Fdx ~ Cdg-can...
 

I know this post will only pertain to a small group of FDX MD-11 pilots but I still thought it will give some food for thought. In one of the union's latest publications it talked about the optimizer and how the company has been building the lines since last Feb and reducing our hours, etc. etc. This situation is a good example of manning versus safety...

In the past on the CDG-SFS flight there were always 4 crewmembers by necessity due to the 12+ block. Now we have the CDG-CAN flight which is 11+37 block. When we first started flying this route we were still manned with 4 crewmembers which I thought was a great idea but recently things have changed.

I flew this flight last week and we did it in a little over 11 hours but the captain and I were struggling by the end of the flight. Pairings are built differently but this was our 3rd flight in a row with a circadian swap (24 hr l/o) while crossing multiple time zones and this trip departs CDG during a critical launch time, 0430 local. The RFO had DH in so he was fine but if we could have used a fourth.

Point being is I still wrote up a flight safety report suggesting this flights manning issue be re-examined for safety reasons even though the block was less than 12 hours due to critical launch time and if there are any delays then there could be a fatigue issue. I seriously doubt that my FSR will get much attention BUT if the company starts seeing multiple reports with the same tone and concerns then maybe, just MAYBE, the squeaky wheel will get some grease. Plus we all could use the extra credits hours for BLG's but it really is more about SAFETY.

Feel free to comment...oh nevermind, I guess that goes without saying on this board!

Being almost fatigued is like being almost pregnant.

Approaching fatigued, but quite not there, could be a measure of success for management. "Pop the champagne, they were optimized perfectly!"

Ignore knucklehead...thanks for putting in the FSR.

Feel free to comment...oh nevermind, I guess that goes without saying on this board![/QUOTE]

Many years ago I would occasionally fly the 0330 EWR-ANC flight. We ALWAYS had an RFO in those days (perhaps still do) although not legally required. That flight was by far, the most boring of all...very little ATC transmissions, pitch black over central Canada and 6+ hours trying to stay awake. The MD11 ACP flew it several times without an RFO and quickly agreed to our demands for another pilot for safety reasons.

I suspect the company goes strictly by the FARs these days?

Good luck and safe flying on the CDG-CAN flights.

Unfortunately, we brought this upon ourselves. If people wouldn't taxi at max warp, and fly the flight plan, it would still be over 11+35.


We are our own worst enemy!
:mad:

Many years ago I would occasionally fly the 0330 EWR-ANC flight. We ALWAYS had an RFO in those days (perhaps still do) although not legally required. That flight was by far, the most boring of all...very little ATC transmissions, pitch black over central Canada and 6+ hours trying to stay awake. The MD11 ACP flew it several times without an RFO and quickly agreed to our demands for another pilot for safety reasons.

I suspect the company goes strictly by the FARs these days?

Good luck and safe flying on the CDG-CAN flights.[/quote]


And Colgan Air was going by the FAA requirements when it decided not to include a stick pusher demo in its training program. Sometimes we have to go a little above the requirements when common sense dictates. Unfortunately the bean counters seem to be winning the war against common sense in this economic environment. I just hope it doesn't end up costing more in the long run.

The block is 11+37 which IMO is close enough to 12+00 to schedule a fourth "just in case". Include alert call, transport time of +45 (traffic isn't bad in Paris at 2am) and it is a very long day.

I know that there is an RFO from ANC-NRT with a 7+35 block in the winter time with the strong winds and no RFO on the same flight during the summer. Problem is...we don't seems to have a 11+35 rule for the long haul flights?

I'm just trying to encourage people to take the time to fill out a FSR if they see fit for a fatigue/safety issues, it only takes a couple of minutes and is well worth it. If the company doesn't hear about it how are the suppose to know :confused:

Then you show up for ground school and have to listen to a lecture about how important it is to show up for work rested in spite of the FACT that the company sodomizer is beating the hell out of you from the second that you block out on a trip. Sorry for the run-on sentence.

No RFO on the EWR-ANC. They were releasing us last winter at .85 and it was still 7+29. Ugliest flight in the system IMO. I'm doing the CDG-CAN this month. TB

"And Colgan Air was going by the FAA requirements when it decided not to include a stick pusher demo in its training program. "


Isn't that unthinkable and unbelievable? Stall recovery training (to me) is as basic as you can get in training. We used to do 'unusual attitude' training, but flying at 3am was unusual enough. Maybe management will mandate autolands always and permanently.

Watching the purple jets from terra firma is great. 60 never came too soon. Good luck and fly safe.

In the past year, I have been through initial training on two different aircraft types at a (very) large legacy carrier. One of these types has a stick "nudger" and the other has a full blown stick pusher. In neither case did I get to experience these systems in action; training was always to recover at the first indication of a stall (shaker). Of course, I understand the philosophy behind this; as pilots, we should always react correctly at the first indication of a stall. However, since I have never experienced a stick pusher, how do I know that I would react properly?

You guys seems surprised (shocked?) that the Colgan pilots had not recieved training in stick pusher recoveries. Sadly, this training oversight extends far beyond Colgan. This is something that needs to be part of all 121 training programs, and probably needs to be adressed at the FAA level.

Sorry for the thread drift :)

EXACTLY! Thank you!

How 'bout this?

Block out early if you can.

Taxi out at a SAFE taxi speed.

Fly the FUEL SENSE (fuel saving) planned mach - slow down if it gets bumpy (for safety.)

Fly the FILED flight planned route (dip clearances, optimized for fuel) - deviating only as necessary for weather avoidance (safety) - don't accept direct routing ('cause you don't have to believe it or not)

Taxi in at a SAFE taxi speed.

Results (win-win-win):

1. SAFETY is never compromised for sake of expedience

2. FUEL is saved (= $$$ saved for Fred)

3. Freight gets to the sort on time/early anyway (if you block out a little early)

4. Historical flight times reflect a more accurate (albeit increased) block time.

5. HOURLY EMPLOYEES (pilots) earn a couple of extra bucks for a few more minutes block over 8 hours.

Helloooooo.......Bubba........???

The company is BEGGING us to do the Fuel Sense......why not accommodate their request?

What's the hurry to get into Guangzhou anyway? at 10:30pm. They keep the free hotel bar open for us late anyway? The mall at the food court closes at 9 or 10pm anyway!!

I've wondered why FedEx pilots "do what they do" ever since I've been here (run out the door of the AOC with their hair on fire the entire trip) - seems they just don't understand the fact that they get paid by the hour.....?? :confused:

Nothing against you, but I'm not too sure your statement is valid. Crosswind landings are taught in primary training, but I wouldn't say that they are quite as basic as stall recovery.

Wasn't there a pilot at a certain cargo company that wrecked a plane in a crosswind due to lack or proper technique? Good thing everybody made it out and there weren't more people on board with the fire and all.

To reiterate what another poster said, that, along with other issues goes beyond specific airlines and their training programs.

I agree with Dash8Widget, it's not surprising that the Colgan guys didn't get training on the pusher. I've been at a number of 'Brand X's' and only one of them actually trained us all the way to the pusher. If you haven't seen it before, it's a definite eye-opener even in the sim at a safe altitude, let alone around the marker on an ILS. Also, most places I've been at including FDX train stall recovery the plain vanilla FAA way of basically powering out of it and above all not losing altitude. Only way back during my primary flight training and at one Brand X were we ever taught that breaking the stall was the most important thing in the real world and that all of that altitude stuff is really just so the FAA has something to grade us on. Colgan will wear the scarlet letter for this, but stuff like this could have happened at a lot of places including here.

At least they don't have to tell any jokes to start the lecture. That's comedy enough as it is. :rolleyes:

What do think is more effective, and proper, in communicating fatigue? A safety report saying you were almost fatigued or an actual (this is not a test) fatigue call. I'd rather not put airplanes at risk because crewmembers decide to hack it. Filing an FSR afterwards is helpful but is almost like telling on yourself. It puts you at risk! Make the call early and avoid the FSR.

The union communicates with the company every month on fatigue issues. How far has that gotten us as we've been optimized? I doubt FSRs will be any more successful than our disputed pairing system. Making the difficult to make fatigue call might be the only way to stay safe.

When (what year/month) did you fly EWR-ANC with an RFO? I am really curious on this one.

Before my time, and I've been on the jet for 12 yrs. Back in the day when I was the junior guy in the company on the MD-11 (1 full yr in ANC follwed by 6 months in MEM) I was a regular on the EWR-ANC flight since it seemed to always be in open time for reserve assignment. ;) It is the toughest flight in the system, IMO, followed by IND-ANC , MEM-ANC and AFW/DFW-ANC! No RFOs on any.

The latest tough no RFO long flight I've done was IND-STN, again, no RFO, which followed an afternoon MEM-ANC flight, 19 hrs off, ANC-IND, and 28hrs there. By the time my afternoon alert call came in STN after 26 hrs there, I had 3 sleep cycles over the 4 days of th trip. I actually got an extra hour layover in STN, because my trip was changed. Instead of STN-CDG and 55 hrs off, I was now being scheduled to j/s to CDG from STN, hang out a couple hours and then operate a 9+58 block flight to MEM for 14+58 duty. Taking into account that I had a full 8 hr sleep in STN (in 2 blocks of sleep between 1030pm and 9am), I would have been awake and/or on duty for 24hrs at ETA in MEM! I refused to move the jet, they eventually, after a few friendly :rolleyes: chats with the DO, put me in crew rest and operated out of CDG 18 hrs later. We missed the Sunday sort, I wonder what the bean counters thought that weekend about eliminating the CDG stand bys a few months earlier!:eek:

Anyway, until folks stand up and not only say, "yes, I'm fatigured", but "I will be fatigued if I continue" (15 hrs in my case), nothing will change!

Sounds like a good judgment call...

Your asking a retiree of four years (age 59 thank you) to remember that far back? I'll try: suspect it was in the latter years of the 1990's. I remember having an RFO on that flight, though I probably only flew it a half dozen times. Believe C.N. was the ACP at the time. In fact, I had a #2 engine fire warning over NY on one of these flights and the RFO ran the checklist for us. I also recall flights out of IND and AFW to Anchorage with no RFO's. Must have been a 'trial' period for the EWR-ANC RFO's, as the company was definately concerned with fatique and safety on that flight. Still have that daily flight? RFOs? When we had leaders that listened and tried to make the airline safer, we got reasonable requests approved.

So did you call in fatigued or just refuse the trip?

Funny, that's just what my ACP said after I jumped through all the hoops after the trip, of course, ALPA was on the phone with me! :)

I was already on the trip! When my alert didn't come as scheduled, I looked up my trip on line in VIPS, it was changing as I watched it. Eventually Skyped the DO, and told him I'm not doing it, we went round and round. I opted to jumpseat to CDG, at the DO's suggestion, and then see how I felt in CDG (told him I wasn't gonna be any more rested when I got there). We went round and round again in CDG, eventually they sent us to the hotel. My big mistake was not saying the F word right away, but the way the DO was asking questions, it was almost accusatory, I was reluctant. Next time, I just say "fatigued" and that is the end, no taking it back either, I was told! The company's big mistake - eliminating the stand bys in CDG!

(This was when we had a Capt get beat up in CDG at 1am coming out of the subway that quits running at 1130pm! ;))

We should start a thread outlining intimidation tactics like this..

You would think safety would be the #1 priority but that is probably hoping for too much.

In my case, I'm not so sure he was TRYING to intimidate me, though he obviously was anxious and wanted me to take the flight since he had no other options. I think he was trying to walk me down the path to either fly the flight or just say the F word, but his wording and tone came across, at the time, as accusatory and a bit intimidating. They can't really suggest the option to call fatigue to you, but once you say it, one conversation ends immediately, and another begins (ie. the new options - another flight, crew rest, etc). When telling this story to my FOs, I always emphasize NOT to be intimidated and to just use the F word, if needed, right away! Saves you from a lot of acrimonious phone conversation with the DO! ;)

The day after I arrived in MEM, I had an email to call my ACP to talk about what happened. I contacted ALPA, they asked me some Qs (ie, my side of story, trip history to that point, did I say anything I might regret, etc), they contacted my ACP to ask for copies of the tapes (I think they're .wav files, actually), then arranged a conference call after they listened! All in all, the "debrief" was fairly painless, and my ACP found no fault and supported my decision!

I would estimate that I call a Duty Officer about once every 6 months (about scheduling issues, crew rest issues, catering problems, etc.). I have generally found them to be professional, reasonable and helpful, usually trying to find a way to satisfy both my needs and the company's (that's all I can ask of them!).

Thanks Duty Officers for the respect and consideration I feel I deserve ... :D

Regards ... Mark