midlevels

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/a...-flight-safety

percysmith

I think someone tried to post the text of the letter here before http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/catha...-accident.html . I was unable to read the letter or find the text of it before it was redacted.

ahks

FA as well. Saw one of them sleeping during both take off and landing. Her eyes were closed, trying to nap. It was in J, sitting at mini cabin galley exit, opposite the toilet on a 33G coming back to HK.

Thought their rostering are more flexible, better than KA.

QRC3288

I'd be curious what the "incident" is the article implies that almost (or did) occur, as a result of pilot fatigue.

percysmith

Whilst I enjoy more capacity and eliminating slack, I'm not so sure about achieving such ends by pushing everything. I'm doubtful of stretching it.

Here's a tradeoff I like to ask other customers - would we mind a 1/1,000 risk of crashing in lieu of capacity? Answering for me alone, I would, but I'll be troubled if I have to ask the crew, the FAs and the 200-odd passengers to join me.

SinoBritAsia

The letter is very long, and at times, technical. It would be futile posting it on here or SCMP.com because it won't make sense to layman.

As for the fatigue incident, I understand it was a unstabalised approach (whether landing to slow/fast or higher or lower than 3 degrees and not being able to correct ones-self in time).

At least there is examples in the story like this we can understand

QRC3288

This is definitely a no-no. A FA was recently fired for being caught sleeping in the crew seat as you describe. There are bad apples and bad decisions made everywhere...I don't think it's a FA rostering issue.

Actually, the FA rostering and rest rules are in a way more stringent than the pilots. I am no expert on the science and negotiations behind it. Here are some anecdotes I'm familiar with:

Take SFO or JFK with a full complement of HKG-roster crews, both cabin and cockpit. The entire gang will go out together to North America. But, the pilots will come back a day earlier than the FAs. For one pattern example, CX846 with a HK roster will see the FAs stay 3 nights in their New York hotel and depart on CX841 on the morning of arrival+3. FAs are on the ground in NY about 60 hours. However, the pilots will have already flown back operating to Hong Kong on a flight one day earlier. For SFO, years ago I know on the CX872/3 pattern when it was still primarily rostered by HKG crews (today it is SFO based crews), pilots were on the ground in SFO for 24 hours, aka they'd go back the following day. Whereas FAs were on the ground for 48 hours, going back two days later.

Similar situation holds for pilots based overseas; they can land in Hong Kong from a long-haul say LAX or FRA base landing HKIA early morning, and then 12 hours later be dispatched on a regional overnight or red-eye pattern. FAs cannot.

Again, I don't know squat about the science and negotiations behind this. I do have to say, I have great respect for the pilots (as well as the FAs) who can adjust to that kind of time change and work through it. I just know that I am tired enough landing in HKG after sitting in J or F long-haul. I cannot imagine working it!.

Thanks

Dr. HFH

I'm inclined to believe that pilots who say that the work schedules are impacting flight safety are trying to use hyperbole to make a point in their union negotiations. If they really thought that the current schedules were dangerous and threatened flight safety, would they really be on those flights risking their own lives?

QRC3288

This is management's argument indeed...

However, of course the pilots would fly the routes! It's a matter of probability. Air travel is exceedingly safe these days. Their argument is it's incrementally less safe to operate in the manner they are.

I believe you're in the US, right? Pilots at US commuter airlines have long complained of inferior rest conditions compared to US mainline carriers. They still get into the flight deck and fly the planes. The incident rate is so low whilst everyone understands the statistics (fatigue = higher risk of problem), no pilot actually believes it will happen to them because, after all, they're the ones behind the controls. This is just human psychology. Even if they work at an airline that has more aggressive rostering conditions.

I had an intimate view to one of these issues years ago. Without a doubt, the rest and fatigue environment for pilots flying for the company I became familiar with were inferior to those at mainline operations for United, Delta, and American. The FAA and NTSB also ended up agreeing with the position long argued by this company's pilots, btw. Unfortunately it took multiple near-miss incidents and finally a tragic fatal crash in the Northeast to get changes pushed through. The pilots had been whinging for years. Management said it was a negotiating tactic and talks had repeated fallen through.

Indeed, the pilots could be using this as a negotiating tactic. It certainly would be their logical tactic to push for higher wages. However, the point you raise is simply the logical negotiating position of management - that the pilots have a baseless argument, they wouldn't fly the routes if they're unsafe, and hence the pilots' arguments of fatigue must be a negotiating tactic. I'm not privy to the whole story at CX. I know some pilots, I know some FAs, and I know some management, but not enough of the whole story to really understand the truth. I can't say either way. I've seen enough inside airlines to know that pilot fatigue can be a real issue, and it's an ever-evolving science. I also know that CX is highly regarded by its peers as a very safe airline. I was initially surprised by the hours pilots work (particularly how they have less resting hours between shifts than FAs), but unless proven to me otherwise will assume the science and negotiations behind that have been thorough.

midlevels

Those are mighty poor odds. Translates roughly into 100 crashes per day, every day, worldwide.

I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want to voluntarily engage in any sort of activity that carries a 1/1,000 risk of death.

percysmith

I don't have full access to the letter, but from the article it seems the Rostering Practices Agreement seems legal but sharp. Apparently CX and AOA agreed to a payrise level *then* CX pulled the RP Agreement.

I can't say whether the RP Agreement is just a cushy benefit being jealously guarded by the pilots or a genuine break against pilot overfatigue. Even if assuming the former, it seems CX's not being terribly upfront about its intentions to take the benefit away in exchange for the payrise (and CX has recent form - http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/catha...l#post24847350 )

The other matter - tweaking the rostering - for example make Aus night flights 2-crew only, does seem a cause for concern. Specifically, I don't see any personal benefit for the crew to insist on this - this is more easily defensible on the part on the pilots as a pure safety issue that CX is tweaking to reduce costs.

percysmith

All right I probably overstated. I'll assess the risk properly.

Let's say the changes increase the risk of being a fatality from virtually nil (when did CX last have a flight-related fatality? 1967?) to one 33G loss or fataility equivalent per 36 months. 254/(31,570,000 (2014 AR) x 3) = 1/372,000

I certainly don't mind those odds. They still look much better than a mine worker.

Where do we say stop though?

percysmith

Is it this one?

港龍飛檳城航班硬着陸　機身嚴重損毀客狂哭

http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/2015...00822_001.html

(Sorry it can't be. This hard landing was Wednesday. The letter has been posted here last Sunday).

Dr. HFH

I'm from the U.S., but now live mostly in UTH where I have a business.

I don't think that pilot fatigue is as monolithic a problem as it's made out to be. The co-pilot of 9L 3407, for example, was fatigued when she boarded. But the reason was that she chose to live in the state of Washington and commute to EWR where she was based. Apparently she flew to EWR and dozed for a few hours in a chair before starting the flight. Had she lived near her base, she probably wouldn't have been nearly as tired. Maybe there should be regulations about the permissible amount of commute time before a true overnight is required for pilots.

And, yes, both sides have negotiating tactics and positions. The pilots say that it's not safe; management says that they still fly. As is often the case, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

baggyred

2 return flights from Hong Kong to New York would be a pilot's equivalent requirement for a month's work...

Half of which they spend asleep.

A stretch to say they are "exhausted" IMO