Twenty Five Percent of Pilots Report Making Errors Due to Fatigue

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

The pilots that thousands of Americans rely on to transport them safely across the country, struggle every day with fatigue and sleep deprivation. Approximately one of every 5 pilots admits that he has been fatigued enough in the workplace to make an error.

 

The survey was conducted by the National Sleep Foundation, and for the first time, targets transportation workers. In addition to airline pilots, the survey also included responses from truck drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers and train operators. Overall, the survey found that transportation workers were most likely to suffer from fatigue in the workplace, compared to non-transportation workers.

 

But, the study found some of the highest incidences of sleep deprivation-related errors occurred among pilots, train operators and truckers. Pilots seem to suffer severely from fatigue. California aviation attorneys noted that approximately 43% of them admitted that they made an error from fatigue at least once every week. Similar results were also seen among truck drivers and train operators.

 

Additionally, pilots also seem to be dissatisfied with the amount of sleep they get in a day. About 50% of all pilots in the survey said that they did not get enough during a typical workday. Only train operators get less sleep than pilots, with more than 57% saying that they do not get enough sleep during normal workdays.

 

Pilots were also found to be more likely to report being involved in accidents while they were commuting to the workplace. About 6% of pilots reported being involved in accidents while commuting to work, compared to 1% of non-transportation workers. More than one third of the pilots in the study blamed their sleep deprivation and constant fatigue on their schedules that don’t allow them sufficient rest breaks.

Do Passengers Need to Worry about Airline Safety?

Monday, November 22, 2010

That's the question that California plane crash attorneys are asking after a disastrous couple of weeks in which the engine of a Qantas jet with more than 400 passengers on board, blew out in midair, and investigators revealed that packages on cargo planes that had been headed to Chicago, were very close to exploding.


There's no doubt that 2010 has not been a great year for aviation safety.  There is a sense in the industry that safety in the airline sector has stagnated this past year.  The general perception is that there isn't much more that can be done to make airplanes safer.  It isn't exactly a bad year for airline safety, but it's a far cry from the heady days of just a few years ago, when airplane crashes and near miss incidents were a rarity in the news.  In 2010, barely a week has gone by without reports of a deadly crash or a near miss incident. 


Those concerns were raised at an aviation safety seminar in Milan last week.  According to the Flight Safety Foundation, the 2010 safety rate is just average right now.  However, if there are any more crashes before January, the safety rate for 2010 will actually dip below the average. 


According to Flight Safety Foundation, the five-year average for serious plane crashes hit an all-time low in 2006.  However, since then, the average has actually been rising.  In 2010, there have been at least 17 serious crashes across the globe.  Fourteen of these occurred during the landing and approach phase.  There have been at least five major runway incidents.

NTSB Recommends Separate Airline Seats for Babies

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

It isn't the first time that the National Transportation Safety Board has raised the issue of having separate airline seats for babies below two years of age.  Earlier this year, the agency broached the topic of not allowing babies to fly on their parents’ laps, because of the high risk of injury to these babies in the event of an airline accident.  Recently, the National Transportation Safety Board reiterated its belief that babies below two years of age should be safely secured in their own seats.


The National Transportation Safety Board has recommended to the Federal Aviation Administration that parents be required to purchase an additional ticket for a baby.  The NTSB says that there's a high likelihood that parents and caregivers with a baby on their lap may not be able to hold on to the child during a survivable plane crash or episodes of air turbulence.  There's another reason why the NTSB wants parents to buy an additional seat for the little baby.  During a plane crash, when there are survivors, it's hard to link babies to their parents.  When there's no additional airline seat for the baby, there's no documentation linking the baby to the parent.


The Federal Aviation Administration has, in the past, failed to take the recommendation seriously.  The agency's argument is that if parents are required to buy an additional ticket for the baby, they would choose to travel by road instead.  That would simply increase highway fatalities.


Parents however, are not likely to support any measure that forces them to buy an additional ticket.  The other challenge is in implementing such measures.  Little infants may not be developmentally ready to be sitting in their own seat.  Babies are also not likely to be comfortable in a strange environment in a separate seat, adding to parental stress. 

Many California plane crash lawyers support the NTSB recommendation, but would stress that there are challenges to implementing it, and that these must be addressed too.

FAA Investigating Yet Another Close Call

Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating yet another incident where two planes came too close for comfort, averting an accident just in time. It was the most recent in a series of such incidents that have caused great concern to California plane crash lawyers, and been reported widely in the media. It also comes even as the New York plane crash involving a small commuter plane and a helicopter that killed nine people remains fresh in memory.

This most recent incident occurred on May 21 at Alaska's Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. The incident involved a US Airways 747 jetliner and a Cargolux 747 plane. The US Airways jetliner was landing at the airport from Phoenix. The plane had 130 passengers and a crew on board. The freight plane in the meantime, was on its way to Chicago with a crew of two people on board. The US Airways plane landed within just one third of a mile of the cargo plane.

A catastrophic crash was averted just in time, but the FAA is taking the incident very seriously. It has initiated a probe into the incident. The National Transportation Safety Board is also investigating the matter. The agency has sent an air traffic control specialist to investigate the incident.

Close calls like these are the result of two factors - pilot error or negligence by air traffic controllers. The New York crash involving the commuter plane and the tourist chopper was traced ultimately to traffic controller negligence. That crash was an example of the kind of disaster that can result when two planes end up on a collision path, due to errors.

Unfortunately, these incidents are not as infrequent or freakish as the general public would like to believe. Over the past year, California plane crash lawyers have chronicled several instances where pilot or air traffic controller error has led to situations like these. The outcry against such incidents has been strong enough for the FAA to crack down harder, and aim to create a professional atmosphere in cockpits and air traffic control towers.

Five Persons Killed in Texas Air Ambulance Crash

Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Five persons have been killed in the latest air ambulance crash in the country, and the second to occur in Texas in less than two months. The plane crashed on Sunday, July 4th, near the Alpine Casparis Municipal Airport, southeast of El Paso, soon after takeoff. The five victims included a 78-year-old patient, his wife, two flight nurses and the pilot.

According to the Associated Press, the pilot was trying to make an emergency landing when the plane struck a muddy field. The aircraft then flipped over, and burst into flames. The plane was on its way to Midland at the time of the crash. According to Federal Aviation Administration records, the plane is registered in the name of O’Hara Flying Service II LP of Amarillo, Texas. The National Transportation Safety Board has initiated an investigation into the crash.

This plane crash is the second one involving an air ambulance in Texas in less than two months. Early in June, a medical helicopter operated by Careflite crashed outside Midlothian in Ellis County. That helicopter did not have any patients on board. It was on a maintenance flight when it went down in an open field. The helicopter burst into flames soon after. Investigations into that crash are still going on.

The topic of air ambulance safety has been a burning issue for air ambulance lawyers and lawmakers. In 2008, there were Congressional hearings into the causes of these crashes after a series of fatal air ambulance accidents. Researchers reported then that the rate of crashes for these aircraft was approximately twice that for other aircraft. In fact, one aviation expert opined that if commercial airlines had the same crash rate as ambulances, we would have more than 80 commercial airline crashes in the country every year.

In September, the National Transportation Safety Board had a special meeting to discuss regulations in the air ambulance industry. It made several recommendations including the development of specialized pilot training that factored in the unique hazards that these pilots face, periodical simulated training of pilots on FAA-approved systems and implementation of safety management programs that include enhanced risk-management practices.



FAA Targeting Sleeping Pilots

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

One year after the airline crash in Buffalo, NY, the FAA is taking a long, hard look at airline industry practices that many say are putting people’s lives at risk. Stories of pilots operating on too little sleep continue to come to light, and calls for wide reform are being made to prevent further incidents.

In the case of the Buffalo crash, a number of disturbing factors have been made public. Copilot Rebecca Shaw spent the night before the flight travelling from Seattle to Newark, NJ, before reporting for duty without getting any sleep. Captain Marvin Renslow commuted to New Jersey from Florida three nights before the flight, and spent two of those nights in the crew lounge with no bed. Both claimed to have experienced poor-quality and frequently interrupted sleep in the days leading up to the flight.

Some analysts suggest pilot performance problems may be partially tied to salary. Copilot Shaw had recently been given a raise from $16,000 to $24,000 dollars. When you consider that she commuted to New Jersey from Washington State, and further consider the usual price of hotels in the Newark area, it doesn't seem likely she could frequently afford reasonable, comfortable resting accommodations on such pay.

Sleep deprivation isn't something that people can safely tough out in any circumstances. Doctors and psychologists agree that a lack of healthy, regular sleep can lead to symptoms on par with alcohol consumption. In addition, a long term lack of sleep can be detrimental to the mind and body alike, further impairing overall performance. Airlines ground pilots who show up to work too drunk to fly, should they do the same with pilots who have had too little rest?

In the case of the Hudson River landing last year, the pilot's steady hand and quick reflexes were credited with the near miraculous survival of every passenger on the downed flight. In the effort of preventing future accidents, the industry needs to ask itself if that would have been the case if he'd been half asleep after two days of commuting.
 

NTSB Faults Air-Traffic Controller, Pilot and Training in Denver Crash

Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The National Transportation Safety Board has released a report of its investigation into the Continental Airlines plane crash at Denver international Airport in December 2008. As aviation lawyers would expect, the report has criticism not just for the pilot of the plane, but also for the air traffic controller and the broader inadequacy of pilot training programs.

On December 20, 2008, as the pilot was making the takeoff roll, wind gusts reached 51 mph. However, the Captain of flight 1404 stopped using the plane’s right rudder about 4 seconds before a massive burst of wind struck the airplane's tail. The Boeing 737-500 left the runway, and went over a frozen field. The plane crashed and exploded in flames. Fortunately, none of the passengers were killed. However, six of the passengers suffered serious injuries. Some passengers suffered minor injuries. According to the report, the pilot should have been able to keep the jet on the runway by making proper rudder inputs.

The National Transportation Safety Board investigative report into the crash has plenty of praise for the crew members of the plane, who showed great presence of mind and bravery as they helped evacuate all passengers safely.

However, there were many factors that could so easily have been prevented. For instance, crosswinds at Denver International Airport at the time of takeoff were between 30 and 45 knots, which is about 51 mph. The pilot was not trained for such flying conditions. The NTSB report also zeroed in on the air traffic controller's failure to warn the pilot of the high winds. The traffic controller had given the pilots instructions that the winds were about 27 knots, or about 31 mph from the west. However, he had other information from sensors that predicted much gustier winds. If the pilot had been given this information just before takeoff, it is highly likely that he would have chosen not to take off at all.

The National Transportation Safety Board has recommended that the Federal Aviation Administration should insist that pilot seats be upgraded to match the strength of seats in the passenger cabins. The NTSB has also recommended that the FAA require airlines to include strong and realistic gusty winds in their pilot training.



FAA Resume Program That Allows Controllers to Sit in Airline Cockpits

Tuesday, August 10, 2010
By the end of this year, the Federal Aviation Administration hopes to restart a program that gives air traffic controllers the chance to sit in airline cockpits, in order to experience the challenges of flying firsthand and at close distance. The program was suspended after 9/11, when the government placed strict restrictions on access to airline cockpits. The opening up of the cockpits to the controllers is part of a series of measures that the Federal Aviation Administration is taking to improve air safety and minimize the risk of collisions.

Of particular worry to the Federal Aviation Administration is the increasing number of incidents involving violation of separation distances. Generally, planes are required to keep a distance laterally of about 6 miles at high altitudes, and 3.5 miles when the plane is approaching an airport. However, several incidents recently have involved planes coming far too close to each other. It is these incidents, possibly signifying both pilot and air controller error, that have been the topic of much discussion at the agency.

The Federal Aviation Administration program that encourages air traffic controllers to report mistakes to the agency, has also been receiving good response, the agency says. It has been receiving an average about 250 to 300 reports about errors a week. Under the program, the agency promises not to use this information against controllers, but rather to use the information in order to spot possible error trends. The agency has similar programs in place for pilots.

The agency has had a rocky history getting the controller unions to agree to its safety proposals. However, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association backs the new proposal to allow controllers to sit in airline cockpits. That is definitely a very encouraging sign to California aviation lawyers. Bickering between the country's premier aviation safety agency and its employees’ unions spell nothing but trouble for the safety of American passengers. California plane accident lawyers would encourage more cooperation between all the parties involved, so that Americans can enjoy a safer flying environment.