, etc.
Then the boards would slow up a little. Now you never knew - were you going to be called on your rest, or were you going to be home for 20 hours? so you go home and sleep (because you were tired, and in case you were called on your rest), then wake up. No call. Go about your daily activities. No call. Be up for another 10-12 hours or so. No call. By this time, you are 1st or 2nd out, so you force yourself to lay down and get a nap, and the second your head hits the pillow, the phone rings. After you debate whether you want to find out how many pieces the phone can turn into if you hurl it against the wall, you drag your sorry butt out the door, stop for your unhealthy caffeinated beverage of choice and once again live the dream.
And that is
Wow,
So much wrong with the way the NTSB wrote the conclusions.
Item 1 is nothing but a disclaimer stating that everything else was great, so it must be…
The process of elimination only leads to supposition, not fact.
Item 2, How could they state this as if it were a fact?
I worked the extra board for years, and yes, sometimes I was fatigued, but other times I was just fine, even after pulling a double.
Item3, Well based on my medical history and lifestyle, I guess I should be pulled from service, after all, my father had a stroke, (he was in his late 70s at the time) and I smoke and eat greasy fried foods…lots of it, so I must be at risk of a heart attack and a stroke…
Item 4…this one I give them only because there is only two conclusions to draw from the available information, either both crew members decided to commit suicide, or they both were asleep or distracted, and the report says they were not on their cell phones, so…
Item 5 is true as written, had they completed the course, they would have learned about sleep disorders, but that alone would do nothing to alter the outcome, simply having information does not preclude they acted upon that information.
Item 6…Safety recommendations R-02-24 and -25 are invasive, and give an employer private medical information they are not entitled to under our current laws…shame on the NTSB for using this as a means to promote invasion of privacy, big brother has no need to see my medical records, learn what illness I have or have not be treated for, nor do they have the right to sample my genetic material.
Item 7, basically a disclaimer for item 5…they are saying it’s not proven that the science used is valid, it needs peer review, so forth and so on…it is either valid science and works, or it isn’t valid, and should not be considered, after all, this is people’s lives and livelihood we are discussing.
Item 8 is true as far as had they followed the ru
It isn’t a computer, but a computer program that tallies answers against expected standards, then simply produces a set answer.
Like a IQ test or Rorschach test for “sleep issues” instead of intelligence.
I have seen it, and anyone with an IQ above idiot will know exactly how to answer the questions so as to not be included in the segment that requires further “medical testing and consultation” or determines you have a sleep deficiency or are fatigued…and trust me, if you don’t want to be hassled by the TM or considered at fault for every incident, you make darn sure you “pass”.
edblysard wrote the following post on Monday, April 30, 2012
[snip]"…Wow,
So much wrong with the way the NTSB wrote the conclusions.
Item 1 is nothing but a disclaimer stating that everything else was great, so it must be…
The process of elimination only leads to supposition, not fact.
Item 2, How could they state this as if it were a fact? …"[snip]
[snip]“…****Bureaucratic inconclusiveness at best, a report that really says little beyond advancing an agenda…” [snip]
edblysard, zardoz,and Zugmann,as well as Bucyrus’ opinions; IMHO are pretty much spot on. Their analyses are based on their practical OJT experiences. So no argument with any of their thoughts and opinions.
Lets just drop back to the beginning of this accident and do some review of what I thought was a pretty effective analysis by those here on the FORUM:
“Fatal Rear-end Collision Reported on BNSF”
Posted by:
beaulieu Posted: 04-17-2011 10:35 AM |
---|
After reading the “synopsis” that the NTSB released my take is that it is just an excuse to pursue an agenda (fatigue issues) that may or may not have been involved in this rear-end collision. As others have mentioned, the NTSB had no proof that the train crew was asleep, but made the assumption anyway.
As I recall from the original posts, the event recorder showed the train had slowed down from track speed consistent with observing first, an approach indication, and then a restricting indication (red signal with number plate); speed at collision about 20 MPH (or a little less). This suggests that the engineer was awake enough to notice the signals; if the coal train had rear-ended the work train at track speed it would more strongly suggest that the train crew was actually asleep.
What I found when on the road was that there was nothing like encountering a yellow signal in the middle of nowhere to wake you up in a hurry, even when I was half nodding off before. Another wake-up call for me was getting a few miles away from “running out of track” (end of two main tracks or double track, or end of TWC authority).
From my experience on the BN and BNSF there was (and still seems to be) a real problem with restricted speed compliance: Far too many engineers forget about the “being able to stop in half the range of vision, short of engine, car, . . .” and simply focus on the last part of the rule “not to exceed 20 MPH.”
In the early 1990s I received (along with all other TYE employees on the division) a mailing from the Division Superintendent about an accident when a WB BN freight rear-ended a stopped Soo Line train on the BN-SOO paired tracks (CTC operation) between St. Croix Tower and Dayton’s Bluff east of St. Paul, Minn. As I recall this happened at night; speed at impact about 18 MPH. Fortunately, there were no fatalities that time. It was a La Crosse crew involved; La Crosse to St. Paul is only about 100 miles or so of river-grade 60 MPH track so I don’t think that
About 10 years ago I happended to see the "crew rest’ quarters at a nearby FedEx on-ground terminal - think of a La-Z-Boy recliner on steroids in a dark, soundproofed room, and next door was a kitchenette with all the amenities. They needed it because the flight schedule often was overnight and ended there during the early morning hours, with the next flight out not until early in the evening. I’ve never seen a railroad facility as nice . . . [:-^] See this photo album of on-plane crew rest areas (you’ll have to answer a simple question or two first): http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?album=6217
Has any railroad ever tried assigned crews to certain ‘windows’ of on-duty time for several weeks or months at a time - say, 4 hours long, every 4 hours ? If a train needs to go during that time interval, they can be called; if not, then they ‘roll-over’ to the same window the next day, perhaps with some form of ‘standby’ compensation for the lost earning opportunity. After all, there are only so many trains that can be sent down a track in each direction during each 4-hour period, even if there is a glut of trains. One other result might be that the railroad - when faced with having to pay standby and getting nothing directly productive out of it - will instead decide to run trains on a more
Railroads set up dorms under the umbrella of the Railroad YMCA, sometimes on railroad property, but usually adjacent…excellent rooms and food, and game rooms and libraries for away from home crews.
But, to the question of crew windows. That has been suggested if not implimented somewhere. The problem on the labor side is that if there is no train in your window, you don’t work that day and don’t get paid. So that is not a popular answer from the crews’ point of view.
Yes, and Yes. NYCT (I am told) breaks the day into three 8 hour segments. Your call up time MUST be within your assigned 8 hour segment. Heck, make them six hour segments. If your segment is 0300 to 0900, you cannot have a start time outside of those hours.
Shorter workdays would help.
A friend, a former BNSF conductor kept talking about automating the main line trains. This does have much merit. Let the crew sleep while the train is running, they really are not needed except for switching and collecting fares. (Well managing paperwork, which also is computerized anyway.)
Me thinks all of that talk was simply posturing by BNSF for union negotiations. YOU people could comment on that better than I can.
But what the heck, My HO scale railroad is automated, I control the railroad from the tower, the trains run automatically. If I can do it, anybody can do it. I do it without computers, and on the very cheap. I am certain that BNSF could run the railroad from its dispatch center in Bangladesh.
Fatigue/Exhaustion is a very serious issue. I can fall asleep anywhere at any time. I can take a nap for three hours in the afternoon, and still sleep a solid 9 hours at night. Clearly they would never let me in the cab…
The report grandstands on the issue of irregular work schedules. In doing so, it is using its inherent credibility of assumed objectivity as an official accident investigation to advance a labor agenda. To do this, it has to assume that the crew had fallen asleep despite the fact that there is no place for assumptions in an accident investigation.
And while it might have been fair to state that the known facts point to a cause that is consistent with the crew falling asleep, the report simply asserts that the crew had fallen asleep, and then even tells us why the crew fell asleep. Both are assertions unfounded in any way.
Moreover, the report fails to offer evidence that it must have, which would rule out other possible causes such as drug or alcohol impairment.
<
Noe that the linked document is a synopsis only, not the ‘full and final report’, which is still pending - see the 2nd paragraph from it, which is repeated below for convenient reference (emphasis added - PDN):
“This is a synopsis from the Safety Board’s report and does not include the Board’s rationale for the conclusions, probable cause, and safety recommendations. Safety Board staff is currently making final revisions to the report from which the attached conclusions and safety recommendations have been extracted. The final report and pertinent safety recommendation letters will be distributed to recommendation recipients as soon as possible. The attached information is subject to further review and editing.”
I repsectfuly suggest that we don’t assume too much, nor be too premature to praise or criticize it.
- Paul North.
Once they have laid out their information, I don’t think it is premature to criticize it just because they say they are not finished. Frankly I am very surprised that they would have stated as fact, such an explosive and unfounded allegation that the crew fell asleep, that it was not their fault because they suffered from a sleep disorder, and that the railroad knew the crew were working under this deficiency.
The NTSB says:
“This is a synopsis from the Safety Board’s report and does not include the Board’s rationale for the conclusions, probable cause, and safety recommendations.”
Let’s get one thing clear about Hours of Service regulations - they do not govern REST, they only govern time off duty. REST is in the hands of the individual during his time off duty and the carriers have no way affect that other than relying upon individual responsibility.
The most recent iteration of the Hours of Service Law specifies that crewmen will get 10 hours undisturbed time after marking off duty. Additionally, if a crew goes HOS on line of road and consumes additional ‘Limbo’ time in getting to their off duty location, that amount of time is added to their undisturbed time. (Example - Crew goes HOS at 0100, takes until 0300 to get to off duty point and marks off at 0300. Crew cannot receive any communication from the carrier until 1500 and with the normal 2 hour call, could not go back on duty until 1700. ie. 14 hours after their registering off duty.) In the past, crews with sufficient remaining HOS working time could be called after being off duty 4 hours for another trip (normally a trip back to their home terminal). With the present law, crews cannot be disturbed for 10 hours after their registering off - FOR ANY REASON (one exception, if the crew did not properly complete their tour of duty - ie. they did not release track authority for their train, which until released prevents the operation of other trains on the territory.) While the carrier cannot contact crews during their 10 hour undisturbed period, the crews can contact the carrier to advise their availability to come back at a specified time after 4 hours respite or at the expiration of their 10 hours (without being called) - both of these occurrences can also be agreed to prior to the crew registering off.
Prior to the implementation of the current HOS law, the crafts cried loud and long about Limbo Time - they are not happy with how the Limbo Time provisions have been applied
We are throwing the term commute around here, especially applied to pilots, without understanding what it means…going to and from your home and place of business. So, you could commute from California to NY either the day before going on duty or arrive at the time you go on duty. BIg difference. What if the pilot decides to drive from home in Connecticuit or Pennsylvania to one of the NYC airports. That could be up to three hour drive. How many who commute by train, again could be up to two or three hours each way? Do you sleep? read the paper? do work on the computer? read technical or other work related material? What I am getting at is that commute time may not really be a time of rest, just off the clock time. A commute does not neccesaryily make a pilot unsafe nor safe. And as I said earlier, too, sleep or rest time is quite different than fatigue. This whole factor of sleep, rest, time off, continuous stress, and fatigue, etc. is not a simple study nor are there simple and failsafe solutions proposed so far.
Henry, I don’t know about all railroads, but the UP and I think most railroads now use contract hotels. The UP’s preferred contract hotel is Oak Tree Inn. There may still be some dormatories in use, but they are probably on borrowed time.
If you click on their “hotels” tab, there is a map of their locations. For those west of the Mississippi, if you connect the locations (in the right order[:)]) you almost have a UP system map. Most locations are UP crew points and the motel rooms are designed for railroad crews who layover.
For those points where an Oak Tree hasn’t been built, the railroad contracts with an available hotel.
Jeff
Yeah, they all have contract hotels nowadays…the Railroad Y is a relic of the past which replaced the idea that a conductor and his crew ate and slept in the caboose. Before that, crews would put up in rooming houses…
Designed for railroad crews?? They have small, smelly bathrooms??