A Fatiga nos Pilotos de Linha Aérea

[PA-22-108]

Para os que se interessam por este assunto, fica um estudo interessante da IFALPA

http://www.ifalpa.org/downloads/Level1/Interpilot/2009/10NWS03-%20InterPilot%20Sept-Oct%202009.pdf

[PA-22-108]

The Fatigue Factor – FAA Sets Rules for Staying Sharp in the Cockpit

Seven U.S. airlines have filed an appeal to stop new Federal Aviation Administration rules that more strictly regulate the quality of rest crews get on ultra-long flights. As the debate on whether or not the proposed rules are legitimate, some historical perspective might shed some insight.

The FAA wants crews on aircraft that fly non-stop 14 hours or more to have separate rest areas. It also wants to put more pilots on those airplanes. The landscape is laced with examples of crew fatigue contributing to accidents. Some of the flights were short-hauls, other transoceanic sojourns. Regardless, the common contributor in the crashes was fatigue.

Consider two of the more prominent accidents:

June 1, 1999, American Airlines Flight 1420 from Dallas/Fort Worth to Little Rock crashed on landing in bad weather, killing the captain and ten passengers. The MD-82 was destroyed. On the cockpit voice recorder, shortly before the crash, the captain tells his first officer, “This is a can of worms.” A bit later—in searching out the runway—the first officer tells the captain, “We’re way off.” The captain replies, “I can’t see it.” Seconds later, the first officer says, “We’re sliding.” Then, the first sound of im pact. The National Transportation Safety Board www.ntsb.gov concluded that, “Contributing to the accident were the flight crew’s impaired performance resulting from fatigue;”

August 6, 1997, Korean Air Flight 801 from Seoul to Guam crashed on landing in bad weather, killing 228. The well-respected captain of the 747—recipient of an earlier safety award for his airmanship—was in need of real rest. NTSB says the pilot’s fatigue contributed to the accident.

While it’s important to differentiate between “duty-time” issues (which contributed to these accidents), and crew rest accommodations on board aircraft, the fact remains that fatigue can be deadly.

In their lawsuit, the airlines contend that there’s no “conclusive evidence” that the older crew rest provisions which the new rules seek to replace contribute to fatigue or hurt safety.

Underpinning the carriers’ opposition to FAA’s new rule is money. Cash-strapped carriers, not yet recovered from last summer’s staggering fuel bills, say there are “significant costs” entailed in—among other things—fitting more airliners with crew-rest areas.


http://news.cheapflights.com/airlines/2009/01/the-fatigue-factor-faa-sets-rules-for-staying-sharp-in-the-cockpit.html

IN Flight Safety Information (14JAN09-011)

[Flyerboy]

7 Steps for Safe EU Air Crew Fatigue Rules

Today, ECA and ETF launched an Action Plan calling on the EU Institutions to swiftly revise EU fatigue law in line with latest scientific evidence. The Action Plan calls for concrete steps to be undertaken by the European Commission, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), EU Member States and the European Parliament to act upon a recent scientific study that shows that EU air crew fatigue law is potentially unsafe.

The Action Plan comes exactly 2 weeks after ECA and ETF carried out a Europe-wide Action Day, when hundreds of pilots and cabin crew took part in a concerted action, raising public awareness of the potential dangers of inadequate legal protection against the effects of Pilot and Cabin Crew fatigue.

Entitled "7 Steps Towards Safer Science-based EU Air Crew Fatigue Law", the Action Plan was sent to EU Transport Commissioner Antonio Tajani, President of the Transport Council Ms Åsa Torstensson, EASA Executive Director Patrick Goudou, EP Transport Committee Chairman Brian Simpson, National Aviation Authorities and others. It calls for:

1. A political statement by the Commissioner and EASA Executive Director that science-based EU rules on air crew fatigue are a priority and a matter of urgency;
2. EASA to start immediately drafting new fatigue rules, based on EASA?s scientific study („Moebus Report?), upgrading current rules and aiming at adoption by Spring 2011;
3. Stop allowing the airlines to block progress by continuously questioning scientific evidence and the need for science-based fatigue rules;
4. EU Member States to commit themselves to adopt EASA?s future proposal on a „fast-track? basis, based on safety considerations, not social or economic ones;
5. EU Member States to comply with new international ICAO rules, which very soon will oblige them to base their national fatigue rules on scientific knowledge;
5.
6. Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS) to become mandatory for every airline, based on binding EU rules, guidance material, and independent auditing;
7. Strict, transparent and science-based EU procedures allowing airlines to safely vary fatigue rule sets, subject to FRMS and consultation of air crew.

See the ECA / ETF Press Release