For the B-two bomber pilots: they earn triple sleeping miles and QUADRUPLE SNORING POINTS which they cash in when they land. I guess all they do is simply "Crash" and head off to dream land when they're done.

But I guess they work 30 hours in the air 8 hours sawing wood!

Philforest:

I am not trying to be combative (ha ha). My point was that someone who cannot stay awake for 12 hours should not be a long haul pilot. There is no reason that person could fly not the SFO-LAX route.

[This message has been edited by Hong Kong Flyer (edited 04-20-99).]

Not exactly, Cat. Methinks they get the added bonus of sitting through a thorough de-briefing, then the mandatory round o' drinks at the O club to celebrate a (hopefully) successufl mission!

What gets me is that most of those Delta pilots (indeed, most commerical pilots) learned to fly in the military and were expected and required to be able to handle those long missions. Those that couldn't washed out and now drive Greyhounds for a living. Bottom line is these guys are spoiled and if that Delta pilot is a reservist he better hope he doesn't get called up to reinforce the troops.

Just my opinion.

Cheers,

'toad

No, 'toad, HE shouldn't hope he doesn't get called up. WE should hope he doesn't get called up. My earlier post was directed at the thought that we shouldn't want to entrust our lives to someone who isn't confident he can protect them. If he really thought he wasn't able to fly, he was right in setting it down. And Delta would be right in never letting him take it up again.

Not having all the facts never stopped me from adding my two pence (I like to keep FT international).

Many if not most military pilots are in their 20s or early 30s. For those of us past that age, we know that an individual has more energy at that age. And if a B-2 pilot falls asleep over the ocean, there are not 300 behind him. The military is willing to take different risks than civilians.

The airlines let pilots bid for flights based on their seniority. Perhaps the most senior pilots should not be doing the trans-ocean flying.

I for one am glad to be a civilian. The idea of flying (as a passenger) on a canvas seat hoping the ground crew chained that tank into place properly for twenty hours and NOT getting airmiles would be too much for me to handle.

Perhaps I am more gullible than most, but
with all the "souls" riding in one of those
fragile airborne carriages, I am inclined to give the pilot the benefit of the doubt - he acted on an issue he felt was verrrrrrrrrry
important. A case of poor judgment? I do not know, but sometimes it takes something like that to shake things up. Will he suffer unplesant consequences, my guess is ..yes.

Will his act bring about an improved situation for the pilots? I do hope so.

You know, if the airlines really cared about
safety, they would not allow the crowding
of more passengers into too small seats and aisles..and the gosh awful loading of the overhead bins with all kinds of metal
carts. So which passenger is able to draw
attention to the conditions on the planes?

He/she would be locked up for a disturbance
which should not even be needed.

Only 3 reasons the plane is on the ground.

1. Somethin wrong with the plane.
2. Somethin wrong with the weather.
3. Somethin wrong with the pilot.

In any of those events, I'd rather be sittin on the ground wishin I was in the air, than sittin in the air, whishin I was on the ground.

Comicwoman: I would want the senior pilots to do the trans-oceanic (at at least trans- Pacific) flying. There was another WSJ article posted some weeks ago about an UA near crash (oxymoronic since a plane either crashes or does not crash? Need help with English here, Mr. Merry!) because most pilots lack the experiences in flying 747s, the plane most used for trans-Pacific routes.

I think in this case, the pilot is making more of a statement rather than actually physically tired. Four people flying a route that is on auto-pilot most of the time does not seem too taxing, IMHO.

Girlflies:
I'm with you!!!!!

OMNI:
The Pilot: "We've reached our cruising altitude now, and I'm turning off the seat belt sign. I'm switching to autopilot, too, so I can come back there and visit with all of you for the rest of the flight."

kyklin ~ Just to clear that up, the problem UA is having is not necessarily because their pilots are "inexperienced" (they're not a bunch of 25 year old pilots), but with the 747's on long international routes with two crews, the each pilot would only get to take off and land once or twice every few months, meaning that they just weren't doing it enough to maintain proficiency. UA is going to be doing more simulator training to make up for this shortcoming.

In a way, I agree with you, Beckles. I do not think they are "25 year olds" either since the trans-Pacific is one of the cushier routes assigned to higher ranking pilots.

However, don't you think "not doing enough to maintain proficiency" is arguably the same as "inexperienced"? [From Webster's: Inexperience: lacking practical experience or training.]

[This message has been edited by kyklin (edited 04-21-99).]

kyklin ~ I think UA 747's pilots are still the most experienced they've got overall, but the problem is recent experience. Overall they have lots of practical experience and training, but once they move to 747's in international service they just don't accrue the experience very quickly anymore!

On a recent LAX-SYD flight on Air New Zealand (before the UA story broke), as we were beginning the landing, the purser commented that this would be a "hands on" rather than an instrument landing, because the pilot needed to do a hands-on to keep his ratings. So I guess not only is there the fact that they don't fly that often, but also that even when they do fly, the landings can be instrument. And the most experienced pilots nearing retirement are the ones who get the 747s. Historically, pay was based on the weight of the plane, because the bigger planes 50 years ago were more difficult to fly, so today the 747s get more $$$ than the 737s, even tho the big planes are easier to fly than some of the smaller ones. In the past few years, United has begun paying the 767 pilots the same as the 747s rather than having to keep training 767 pilots to take over the 747 for a year or two prior to retirement. And if you listen to the pilots, altho the money is great for the 747s, they also talk about the exhaustion. Even tho the flight may be boring and on autopilot, their mental sharpness is gone after 12-14 hours in the air and it's hard to perk up and be bright for the landing. i don't think many of us can claim to come off those flights razor sharp! And I've rarely seen ANZ crew come out of the cockpit area to "visit", so the putting it on autopilot to go visit is not really correct.

May 7, 1999


Delta Upholds Pilot Sleep Decision


A.P. INDEXES: TOP STORIES | NEWS | SPORTS | BUSINESS | TECHNOLOGY | ENTERTAINMENT


Filed at 2:38 p.m. EDT

By The Associated Press

ATLANTA (AP) -- Delta Air Lines pilots may soon be resting easier on
long flights.

The carrier said Friday it has upheld one pilot's decision to cut short a
14-hour flight to Japan because his relief pilots had trouble sleeping in
cramped quarters they dubbed ``the coffin.'' The airline also is working
on a design for a larger bunk area.

The issue became public after Capt. Roscoe McMillan landed his
MD-11 in Portland, Ore., on April 7 rather than continue on from
Atlanta to Tokyo. The 110 passengers were transferred to another flight.

Delta spokesman Bill Berry said the carrier interviewed McMillan and
other crew members as part of a standard investigation into any disrupted
flight.

``The end result is that we support the captain. He said he took the
action because he didn't think his relief pilots would be as sharp as they
should be,'' Berry said. ``He said it was based on safety concerns, and
safety comes first.''

The 59-year-old McMillan, who has more than 30 years experience with
Delta, faced a reprimand or even dismissal if the carrier's management
had decided he diverted the plane as a protest. He said he landed the
plane because the two relief crew members said they didn't get sufficient
sleep.

The pilot, due to retire in less than a year, didn't immediately return a
phone call Friday.

Berry said McMillan has continued his normal flying schedule since the
landing, and there have been no other problems on the Tokyo flight,
Delta's longest nonstop service.

Meanwhile, Delta managers have met with pilots about the sleeping
compartment and engineers have submitted drawings to manufacturers
for a larger chamber, Berry said.

The Air Line Pilots Association, representing Delta's 9,000 pilots, filed a
grievance about the sleep module. A taped phone message to its
members Friday said the grievance is still pending, but ``management has
agreed to consider alternative facilities,'' which the union will review.

The union says the snug bunk-bed units have too little room, lack privacy
and allow too much outside noise to filter in. They are located between
the cockpit and the business-class section and are blocked off by a
2-inch-thick curtain.

Delta had shrunk the MD-11 sleeping space five months ago to make
more room for higher-paying business-classpassengers. The new
modules replaced one the pilots called ``the condo'' because it was
spacious, quiet and private.

Federal regulations require airlines to provide on-board sleeping quarters
for pilots on flights of 12 hours or more. A crew of four alternates at the
controls.

Jim Hall, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, called a
unionsafety official recently to ask about the situation and dispatched an
NTSB member to Atlanta on Wednesday.

NTSB spokesman Ted Lopatkiewicz said the board hasn't taken a
position on the module but wanted to gather information on whether it
contributed to pilot fatigue.

``We have an interest in fatigue in all modes of transportation,'' he said
Friday.