I find this article curious, and wonder if someone might be able to explain what reasoning Colgan might have used to justify keeping the lights on in the crew room as a way to alleviate fatigue issues?
The pilot of the flight that crashed in Clarence a year ago slept in the airline's crew room the night before the flight, but now Colgan Air has come up with a way of making it more difficult for pilots to do that.
It's ordered the lights to be kept on in its crew rooms.
Deborah Hersman, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, revealed that company practice at a Senate hearing this morning — and indicated she wasn't impressed with Colgan's solution.
More than the thought that "it won't really mitigate the problem", it would seem to me that it could have undesirable repercussions as well ... Am I off base in thinking that?
Is sleeping on a chair in a crew room meeting the requirements of duty rest? I don't know the situation we are talking about here, but I always wounder about someone who takes a job at a base, and decides to live elsewhere for whatever reason. Then proceeds to use fatigue or lack of rest as an excuse for things. If a job doesn't pay enough to allow you to live at or near your base what is the point of having said job?
I am probably way off base here, but I've seen this before in my career and it is a bit of a pet peave.
I too have heard way too much whining about that in my career. If you can't afford to live closer then find a new job.
I have always lived within 10 minutes of where I work. Often it has cost more than other options but I could always get the rest I needed instead of commuting. It is the only way to go.
---------- ADS -----------
"...flying airplanes is really not all that difficult so it attracts some of the most mentally challenged people in society." - . .
"Baby, stick out your can... 'cause I'm the garbageman"
Is sleeping on a chair in a crew room meeting the requirements of duty rest? I don't know the situation we are talking about here, but I always wounder about someone who takes a job at a base, and decides to live elsewhere for whatever reason. Then proceeds to use fatigue or lack of rest as an excuse for things. If a job doesn't pay enough to allow you to live at or near your base what is the point of having said job?
I am probably way off base here, but I've seen this before in my career and it is a bit of a pet peave.
I don't think you are off base at all and I totally agree. If you take a job that requires a commute it's your responsibility to show up ready for work.
I'm not disagreeing with your point(s) - I just don't understand how leaving the lights on is going to stop anyone from making poor decisions. I mean, there is rest and there is rest, right? If you need to get (eg) 8 hrs prone rest, obviously the crew room (lights on or off) isn't going to be the right place to get that. But, if what you need is a 45 minute cat-nap, where are you supposed to go?
Maybe the first question I should have asked was, what is the purpose of a "crew room"?
Rather then commute so far to work, move a bit closer, then with the time you save not commuting, get a job at starbucks to supplement your flying income, that way you can fly a jet, live close to work, and get discount coffee.
Seems like a no brainer to me... am I missing something
---------- ADS -----------
No trees were harmed in the transmission of this message. However, a rather large number of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced.
I agree that you should show up to work rested, but I'm also a big fan of cat napping, especially if your working weird hours, long holds and long days. Mind you the lights on wouldn't stop me from sleeping. Bottom line is this is not solving any problems, just trying to pretend to address an issue without spending any money.
Don't forget that you can't afford a hotel room or appartment in New York for $16,000/year. That's the root of the problem, not whiny or irresponsible pilots.
Valhalla wrote:Don't forget that you can't afford a hotel room or appartment in New York for $16,000/year. That's the root of the problem, not whiny or irresponsible pilots.
I realize that this is the problem. But I sincerly doubt you could live on $16000 a year anywhere. If people didn't line up for these poor paying jobs guess what, they would have to pay more. In my opinion taking a job for $16000 a year is a prime example of irresponsible.
Unlike some of you, I do have sympathy for the pilots who can't afford to live in the city they work, and then experience chronic fatigue trying to be available for work. The girl who died DID work at Starbucks. Didn't do her any good by the looks of things. This untenable situation has a few possible scenarios:
1) Nobody takes the jobs at all, forcing the airline to offer better pay.
2) independently wealthy spoiled brats do the job because it's "ironic"; and slumming is fun!
3) New York street people learn to fly and get hired by Colgan.
4) Young professional pilots commute to work from cities they can afford to live in, and catch up on sleep in the "crew room", now with the light switches lockwired on.
I like number one the best! But blaming "whiny pilots" plays straight into the hands of the overpaid corporate milquetoast douchebags who created this situation in the first place. Personally, I would like to see them fried alive in Canola oil (low cholesterol) with a light batter and served to starving, exhausted copilots while their wives and daughters are forced to watch, but hey that's just me talking.
Also, I agree with the guy right above me. Taking the job in the first place was the first mistake. I hope people stop working for Colgan air, and I also hope that as a result of not being able to find any more slaves they refuse to learn their lesson, and eventually starve to death in the most painful way imaginable, because they are too proud to work at Starbucks like their former employees had to.
---------- ADS -----------
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself
Rather then commute so far to work, move a bit closer, then with the time you save not commuting, get a job at starbucks to supplement your flying income, that way you can fly a jet, live close to work, and get discount coffee.
Seems like a no brainer to me... am I missing something
Invertago, please tell us this was a fricken joke. Advocating pilots should work a second job to make ends meat, so they can fly a "jet"
Are you missing something? Maybe a few braincells, suppose you would work for free and pay for a ppc to get your log book up too.
Seems to me a lot of you are missing the core problem here. Don't any of you recall how hungry you were for your first job? Willing to work the ramp tossing bags for $6/hour for 1, 2 or even 3 years, just to earn the chance of "starting" your career. This same mentality is what's going on here at Colgan and I'm sorry, but blaming your fellow pilot's for taking that job at minimal pay is NOT the solution. No matter what, someone is always willing to do it. Living on $16000/year is simply not feasible on your own today unless maybe you just so happen to be living with your parents where you are based. For most of us, this isn't an option. Supply and demand some of you may say, but with no one but ourselves to monitor fatigue and under the threat of loosing our jobs to someone else willing to do it for less, I'd say its heavily favored towards the operator. The cost of safety is my problem with this logic.
You need supplemental income in addition to living outside of the city, therby commuting in some form or another. This can be an unacceptable and unsafe practice, and unfortunately will not change unless someone steps in to stop these operators from taking advantage. Which as we all know, takes time; and sadly more accidents.
Rather then commute so far to work, move a bit closer, then with the time you save not commuting, get a job at starbucks to supplement your flying income, that way you can fly a jet, live close to work, and get discount coffee.
Seems like a no brainer to me... am I missing something
Invertago, please tell us this was a fricken joke. Advocating pilots should work a second job to make ends meat, so they can fly a "jet"
Are you missing something? Maybe a few braincells, suppose you would work for free and pay for a ppc to get your log book up too.
Actually it was ment as a 'dry joke' well really it was my venting with a little irony and sarcasm, but I also kinda felt like stirring the pot a little and fishing for angry reactions
---------- ADS -----------
No trees were harmed in the transmission of this message. However, a rather large number of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced.
I think Meatservo has it right and if any of you think that turning down a "Jet " job makes you more employable later because you have the tough stuff ; well good luck with that. The business has been led straight to the sewer by the low costs and the low cost regional airlines. TO SAY OTHERWISE IS WELL JUST NOT REALISTIC. Everyone feels they should be able to fly JFK- BUF or YWG to YVR for 50-75$ so lets get on with it folks. No more complaining if you want to be a pilot well that's the rules s=jeez Louise what were you thinking anyway.
I don't think taking a job with low pay is irrisponsible. Its the choices made once you have that job.
I work for a major airline, based in Calgary, and live elsewhere and have to commute (for now), and I do it responsibly. If I go on reserve at 3am, I am in Calgary and have had my rest when 3am comes around. If you are going to take a job, and know commuting is going to be a reality, you have to be responsible about it. You are going to be commuting on days off, thats a given.
Its unfortunate the actions of some, make us look like a bunch of hacks.
I realize that this is the problem. But I sincerly doubt you could live on $16000 a year anywhere
I know I am rather new here but I live on far less then 16k a year. All the suggestions about living closer sound well and good "quit if you cant afford to live there" c'mon now so only those rich enough should take those jobs???? How is that other guy supposed to advance in his chosen industry if the choice is shut up quit whining or stop flying? and how will we change what operators do with that attitude?
I understand this choice wholly as I worked for an op that was unsafe and now I make a welfare check as I await the new season, instead of that job which would have givin me the golden ticket to most any job. Its that choice of shut up and take it and if you make it you move on, you quit and good luck getting back at it and if you talk to TC about whats going on your DONE period. So the vast majority of us tuck our tails between our legs and pretend like its not going on few quit and no one is ever made the wiser.
No piot should be in the position where they are not paid enough to live within a reasonable distance of where they work, no pilot should have to fly an unsafe plane... How are we going to change this? I chose to quit and sure dont feel good about my choice, I sure took a pay cut from what was still to little and am logging time on a car...
The problem (IMHO) with flying for a living is that the employers have the upper hand because most pilots would sell their soul in exchange for future rewards.
We are made to believe ,from the flying schools on , that a little sacrafice at the beginning will pay off with great rewards. The problem is that only a small percentage of these wantabee pilots will achieve anything close to what that had dreamed about.
So we find ourselves like wantabee actors in Hollywood , waiting at tables, and hoping to be discovered by some film maker and make the big time.
Hopefully the public outcry will force the cut throat operators to raise their standards and compensate their flight crews properly.
Leaving the lights on in the crew room is not going to change anything.
I realize that this is the problem. But I sincerly doubt you could live on $16000 a year anywhere
I know I am rather new here but I live on far less then 16k a year. All the suggestions about living closer sound well and good "quit if you cant afford to live there" c'mon now so only those rich enough should take those jobs????
The problem is, pilots automatically think they are entitled to jobs that pay far more than airlines can afford right off the bat. Colgan may be able to afford to pay you more, but 16K is minimum wage. Don't like it? Don't take the freaking job. There's many more people like you, Tanker, that live off of minimum wage, and never in my life, have I heard them complain so much as pilots do.
My guess would be that leaving the lights on is something driven by the lawyers. If the company knows commuting pilots are trying to sleep in their lounge, are fatigued because the practice doesn't provide adequate sleep, and do nothing about it, the company's liability goes through the roof. Leave the lights on, prohibit the practice, and tell people to get adequate sleep in a bed, and they have no way of knowing if there is a fatigue problem.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The root of the very low pay at the entry levels is the very high pay at the top end. There are few other careers a person can persue with nothing more then grade 12 and a few months of training, and still be able to achieve a solid 6 figure income with great perks and benefits. As a result, there are legions of young people keen to give it a try, giving entry level employers a very deep labour pool. The only way the wage gap between top and bottom will narrow is if the top comes down enough that fewer people are attracted to the field.
wouldn't it make more sense to establish a dim and quiet place for any employee to rest? all the company would have to do is make sure that they create, educate and enforce a policy that employees are no allowed to obtain legal rest in such a facility.
somedays some of us show up with our required legal rest but cn't make it through a 14 hour day for some reason. perhaps the opportunity to have a dimly lit and quiet location to have non-legal rest may make all the difference.
i would rather fly as a passenger on an airline that has such a policy rather than forcing pilots to sit or stand in a noisy and bright crew room or terminal between flights.
I agree their are people who make far less then we do and are able to live just fine. I think where pilots get a slight thought of entitlement of higher then minimum wage is based on the fact that they have gone out got an education, and that their job carries with it a little more responsibility, liability and personal risk then that of the average minimum wage worker.
This is such an everyman for himself industry with no safety net, rather hard to believe how people dont think their actions will affect others down the road. However it sure is hard to consider others when you will be hurting your self. I am now down to 7000 a year from 20 and some one else jumped at my open spot. What good did I do the industry? what good did I do for my self? Not taking the job is not always an option some of us HAVE to work and what you get for standing up is offen a hoof in the balls that drops you right back in place.
Colgan gets pilots because if all goes well, i.e. the fatigue does not kill you and a bunch of people behind, you get the mythical jet job that finally provides a decent living.
I recommend the Drug Dealers living with their Moms chapter in Freakonomics. The authors show that drug dealing is not an occupation that provides a living, but a tournament for promotion to the next level where you get to make serious money. The occupational similarities between flying and drug dealing are striking.
Anyway, I've got to find a quiet spot in the hangar to unroll my sleeping bag
