galaxy flyer

The rules do not address commuting, which is the NTSB's objection to them as the article states. At least one Board member I've spoken to thinks the rules need to address commuting in some manner. NOT specifying how, just that the industry needs to consider fatigue as a result of commuting.

After 29 years in, I understand the compensation differences, civil vs military, however military members do move every three years, so the pay and support programs are there to ease the moves. Airlines do not require moves, pilots do when they want to change seats or upgrade or want to live two connecting flights away from base. When airlines want to close domiciles, close down fleets they should pay for the moves completely.

How big a portion of an airline's pilots actually commute? Half? Quarter? How does the non-commuting portion manage to live at their domiciles? I agree the industry has become captive to the idea of commuting, saves the company loads of money, gives them lots of flexibility and gives crews a chance to live where they want to. BUT, fatigue IS a safety issue, not just in the Colgan accident. The regulators and management must address it even if it means touching the commuting issue. Heck, Colgan knew they had a commuting fatigue issue when there company policy stated that sleeping in crew lounges was not allowed, specifically mentioning commuters.


Again, either the crewmember lives in reasonable ground transport of their domicile or commutes in 10 hours prior to duty for the purpose of adequate rest.

GF

johnso29

Living within reasonable ground travel does NOT guarantee being well rested before duty. There are many responsible commuters who come in early enough to get adequate rest. In fact, I get better rest commuting in then I do at home taking care of my 2.5 yr old & newborn.

IMO the Colgan accident was barely effected by commuting. It had much more to do with poor judgement, inability to make decisions, & poor airmanship.

galaxy flyer

Johnso29

I'd suggest re-reading the NTSB report on the Colgan accident, especially the section on fatigue issues. They go into great depth on the accident's crew 72-hour history, the lack of adequate sleep, lack of professionalism in not being fit or duty. They blame the company for not monitoring fatigue, providing support to crews, for not even being aware of how many commuters the EWR base had. To be fair, they cite a FDX accident where fatigue was an issue (TLH) and the captain did, in fact, live near his MEM base.

Saying fatigue was not an issue in this accident, fatigue generated partially by commuting, is to ignore the facts presented by the Board in the report.

No, living "in base" won't guarantee being rested and fit for duty, but it certainly increases the opportunity to be so. Yes, I have airline experience with fatigued commuting pilots, only one of the reasons I'm opposed.

GF

johnso29

I'm quite familiar with the details of Colgan 3407. I never said fatigue didn't play a factor. But it was the smallest factor. Colgan 3407 had much bigger problems then fatigue.

galaxy flyer

Johnso29

I agree there were several startling findings--poor airmanship; poor training including failures to correct prior poor performance; and the entire issue of "outsourced" flying which is scarcely being touched. When the public buys a ticket, they expect to be flying on that airline's flights; with the standards set by that airline and that airline standing behind their operation. Here was a case where none of those public expectations were met.

However, one the Board's recommendations, based on their findings, was:

The recommendation lays the burden of managing commuting crew's fatigue management on both the crew and the company. None of which is addressed in the new regulation. As was posted here, in the future, an airline that could know what the commuting status of a crew member; that is, had access to the times of travel, hotel/crash pad entry, and doesn't act to prevent abuses will be in a world of hurt in the event of another accident where fatigue was cited. Especially with a Board member who has been a noted NASA fatigue expert.

GF

CactusCrew

Or keep their job when displacements and furloughs begin ...

I could have moved my family to ANC to avoid commuting. But considering it was my 3rd crew base and second displacement in just under 2 years with this company, I determined it would not be a prudent move. I turned out being correct, as the company then went further and furloughed over 100 pilots, some of whom had moved to the new bases.

You just need to lighten up on the attitude that it is always the pilots fault that chooses to commute. Many companies make it the lesser of two evils.

I went 17 years with 3 different airlines and was able to avoid being a commuter, I know the pros and cons of each. I really wasn't given an option this time ... Commute and keep my job AND my wife !

Left Handed

In my opinion, this is incumbent on the crews themselves. There is always a chance of commuting in early, seeing your friend in the crashpad (or a company provided hotel, etc) and staying up too late talking to him and not getting enough rest. It is impossible to enforce enough rest without having a chapperone stand outside your door all night (even then he doesn't know how well you are sleeping).

Had the pilots in question commuted responsibly, I believe the accident may still have happened, because their training/reaction/procedures/prior failures/whatever would still have guided their decision making.

They will never regulate commuting, it would be too expensive. Just look at the carveout for cargo ops. The FAA caved on that saying it would be too expensive for the industry. They wouldn't even come close to regulating commuting for the same reasons.

We all know people who get up at midnight and drive 4 hours to show at 6am, and we all know people who commute in early to be rested.

Bottom line is we need to all be the proffesionals that we are, and part of that means commuting responsibly. We all complain that the airlines do a horribe job of self policing on many things, let's be an example of how to do it right.

galaxy flyer

I understand where you are coming from; commuting wasn't a choice, it was a necessity. So, I'll aim my "attitude" to the company--they want to jerk their employees around like that, they provide positive space travel and hotel on the front end. The NTSB recommendation put liability for fatigue management on BOTH parties. Right now, **** poor management gets away with it at no cost.

GF

johnso29

Sorry GF, but you're wrong again. Airlines DO require moves. In fact, they often FORCE people to commute. When airlines downgrade, furlough, or shift airplanes the pilots who are junior are effected in every way. Many pilots at DAL were recently involuntarily FORCED out of several bases to include MSP, ATL, & DTW. This means they have NO choice, as the lowest paying seat in their base which they live is no longer available to them. They can't afford to move, because the housing collapse caused so many to be upside down on their mortgages. DAL will not pay for the loss on the sale, so many are now FORCED to commute.

johnso29

And GF, sorry if I'm coming off as a jerk. It's just that commuting isn't always a choice.