meatloaf

Compare a bidpack from a few years ago--any airplane, any domicile--to a current one. Notice the shorter layovers, more legs per day, and the optimized schedules.

The Optimizer was designed to save airlines money. That's fine and reasonable since most airlines are daytime operators. We are not, and that cost savings model is apparently more important than our safety record, NASA sleep studies that no longer exist, or the concerns of the masses that actually fly this stuff.

If you can't see fatigue as a major issue, you are either very senior, retired, or a management plant.

2005 Blues

I know pilots see fatigue as a serious issue. The problem is, the company won't see fatigue as a serious issue as long as the freight continues to move on time. Until they see a statistically significant uptick in fatigue calls, there is little incentive for them to turn down the optimizer.

Friends don't let friends fly tired . . .

NTSing

IMO our company is being penny smart but pound foolish. Our schedules are continually going down hill monthly. They are saving money in the short run but pushing us hard not realizing, or caring, that we're not robots. I can tell you I used to fly 10 legs a day at a commuter with no auto pilot, no electric trim and reduced rest (8 hrs) over nights. As hard as that was what I'm doing now is sometimes more difficult. The constant strain of circadian disruption at work (how many crossings and time zones was that) coupled with bad schedules and trying to shift back when you get home only to become discombobulated again returning to work is very difficult. Yes, we're all a little older now but I am dead tired most of the time out on a trip. The company needs to turn the optimizer down and realize the danger of what they're doing to the guys on the pointy end of the stick. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it comes to mind.

2005 Blues

I agree with you, brother. We all do. But until it makes $en$e (or cents) to the company, they aren't gonna de-optimize our schedules just to make our lives easier. That's why fatigue calls are so important.

MX727

Careful what you wish for. The NASA sleep study recommended more of a 3 on 2-3 off schedule to prevent fatigue. I'm fairly certain the commuter wouldn't like that one bit.

FLMD11CAPT

C'mon fella's...........lets be serious..........everyone knows that at Big Orange and Purple it's all about safety..........until it's about money......then it's all about money...........

solinator

On the FedEx MD-11 crash, does anyone know this pilot?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omgaz...eature=related

He says a lot of stuff about how the MD-11 has a smaller horizontal stabilizer, etc., (minute 2:35 of the video) and on landing, the plane has reduced "authority" on pitch. I am not sure what... he is trying to say... No mean to add flame to the thread, but a previous post got me interested in this particular crash, and went looking for a video. Seeing that crash made me want to throw up. (RIP Flight 80 crew)

I love the MD-11--not that I've flown one--it's such an impressive looking plane. It's hard to understand why some say that it has characteristics that make it "hard to fly"... Does that mean hard to land? Does it have a specific roll, or pitch behavior at slower speeds? Do the engines not help? And for my own ignorance, is it "tail heavy"?

asiabased

If most airplanes have a safety envelope the size of a dinner plate then the MD11 safety envelope is the size of a saucer. If you stay in the center of the envelope (particularly in the landing phase) then the airplane is easy to fly and land with nice characteristics. Once you venture outside the envelope it becomes terribly unforgiving. Most pilots stay right in the center of the envelope with immediate corrections back to the center when things change. If you fly near the edge of the envelope without correcting, sooner or later you're going to get bit.

990Convair

The "11" was the second easiest transport category aircraft I have flown behind the 757 which is like having training wheels on your plane. This whole "dinner plate saucer" talk is nuts. It's very easy to land, very mechanical and similar to a heavy 727-200 in the flare. One thing that makes the "11" tough is the mission. Two guys, flying metric China on L888 trans-Asian with difficult sleep patterns is a challenge.

Also, while there have been isolated accidents at other smaller carriers (2 that I know of, china and the recent Russian carrier) there have been NO accidents at airlines that flew them FOR YEARS - AA, DL, UPS, Varig, Finnair, Swissair, World, Lufthansa...etc (elec fire notwithstanding). The problem, I believe is the stark difference (not difficulty) between the MD-11 and the MD-10. The problem here is the common type. We are the only airline when compared to the aforementioned that have guys bouncing from MD10 to MD11. You have folks that may:

1. Fly an MD-11 international for years (due to high seniority and Int'l preference) then get drafted for a domestic MD-10-10 trip to Denver or SLC in Wx having not seen a -10 for eons.

2. Conversely folks that can't hold international and are very proficient in the MD10's feel getting launched internationally in a heavy MD11 that they last flew long ago.

3. RFO's or junior Capt's that have flown neither for quite some time and have developed NO FEEL.

So, if our new VP of flt training/stds is watching, here's one line guy's recommendation:

4 month international bid cycles that are posted and bid on. The successful bidders will ONLY fly MD11's, period. Upon successful bid award, you come to MEM or ANC and get two hours of bounce and go's in the sim, no jeopardy, and paid for by the company as training on a day off. Snapshots from the marker inbound with every weight, CG, and wind imaginable with the instructor highlighting differences. When you rotate off the 4 month international bid and go back to domestic, you do the same thing in the MD10 sim.

The problem is the DIFFERENCE between the beasts coupled with our system form and scheduling history.

ptarmigan

Not that simple, the crews who had the issues were generally not flying both fleet types. Fatigue also is not the predictor of problems you might expect.

The easy, obvious answers being stated here aren't supported by data. Been to RGS this year?