Sleepless in America

It seems that hypoxia, carbon monoxide poisoning, alcohol intoxication, and sleep deprivation all have something in common, but it's hard to explain the tough talk from Secretary of Transportation LaHood and FAA Administrator Babbitt on the subject of air traffic controllers falling asleep. Both men have said that air traffic controllers sleeping on the job is unacceptable and each has promised to get to the bottom of the problem. Some controllers who have fallen asleep have reportedly been suspended, some may face disciplinary action, and the head of the FAA's Air Traffic Organization has resigned, but there hasn't been much recognition of how the FAA's status quo, set by the folks at the very top, has helped create the problem.

The FAA has announced new duty time rules that, among other things, will ensure controllers get at least 9 hours of rest between shifts as opposed to 8 hours. While this is, in principle, a step in the right direction, it's not what experts recommend. Sleep researchers have a simple solution - allow workers to take naps during their shift. For his part, LaHood has dug in his heels and said that controllers will not be "paid to sleep." This is a curious stance.

Sleep researchers tell us that on average, Americans are getting under just 7 hours of sleep per weeknight. While there is a small percentage of the population that can function well on 5 hours or less of sleep per night, researchers believe this is a genetic trait and not a matter of adaptation. Most of us need 8 hours to function at our best and all folks those getting 7 hours of sleep go through their days with measurable decreases in ability to concentrate and reduced reaction time. The thing is, a person under the influence of sleep deprivation is likely to think that everything is just fine even though their cognitive skills are impaired.

Let's not pick on just Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt because most of the country is in denial about sleep. Sleep deprivation is worn by many as a sort of badge of honor from medical residents and interns to commercial pilots. The difference would seem to be that hospitals, maritime sailors, fire departments, medivac crews, even a few international airlines allow employees to take a nap or sleep during their shifts. A pilot who flew for an air ambulance company once told me that EMS actually stands for "Earn Money Sleeping." So why should the FAA be any different if the research shows an improvement in job performance on a graveyard shift comes from simply taking a nap?

The health consequences and the associated health care costs of long-term sleep deprivation and circadian rhythm disruption are well-documented: Hypertension, weight gain, cardio-vascular disease, diabetes, increased risk of "sudden death," and shorter lifespan. My personal experience? Four days after I quit my freight-flying job I woke up feeling great, but with the sobering realization that I had been impaired by sleep disruption for months without fully realizing it.

As Phil Zimbardo once observed, you'll never get to the bottom of a dysfunctional organization unless you first go to the top. There may be an explanation for the loss of objectivity when someone is short on sleep, but it's hard to support LaHood's hard-line stance against napping. The Roman Empire's punishment for sleeping on duty may have been death, but we live in more informed, and scientifically enlightened times. Perhaps Secretary LaHood should sit down, read the research, and sleep on it.

School of Hard Knocks

Just back from a flight, Mal Raff warned me ominously, "It's very turbulent up there." To which I replied dryly, "Good, it will keep me awake." This developed into a sort of tradition where Mal would provide me a pilot report (PIREP) for turbulence and I would play the part of the brave pilot who never admits to being bothered by turbulence. This was all an act. While I've become somewhat inured to turbulence, I'll be the first to admit that I've encountered turbulent conditions that scared the daylights out of me. Pilots and passengers universally dislike turbulence and the ones that say otherwise are either fibbing or are in need of some serious couch time. Thankfully there are several strategies for avoiding turbulence, handling it when it is unavoidable, and making PIREPs that accurately describe the character and degree of turbulence you just encountered. (Note that I won't be delving into clear air turbulence or CAT, since few GA pilots are flying at altitudes where it is a factor).

Get Briefed

Student pilots learn early on that weather reports and forecasts can provide plenty of clues about the likelihood of encountering turbulence. Getting a briefing not only fulfills the regulatory preflight action requirement, it can help you anticipate turbulence well before the PIREPs start flooding in. Sure there are pilots out there who skip the pre-flight briefing or don't examine the information carefully. Some of them even brag about it, but you're not like those pilots, right? The National Weather Service has several products that address turbulence that I'll illustrate using the Aviation Digital Data Service site, which now offers a Qualified Internet Content Provider login.

AIRMET tango (think "T" for Turbulence) is of interest primarily to pilots of smaller aircraft and should be released when conditions are ripe for moderate turbulence over a large area (3000 square miles or more). There are also AIRMETs sierra for IFR conditions and zulu for icing. Problem is that AIRMETs describe the area being affected in a sort of connect-the-dots fashion using three letter identifiers for VOR stations and distances to define the dots: Not very user-friendly. Even if you are familiar with all the VORs, assembling a mental map of the affected area can be challenging.

ADDS has a product called G-AIRMET that provides a map-like depiction of areas affected by AIRMETs and SIGMETs. You can even look at an animated representation of how the conditions will unfold over time. Graphical AIRMETs are also depicted on sites like Avnwx.com. Even ForeFight and cockpit XM weather displays will depict AIRMETs on a map, though you'll have to dig a bit to access them.

Forecast winds aloft will also give you an idea whether or not turbulence and wind shear are on today's menu. Combine strong winds aloft with rough terrain and the ride gets bumpy at lower altitudes, downwind of the terrain (an area known as the lee side). If the wind direction and velocity is forecast to change abruptly as altitude increases, expect wind shear - a sudden change is wind velocity or direction over a short distance. Wind shear can occur over a horizontal distance across the ground or over a vertical distance as you climb or descend. If you plan to fly over rough terrain or mountains, forecasts winds aloft in excess of 20 to 25 knots should give you pause. ADDs lets you access winds aloft forecasts in textual or graphical format.

PIREPs (pilot reports) are like AIRMETs in that decoding text versions requires knowledge and practice. My favorite tool for PIREPs is the ADDS Java PIREPS Tool. Launch most any browser that supports Java (this excludes the iPad), select part of the continental US, and choose the types of reports you're interested in. Symbols for turbulence will appear at locations on the map where the PIREPS were reported and you only need to mouse-over those symbols to access the details. You can access PIREPs on Avnwx.com and other sites, but they are strangely missing from the mobile versions of ForeFlight.

While pilots of smaller aircraft are more susceptible to and tend to over-report the intensity of turbulence, pay particular attention to PIREPs from transport category aircraft since they are flown by flight crews who have a lot of experience with turbulence. More on this later.

If the weather forecast is waaay behind what is actually happening, a Center Weather Advisory or CWA can be issued. The Aeronautical Information Manual strays into neologism by calling the CWA a nowcast: "By nature of its short lead time, the CWA is not a flight planning product." To which I say, "Horse feathers!" If you get a pre-flight briefing and it contains a CWA, you most certainly can use it for pre-flight planning purposes. If you are already airborne, CWAs are available over the Hazardous In-flight Weather Advisory Service (or HIWAS) that is broadcast over the voice component of many VOR stations. Just tune in the VOR and listen.

Studying Turbulence

While much of the country has been enduring snow and cold, unseasonably warm weather settled over coastal areas of Northern California last week. This January weather gift was due to a stationary area of high pressure that kept the jet stream and the wet weather well to the North. The downside was it also generated persistent Northeasterly winds aloft that created a lot of turbulence and low-level wind shear in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Strong winds flowing over terrain is much like fast-moving water flowing over rocks in a stream: You may not be able to see the air boiling and swirling on the lee side of terrain, but rest assured it is there. You should only have to experience this once to know the lee side is not a pleasant place to be when the winds are howling, yet the lee side is exactly where several pilots reported encountering turbulence. Duh!

My student had planned a dual cross-country flight from Oakland to Columbia and a Center Weather Advisory was in effect for moderate to severe turbulence. The first part of the route would start with a climb-out on the lee side of the Oakland/Berkeley hills - the heart of the action. The surface winds were calm, but the winds at 3000 feet were forecast to be 050˚ at nearly 30 knots, so our plan was to avoid or minimize the turbulence by climbing as high as possible as quickly as possible. We discussed what we'd do if we encountered turbulence (more on that later).

Contacting the tower for takeoff, my student requested an early hand-off to Norcal so we could ask for a climb into class bravo. Reaching 800', the tower handed us off and Norcal approved our climb into bravo. The result was occasional light chop while climbing and a smooth ride all the way to Columbia. Cruising comfortably at 5,500 feet, we made a detailed PIREP to Flight Watch. Opening the VFR flight plan on the way back, the Flight Service specialist warned us of even more PIREPs of moderate to severe turbulence.

Our strategy for the descent back into Oakland was similar to what we'd used on departure: Stay above 3,500 feet for as long as possible and be prepared for turbulence during the descent. We requested a bravo clearance from Norcal, explaining it was to avoid turbulence. They were fine with us crossing Lake Chabot at about 3,500 feet, then we started our descent. We encountered continuous light chop, occasional moderate chop, and a bit of an updraft. Nothing to write home about.

I've witnessed pilots who were reluctant to make special requests for things like an early turn or a climb into bravo airspace. I'm not sure what causes this reluctance, but I encourage pilots to speak up. If you have a special request and a reason for that request, most controllers will do what they can to accommodate you. Ask and ye shall likely receive.

Back on the ground, we went online to see the PIREP we'd filed, but lo and behold, it wasn't there! Perhaps it wasn't disseminated because our PIREP for mostly light chop was at odds the dire warnings contained in the CWA. Who knows, but my student was not impressed by the results of all our PIREP efforts.

Riding the Beast

It may seem obvious, but ensure your seat belt is snug and tight when you know or suspect you're going to encounter turbulence. Beware of newer seat belts that contain airbags because they can feel like they are tight when they aren't. Old, worn seat belts may be difficult to tighten, but it's worth the effort: You don't want to bang your head on the ceiling when the action starts.

Slow down to at least the published maneuvering speed (Va) for your aircraft at your estimated weight. If you don't know your estimated weight, take a moment to appreciate the advantage of calculating weight and balance before each flight. Once you are flying at or below maneuvering speed, it's highly unlikely your aircraft will experience structural damage from turbulence.

If you have loose items in the cockpit, now is the time to secure them. If the turbulence rises to the level of moderate or greater, you'll know when your ham sandwich takes flight inside the cockpit.

I avoid using flaps in turbulence because in most GA aircraft, the addition of any flaps reduces the aircraft's maximum design load factors. For many GA aircraft, the positive load limit of 3.8G will drop to around 2G and the -1.5G negative limit may drop to 0G. Bottom line: Delay extending flaps until you are preparing to land.

Most GA aircraft are designed to be stable and they tend recover from upsets in pitch and roll without much assistance from you, so let the plane to ride the bumps. You do not need to respond on the controls to each and every bump that you encounter, but when you do use the controls, think of dampening out the variations rather than trying to overcome them. Over-controlling will increase the load on the aircraft and make the ride feel more uncomfortable for you and your passengers. Autopilots tend to over-control in turbulence and they are designed to spontaneously disconnect in moderate or greater turbulence. You may as well disconnect George and hand fly since you'll undoubtedly do a better job. If the turbulence is moderate or greater, do your best to maintain a level pitch attitude and accept variations in altitude as you just let the plane ride.

Updrafts and downdrafts can be difficult to perceive until you have more experience, but a good way to learn is to keep the airspeed indicator in your scan. Increases in indicated airspeed without changes in power or pitch mean you're in an updraft. Decreases in airspeed mean you're in a downdraft. It's not uncommon to need to make dramatic and frequent adjustments in engine power to compensate for updrafts and downdrafts.

If you expect turbulence while descending, remember that altitude is energy: You'll have to reduce the throttle to be able to descend and stay at or below maneuvering speed. If you're one of those pilots who usually descends by just pushing the nose over and trimming, you'll want to rethink that strategy in turbulence.

Your reward for reading this far is that I'm now going to reveal my secret for flying through turbulence: Be patient, stay as relaxed as possible, have a mental image of how you want the plane to be flying, then do your best to make reality match that mental image. Without a concept of how you want the aircraft to be flying, you'll simply be reacting to the conditions. Developing a piloting concept is a deep topic, perhaps for another day.

Making the Call

Do your fellow pilots a favor and make a PIREP when you've encountered turbulence. Less experienced pilots flying smaller aircraft frequently over-report the intensity of turbulence they encountered. Pilots in more rigid, composite airframe aircraft (like Diamond and Cirrus) tend to experience and report a rougher ride that their aluminum-flying brethren. In any case, you can avoid over-reporting turbulence intensity by doing your best to set aside your emotional reaction and using as objectively as possible the following criteria (Aeronautical Information Manual, section 7-1-23, emphasis added).

Light Turbulence - momentarily causes slight, erratic changes in altitude and/or attitude (pitch, roll, yaw). Occupants may feel a slight strain against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects may be displaced slightly.


Light Chop - causes slight, rapid and somewhat rhythmic bumpiness without appreciable changes in altitude or attitude.


Moderate Turbulence - similar to Light Turbulence but of greater intensity. Changes in altitude and/or attitude occur but the aircraft remains in positive control at all times. It usually causes variations in indicated airspeed. Occupants feel definite strains against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects are dislodged.


Moderate Chop - similar to Light Chop but of greater intensity. Rapid bumps or jolts without appreciable changes in aircraft altitude or attitude.


Severe - Large, abrupt changes in altitude and/or attitude. Large variations in indicated airspeed. Aircraft may be momentarily out of control. Occupants are forced violently against seat belts or shoulder straps. Unsecured objects are tossed about.


Extreme - aircraft is violently tossed about and is practically impossible to control, structural damage to aircraft is possible.


Whenever you are startled or frightened by turbulence, stop and take a breath, then do your best to assess what has happened or is currently happening. On numerous occasions I've talked to pilots who said they encountered moderate-to-severe turbulence, but when I ask them some basic questions it seems they probably encountered light-to-moderate turbulence. One tip-off: If the head on your Barry Bonds bobblehead doll is bobbling, but the doll itself is staying put, it's probably light turbulence.


Brave vs Smart


Turbulence can become a serious risk factor; it is distracting, it adds to your workload, and it's tiring. Combine turbulence with instrument meteorological conditions and/or night time and the risks for single-pilot operations only get worse. If you find turbulence scary and uncomfortable, join the club! There's no shame in being afraid, but there's seldom any excuse for not anticipating or expecting turbulence. With some planning and a little strategy, turbulence can often be managed, but there's nothing wrong with canceling or delaying a flight to avoid turbulence. I'll take a smart and thoughtful pilot over brave and risky pilot any day of the week.

The Wrong Stuff

Tuesday's NTSB hearing on the crash of Colgan Air flight 3407 is getting a lot of coverage and for a balanced technical assessment, I recommend you read a post by Sam. Sam is currently an RJ captain for a regional airline and a former Dash 8 first officer. I've never flown for a regional passenger airline and I have no flight time in the Dash 8, but I did a stint flying cargo under part 135. I have some experience with the duty time regulations, the economic stress that regional pilots face, and the effect this has on a pilot's performance. My conclusion is that pilots, the airlines, the government, and the flying public are all complicit in the current state of affairs at the regional airlines. I'll warn you in advance that I'm going to say things that you might find controversial, so suck it up! This is the blogosphere and we don't always have to walk lockstep or hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

Pilots who attempt to earn a living flying are addicts, myself included. Okay, maybe our obsession with flying is more a psychological dependency than addiction, but consider the parallels. No matter how bad the working conditions, how low the pay, how miserable the management, how poorly maintained the aircraft, how isolated the lifestyle, pilots will do almost anything for the opportunity to fly. For some of us, the rush starts once the cabin door is closed. For others, it's when the engines start. Even if you are a jaded veteran with thousands of hours, you're not immune to the feeling of the wheels leaving the runway. Once airborne, the troubles fade away and for those many minutes or hours, you're flying again.

Perhaps flying hooks up our brains with a supply of dopamine, but whatever the mechanism it sure drives pilots to make some kooky choices. These talented, intelligent, and highly-skilled professionals seem to blithely accept low pay, early mornings, late nights, long duty days, bad weather, working on holidays, isolation from family and friends, and even AIDS - Aviation-Induced Divorce Syndrome. It's obvious that denial (or at least compartmentalization) is a crucial skill for professional pilots. It's no secret that many pilots will practically fly for free and, in the process, subsidize their airline's operation. And their employers know it.

Management at regional airlines are trying make a profit in a business with lot of variable costs (like fuel) and uncertainties (like weather delays). Where better to start than by keeping wages low? Low wages were the primary reason I quit flying freight. Sure there were the stresses and risks with single-pilot operations, having to fly through bad weather rather than fly on top of it, and the long hours. Then I came to realize that I could earn at least twice as much as a freelance flight instructor than I could as a part 135 pilot, even if I hung on and racked up several years of seniority. And yet I still miss it! You see, pilots love what they do so much that they have a really hard time being objective about what might be wrong in their work environment.

The pilots who fly for regional airlines, especially the low-seniority first officers, are under some serious stress. Stress is a huge risk factor in aviation safety because it narrows the perceptual field and reduces a pilot's ability to perform. Fatigue, which often goes hand-in-hand with stress, increases reaction time and impairs decision making. I've read how the young woman first officer on Colgan Flight 3407 earned so little that she lived with her parents, sometimes held a second job, and commuted across the country to her flying job. She often slept on the crew lounge sofa, I'm assuming because she couldn't afford or didn't want a hotel room. Part of the legendary mystique of being a professional pilot is paying your dues, though once you've slept on a crew couch a few times the allure wears off pretty quickly.

Pilot's are generally goal-oriented and have a predisposition to a perform no matter what. If you call in sick or fatigued, it seems there's always another motivated pilot (addict) just waiting to take your place, maybe even your job. Yet the replacement pilot might be just as fatigued and stressed as you. How much stress and fatigue you're willing to endure depends on your age, your goals in life, and how badly you need your flying fix. Airline management knows all of this and they use it to their advantage.

As convenient as it would be to lay all of the responsibility at the feet of the regional airline management, let's not forget the role of the flying public. People want, no they expect to be able to fly to most any part of the country as cheaply as possible. They don't want to be troubled with knowledge of how the aviation sausage is made, they just want a low price. People will pay $35 to get a package shipped overnight all the while complaining mightily about the airfare involved in shipping their own carcass across the country in air conditioned, pressurized comfort. And many passengers seem to still believe that pilots work just a few days a week, earn upwards of $100,000 a year, and live a country club lifestyle. The fact is that most regional pilots are living hand-to-mouth and don't even get a cost-of-living adjustment for expensive pilot bases like Boston or San Francisco. Low airfares certainly don't help their cause. Greater public awareness of the poor wages earned by regional pilots and cabin crews could be one of the few good things to come from this accident.

The federal government's role is their continued failure to adequately address the twin safety issues of stress and fatigue. Well not all of the government: The NTSB has been pushing for years for an overhaul of the federal duty time regulations for flight and cabin crew members while the FAA and the airline industry have fiercely resisted change. As it stands, flight crews can be on duty for 16 hours or more each day and the 8 hours of rest they must get every 24 hours often does not take into account the time it takes to get to the hotel, eat, and take care of personal affairs. Consider the research conducted at Boston's Harvard Medical School which showed that being awake for 24 hours was equivalent to a blood alcohol level of 0.10% . Getting 5 hours of sleep per night for a week had the same effect. The press has a field day when crew members are found to be drunk on the job, as well they should. By and large, fatigue seems to be tacitly ignored.

Given their work environment, it's hard to expect pilots to be objective about the stress and fatigue they face. Airlines are trying to make a profit in a very difficult business with strong price pressure, so when it comes to fatigue they probably don't ask and pilots probably won't tell. The government has dropped the ball with regard to ensuring reasonable duty limits and reasonable rest time. The press may have found a convenient scapegoat in the form of the flight's low-time captain and the allegedly incomplete simulator training he received. Sure it's difficult to identify all the causal factors that led to a fiery crash on that snowy night, but low wages, stress and fatigue must be examined as contributing factors to this accident and the crew's ineffective performance. Or we could just continue to deny there's a problem ...