Calling Fatigued Airborne?

You Can't do that! 

Last week the world listened to the recording of the Delta Captain of Fight 564 who departed on a redeye flight, lost the autopilot, autothrust, and received a TAT probe message. They wanted to return, and the argument began as to the reason why he was returning, and what was legal to say or not.

Delta Flight 564 Return

The captain said he was departing Flight Level 1500, but that could have been due to the high stress, or maybe he didn’t know when flight levels began. Airlines do not typically train this type of information any more. This is one of those new hire captains with two years on the plane, I was told two years at the company, with less than 500 hours in type. Not the point, but he now has a broken airplane, and he’s making a good decision to return.

Dispatch has them reset the circuit breakers and they get their auto pilot back, but the TAT remains inoperative, therefore they have a variety of issues as a result thereof, one being the autothrust. The TAT is the Total Air Temperature Sensor, a heated probe that is an essential for input to the air data computer for static air temperature and true airspeed and they must avoid icing condition. The autothrust is gone.

As they fly circles, after dealing with the issue of resetting circuit breakers, the captain asks dispatch, “Is there something we’re waiting for?” And the dispatcher responds by telling them about the icing conditions on the route, but says there would not be any on arrival. They must avoid icing due to the probe failure. They will also have only have 10 minutes of holding over Albany, I suspect the alternate.

Then the captain tells dispatch, “We are right at our peak circadian low and I spoke with the first officer, and we don’t believe it’s within safety to continue flying throughout the night, at this time with no autothrottles.” He does not say he is fatigued. The circadian low statement was his asserting the time of night with his body clock. He never said, “We’re fatigued.”

Dispatch says, “Okay if you want to return because of fatigue, I can call the duty pilot to get him on the line.” The dispatcher apparently did not understand what the captain said, and was told that the duty pilot must give permission to call in fatigued. He wasn’t actually calling in fatigued.

PROBLEM BEGINS

They can’t get the duty pilot on the line, so they decide to land anyway. Then the duty pilot jumps on and the conversation degrades, opening preponderance of discussion amongst those who have listened to the audio.

You need to listen to this video yourself. But basically these are the questionable statements:

Duty pilot says, “Okay, this is new to me. You’re calling in fatigued airborne?”

“I’m confused with this fatigue versus a mechanical issue.”

The captain tries to explain.

Duty pilot says, “Okay umm… being that you’re airborne I would highly suggest that you not say that you’re fatigued for operation and more for mechanical situation I’m not sure how we can report you’re operating in a fatigued condition.”

He was not reporting in a fatigued condition. However, if he had been fatigued… why can’t a pilot report that in flight? I would hope that my pilots, if fatigued in flight, would want to land instead of falling asleep on final five hours later.

Additional Factors

Time of Day and Delay:

The crew was delayed out of San Francisco. This was a redeye flight. If you fly at night, your pilots will experience more fatigue than in the day. They are flying opposite to their body clock and there is no way they will be rested as if they had a good night sleep and awoke in the morning to fly. This flight had only have two pilots versus the four pilot international flights where pilots can sleep half the time.

Mechanical issue:

No auto thrust, no TAT and associated failed equipment, and a potential for the autopilot circuit breakers to blow again. Personally I would not take the flight.

History:

Delta had a 757-redeye flight out of Seattle, diverted for a medical. Then continued to Atlanta and both pilots fell asleep on arrival. The first officer awoke because the gear warning screamed as the plane flew toward the ground with gear up. They should have called fatigued on the divert.

A Delta Captain departed a daytime, three-hour, flight into Atlanta, in a 737, without an autopilot and autothrust. After three hours of flight, he then declared an emergency. Delta made a training video encouraging pilots to declare an emergency if they lose automation, because they have data that shows Delta pilots as a whole cannot fly without the automation. When questioned about this event retired FAA administrator, Steve Dickson the SVP of flight operations at the time, asserted, “It gives the impression that we are going to place operational requirements above safety requirements. It probably would have been a better decision to turn the airplane around and get it repaired.”

Yet, on this flight, they are encouraging them to continue.

Discussion

Some think the duty pilot was protecting the captain by trying to get him not to say he was fatigued while airborne. Protection from what? Others hear the duty pilot telling him to lie. Some think the captain would get in trouble by the FAA by using those words, but I can’t see it.

First, this is clearly no time for argument.

The decision this captain made, with solid rationale, was the safest course of action and could have ended there. But it was the dispatcher who used the words “fatigued” and led him down the wrong path telling him he had to speak to the duty pilot. This was an unnecessary discussion, and droning around the sky arguing over semantics was ridiculous. This captain never said he was fatigued. He said it would be fatiguing at this time of night to fly across country, after a long delay out of San Francisco due to the midnight hour, and his circadian clock without autothrust.

Regardless, no airline should challenge any pilot to discuss fatigue while flying. And for the duty pilot, yes… fatigue does happen in the sky. Been there, done that. And the FAA is never going to fault this crew for mitigating risk prior to the end of a flight.

Listen to the video and let me know what you think.

Alaska Mechanic Vinidcated

The legal battle is over for an Alaska Airlines mechanic and his inadvertent consumption of THC.

On October 7th 2023, I posted an article, Airline’s Random Drug Testing, regarding an Alaska Airlines Mechanic who tested positive for THC, the main psychoactive compound in marijuana. The consumption was inadvertent at a neighborhood block party. It was undisputed that he had THC in his system, and Alaska has a zero tolerance policy for drugs. This mechanic lives and works in Washington State, where THC is legal, but he testified that he only drinks beer and has never consumed drugs. But the Director who terminated the mechanic, never conducted an investigation to determine the validity of the mechanic's claims.

ALASKA

The mechanic’s union, AMFA, brought in attorney Lee Seham to fight this injustice, and the mechanic won the grievance! The arbitrator ruled reinstatement. Yet, Alaska did not like that ruling.

The RLA grievance process typically minimizes employee rights because there is no discovery, no attorney fees, and all too often the decision is purchased. The best the employee can get is his job back and wages if he is lucky enough to win.

This time the Airline did not play shenanigans with buying off an arbitrator, and the mechanic won. However, Alaska Airlines decided to fight the ruling and take this case to federal court to have it overturned. The injustice of that decision to fight the ruling frustrated many.

That’s when attorney Sam Seham joined his father in the federal battle. Sam is a mirror of his father in brilliance and legal acumen, and a year later, October 15, they made history in Federal Court!

The mechanic is reinstated, awarded back pay, and attorney fees!

You can read the entire ruling HERE But the conclusion is that the mechanic wins! He also wins attorney fees… that is amazing. This is a huge win for airline employees everywhere.

IV CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Union’s motion for summary judgment. The Court confirms the Board’s award and grants the Union’s request for attorney fees and costs. The Union may file a motion for attorney fees no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment. See LCR 54(d)(5) (citing Fed R. Civ. P. 54(d)).

The Court REMANDS to the Board the issue of whether Chappell should be awarded back pay and benefits from the date of the arbitration award. The Court DENIES Alaska Airlines’ motion for summary judgment. Dated this 15th day of October, 2024. John H. Chun United States District Judge.

Criminal Intent and the ASAP System!

How is This Even Possible?

The ASAP program at SWA is compromised 

in more ways that one!!

Note to pilots everywhere: Don't believe what you write is confidential in the ASAP system. Pilots at SWA are in fact being disciplined. SWAPA's Casey Murray, President, and Tom Nekouei, Vice President, sent a memo to the pilot group discussing the many challenges and highlighted:

"In the case of the ASAP, SWAPA has had to put the Company on notice on multiple occasions due to their propensity to schedule disciplinary meetings despite ASAP and ERC [event review committee] recommendations." 

"Disciplinary Meetings at an All Time High"  

"The individuals responsible for creating our current safety and training problems cannot be the ones in charge of fixing them. And yet, kingdoms continued to be protected."  

Southwest Management is using the ASAP system to punish pilots, while at the same time they are hiding behind it to protect themselves! 

We all know pilots talk. And when those evaluating these cases are appalled by management's behavior nothing is sacred. Here we have a union upset that the company is using the system to punish the pilots, and yet management is running amok, withholding information from the captain, allowed a plane to operate illegally and then hid behind the ASAP system. 

Situation:

Executives on a plane together. The VP of Safety, SMS manager, Mr. David Hunt, realizes his seat is broken. Legally this plane cannot fly until it's either fixed or deferred and unoccupied. As the head of safety, he should know this... right? But he doesn't tell the captain, instead he tells another executive on the plane, Mr. Landon Nitschke, who happens to be the SVP of Maintenance. Nitschke doesn't tell the captain either. These executives don't want to delay their plans.

What these executives do next is call the arrival station to have it fixed there. No write up in the logbook before departure. No deferral. No advising the flight crew. Just knowingly and willingly operate a broken plane. And these men are in charge of Safety and Maintenance at SWA!!! They both know the federal regulations and intentionally allowed this plane to operate illegally. 

§ 121.363 states the certificate holder holds the responsibility for airworthiness. This should not be taken lightly. 

Worse yet, the SWA ASAP manager, Jim Ison, closed the case! The fix was to tell these executives they can't violated federal regulations in the future. This is intentional and willful neglect of the law. 

Do you think this event belongs in the ASAP system to protect executives intentional violation of federal regulations? I don't believe so. ASAP was enacted for identification of human factors errors to improve  operational safety. This event is pure negligence. 

Personally I think both these executives should be looking for jobs outside a safety industry. The FAA should have pulled this report from the program and conducted an investigation. Why didn't they?

What do you think?

Should these guys receive a free pass because they are management, while the captain had to spend his day off writing an ASAP report to protect his license as the result of the willful negligence of two senior vice presidents?

Dr. Karlene Petitt

PhD. MBA. MHS.
A350, B777, A330, B747-400, B747-200, B767, B757, B737, B727

Training to Blame?

NTSB Investigating!

Are they looking in the right place? 

People want to know why the Delta A350 didn't stop? Did they not see the other plane? The couldn't see the wing from the flight deck. Maybe the first officer was taxiing. The first officer could not see the wing. It was the fault of the other plane for being in the way. All sorts of reasons. But I hope when the NTSB looks into this, they look into training. 

Delta's 7th ground incursion since January! 

Durning my return to the A330 there was a significant change in training from when I earned a type rating on the plane years earlier. Delta was now saving money by not using motion on the simulator training events for type ratings. FAA approved. During my Captain's check ride, the check airman said, "You taxi shitty!" 

To his defense I said, "He's only had one opportunity during training to taxi with motion before now and he's coming off the 737."  The check airman was deeply concerned and said he would look into it. I think they increased the motion simulator event, but I am not positive by how many. But this training problem is more than simulator. 

Back in the day we had to know our aircraft limitations and dimensions, even be able to draw the electrical system during our FAA oral. Today, Delta gives their pilots an LOD, Learning objective document, which is simply the answers to the electronic test. If you memorize well, you pass. But I suppose the memories were not that good, so Delta decided to make this electronic test an open book test. Delta pilots do not need to know the physical dimensions of their plane, they can look it up. I wonder how many even know  the width of the taxiway? 

In this case, the A350 was schedule to depart behind the RJ, and they were having problems. Then were cleared to taxi forward down E to V. But the RJ had not pulled up all the way to the hold short line. 

First, pilots should not accept a clearance that will make them hit another plane. This is not the fault of the RJ. Just as you are not allowed to hit the car in an intersection, because you have a green light. 

There were many times I sat in that A350 seat and told the captain to stop, because I wasn't sure on the clearance distance. One time we sent another pilot back to look out the window for a better angle. Other times we queried ATC. 

Was this crew distracted by the problem? Did they blindly follow a clearance? Did the first officer not understand his responsibility? Did this captain receive minimum training with motion during taxi? Did they both look up the answers for the wingspan of the A350 without learning them? 

I hope the NTSB investigation looks deep into, because 7 ground incursions in 6 months is far too many... don't you think? 

Dr. Karlene Petitt

PhD. MBA. MHS.
A350, B777, A330, B747-400, B747-200, B767, B757, B737, B727

Pilot Training

More Not Less

We know what happened to the Brazilian ATR aircraft that killed 61 people. The plane was in a flat spin. What we don't know is why it happened.  

Back in the 1979-80, when I was just learning to fly, the FAA had stopped requiring spin training. My instructor said that we only had to learn how to recover from a stall. I asked him if we could still do it? He was pleased to comply. 

I  cut the power as I pulled the nose up and the plane stalled. He then he jammed in the rudder and we spun. Did the crew of this ATR enter a stall and as one wing dropped a pilot reacted by jamming in a rudder? Did they put their aircraft into a spin? Was ice involved? Was the problem the T-tail? There are many variables and rarely, if ever, its just one thing that causes a plane to crash.

We will know that answer when the they analyze the data recently received.  

This is not the fist time an ATR plane crashed.  In October of 1994, American Eagle, Fight 4184, was subject to freezing rain during a holding pattern, ice built up on the wings, and during descent the plane rolled. The autopilot disengaged and the plane crashed into a filed in Indiana, killing all 68 people on board.

T-tail aircraft are a problem with ice. Was the plane heavily loaded aft? I wonder when the cost of life will out weigh the profits of operating this aircraft. 

I also wonder if it was possible for them to get out of this spin once they entered. Or would this plane be unrecoverable. I posed that question to a friend and he sent me an interesting video. Beechcraft is also a twin engine T-tail aircraft, and they did spin testing. Mine spin training was in a Cessna 172.

Pilots have you received Spin Training?

While airlines and the FAA think reduced training is okay because of automation, this ideology might just be breeding an industry of pilots who lack aerodynamical skills. I am not making that claim against these pilots, I'm just curious if this is an overall problem. As my doctoral research identified, the more pilots train their performance decreases, of which is basis for Normalization of Deviance, a Threat to Aviation Safety. 

Twin Spin Testing Beechcraft Twin Video

Dr. Karlene Petitt

PhD. MBA. MHS.
A350, B777, A330, B747-400, B747-200, B767, B757, B737, B727

Truth, Justice, and Human Life

Pilots Taking Back Control

The HIMS Program has grown in scope and reach well beyond its original intended purpose of creating a controlled and monitored pathway for pilots, with issues involving alcohol, to return to work before the mandated 24 months of required abstinence as prescribed by law. The Supreme Court has recently ruled on Chevron deference, which opens the door to the argument that the FAA’s application of the HIMS program has exceeded its statutory mandate.

What you are about to read is an abomination of the HIMS program. The story of a captain who has been derailed by the system that is supposed to support and assist. He is fighting back. If you are in the HIMS program, you can help. 

My name is Martin Barnard, I am an airline pilot, a living breathing human being with a loving family that depends on me, and I was in the HIMS program, under the care of a Human Intervention Motivation Study (HIMS) Aviation Medical Examiner (AME). 

I do not drink and have not for going on four years. 

I have flawless and uninterrupted FAA random testing, consistent with FAA standards, to document this. 

On a single occasion in September 2022, I thought with disbelief that I may have inadvertently and without knowledge consumed something with alcohol in it, instead of the non-alcohol (0.0) beverage as was intended. I disclosed this to my HIMS AME. 

I conducted a highly sensitive blood PEth test roughly three days after the event, which produced yet another negative result further corroborating my abstinence. Nevertheless, on October 14, 2022, this HIMS AME wrote to the FAA that I was at “increased risk for a full relapse,” which was soon followed by the revocation of my Special Issuance first class medical certificate, 

In support of his October 14 report to the FAA, the HIMS AME stated that his finding was based on three considerations: 

(1) that I had three “dilute” specimens in the prior year, 

(2) that the result of my October 3 2022 PEth test was “sub threshold,” and 

(3) the motivation to purchase beer-like beverages, “whether alcohol containing or not” is “suggestive of an imperfect recovery.” 

I have decided to file a lawsuit against this HIMS AME for what I consider to be his negligent actions, including, in part: 

The HIMS AME reported the three test results as “dilute,” notwithstanding the fact that the laboratory had reported the result of each specimen as “negative-dilute,” thereby confirming that the tests confirmed the absence of alcohol in my system.

To the extent that The HIMS AME had any concern that the three “dilute” specimens reflected donor tampering, he should have proceeded with direct observation collections that would have cleared me of any alleged misconduct.

The creatinine levels for the three “dilute” test results evidenced nothing beyond appropriate hydration practices and that I had abstained from the consumption of alcohol. The HIMS AME should have communicated to the FAA that the result of the hypersensitive October 3 PEth test result was a “negative.”

The HIMS AME should have communicated to the FAA that the October 3 PEth result provides strong evidence establishing that I had maintained my commitment to complete abstention from alcohol consumption. Nevertheless, the paragraph in which The HIMS AME references the PEth result reads as follows: Looking back at the airman’s random testing, he has had three dilute specimens this year.

The HIMS AME reference to the October 3 PEth test result as “sub threshold” appears to have been understood by the FAA as evidence that I was ingesting alcohol despite the fact the test was negative.

The third and final basis for the relapse diagnosis that the HIMS AME communicated to the FAA was that “whether or not alcohol consumption occurred, it is an early teaching in formal recovery that ‘look alike’ beverages, alcohol containing or not, were contraindicated for those in recovery program.”

The HIMS AME never advised me that I should abstain from non-alcoholic “look alike” beverages or that the consumption of such beverages could potentially lead to relapse. NOTE: Nor have I ever signed anything agreeing to such a standard.

DOWNLOAD FULL DETAILS OF THIS CASE HERE

I was immediately ordered, under penalty of termination, without the ability to make life arrangements into: Metro Atlanta Recovery Residences (MARR) a 98-day highly invasive, intensive inpatient mental hospital. Fellow pilots have characterized the program as akin to an imprisonment. I then would have been required to sign a “Contract B” which allows for termination without cause for any alcohol-related incident, or I would be immediately terminated. 

Given these unjustifiable demands, I have taken leave from my airline, pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment, Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) to continue my 30+ year military career with honor. I am fully Mission ready and deploy worldwide in a flying status; I am current and qualified in my Major Weapon System and will continue to serve my country until I retire with honor. My intention upon retiring from the US military, in accordance with USERRA law, will be to return to my airline as a full-time line pilot.

Despite USERRA law, my Airline has indicated that it intends to terminate me upon my return from Military Service. This has been conveyed to me numerous times verbally, and I have received written documentation to this intention dated 18 Sep 2023. Based upon The HIMS AME actions, I am filing a malpractice lawsuit against him.

My overall objective of this lawsuit is twofold: 

1) To bring due process to the HIMS program. There is currently no mechanism available for due process or checks and balances of any kind in today’s HIMS program should there be any disagreement of any kind between the different entities. This lack of due process allowing HIMS AME’s and unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the FAA to act with absolute impunity in all situations renders the pilot completely vulnerable and without recourse.

2) My second objective is to set precedent that HIMS AME’s can be held liable for negligent actions that inflict harm on the lives of the patients/pilots they have agreed to “sponsor.” 

I respectfully request assistance from all that are willing, in any way you can help achieve these objectives. Please download the affidavit  below and share with as many people as possible. Those that come after us will greatly appreciate what you have done here. Thank you for your time and consideration!

DOWNLOAD THE AFFIDAVIT HERE

Email to: marty.barnard@yahoo.com

I'm proud of Captain Barnard's effort to make a difference and assist everyone in this program. AMEs should not have immunity from their actions. And, every doctor should be held accountable. The fact that any doctor could possibly distort the truth of fact based evidence in such a negligent manner, and in my opinion intentional, should be of the greatest concern to all.  If you are unfamiliar with the HIMS program and want to learn more, please read the previous posts:

Warning to all Pilots

Alcohol and Pilots

Alcohol Use Disorder

THANK YOU 

For your Assistance! 

Dr. Karlene Petitt

PhD. MBA. MHS.
A350, B777, A330, B747-400, B747-200, B767, B757, B737, B727

Working in a Safe Space

You're Invited To Attend! 

I will be the keynote speaker at the 2024 Workplace Promise Institute conference on September 12, 2024 in Washington DC, and hope that you can join me. You might just witness something that I have never done in public before, and hear something that could change your life. 

Whistleblowers Unite

The purpose of the conference is to spread awareness of whistleblower mental health and related issues. The conference is for whistleblowers who want to learn more about their rights and protections and be part of a peer support network. 

Those who attend the conference will share with other whistleblowers and survivors about their lessons learned and strategies for coping and resilience. They will hear from attorneys, government officials and advocates about the current status of laws, programs and policies that affect them and have an opportunity to influence those practices. 

Whistleblowers of America (WoA) welcomes family members to participate and is in the process of developing opportunities for the children of whistleblowers to engage in a mentor program. The Workplace Promise Institute WPI will also include discussion on Whistleblower Protection advocate certification, and announce Giraffe Award winners. 

I hope to see you there!

Enjoy the Journey!

Dr. Karlene Petitt

PhD. MBA. MHS.
A350, B777, A330, B747-400, B747-200, B767, B757, B737, B727