submission - Independent Pilots Association

Going beVond tl.,r.t, u,hat is probably the ntost greatest points o_f contention right n(r¡¿' -
the debate bet¿uen the pilots and tlrc industry operators - is the fact tlnt the operntors
would like to extend this reser',e atailability period in excess of zthat vou sßv is 71or 75
or 16lnurs,u'hatrc,er the case may be, to a Inrger incranent, ertending that reser¿¿
auailability period based upon an adttance notice qf a nap opportunity. ln other t'ords, a
pilot comes on call at 8:00 a.m. He is then told at 9:00 a.m. that he is to rrport for duty 5
hours later. The industry's position is that the notice constitutes an opportunity.for
additional rest a'hich then would be utilized to add more restoratiae energy, or analogotts
to putting more charge into a batten¡, to carry tlut pilot into more of an extended duty
period zuith nn additional amount of time. . .. up to in ceñain cases 24 hours of dutv.
What is your feeling on that type of scenario?
To me, that's a recipe for disaster because if you have a responsible, professional
pilot -- who has a reasonable schedule, I guess - rvho is not horribly sleep
deprived, and who has a fairly stable circadian rhvthm, then the likelihood that
he can get adequate sleep by trying to nap I think is relatively smalt. I would not
depend on it at all. I would think also to have to do it sort of unexpectedlv like
this....Oh! Take a nap....Only people who are ven'sleep deprived....
Can I nsk that qtestiott a different t,ay?
Sure.
Let':;,ztt I lnt¿.; i)-lrcur sltqt t't¡t¡tsytttntt'g: 70 pr.rtt 1.. S a.pl. Thnt ntenns l'm.¡.-.iilnbl¿
.ft-¡r7-i /ior¿rs¡¿r:.:s:tlte,t.r7tt nttit'tto t/¡¿n¿i't 10¡r,r'..,':toirig/rf. C¡:¡1,?/ncrf r-¡:.;;n//
Sou il! rlrrrrll fl)'lr ;.ty tttsteatl o.f vou beittg crff folriÀ'/¡l i! 10 p.nt., z¿'c i¿'¡znf :/o¡t Ícl;¿'r.rk
until ;c¡,¿n frrrT;-'.ro¡¿' ntonlnt? but vott nrcn't grrirrg 1.. ¡o to i.L,ùrkuntll l0:00 tluti rtight
So tltn cnli nt¿.1: noon, tlvy gi7,¿ n 7)-lnur notic¿ tiu¡! I'nt not going tohn,,t fo€cr fo
¡t'ork until 70 Jt,^ws front noon, so ni 2200 I rEtor! .ic.r ,L,c)rk, nnd thzu icutt nte tc. flv
ttntil 0800. 5o :;i,¡t ,t'otúd he a totnl of 21 lnurs front lit¿ titttt I theoriticallu ,cokt iti, nnit
l'te hatl h 7}-hc.i¿r notice that I itns goittg to be.flutnq tlti:.fntigttirrg -.che,?ri/e lfì.¡rid
thnt bc safe?
lVell, I u'ouìdn't be on vour plane. No. I think that's almost insanity in the sense
of saving that is safe. First of all, naps can't be depended on - even under ideal
circumstances - to get vou through this period rçhen the biological clock alerting
is gone, n'hen r-ou're alone rvith vour sleep debt so to speak, during the \\-oCL.
There's no \\'a\- that isn't going to be dangerous. l'es, there mar- be exceptions,
but it's alrvar-s going to be dangerous. The likelihood is not good that vou rtould
be able to have some kind of good luck that vou did sleep a lot, and that has
gotten vou through. First of all, vou lvould not be at your peak performance.
There is just no way. You cannot achieve peak performance during that period
of time. lr{avbe for 10 minutes. The notion that vou can depend on getting
adequate sleep I think is just wrong. You can go into a laboratory and you can
9