T-Con Turns?
 

I was dismayed to see DB's e-mail about the transcon turns.
Fatigue Management and education is good, but you don't need a NASA rocket scientist to tell us that some of our pairings are insensitive to human factors. These could be fixed at any time, even now!
I am respectful of Dr. Rosekind (sp?). A TCon turn done as it was tested is probably safer. The problem is, line ops aren't a research project. I was told by one of the test subjects that their sched was cleared 3 days before the test trip (and pay-protected). Unrealistic.
What about IROPS? Medical/WX diverts? Tech stops? Is JB going to cancel a Tcon turn because of a 1-hour delay? 2-hour delay? 3-hour delay? Lear Jet a crew in? (right...:rolleyes: ) Is a Tcon turn safer if it becomes a 16 hour day?
Ask any pilot on reserve more than a couple of months about working with our crew schedulers. Not that they are bad people, FAR (no pun intended!;) )from it! But they have incredible pressure on them to fill those crew seats and move those jets.
JB has spent a lot of money on this. I hate to be negative, but I think they smell money in the increased productivity.

As an aside, non-JB people are welcome to comment professionally, just keep the mud-slinging to yourself.

You hate to be negative, really?

Yes, I do. But, I think this is a negative development.
Is your little zing at me your only comment?;)

I agree with AUTO we need to bit more introspective when it comes to combating fatigue. Spending money on AMP is great and all, but just look in open time and wonder why there are so many double redeyes, Ponce, etc. These are going to reserves who cannot decide what type of rest schedule to set ( still no new schedule guide). It doesn't take genius to figure out what 3 of those in a row does to someone.

Well,
 

A search of your posts reveals that the vast majority of your posts are negative. That's fine. Be negative all you want. Lord knows I have been negative a bunch in the last few years. It makes me grin, though, when you say "I hate to be negative".

Auto
 

I think you are correct, if the situation with the subject pilots was that way all thru the trials. JB really needs to test the way they will fly the TransCon round trip. I have heard very little about the project hope they did realistic trials.
I do like the increased productivity and would fly them if I could hold it. Have always been suspect of the IROP response and a 2 way TransCon will really spread the crew thin. Will probably need more reserve crews on west coast at the very least.:cool:

Well, I'm happy I could make you smile!:D
I'm really not that negative, it's just a way to vent.

Of course, you know the old joke:
How many pilots does it take to change a lightbulb? None, they just sit in the dark and b*tch!;)

Now, do you have an opinion on the thread?

I hadn't heard that old joke. But it's funny.

I must be French because I keep "waffling" on the AMP thing. I keep going back and forth. On one hand, I look at some of those "day sleeps" that we do now and think that the trans con thing HAS to be better than that. Then on the other hand, I wonder, will it be abused, what happens with WX problems etc....

SO, in conclusion...........................I haven't formulated a solid opinion either way. Seems pointless to post saying "I have no opinion" doesn't it? :)

I'm not opposed to the general concept. I think more realistic rest rules are long overdue. To me, it will be important to see how the details are ironed out, especially how IROP's are handled. Any plan that ASSumes that normal ops is the usual scenario is doomed to fail. Let's face it, the normal op is now IROP. Anything that doesn't keep that in mind isn't going to work for more than a day or two before the operation completely falls apart.

I don't think transcon turns are ever going to be viable. Most are blocked for at least 11 hours. What might work are 2-leg, 10-flt-hr days. Maybe Florida to the west coast via NY or Boston. These transcon-and-a-half scenarios I think have more potential than trying to push it with a two-leg, 12-flt-hr day.

Regardless, I remain extremely skeptical until and unless they're able to demonstrate equivalent or better safety and alertness vs. the current regs.

Yeah, I've gone back and forth on this one too. One thing I now know for certain though, is that I'd take 5 day transcon turns over just 1 of those perfectly legal early-start-transcon, day sleep, redeye, day sleep, redeye nightmares that we have quite a few of. No contest.

I agree that figuring out how it can all fall apart in an IROP is the key, but I assume that the no-kidding 16 hour day will remain the 16 hour day, regardless. Otherwise I'm way against it. That said, I don't see how delays leading to a 16 hour crew day in a day transcon turn scenario could be even close to as bad as delays leading to a 16 hour day in the previously mentioned nightmare pairings.

For the record -- I know there are lots of folks who like those pairings because they're hyper-productive and lots of us were screaming for more productivity. So I'm glad those pairings are there for you. I just think you're whacked. ;)

One of the benefits of the ability to do over 8 hours would be to fly any 2 legs. Nothing is firm that it would only be Transcon turns. Say FLL did FLL-JFK-LGB. That would be 8-9 hours and is no where near a transcon turn. But boy would productivity increase. There are many such combo's that could be put together out of JFK. One short and 1 long leg. I don't see IROPs hurting these at all. Remember the 7.5 hour 4 legs east coast parings has a much longer duty day than a transcon turn or a short/long leg combo. 16 hours is 16 hours, whether you are on leg 2 or leg 4 or leg 6 of a duty day.

What I see as long pole in the tent will be to see what rest requirements come along with the expemtion. If the rest requirements are bad (unable to consecutive trips), it is limited or no help to productivity. However, even if the rest requirements are stiff (sts), say 24 hours off after such an event, you could always do one as the last flying event in a 3-4 day commute. Which would still increase everyone's aveage productivity. Just some thoughts...

Just my opinion....

FNG

What exactly are IROPS??

Irregular operations. What happens when the schedule goes off the rails. Like just about anytime bad weather gets within 50 miles of New York. Happens a lot.

Yeah I hear about the WX, I am out the BOS area and the WX frequently sucks around here. Thanks for the info.

As I understand it, the purpose of the extended flying day "Transcon-Turn" was to eliminate day sleeps and enable a crewmember to stay in his proper circaidian cycle for rest purposes. Not just to fly more hours in a day.
That wouldn't be achieved by a FLL-JFK-LGB day.
Hey, diamonddd. Was that too "negative"? You've got me all self-conscious!;)

As a JBLU outsider let me make this comment. You guys are trying to re-invent the wheel, why ? Everything you need is in the European Flight and Duty Time limitations scheme. With that there is no problem flying over 8 hours with just two pilots as long as you stay within certain duty limits. To put it another way, "it's the duty time, stupid". At European airlines and my carrier, which follows similar FTLs, we routinely fly more than 8 block hours in a day. And to the FNG who said that the number of legs doesn't matter, I beg to differ. The European limits, which are scientifically based, put a lot of emphasis on the number of legs flown and correspondingly reduce the max duty time allowed for each extra leg.

Some examples for you, based on being acclimatised to your home time zone:

Local Time of Start 0600-0759, two legs max duty is 12:15
Local Time of Start 0800-1259, two legs max duty is 13:15
Local Time of Start 2200-0559, two legs max duty is 10:15

For the above example if you go to three legs, the time reduces by 45 minutes.

Within these regs are provisions to increase the max duty allowed during IROPS up to 3 hours.

There are no limits on the amount of block time within that duty period, nor are their limits on the amount of block time in 7 days. The limit is a maximum of 55 duty hours in 7 consecutive days, 95 hours in 14 consecutive days, and 190 hours in 28 consecutive days.

If the US FAA would adopt these regulations you would have much more productive and much less fatigueing schedules. It would benefit many in the industry, especially the regionals who are forced into 15 hour multiple leg duty days as these types of trips would become illegal. It would allow you to do the occasional transcon turn and transcon-and-a-half trips. It is scientifically based and has been used for many years.

JBLU shouldn't be allowed an exemption to the FARs, the whole FTL regulation for Parts 121 and 135 should be changed to this, or a modified version, so that all airline pilots can benefit.


Typhoonpilot

P.S. Happy New Year !!!

Sounds good to me. Maybe that's actually the purpose behind all this research. I do know that the results of the study will be disseminated as widely as possible, rather than hoard it for a one-off exemption.

Sir, I could not agree more. If this were an option I'd be for it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately no one seems to be considering it.

Typhoonpilot, ever herd the (American) saying, "having your cake and eating it too", The US airline industry could give squat about fatigue, if they did they could voluntary limit the duty day of their flight crews, in line with JAA limits. This is not about circadian rhythm or fatigue, its about productivitly from the airlines position and about building trips (from the pilots perspective) to make commuting more productive ;)
No way any airline is going to accept duty limits like those you published when they can get (some) pilots to put in 16 hours days without any changes. Keep the 16 hour day and allow 9+ hours, that's what this is all about.:mad:

ALPA Leaders Promote Safety and Security Priorities
 

USA Today, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg, and ABC Radio were among the important news outlets drawn to ALPA's Washington, D.C., offices in mid-January. The draw: Top issues of concern to airline pilots flying the line.

Laying out ALPA's safety and security agenda for 2006 to 20 members of the Beltway news media were Capt. Duane Woerth, ALPA's president; Capt. Terry McVenes, the Association's Executive Air Safety Chairman; and Capt. Bob Hesselbein, chairman of ALPA's National Security Committee. Topping their agenda were pilot fatigue, airspace modernization, cargo security, and runway safety.

The resultant coverage was immediate. USA Today ran on its website the next day a Reuter's story on ALPA's concerns about increased fatigue. The story was prompted by Capt. Woerth's charge that JetBlue may seek an exemption to domestic flight-time regulations that would keep pilots flying for as long as 10 consecutive hours. JetBlue confirmed the report.:eek:

The reporters' questioning turned toward economic issues as well, with Capt. Woerth decrying United Airlines management's grab for stock in its post-bankruptcy maneuvers. Bloomberg and Reuters ran stories that afternoon on United's "stick in the eye" of its employees.

ALPA routinely conducts such roundtable news media discussions, both to generate immediate coverage in the press and on television and to educate key journalists on issues that may be in the headlines in the weeks and months to come.

A full review of ALPA's safety and security priorities for 2006 will be included in the next issue of Air Line Pilot.

Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l
1625 Massachusetts Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20036 (703) 689-2270

Topping the agenda?

Where is the anger over poor management execution and ridiculous executive compensation? Where is the outrage at the continued assault on Capitol Hill on the pilot profession and the working man in general?

Where do our dues go when we need to be heard about cabotage?

WTF?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz