| |

Fatigue or not-fatigue? That is the Question


After the crash of the Colgan Air flight in Buffalo, the new fatigue regulations hold the promise of increased safety for commercial pilots now that they are scheduled travel time plus 8 hours of sleep time (ten hours) sandwiched between flights.

But the fatigue regulations do not apply to cargo pilots.

The discrepancy has to do with the expense of insurance covering the lives of hundreds of passengers vs. the lives of a couple of pilots on a cargo flight; but the NTSB isn’t buying it. Cargo pilots, many of whom fly at night, are just as likely to get fatigued as commercial pilots.

Should cargo pilots, who fly largely at night and who don’t have to maintain the same kind of scheduling as commercial passenger airlines be entitled to the same kind of fatigue protections?

What do you think?

To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.

Similar Posts

  • | |

    Chairman Resigns!

    At a press conference Oct 31 in Brasília, Board Chairman Milton Zuanazzi, the last remaining member of ANAC’s former board of directors of the National Civil Aviation Agency (Anac) announced his resignation from the board.

    Zuanazz based his decision on claims that the National Civil Aviation Agency was the “scapegoat” for Brazil’s current air crisis.

    He said publicly that he “would not like to work” with Defense Minister Nelson Jobim, a position which is certainly understandable since Jobim has been trying to remove him since July.

    He delayed his resignation to the current time to allow Jobim to find new directors. Zuanazzi says that Jobim is not well-informed about Brazil’s aviation system, and classifies some of his proposals as “reckless.” The last straw was Defense Minister Nelson Jobim’s proposal to increase the required distance between airplane seats. Doing so would force carriers to raise fares, Zuanazzi said.

    One wonders how raising the distance between airplane seats will increase the safety factor, which is at the root of the whole aviation problem in Brazil.

    Zuanazz recommends Civil Aviation Secretary Solange Paiva Vieira to be his replacement.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | | | |

    A Disgraceful Attitude

    Here are a couple of facts:

    – Yemenia Flight 626 was an International Airbus A310-324 from Sana’a, Yemen, to Moroni, Comoros, that crashed on 30 June 2009 killing 152.

    –French authorities charged Yemenia Airways with manslaughter over the Yemenia Airways crash.

    –A judicial source said that Yemenia’s Airbus A310 “should not have been allowed to fly”.

    –152 people died in the crash.

    In spite of this, Yemenia announced they are “ready to challenge any allegation regarding the pilot’s competence, or the plane’s maintenance.”

    They kept on flying a plane which was judged unsafe. Now Yemenia Airways is denying responsibility for the crash, which in all likelihood was a consequence of flying an unsafe plane.

    Any way you look at it, no matter how vehemently they dismiss it, no matter how many times they make an “official” statement, in refusing responsibility for a plane crash on their watch —a plane crash which killed 152 people who trusted the airline to deliver them safely and which is clearly their responsibility—Yemenia Airways has displayed a disgraceful attitude.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.

  • AMSAFE: Plane Upgrade


    New plane safety requirements: Plane seats will be required to stay in place when subjected to stresses up to 16 times the force of gravity.

    John and Jane Q Crash dummy will need to scoot over now, to let in some new blood.

    And airbags are coming. In first class, anyway. Maybe those not in first class will just have to die.

    Two new mandates are on order: sturdier seats and airbags.

    Date of compliance is Oct. 27 for new airplanes certified prior to 1988. Older planes with an older seat style aren’t required to be compliant, under the assumption that age will naturally phase them out.

    http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-13093.htm

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.

  • Airbus Airworthiness: A300/310

    Excessive movements of a tail-fin part caused an American Airlines crash in New York in 2001.

    That is 10 years ago.

    A proposal is coming out tomorrow that will give Airbus A300 and A310 four years to make modifications preventing excessive rudder movements.

    What has taken them so long? They knew this was was a design issue shortly after the crash. In 2001. Ten years ago.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | | | | | |

    INDIA’s DGCA Asserts Co-Pilot Assertiveness

    George’s Point of View

    Following the Air India Express tragedy in Mangalore India (and definitely in response to it), the DGCA (India’s Directorate-General of Civil Aviation) has been trying to shut the gate after the horses are out. They’re still pointing their fingers at the pilot.

    The tape of the crash records the co-pilot Capt H S Ahluwalia (*i.e. the pnf) insisting to Commander Capt Zlatko Glusica to initiate a go-around. The Captain (**i.e. the pf) did not, and the plane landed too far down the runway, clipped an antenna, crashed thru the end of the runway, off the edge of the runway plateau. We can only assume the captain ignored his co-pilot, as no go-around was initiated.

    Apparently the pilot was in error and the co-pilot knew it. It must have been obvious to Ahluwalia that they were landing at the wrong angle too far down (the middle) of the runway–but he did not act on his knowledge. At any rate, he was in disagreement with his superior officer.

    Consequently, the DCGA has issued an operations circular highlighting procedural assertiveness for the co-pilot when he knows the pilot is wrong. The Mangalore tragedy is not mentioned by name, but it is certainly the silent subtext.

    Did the crash occur because the co-pilot did not take the controls? What exactly will this circular accomplish? Had this circular been public already, would the pilot and co-pilot have ended up in a wrestling match over controls of the airplane?

    It will be interesting to hear from pilots about what they think the consequences of this directive might be, and if they think a cultural context may play a part.

    I always turn to the experts. Right now, before the full investigation is out, I am hearing a lot of speculative “pilot error” but it is all speculation. But is it all pilot error?

    My experts remind me that “Every incident is linked to a chain of events. Each event alone is not sufficient reason to provoke an accident although when they link together the chances are multiplied and sometimes the accident occurs.” ( I am quoting a pilot.)

    For example, if pilot fatigue were a contributing factor (landing at dawn after a long tiring duty cycle), isn’t the carrier’s policy on pilot fatigue a contributory factor?

    The Boeing 737 landed midway on runway 24, and then overshot it, crashing into a gorge. Initial reports on the civil aviation website showed runway 27 mislabeled as runway 24. The actual crash site was not even pictured, a mistake that certainly casts doubt on the quality of the investigation, and possibly even the quality of the resources available to pilots at the time they were negotiating a landing. What did their map say? Is a pilot alone in error if the resources provided him are in error? I know I am digressing, but the point I want to make is this:

    I don’t have years of flight school, or engineering training but I do have opinion. And in my opinion, pilot error alone does not cause a crash like this.

    Terminology
    *pnf – pilot not flying
    **pf – pilot flying
    —

    Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
    Contact photographer WT

    What: Air India Express Boeing 737-800 en route from Dubai to Mangalore
    Where: Mangalore airport
    When: 6:00 a.m May 22 2010
    Who: 160 (?) passengers including 23 children, 6 crew= 158 fatalities and 8 survivors
    Why: Air India Express flight 812 attempted touch down was around the middle marker. (Conflicting) reports are that it overshot the runway, and that the pilot intended a go round (tapes reveal the co pilot was urging a go-round) but the plane hit the localizer antenna at the runway’s end, plowed through the perimeter losing part of a wing, and went down 75 feet into a ravine, and broke into pieces and burst into flames. On touchdown, there was a reported “bang” which may have been a tire bursting. A drizzle started after the accident. From 5 to 10 people have been hospitalized, but according to reports there are possibly 3 survivors.

    Survivor Abdul Puttur suffered burns. He was seated near the wing exit and said that the pilot had announced the landing, then there was a thud. He saw huge flames after the plane fell into the ravine and then he jumped out from the back entrance. Another passenger said the pilot made no announcement.

    The Serbian pilot was Zlatko Glusica, first officer was S.S. Ahluwalia.

    According to DGCA rules, Mangalore International Airport is deemed a “critical airfield” which means that “supervised take offs and landings” are prohibited. Only the captain (not the first officer) can pilot take-offs and landings. Mangalore International Airport has a controversial table top runway and which forces pilots to make a precision landing. The airport has no buffer zone, and pilots landing planes must fly precisely or risk hurtling off the edge.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | |

    Kerala High Court Reverses on Mangalore Crash

    In George’s Point of View


    The Kerala High Court ruled that the Air India need not pay the compensation amount of Rs 75 lakhs each to the victims of the Mangalore plane crash. The Division Bench gave the order in the appeal given by the Air India against the earlier Single Bench rule to pay the amount. The order references the Montreal Treaty.

    I am not surprised. When I first heard the original judgement, it was my layperson opinion that the high court would not let stand the order of the lower court to pass out 75 lakhs to each passenger.

    In my personal opinion the Judge who made that order didn’t read the Montreal treaty very well. In order for the family to collect the equivalent of 100,000 SDRS (about $160,000 U.S.), they must present provable damages and if they do, under the treaty, Tier I, the operator (Air India) cannot dispute or contest paying that amount. The Judge must have overlooked that the 100,000 SDRS is not the minimum required under the treaty, it is the maximum. So when the Judge ordered 75 lakhs to be paid, his order basically was overruling the treaty requirement of proving the damages.

    No, I was not surprised and neither were the attorneys I consult with. If no treaty existed limiting the liability of the operator, then the order from a Judge would have probably stayed in place.

    But that was not the case.

    The Montreal Treaty has two tiers. The above discussion explains tier one. The Tier II provision almost certainly removes the cap entirely, because of where the burden of proof lies.

    As long as the Montreal Treaty is being held as a rule, families should know that in most cases as per the treaty, the value of the case could be much higher than 75 lakhs, pursuant to Tier II of the Montreal Treaty. I know, I know….I’m not a lawyer but I know how it works from experience over the many years I have been working with wrongful death cases, and based on the experience my aviation experts have graciously passed on to me.

    Here is the explanation, as simply as I can explain it:

    If you can prove provable damages, then Tier II (referred to in Article 21(2) of the Montreal Convention) Air India Express is liable to families/passengers for all personal injury or wrongful death damages exceeding 100,000 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), unless the carrier(s) can prove that the injuries or deaths were not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or it servants or agents. OR the injuries or deaths were solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party.

    The carrier will never prove this and the burden of proof is on them. If I am correct, and know the experts who have taught me, are correct…

    Air India Express is liable to the victims families for all damages under the applicable law, including but not limited to, pain & suffering of loved ones prior to death.

    Air India Express is liable for pain and suffering of the survivors and heirs of the victims.

    Air India Express is liable for the loss of support, i.e., money.

    Air India is liable for the loss and enjoyment of life of the victim.

    I could go on but I will stop here, and caution the families to please be very careful. The families should not give up all that there may be coming in return for even a payment of the 75 lakhs that this new ruling states the company no longer has to pay. If they actually get around to offering it, to get it, it means the families have to give up all rights to future claims.

    I would tell the families this:

    Put up a fight. Your loved one is never coming back, no matter how much they pay you, but, I’m sure he/she would want you to collect the absolute maximum possible. As a passenger, your loved one paid a fare, and no matter what caused that crash, your loved one is FAULT FREE. Legally, the operator must pay.

    Consult a lawyer, an expert in aviation, I beg you to please do not try to do it yourself.

    I fly over 250,000 miles a year, and I wouldn’t want my family to try and do it alone if I were a victim.

    * I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

    http://twocircles.net

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.