JetBlue TrueBlue - Pilot-Fatigue Test Lands JetBlue In Hot Water

Pilot-Fatigue Test Lands JetBlue
In Hot Water
Airline Pushed FAA Limits
On Cockpit Time but Failed To Tell Passengers on Planes
By ANDY PASZTOR and SUSAN CAREY
October 21, 2006 WSJ

EMBARGOED!Last year, thousands of JetBlue Airways passengers became unwitting participants in a highly unusual test of pilot fatigue.

Without seeking approval from Federal Aviation Administration headquarters, consultants for JetBlue outfitted a small number of pilots with devices to measure alertness. Operating on a green light from lower-level FAA officials, management assigned the crews to work longer shifts in the cockpit -- as many as 10 to 11 hours a day -- than the eight hours the government allows. Their hope: Showing that pilots could safely fly far longer without exhibiting ill effects from fatigue.

FAA headquarters heard about the test from pilot-union officials and their supporters. When the head office "became aware that JetBlue operated some domestic flights outside the standard rules, we immediately investigated and took corrective action," said James Ballough, head of flight standards for the agency. Mr. Ballough says officials are "confident that JetBlue's pilots are flying to the FAA's rules" now.

Another high-ranking FAA policy maker expressed his displeasure more bluntly: "We don't allow experiments with passengers on board, period."



Let's see how long the first lawsuit takes.

Let's see how long the first lawsuit takes.

The damages being?...

The damages being?...

This is the United States of America... the country where theres always a reason and a way to sue someone.

This is the United States of America... the country where theres always a reason and a way to sue someone.Very true...like the lawsuits against McDonald's for serving hot coffee...hot! The sad reality is that they won!

Reckless endangerment comes to mind: "a person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person." And arguing whether the risk was substantial or not, and if so by how much, is the stuff that lawyers can bill lots of hours against!

I am not a lawyer, but ...

Reckless endangerment is a criminal issue, which would require a prosecutor or district attorney to take notice of the event(s). Civil lawsuits require damages of some kind.

How can it be reckless endangerment if the whole point was "Your rule is stupid, flying longer is safe, and we're going to prove it"?

I am not a lawyer, but ...

Reckless endangerment is a criminal issue, which would require a prosecutor or district attorney to take notice of the event(s). Civil lawsuits require damages of some kind.

....but not always. Clearly any damages to the passengers would be zero or nominal....but they were put at significant unnecessaryrisk. Punitive damages might be appropriate here. It is likely a class action suit will be filed, and there will be payment made to the law firm(s) that file it, and to any and all passengers who were subjected to the insane behavior of the airline.

Additionally, it is possible that the pilots who flew those planes could be named as defendants, and they are also likely to be subjected to FAA action. It will not be an excuse to say "my employer made me do it" when it comes to their personal responsability to follow reguations.

How can it be reckless endangerment if the whole point was "Your rule is stupid, flying longer is safe, and we're going to prove it"?

Because its not JetBlue's place to prove it. It was reckless. The public should not have to guess if any airline is doing its best to be FAA compliant.

Very true...like the lawsuits against McDonald's for serving hot coffee...hot! The sad reality is that they won!

A little OT, but for those who would like to learn why McDonalds deserved to lose the case, please see http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

What they did was not right. The hours are already set at 8 maximum flight hours per day. Let me tell you something. Flying 8 hours a day into and out of the busiest airports in the US is a very stressull environment. Some maximum DUTY days can be as long as 16 hours with weather delays, mechanical delays etc. That doesn't mean you are flying that long, but you are ON DUTY that long with as many as 8 hours of flying. Try driving your car on and off for 8 hours while staying awake and alert for 16 straight hours, with no sleep in fog and rain and in city highway traffic. Thats what its like. On top of everthing, sometimes we don't even have a chance to get meals during the day without passengers giving dirty looks because we are delaying the flight even more. I've started out days at 330am with the first chance for a meal break roughly 9 hours later if we don't delay a flight to get the food we need. And when we do get a chance to grab a quick bite at the airport its usually unhealthy and fast so we can get all of you out as quick as possible. At LEAST driving you have a chance to just pull over and grab something and if you don't like what's at one exit, you can go to another for a different selection of food. Realize that fatigue is cumulative and you add up a couple of days of bad weather days, poor selection of food and odd hours and you can get a pretty sticky situation. Now, do you really want your crews to fly more hours than already required????
Sincerely,
Active Airline Pilot

I don't disagree with the previous post, and there are certainly airlines where the crew planners and schedulers try to push the system to the limits, and beyond, but....

I think the hypothesis here was that it might be better quality of life and safer for a crew to do a west coast turnaround where they could sleep in their own beds at the end of their duty day, not have to deal with circadium rythym disruptions, etc. JetBlue was thinking out of the box and trying to be creative - and it did backfire on them.

Some would argue that if they wanted to bring the crew back home that evening, then they should just use an extra relief pilot which allows for an extended number of hours, although I am not sure of the limits here. I do know that after a certain point, scheduled long haul flights may require a totally augmented crew where there is an extra Captain and First Officer on the plane for relief purposes.

I think the biggest mistake made was not telling the passengers. I don't believe in lawsuits over something like this however had (God forbid) one of the planes in question gone down, you can bet the second guessing would make the Mark Foley issue look like a walk in the park.

What they did was not right. The hours are already set at 8 maximum flight hours per day. Let me tell you something. Flying 8 hours a day into and out of the busiest airports in the US is a very stressful environment. Some maximum DUTY days can be as long as 16 hours with weather delays, mechanical delays etc. That doesn't mean you are flying that long, but you are ON DUTY that long with as many as 8 hours of flying. Try driving your car on and off for 8 hours while staying awake and alert for 16 straight hours, with no sleep in fog and rain and in city highway traffic. Thats what its like. On top of everything, sometimes we don't even have a chance to get meals during the day without passengers giving dirty looks because we are delaying the flight even more. I've started out days at 330am with the first chance for a meal break roughly 9 hours later if we don't delay a flight to get the food we need. And when we do get a chance to grab a quick bite at the airport its usually unhealthy and fast so we can get all of you out as quick as possible. At LEAST driving you have a chance to just pull over and grab something and if you don't like what's at one exit, you can go to another for a different selection of food. Realize that fatigue is cumulative and you add up a couple of days of bad weather days, poor selection of food and odd hours and you can get a pretty sticky situation. Now, do you really want your crews to fly more hours than already required????
Sincerely,
Active Airline Pilot


Please. The FAA allowed the "test". Furthermore do not equate your profession to driving a car. I have flown in a cockpit before (completely legal as it was a ferry flight) and I know for a fact that once you are above 18000ft, pilots are free to read books as "see and avoid" are not part of the job anymore. A long haul truck driver goes through a much more stressful day than a commercial long distance pilot.

The local FAA branch allowed the test, the FAA in DC has shunned what they have done. Regardless of what ferry flight you were on, or how many flights you have been on, monitoring constantly takes place. I'll disagree with you on the fact that a long haul is more stressfull. They have more restrictive hours on driving than we do with flying. And, I certainly don't see a couple of hundred people sitting in the trailor of their truck all day. I can't accurately say what they go through, but after going what they go through for 20 years I might have a better idea. We fly in ice, snow, poor visibility and they drive in it. But, my friend, try landing a jet at 150 miles an hour 4 to 6 times a day on one mile of pavement covered in ice and snow. There is enough stress in one approach to make up for a weeks worth of driving. We all have our stresses. So, I tell you what. Come to me and tell me my job isn't stressfull after you've had more than one "ferry" flight where the environment is a hell of a lot more relaxed than parking 100 people in seats behind you. You have a long way to go before you hit the 20 years I have seen.

I know for a fact that once you are above 18000ft, pilots are free to read books as "see and avoid" are not part of the job anymore. .

By the way, this statement is completely wrong. Our ops specs specifically state that no materials are allowed that are not relevant to the safety of fligth. And furthermore "see and avaoid" are not part of the job. Yeah right, we are required to have one pilot heads up at all times, and if you have to do something related to programming a computer or getting out other charts, you have to transfer controls verbally to the other pilot while you are heads down. Whoever you flew on was feeding you a line of crap. I'll assure you that where we work, we are ALWAYS vigilant of our surroundings at all times. Especially since they have reduced speration at higher Flight Levels to 1000 feet instead of two. You had better take your blinders off and do a little research before you claim to know "fact" from your little experience.

Good day.

Please. The FAA allowed the "test". Furthermore do not equate your profession to driving a car. I have flown in a cockpit before (completely legal as it was a ferry flight) and I know for a fact that once you are above 18000ft, pilots are free to read books as "see and avoid" are not part of the job anymore. A long haul truck driver goes through a much more stressful day than a commercial long distance pilot.

First off, to address some of the other posts, just because we can't be scheduled for more than 8 hours, does not mean we don't fly more than 8. On bad weather days, I've flown 9+ hours, in 5 legs, and after that I was useless.

Now to this post specifically. If a truck driver gets tired, he can pull over, and rest in his cab, where am I to pull over if I need to rest my eyes? If "see and avoid" does not apply, why are we still told about traffic above FL180? How many approaches to minimums are flown by your truck driver during the winter months in the northeast after a reduced rest overnight? How many thunderstorms does that truck driver need to worry about during the summer months in the midwest? It's no secret that a USA today, revisions, or a book may come out on long flights at cruise altitude, but that hardly means a truck driver does more work.

Now to this post specifically. If a truck driver gets tired, he can pull over, and rest in his cab, where am I to pull over if I need to rest my eyes? .

Press the "automatic pilot" button? ;)

This is not a safety issue, it is a labor issue. Let's be clear about that before continuing the debate.

If you read the full story

http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzjblu244946076oct24,0,5922250.story

you'll see that they did have approval of the FAA local office, but apparently the local office didn't even tell JetBlue they needed to consult the national office.

This is not a safety issue, it is a labor issue. The pilots at all airlines are afraid they will be asked to work longer hours. But there is no evidence that working longer hours is a safety issue.

It sounds to me like labor groups don't want the airlines to even investigate whether extending pilot work hours is safe, because they're afraid the answer might be "yes."

This is not a safety issue, it is a labor issue. Let's be clear about that before continuing the debate.


This is not a safety issue, it is a labor issue. The pilots at all airlines are afraid they will be asked to work longer hours. But there is no evidence that working longer hours is a safety issue.

It sounds to me like labor groups don't want the airlines to even investigate whether extending pilot work hours is safe, because they're afraid the answer might be "yes."

There's plenty of evidence, go back to all the accidents where a contributing factor was fatigue. Flying 8 hours on a good night sleep is tough, flying more than 8 is dangerous. When you mix 8+ hrs of flying on a poor night's sleep it's a disaster waiting to happen.

This is not a safety issue, it is a labor issue. Let's be clear about that before continuing the debate.

If you read the full story

http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzjblu244946076oct24,0,5922250.story

you'll see that they did have approval of the FAA local office, but apparently the local office didn't even tell JetBlue they needed to consult the national office.

This is not a safety issue, it is a labor issue. The pilots at all airlines are afraid they will be asked to work longer hours. But there is no evidence that working longer hours is a safety issue.

It sounds to me like labor groups don't want the airlines to even investigate whether extending pilot work hours is safe, because they're afraid the answer might be "yes."
If the information available on this issue is accurate then it definitely appears that jetBlue did nothing overtly wrong, the objective of the test notwithstanding. The fault appears to lay internally with the FAA and, knowing the way government operates, someone is scapegoating the field office because the test got so much negative publicity.

Regarding whether or not this is just a labor issue trumped up as a safety issue, I would strongly disagree with that assertion.

First, on the labor issue side of matters, airline pilots are paid by the hour and so the longer they work, the more they earn. Any shift worked beyond a certain number of hours is clocked at 1.5x overtime.

So, prima facie, one might imagine that pilots would be in favor of clocking some more hours.

The fact is, though, that flying an airplane tired is not only a safety issue, it's extremely hazardous.

Why?

Because the hardest part of flying the plane is landing, and landing always happens at the end of the flight.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of an overtired pilot woking on his or her 11th hour, navigating the intensely jammed airspace around LGA or JFK. It's a lot harder than you might think. Pilots have to regulate speeds based on altitude and approach. They have to maintain precise rates of descent and then hold at certain altitudes. They must maintain precise spacing in these very packed airspaces. They must concentrate on a very intense ATC environment.

Yes, pilots today have autopilot and ILS, but even with these systems all the decision moments (flaps, airspeed, gear down, landing lights) are made by hand.

If you ever get the opportunity, you should try a landing simulation in a real flight simulator to get a sense of how much skill and how much awareness is needed to land a big commercial jet.

This is not a safety issue, it is a labor issue. The pilots at all airlines are afraid they will be asked to work longer hours. But there is no evidence that working longer hours is a safety issue.

It sounds to me like labor groups don't want the airlines to even investigate whether extending pilot work hours is safe, because they're afraid the answer might be "yes."

labor groups aside, it's highly unethical and negligent in the extreme to even think of investigating such a safety question with live passengers on board. they've already admitted they didn't have the correct approvals, so they'd still be in hot water even if they had flown the experiments without any passengers. thinking they had approval, from the locals, won't cut it. and that's before the discovery process starts revealing all the internal memos and stuff that can often make for nasty headlines.

it should take about 5 minutes for a weepy civil jury to gin up a seven figure award for each. 50 flights, at ca 150 passengers each, comes to 7500 people, roughly. that's $7.5 billion or more in liability right there. the company's future is now very much tied up in the outcome of this.

labor groups aside, it's highly unethical and negligent in the extreme to even think of investigating such a safety question with live passengers on board. they've already admitted they didn't have the correct approvals, so they'd still be in hot water even if they had flown the experiments without any passengers. thinking they had approval, from the locals, won't cut it. and that's before the discovery process starts revealing all the internal memos and stuff that can often make for nasty headlines.

it should take about 5 minutes for a weepy civil jury to gin up a seven figure award for each. 50 flights, at ca 150 passengers each, comes to 7500 people, roughly. that's $7.5 billion or more in liability right there. the company's future is now very much tied up in the outcome of this.While I agree that is was not appropriate to conduct these tests with passengers on board, I disagree with your exagerrated and dramatic view of the damages likely in this case.

First, if jetBlue can demonstrate that the tests received FAA approval, then it would be highly doubtful that B6 would have any liability in this case.

Second, if B6 were found to have liability, its lawyers could effectively argue that airline passengers are routinely subjected to flight deck crews who exceed eight-hour shifts because of delays. And jetBlue could argue credibly that the safety record of flight deck crews exceeding eight hours per shift is excellent.

I still believe that it is hazardous, but no so much so that damages would be justified.

Second, if B6 were found to have liability, its lawyers could effectively argue that airline passengers are routinely subjected to flight deck crews who exceed eight-hour shifts because of delays. And jetBlue could argue credibly that the safety record of flight deck crews exceeding eight hours per shift is excellent.

I still believe that it is hazardous, but no so much so that damages would be justified.

Please don't confuse an eight hour shift and eight hours of flying. Duty days, especially at regionals are routinely 12-14hrs with up to 8 hours of scheduled flight time.

At my airline, our duty day can be 16hrs long. The law is written so that if you are legal to start you are legal to finish. I may be scheduled for 7:55 of flying, but due to delays can fly 9-10 hrs with a 16hr day. Of course that will usually happen on a day with a 345am wakeup call.

Please don't confuse an eight hour shift and eight hours of flying. Duty days, especially at regionals are routinely 12-14hrs with up to 8 hours of scheduled flight time.

At my airline, our duty day can be 16hrs long. The law is written so that if you are legal to start you are legal to finish. I may be scheduled for 7:55 of flying, but due to delays can fly 9-10 hrs with a 16hr day. Of course that will usually happen on a day with a 345am wakeup call.Excellent point.

And the fact is that a pilot working for a regional carrier such as yourself probably has it worse than any other pilot working in the industry because you're more likely flying a number of short flight per day which means more landings than a senior mainline pilot, you're likely flying in and out of major hubs like DFW and or ORD which is hard enough to handle in a mainline jet but even more challenging on an RJ, because the planes--while excellent--do have fewer systems and tend to land at a slower speed, which means there is somewaht of a spacing issue.

And then, of course, there is the issue of the kind of money you're making for those days when you have to get up at 3:45 AM.

Soon enough, I hope you'll be a 787 captain making a decent living...

I've yet to comment in this thread...but I will offer my $.02 and leave it at that.

Personally, I think this case is somewhat similar to other issues/claims brought against jetBlue in the past. Did we all forget in mid-2003 when the "privacy policy was violated"?? What about over this past summer when the pilot from Pakistan brough on discrimination charges against jetBlue??

Of course these matters are serious and cannot be ignored - but I know that some people *especially the media/press* love to exaggerate about things like this. Remember that phrase, "bad news sells!"

Any way you look at it, jetBlue did nothing illegal. They received permission from the proper authority to conduct tests (in this case, the local FAA) and followed all guidelines. While it is too early for any of us to "make a ruling" I think David Neeleman is right in what he said in the conf. call the other day..."The WSJ most likely needed some space to fill." It's not that big a deal and MUCH WORSE things happen at other airlines - cough cough drunk pilots cough cough. Thankfully, these thinks (as we know it) don't really happen any longer.

If anyone should be blamed in this issue...it's the local FAA office which granted jetBlue the permission to do these fatigue tests since jetBlue followed the rules.

Interesting that most of the people who are alarmed about this issue on this thread are pilots. Pilots are probably less than 1% of all FlyerTalkers, yet they've contributed about half the messages to this thread. I think that's at least partial evidence that this is primarily a labor contract issue and not something passengers are very excited about one way or the other.

As for damages, are you kidding? Who was damaged? Now, if there had been an accident, I could see some problems. But no animals were harmed in the conducting of those tests, as they say.

The duty hours vs. scheduled flight hours issue is an interesting one. It would be interesting to know how many "duty hours" were involved on these test flights. Keep in mind, though, that there are lots of safety-critical professions where people work 12+ hour shifts -- paramedics, ER doctors, medical school residents, firefighters, etc. When those folks screw up people die just as much as people die when pilots screw up. And their work doesn't just come in spurts at the beginning and end of their shift like a pilot's does when flying, say, a single transcon.

Honestly, I'm not excited at the idea of tired pilots, but I'm suspicious of the motives of the people who don't even want to find out how the law should define "tired."

As for damages, are you kidding? Who was damaged? Now, if there had been an accident, I could see some problems. But no animals were harmed in the conducting of those tests, as they say.


if you were made an unwitting subject in a pharmaceutical drug trial, and even if you received only placebo, would you be "undamaged" legally speaking, or would the plaintiff bar be calling you?

it amounts to coerced participation in a safety experiment, an experiment whose potential consequences were (albeit extremely remotely likely) a fireball on a tarmac. a little film of that, a little forum shopping for the right county and jury, and it's on to appeals court.

it's easily coercion of participation---after all, how many of the affected passengers would have boarded those flights if their experimental nature had been revealed before boarding?

surely there's no way even jetblue's own counsel could have given the go-ahead for live safety trials on the public. it seems doubtful they were asked.

I suppose we'll find out quickly enough what will be. at least some fraction of those 7500 passengers must have been lawyers, after all.

Interesting that most of the people who are alarmed about this issue on this thread are pilots. Pilots are probably less than 1% of all FlyerTalkers, yet they've contributed about half the messages to this thread. I think that's at least partial evidence that this is primarily a labor contract issue and not something passengers are very excited about one way or the other.

As for damages, are you kidding? Who was damaged? Now, if there had been an accident, I could see some problems. But no animals were harmed in the conducting of those tests, as they say.

The duty hours vs. scheduled flight hours issue is an interesting one. It would be interesting to know how many "duty hours" were involved on these test flights. Keep in mind, though, that there are lots of safety-critical professions where people work 12+ hour shifts -- paramedics, ER doctors, medical school residents, firefighters, etc. When those folks screw up people die just as much as people die when pilots screw up. And their work doesn't just come in spurts at the beginning and end of their shift like a pilot's does when flying, say, a single transcon.

Honestly, I'm not excited at the idea of tired pilots, but I'm suspicious of the motives of the people who don't even want to find out how the law should define "tired."

I agree that there are many other safety critical jobs where the employees are on duty for 12+ hrs. However, a paramedic is not always racing to a call, there are dead times in an ER (no pun intended), and firefighters are definately not fighting a fire for the entire shift. Those positions have the ability to rest if there is idle time. A 12 hr duty, with 8+hrs of flying and no relief pilot means no time to rest. The argument can be made that we are resting while in cruise altitude with the autopilot on, but the autopilot is only good if its properly programmed. If you're so tired you can't keep your eyes open, that doesn't do much good

Also, the above mentioned professions do not wake up in different time zones everyday. A 5 am east coast wake up call for a west coast based pilot to fly a transcon JFK-LAX will really throw his body clock off contributing to even more fatigue

Interesting that most of the people who are alarmed about this issue on this thread are pilots. Pilots are probably less than 1% of all FlyerTalkers, yet they've contributed about half the messages to this thread. I think that's at least partial evidence that this is primarily a labor contract issue and not something passengers are very excited about one way or the other.


What is the logic there? Pilot participation = labor issue?

Pilots' presence cannot be count for any other issues?

What is the logic there? Pilot participation = labor issue?

Pilots' presence cannot be count for any other issues?Agreed 100%. Is it not possible that pilots are resonding simply because they know a little more than passengers about whether or not they are tired after flying a plane for more than 8 hours a day?

This is not a safety issue, it is a labor issue. Let's be clear about that before continuing the debate.

If you read the full story

http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzjblu244946076oct24,0,5922250.story

you'll see that they did have approval of the FAA local office, but apparently the local office didn't even tell JetBlue they needed to consult the national office.

This is not a safety issue, it is a labor issue. The pilots at all airlines are afraid they will be asked to work longer hours. But there is no evidence that working longer hours is a safety issue.

It sounds to me like labor groups don't want the airlines to even investigate whether extending pilot work hours is safe, because they're afraid the answer might be "yes."

I disagree with your characterization of this rule as a 'labor issue". The current 8 hour limitation is imposed by the FAA for one reason - safety.

You state that there is no evidence that that working longer hours is a safety issue. Where did you come up with that? Are you implying that humans can work indefinitley with no degradation in performance?

One thing that stikes me; if they increase scheduled flying time to e.g. 11 hours, what would that do to the total number of flown hours / total length of the work day, especially on bad days?

As I have understood today's system it is strict on scheduled time, and lenient on the total time in case of bad weather etc. This is should be good for both airline and passengers as it will limit the number of aircraft grounded due to flying hours limitations.

Imagine a situation where the scheduling is more leninent, but there is a more strict cap on total flying time. You could run into situations where flight XYZ would have to be diverted because the captain would have flown past his hours before you can reach the destination...

Imagine a situation where the scheduling is more leninent, but there is a more strict cap on total flying time. You could run into situations where flight XYZ would have to be diverted because the captain would have flown past his hours before you can reach the destination...I doubt it would ever come to that in the United States, given our system and our general mentality.

Clearly, what could happen is that pilots would be very fatigued after 11 hours of flight time plus delays.

In Europe, the rules are quite a bit stricter. Although this is a very old incident, maximum duty-hour rules are often stated as one of the possible reasons for the Tenerife tragedy in which two 747's collided on a foggy runway in 1977.

It has been written that the KLM captain Van Zanten may have been too eager to get going because his crew was about to exceed the total number of flight-time hours, a violation which could have resulted in prison time.

Although just conjectural since all the KLM crew & passengers perished in this, still the most deadly disaster in aviation history, many aviation experts seem to feel that Van Zanten, jumped the gun because he wanted to get the crew to AMS before their maximum duty hours were exceeded.

Very true...like the lawsuits against McDonald's for serving hot coffee...hot! The sad reality is that they won!

Reckless endangerment comes to mind: "a person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person." And arguing whether the risk was substantial or not, and if so by how much, is the stuff that lawyers can bill lots of hours against!
I think there were more circumstances to the lawsuit, and a win often means a lot more than a big cash settlement. People win what others see as frivilous lawsuits, where all they win is $1, but ends up in a major policy change which make others safer.

I agree, a lot of lawsuits are frivilous, but realize that there's often a damn good reason why a highly educated and experienced judge ruled a certain way.

....but not always. Clearly any damages to the passengers would be zero or nominal....but they were put at significant unnecessaryrisk. Punitive damages might be appropriate here. It is likely a class action suit will be filed, and there will be payment made to the law firm(s) that file it, and to any and all passengers who were subjected to the insane behavior of the airline.

Additionally, it is possible that the pilots who flew those planes could be named as defendants, and they are also likely to be subjected to FAA action. It will not be an excuse to say "my employer made me do it" when it comes to their personal responsability to follow reguations.
Do we know which flights these tests were done on? Without this, a class action lawsuit would be impossible.

Furthermore, I don't think you can sue for punitive damages if there was no mental distress or hardship at the time of the flight.

Do we know which flights these tests were done on? Without this, a class action lawsuit would be impossible.

Probably fairly easy to get with a FOIA request to the FAA. I'm sure they have records of the affected flights.

Please. The FAA allowed the "test". Furthermore do not equate your profession to driving a car. A long haul truck driver goes through a much more stressful day than a commercial long distance pilot.


I generally agree with this, someone in the FAA gave JetBlue the go ahead on this, the fault lies with the FAA. I also support JetBlue in the test if the proposed increase in flight time results in reduced overall on duty time. Something like 10 hours flight 4 hours on duty for a maximum of 14 hours.

I do think it is fair to compare pilot's on duty/flight time with commercial truck driver's on duty/drive time though keep in mind that someone with a commercial driver's license may be driving a bus with 60 people or a tractor trailer loaded with explosives, toxic chemicals, or radioactive substances. Hazards pilots (outside of the military) do not have to deal with.

In terms of stress; I whole-heartedly believe that pilots have the bulk of it during takeoff and landing. However, both pilots and drivers have to deal with equally bad visibility but at least pilots have instruments and tower control to tell them where they are and where to go. A pilot can fly without looking out the window. Try driving anything for more then a momment while looking at the dashboard and I think you'll understand, if you're still alive.

Regulations may require pilots to be attentive but that doesn't mean that they are being attentive. A driver does not have an autopilot. Drivers have to be attentive the entire time they are driving and do not have a co-pilot to catch their mistakes or takeover at a moments notice. Thus, I think a driver is exposed to higher levels of constant stress then pilots and have greater consciences for non-attentiveness.

Interestingly enough commercial drivers are limited to 11 hours of drive time with a maximum of 14 hours total on duty time after having been off duty for at least 10 hours. There are also weekly limitations of 60 hours on duty time for a 7 day work week requiring 34 hours of of duty time before that 60 hours starts over again.

I have done both, driven commercial vehicles and I have piloted an aircraft. For me driving a commercial vehicle was more difficult then flying, outside of takeoff and landing of course! :cool:

Probably fairly easy to get with a FOIA request to the FAA. I'm sure they have records of the affected flights.
Transparency eh? Haven't heard that in a while :(

Tried to find some details about an incident in the 80's where both pilot & copilot fell asleep and flew a bit before ATC could reach them....

Found this instead:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/RTGAMArticleHTMLTemplate?tf=realtime/fullstory.html&cf=realtime/config-neutral&slug=wair&date=20010609

There is enough stress in one approach to make up for a weeks worth of driving. We all have our stresses. So, I tell you what. Come to me and tell me my job isn't stressfull after you've had more than one "ferry" flight where the environment is a hell of a lot more relaxed than parking 100 people in seats behind you.

To all the commercial pilots -- every single passenger here should, and probably does, appreciate your skills and your professionalism. You face a lot of stress in your work. Yes, your chosen career is one of very few that put so many lives in your control with such potential for mishap and disaster; your ability to control your plane keeps your passengers (and people on the ground near you) safe.

To all the long-haul truckers -- every single motorist here should, and probably does, appreciate your skills and your professionalism. You face a lot of stress in your work. People who drive far less than you do see the stupidity of a small number of motorists, and since you drive so much you are exposed to far more of it; your ability to control your vehicle keeps the people in the cars around you safe.

To all the emergency room professionals and trauma workers -- every single person here should, and probably does, appreciate your skills and your professionalism. You face a lot of stress in your work. People arrive in danger of immediate death, and those who you save live in part due to the teamwork of doctors, nurses, technicians, and others; your ability to quickly identify and treat serious injury keeps people alive.

To all the teachers -- every single person here should, and probably does, appreciate your skills and your professionalism. You face a lot of stress in your work. Kids today depend on the skills you try to instill in them - even if the world around you doesn't seem to value those skills; your ability to help children grow, develop and learn makes the world a better place.

I could go on, but the point is this: don't keep score all the time. Lots of people have stress; there's no precise way to compare pilot stress to surgeon stress to truckdriver stress to police officer stress, etc.

Just chill out, folks.

I have done both, driven commercial vehicles and I have piloted an aircraft. For me driving a commercial vehicle was more difficult then flying, outside of takeoff and landing of course! :

It's really easy to be a professional baseball player, except for the hitting, catching, and throwing.