TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Aviation

    Ready For Takeoff – Turn Your Aviation Passion Into A Career

    The Ready For Takeoff podcast will help you transform your aviation passion into an aviation career. Every week we bring you instruction and inspiring interviews with top aviators in their field who reveal their flight path to an exciting career in the skies.

    Advertise

    Copyright: © Nolly Productions, Inc.

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    RFT 456: TWA Flight 800 Oct 26, 2021
    Show notes

    The accident airplane, registration N93119 (a Boeing 747-131), was manufactured by Boeing in July 1971; it had been ordered by Eastern Air Lines, but after Eastern cancelled its 747 orders, the plane was purchased new by Trans World Airlines. The aircraft had completed 16,869 flights with 93,303 hours of operation and was powered by four Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7AH turbofan engines. On the day of the accident, the airplane departed from Ellinikon International Airport in Athens, Greece, as TWA Flight 881 and arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) about 4:38 pm. The aircraft was refueled, and a crew change was made; the new flight crew consisted of 58-year-old Captain Ralph G. Kevorkian (who had flown for TWA for 31 years and the U.S. Air Force for 9 years), 57-year-old Captain/Check Airman Steven E. Snyder (who had flown for TWA for 32 years), and 63-year-old Flight Engineer/Check Airman Richard G. Campbell Jr. (who had flown for TWA for 30 years and the U.S. Air Force for 12 years), as well as 25-year-old flight engineer trainee Oliver Krick, who had flown for TWA for 26 days and was starting the sixth leg of his initial operating experience training.

    The ground-maintenance crew locked out the thrust reverser for engine #3 (treated as a minimum equipment list item) because of technical problems with the thrust reverser sensors during the landing of TWA 881 at JFK, prior to Flight 800's departure. Additionally, severed cables for the engine #3 thrust reverser were replaced. During refueling of the aircraft, the volumetric shutoff (VSO) control was believed to have been triggered before the tanks were full. To continue the pressure fueling, a TWA mechanic overrode the automatic VSO by pulling the volumetric fuse and an overflow circuit breaker. Maintenance records indicate that the aircraft had numerous VSO-related maintenance writeups in the weeks before the accident.

    TWA 800 was scheduled to depart JFK for Charles de Gaulle Airport around 7:00 pm, but the flight was delayed until 8:02 pm by a disabled piece of ground equipment and a passenger/baggage mismatch. After the owner of the baggage in question was confirmed to be on board, the flight crew prepared for departure, and the aircraft pushed back from Gate 27 at the TWA Flight Center. The flight crew started the engines at 8:04 pm. However, because of the previous maintenance undertaken on engine #3, the flight crew only started engines #1, #2, and #4. Engine #3 was started 10 minutes later at 8:14 pm. Taxi and takeoff proceeded uneventfully.Flight path of TWA 800: The colored rectangles are areas from which wreckage was recovered.

    TWA 800 then received a series of heading changes and generally increasing altitude assignments as it climbed to its intended cruising altitude.  Weather in the area was light winds with scattered clouds, with dusk lighting conditions. The last radio transmission from the airplane occurred at 8:30 pm, when the flight crew received and then acknowledged instructions from Boston Center to climb to 15,000 feet (4,600 m). The last recorded radar transponder return from the airplane was recorded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) radar site at Trevose, Pennsylvania, at 8:31:12 pm.

    Thirty-eight seconds later, the captain of an Eastwind Airlines Boeing 737 reported to Boston ARTCC that he "just saw an explosion out here", adding, "we just saw an explosion up ahead of us here ... about 16,000 feet [4,900 m] or something like that, it just went down into the water." Subsequently, many air traffic control facilities in the New York/Long Island area received reports of an explosion from other pilots operating in the area. Many witnesses in the vicinity of the crash stated that they saw or heard explosions, accompanied by a large fireball or fireballs over the ocean, and observed debris, some of which was burning while falling into the water.

    Various civilian, military, and police vessels reached the crash site and searched for survivors within minutes of the initial water impact, but found none, making TWA 800 the second-deadliest aircraft accident in United States history at that time.


    RFT 545: Valujet 592 Oct 22, 2021
    Show notes

    The aircraft, a DC-9-32, registered N904VJ, was the 496th DC-9 assembled at the Long Beach plant, was 27 years old at the time and had been previously flown by Delta Air Lines. Its first flight was April 18, 1969. Delivered to Delta on May 27, 1969, as N1281L, the airframe flew for Delta until the end of 1992, when it was retired and sold back to McDonnell Douglas. McDonnell Douglas then sold the plane to ValuJet in 1993. The aircraft was powered by two Pratt & Whitney JT8D-9A turbofan engines.

    The aircraft had suffered a series of incidents in the two years before the crash, including two aborted takeoffs and eight emergency landings. Engine and pressurization errors were the primary issues in several of the incidents. In May 1995, the FAA issued a re-wiring directive for all DC-9 cockpits because the wire bundles in the switch panel could cause "fire and uncontrolled smoke throughout the cockpit as a result of chafing and shorting."

    In the flight deck were two experienced pilots: Captain Candi Kubeck (35) and First Officer Richard Hazen (52). Captain Kubeck had accumulated 8,928 total flight hours throughout her career (including 2,116 hours on the DC-9) and First Officer Hazen had more than 11,800 total flight hours throughout his career, with 2,148 of them on the DC-9.

    On the afternoon of May 11, 1996, Flight 592 pushed back from gate G2 in Miami after a delay of 1 hour and 4 minutes due to mechanical problems. There were 105 passengers, mainly from Florida and Georgia, as well as a crew of two pilots and three flight attendants, bringing the total number of people on board to 110. At 2:04 PM EDT, 10 minutes before the disaster, the DC-9 took off from runway 9L (now runway 8R) and began a normal climb.

    The NTSB quickly determined that just before takeoff, 144 expired chemical oxygen generators, each slightly larger than the size of a tennis ball can, had been placed in the cargo compartment in five boxes marked COMAT (company material) by ValuJet's maintenance contractor, SabreTech, in violation of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations forbidding the transport of hazardous materials in passenger aircraft cargo holds. Failure to cover the generators' firing pins with the prescribed plastic caps made an accidental activation much more likely. The investigation revealed that rather than covering them, the cords attached to the firing pins were simply cut or duct-taped around the cans, and Scotch tape was also used to stick the ends down. SabreTech employees indicated on the cargo manifest that the "oxy canisters", which were loosely packed in the boxes that were each sealed with tape and bubble wrap, were "empty". ValuJet workers then loaded the boxes in the cargo hold in the mistaken belief that the devices that they contained were just empty canisters, thus being certified as supposedly "safe" to transport on a passenger aircraft, when in fact they were neither simple oxygen canisters, nor empty.

    Chemical oxygen generators, when activated, produce oxygen for passengers if the plane suffers a decompression. However, they also produce a great quantity of heat due to the exothermic nature of the chemical reaction involved. Therefore, not only could the heat and generated oxygen start a fire, but the oxygen could also keep the fire burning. The fire was worsened by the presence of two main aircraft tires (one of them mounted on a main wheel) and a nose tire and wheel that were also included in the list of materials shipped as COMAT. Investigators determined that one of the oxygen generators was likely triggered when the plane experienced a slight jolt while taxiing. As the aircraft taxied and took off, the activated generator got hotter and hotter. Soon, the boxes and surrounding packaging ignited, starting a fire.

    At 2:10 PM, the passengers started to smell smoke. At the same time, the pilots heard a loud bang in their headphones and noticed the plane was losing electrical power. The sag in electrical power and the bang were eventually determined to be the result of a tire in the cargo hold exploding. Seconds later, a flight attendant entered the cockpit and informed the flight crew of a fire in the passenger cabin. Passengers' shouts of "fire, fire, fire" were recorded on the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) when the cockpit door was opened. Though ValuJet's flight attendant training manual stated that the cockpit door should not be opened when smoke or other harmful gases might be present in the cabin, the intercom was not functional and informing the pilots of what was happening was difficult. The flight data recorder (FDR) indicated a progressive failure of the DC-9's electrical and flight control systems due to the spreading fire.

    Kubeck and Hazen immediately asked air traffic control for a return to Miami due to the increasing smoke in the cockpit and cabin, and were given instructions for a return to the airport. One minute later, Hazen requested the nearest available airport. Kubeck began to turn the plane left in preparation for the return to Miami.

    Flight 592 disappeared from radar at 2:13:42 PM, the exact time that it crashed. Eyewitnesses nearby watched as the plane banked sharply, rolled onto its side and nosedived into the Francis S. Taylor Wildlife Management Area in the Everglades, a few miles west of Miami, at a speed in excess of 507 miles per hour (816 km/h). Kubeck lost control of the plane less than 10 seconds before impact. Examination of debris suggested that the fire had burned through the floorboards in the cabin, resulting in structural failure and damage to cables underneath the instrument panels. The NTSB report on the accident stated, "the Safety Board cannot rule out the possibility that the flightcrew was incapacitated by smoke or heat in the cockpit during the last 7 seconds of the flight."  Interruptions in the cockpit voice recorder occurred on two occasions, one as long as 1 minute 12 seconds.  The aircraft hit the water at 2:13:42 PM EDT, about 10 minutes after takeoff. The impact site was on the western edge of Florida Water Conservation Area 3B, between two levees, in an area known as the L-67 Pocket.

    None of the 110 passengers or crew on board survived the accident. Additionally, recovery of the aircraft and victims was made extremely difficult by the location of the crash. The nearest road of any kind was more than a quarter mile (400 m) away from the crash scene, and the location of the crash itself was a deep-water swamp with a floor of solid limestone. The aircraft was destroyed on impact, with no large pieces of the fuselage remaining. Sawgrass, alligators, and risk of bacterial infection from cuts plagued searchers involved in the recovery effort.

    According to the NTSB's report, two witnesses fishing nearby testified that "they saw a low-flying airplane in a steep right bank. According to these witnesses, as the right bank angle increased, the nose of the airplane dropped and continued downward. The airplane struck the ground in a nearly vertical attitude."

    They reported seeing no external damage or any sign of fire or smoke other than the engine exhaust. A group of sightseers in a small private plane also witnessed the crash and provided a nearly identical account, stating that Flight 592 seemed to "disappear" after hitting the swamp and they could see nothing but scattered small debris, part of an engine, and a large pool of jet fuel near the crash site.


    RFT 544: The Visual Approach Oct 19, 2021
    Show notes

    At some point in your flying career, either in an FAA Practical Test or in real life, you will be required to perform a visual approach to a landing. In a simulator checkride, typically the electronic glideslope and VASI (visual approach slope indicator) will be rendered inoperative.

    For planning purposes, we will use 3 degrees as the desired approach path. That is a typical ILS glideslope and typical VASI glideslope. For a 3-degree descent, your descent rate (vertical speed) will need to be 1/2 your groundspeed times 10. For example, if your groundspeed is 100 knots, you will need to descend at 500 feet per minute to remain on a 3-degree glideslope.

    You can read your groundspeed directly from your glass-cockpit instruments. What if you're flying an aircraft with antique gauges? That's where some mental math comes in. Your groundspeed is your true airspeed minus the headwind. You can estimate the headwind by using ATIS winds and adding a few knots for the increased winds (assumed) at approach altitude. How about your true airspeed? Calculate your true airspeed by increasing your indicated airspeed by 2 percent for every 1000 feet above sea level. For example, if you are flying the approach at 90 knots at an average altitude of 5000 feet in Colorado, your true airspeed will be 10 percent higher than your indicated airspeed. So your true airspeed will be 100 knots (actually, 99 knots, but we're doing PILOT math!). If your headwind is 10 knots, your groundspeed is 90 knots, so you will descend at 450 feet per minute.

    Here's an even easier way to maintain a 3-degree glideslope: simply fly towards the runway at the glideslope intercept altitude, maintaining final approach airspeed. When you fly over the outer marker (the blue marker beacon light, or the DME for the final approach fix), simply lower the nose 3 degrees and hold that pitch. Wherever the touchdown zone appears in your windscreen, hold that sight picture all the way down. Piece of cake!


    RFT 543 My Airline Anniversary Oct 15, 2021
    Show notes

    I was hired by United Airlines as a Flight Officer on October 16, 1978. In those days they used the term "Flight Officer" instead of "Pilot" because most new-hires were assigned as Flight Engineers. Now, of course, new-hires are all hired as pilots.

    My road to the airlines:

    1977: Flight Engineer written exam

    1977: Airline Transport Pilot written exam - FAILED on the first attempt!

    1977: Self-study for ATP written exam - PASSED with 99%

    1977: Airline Transport Pilot practical test - Beech 18

    1978 (March): Flight Engineer training at Arnautical, Inc.

    1978 (April): Instructed Flight Engineer trainees at Arnautical

    1978 (May): Updated United application

    1978 (July): Interviewed with United Airlines

    1978 (October): New-hire at United

    1981 (June): Furloughed!


    RFT 542: Kroger Chief Pilot Brett Minturn Oct 11, 2021
    Show notes

    Brett had an early love for aviation, inspired by his uncle, a United Airlines B-747 Captain. He started flying at age 16 and attained all of his certificates while in college. He was anxious to get into professional aviation, and graduated a year early so he could get his start.

    His first flying job after graduation was in the cold northeast, where the airplane engine had to be artificially warmed for two hours before flight, but the cockpit stayed frigid! He was then hired by Mesa Airlines, based in Orlando, to fly his first jet. He upgraded to Captain at JFK Airport, where he sometimes had to taxi for two hours fo a 30-minute flight.

    After about five years and being downgraded, Brett was starting to feel burned out with regional flying. He heard about a corporate flying job and went to a bar to learn more. He wanted to separate himself from the pool of pilot applicants, he had his resume produced on a cake! He didn't get the job, but got on the company's radar, and was ultimately hired.

    Brett eventually worked his way up to Chief Pilot at Kroger, and is now firmly committed to the company.

    From NBAA:

    Since Minturn transitioned from the airlines to business aviation, the NBAA Safety Committee member and chair of the Midwest Safety Roundtable has pursued his passion – aviation safety. He is a staunch advocate for adoption of the Aviation Safety Action Program in Part 91 operations, and last year he worked with the University of Amsterdam to develop aviation safety metrics. Minturn also has helped develop in-house technology solutions for data collection. “What I love about business aviation is I really feel like I’m making the company and the industry better.”


    RFT 541: Runway Awareness and Advisory System Oct 07, 2021
    Show notes

    The Runway Awareness and Advisory System (RAAS) is one of a number of related software enhancements available on later-model Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems. RAAS is designed to improve flight crew situational awareness, thereby reducing the risks of runway incursion, runway confusion and runway excursions.

    Runway Awareness and Advisory System uses airport data stored in the EGPWS database, coupled with GPS and other onboard sensors, to monitor the movement of an aircraft around the airport. It provides visual/aural annunciations at critical points, such as "Approaching Runway 09 Left and confirmation when an aircraft is lined up on the runway prior to takeoff: for example, "On Runway 09 Right, 2,450 metres remaining." In a scenario where a crew inadvertently lines up on a parallel taxiway and commences a take off, an aural alert “On Taxiway, On Taxiway” is provided if the aircraft speed exceeds 40 kts. On approach and after touchdown, the system continues to announce the distance to go until the end of the runway is reached.

    System Description

    Advisories/cautions are generated based upon the current aircraft position as compared to the location of the airport runways, which are stored within the EGPWS Runway Database.

    The aurals can be grouped into two categories:

    • Routine Advisories (annunciations the flight crew will hear during routine operations) and
    • Non-Routine Advisories/Cautions (annunciations the flight crew will seldom or perhaps never hear).

    RAAS provides the flight crew with five ‘routine advisories'. Three of these annunciations will be heard by the crew in normal operations, providing increased position awareness relative to the runway during taxi and flight operations. They are intended to reduce the risk of a runway incursion. The two remaining ‘routine’ advisories provide information about the aircraft location along the runway, and are intended to reduce the risk of overruns. The five advisories are:

    • Approaching Runway - Airborne advisory provides the crew with awareness of which runway the aircraft is lined up with on approach.
    • Approaching Runway - On-Ground advisory provides the flight crew with awareness of approximate runway edge being approached by the aircraft during taxi operations.
    • On Runway - Advisory provides the crew with awareness of which runway the aircraft is lined-up with.
    • Distance Remaining - Advisories enhance crew awareness of aircraft along-track position relative to the runway end.
    • Runway End - Advisory is intended to improve flight crew awareness of the position of the aircraft relative to the runway end during low visibility conditions.

    In addition, RAAS provides the flight crew with several ‘non-routine’ advisories/cautions. These annunciations are designed to enhance safety and situational awareness in specific situations not routinely encountered during normal aircraft operations. Some of the RAAS advisories include distance information. The unit of measure used for distance can be configured to be either metres or feet.

    • Approaching Short Runway - Airborne advisory provides the crew with awareness of which runway the aircraft is lined-up with, and that the runway length available may be marginal for normal landing operations. If desired, an additional caution annunciation can be enabled which provides the crew with awareness that the issue has not been resolved when the aircraft is on final approach.
    • Insufficient Runway Length - On-Ground advisory provides the crew with awareness of which runway the aircraft is lined-up with, and that the runway length available for takeoff is less than the defined minimum takeoff runway length. If desired, an additional caution annunciation can be enabled which provides the crew with awareness that the issue has not been resolved when the aircraft is on the final stage of takeoff.
    • Extended Holding on Runway - Advisory provides crew awareness of an extended holding period on the runway.
    • Taxiway Take-Off - Advisory enhances crew awareness of excessive taxi speeds or an inadvertent take-off on a taxiway. If desired, this function can provide a caution annunciation in lieu of an advisory annunciation.
    • Distance Remaining - Advisories provide the flight crew with position awareness during a Rejected Take Off (RTO).
    • Taxiway Landing - Alert provides the crew with awareness that the aircraft is not lined up with a runway at low altitudes.

    Each RAAS function is independently enabled based on a customer specification and, when enabled, the RAAS functions operate automatically without any action required from the flight crew.

    In addition to the aural annunciations provided, visual caution indications may be activated if the appropriate criteria are met. Visual text annunciations can also be configured so they are overlaid on the terrain display for a period of time after the warning is generated.

    https://youtu.be/sBSPpLE6EDY


    RFT 540: MetroState Professor Chad Kendall Oct 04, 2021
    Show notes

    With over 20 years of experience in the aviation industry as an educator, researcher, FAA Part 141 chief instructor, airline pilot, corporate pilot, and flight instructor, Chad is versed in the kinetic and dynamic challenges and changes in the aviation industry. His passion for aviation, education, background, research, and experiences are beneficial to industry start-ups, consulting firms, and aviation companies.

    Chad was instrumental in obtaining the Part 141 certificate for Metropolitan State University of Denver's Aviation Department. As a result, Program graduates are eligible to obtain their Airline Transport Pilot certificate with 1,000 flight hours, compared to the 1,500 hours normally required.


    RFT 539: Gold Star Mother's and Family Day Sep 30, 2021
    Show notes

    Gold Star Mother’s and Family Day falls on September 26 this year and is traditionally observed on the last Sunday in September. The day is for honoring families of those who have received The Gold Star – the military award no one wants. The award commemorates the tragic death of a military member who has perished while in the line of duty and hopes to provide a level of comfort to the parents and families that are left behind. Since World War 1, a “Gold Star Family” has signified a family that has lost one of its members in combat. The family can display a Gold Star Service Flag for any military family members who have died from any honorable cause – each gold star on the flag signifies a death. Though today only around 1% of the country is involved in military service, as compared to the 12% during other times of war, like World War 2, there are still a significant number of surviving Gold Star families – not to mention, a Gold Star lives on in a family’s legacy.

    HISTORY OF GOLD STAR MOTHER’S AND FAMILY DAY

    Though the exact roots of the tradition aren’t totally known, it was during World War 1 that the gold star came to symbolize that a family member had fallen in battle. Around that time, the term “Gold Star Family” came to mean that you were a surviving family of a person who died in service and families hung banners with a gold star outside their homes. The tradition has since been authorized and seeks to ease the grief of mothers and families while reminding that no one truly serves alone.

    Gradually, there came to be many ways for grieving family members to honor their loved ones with symbols worn or places outside the home. In 1918, President Wilson allowed grieving military mothers to wear a traditional black armband featuring a gold star. Soon after, it was approved for families to cover the blue star on the service flag outside of their home with a gold one. As of 1947, Gold Star family members can also display the Gold Star Lapel.

    The American Gold Star Mothers Inc. first got its start in 1917, when Grace Siebold’s son was killed during World War 1. Wanting to create a support system for grieving mothers in similar circumstances, Grace gathered what would become the American Gold Star Mothers to grieve together and tend to hospitalized veterans in local hospitals. The organization was formalized as a non-profit in 1928, with a mission of remembrance, education, and patriotism. Still today, they support Gold Star mothers in their grief, hold an annual conference, and organize events with supporting groups.

    Though Gold Star Mother’s and Family Day isn’t observed as a National, federal holiday like Memorial Day, it was declared by Congress in 1936 to be the last Sunday in September – though, at the time, it was only known as “Gold Star Mother’s Day.” It was in 2011 that President Obama amended the declaration, declaring the day to include families as well as mothers. Today, the holiday includes any immediate family member and authorizes that person to display the Gold Star Service Flag.

    Today, America is not embroiled in any kind of conflict like World War 1 or 2, and far fewer individuals consider Gold Star heroes and their families – oftentimes, people may think that they don’t know anyone in a Gold Star Family. However, there are many more Gold Star families from previous wars than you may think, and since over 1.3 million people are involved in the military today, it’s possible you know a family that still grieves a recent fallen soldier. Understanding the sacrifice and acknowledging the holiday are the best ways to support the families and honor the soldiers.

    GOLD STAR MOTHER’S AND FAMILY DAY TIMELINE

    1918 Armbands Authorized

    President Wilson authorized mothers who had lost a child in the war to wear a traditional black mourning armband featuring a gold star.

    1929 American Gold Star Mothers

    Started in Washington, DC, The American Gold Star Mothers Inc. quickly spread across the country. In 1929, the organization obtained a federal charter to support mothers who were often separated from their ailing or dead children.

    June 23, 1936 Gold Star Mother’s Day Recognized

    Since this date, Gold Star Mother’s Day has always fallen on the last Sunday of September.

    1947 Gold Star Lapel

    The Gold Star Service Lapel, in addition to the Gold Star Service Flag, is authorized to be displayed by surviving family members.September 23, 2011.

    Obama Proclamation

    President Obama amended “Gold Star Mother’s Day” to include families as “Gold Star Mother’s and Family Day” on September 23, 2011.


    RFT 538: Revisit With Wallpilot Mark Hasara Sep 28, 2021
    Show notes

    Pondering this past year and our new normal, I realized lessons learned from ancient and modern battlefields can be used in so many areas of our lives. Sitting down one night, hundreds of stories and lessons learned flowed onto the notebook pages. Three close friends told me “Share these with the rest of us!” The Lessons from the Cockpit podcast was born.

    Flying is described as long periods of boredom interrupted by short intermittent periods of extreme terror.

    On the Lessons from the Cockpit show, we debrief the most intriguing pilots, aircrew members, maintainers, and aviation enthusiasts, investigating their tactics, techniques, and procedures cultivated during extraordinary military, commercial, and private flight operations.

    Our exploration gives practical advice on how the aviation world works and expands critical thinking skills in the air and on the ground.

    Many of our guests were involved in front-page headline news, others in events taking great pains to ensure they didn’t end up in the news.


    RFT 537: Fatigue Risk Management Sep 24, 2021
    Show notes

    From Code 7700:

    • Fatigue. Fatigue refers to a physiological state in which there is a decreased capacity to perform cognitive tasks and an increased variability in performance as a function of time on task. Fatigue is also associated with tiredness, weakness, lack of energy, lethargy, depression, lack of motivation, and sleepiness.
    • Sleep Inertia. Sleep inertia (also termed sleep drunkenness) refers to a period of impaired performance and reduced vigilance following awakening from the regular sleep episode or nap. This impairment may be severe, last from minutes to hours, and be accompanied by micro-sleep episodes.
    • Window of Circadian Low (WOCL). Individuals living on a regular 24-hour routine with sleep at night have two periods of maximum sleepiness, also known as “WOCLs.” One occurs at night, roughly from 3 a.m. to 5 a.m., a time when physiological sleepiness is greatest and performance capabilities are lowest. The other is in the afternoon, roughly from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.

    Sleep-Related Processes

    [AC 120-100, ¶7.]

    1. Sleep Regulation. The drive for sleep increases over time since the last sleep period and with any cumulative deficit in sleep relative to the average 8-hour day requirement. As a consequence, the sleep drive is at its lowest point in the morning, upon awakening, and as the day progresses, the drive to sleep increases and the ability to sustain attention and engage in cognitive activities decreases. Once sleep begins, this drive gradually decreases until awakening.
    2. Elevated Sleep Drive. For the average person, the daily upswing in alertness produced by the circadian system tends to offset the decrease in alertness produced by depletion of the sleep regulatory process. The result is roughly constant reaction time and lapses during the first 16 hours of the day 85. After about 16 hours of continuous wakefulness, most adults begin to notice reductions in the speed of performance and in alertness levels 87. However, a prior history of insufficient sleep quantity and quality can magnify the changes in behavior and alertness.
    3. Desynchronization. The timing of sleep and wakefulness of most humans, under natural conditions, is consistent with the circadian control of the sleep cycle and all other circadian-controlled rhythms. However, people working in a developed society override their internal biological clock and attempt to sleep at times that are not always consistent with the biological drive to sleep. For example, when individuals travel rapidly across time zones or work the night shift, the sleep/wake cycle is out of phase with the biological rhythms controlled by the circadian clock. This can adversely affect both alertness while awake and at work, and the ability to achieve restorative sleep.
    4. Sleep Inertia. This sleep-related process causes a temporary degradation in performance immediately after awakening. The degradation or loss of alertness is dependent on depth of sleep at the time of awakening. The degradation dissipates, after awakening, on a time scale ranging from minutes to a few hours. Sleep inertia causes a feeling of drowsiness or lethargy and can be measured as a noticeable change in reaction time and potential for lapses in attention. The duration and severity of sleep inertia is related to the depth of sleep at the time of awakening. It tends to be greater after short sleep periods of an hour or two, when the need for sleep is not fully satisfied, or after sleep when the person is carrying a large sleep debt from prior sleep restrictions 10.

    Fatigue Factors

    Figure: Window of circadian low, from Duty/Rest Guidelines for Business Aviation, §1.0.

    [Duty/Rest Guidelines for Business Aviation, §1.0]

    1.1 Sleep

    • Sleep is a vital physiological need. Sleep is necessary to maintain alertness and performance, positive mood, and overall health and well-being. Each individual has a basic sleep requirement that sustains optimal levels of performance and physiological alertness during wakefulness. On average, an adult requires eight hours of sleep in a 24-hour period.
    • It has been shown in laboratory studies that loss of as little as two hours of sleep will induce fatigue and degrade subsequent waking performance and alertness. Over successive days, sleep loss — any amount less than is required — will accrue into a cumulative sleep deficit commonly referred to as a "sleep debt." The physiological need for sleep created by sleep loss can be reversed only by sleep. Recovery from acute sleep loss takes one or two consecutive extended sleep periods. These extended sleep periods will be even longer if a person is suffering from a cumulative sleep debt. An individual who has obtained ample recovery sleep will be better prepared to perform after long hours awake or while working nonstandard schedules than a person who is operating with a sleep debt.

    1.2 Recovery Periods

    • Recovery from acute or cumulative sleep loss is critical when a person is challenged with non-standard schedules that include extended periods of wakefulness (e.g., extended duty periods) or circadian disruption (scheduled sleep/wake periods that are misaligned with the body's circadian rhythm, described in Section 1.3). Recovery is necessary to reduce the accumulated effects of fatigue and enable an individual to perform assigned duties fully rested. Further, recovery periods should allow for recuperative sleep opportunities of an appropriate number of hours and, in some cases, an appropriate number of successive days (as noted in Section 1.1).
    • Placement of recovery sleep periods is crucial and can be especially challenging when schedules include changing time zones because individuals may experience circadian misalignment. Westward travel is often associated with waking up too early in relation to the local time zone, and eastward travel is associated with delay in falling asleep in relation to the local time zone. (See Section 1.3 for further discussion.)
    • Another challenge an individual may experience when planning recovery rest is adaptation to time zone shifts (jet lag), as discussed in Section 1.3. Many operational factors impact the scheduling of recovery periods, and a simple rule may not fully account for the role that individual differences play in recovery. It is known that meeting daily sleep requirements and using restorative breaks promote optimal performance and alertness.
    • Frequent recovery periods reduce cumulative fatigue more effectively than less frequent ones. For example, weekly recovery periods are more likely to relieve acute fatigue than monthly recovery periods. Consequently, guidelines that ensure a minimum number of days off per week are necessary for minimizing cumulative fatigue effects over longer periods of time (e.g., month, year).

    Time-of-Day and Circadian Physiology

    • Time-of-day or circadian effects are important considerations in determining 24-hour operational requirements because circadian rhythms do not adjust rapidly to change. In fact, the rhythms of many physiological functions adjust at different rates.
    • There is a 24-hour biological "clock" in the human brain, as in other organisms, that regulates 24-hour patterns of body functions. This clock controls not only sleep and wakefulness alternating in parallel with the environmental light/dark cycle, but also the oscillatory nature of most physiological, psychological and behavioral functions. The wide range of body functions controlled by the clock includes body temperature, hormone secretion, digestion, physical and mental performance, mood and many others. On a 24-hour basis, these functions fluctuate in a regular pattern with a high level at one time of day and a low level at another time.
    • The clock's circadian (circa meaning "around," dies meaning "day") pattern of wakefulness and sleep programs the human body for wakefulness during the day and sleep at night. This circadian system repeats this pattern on a daily basis. Certain hours of the 24-hour cycle — that is, roughly 0200 to 0600 (for individuals adapted to a usual day-wake/night-sleep schedule), called the window of circadian low (WOCL) — are identified as a time when the body is programmed to sleep, and during which alertness and performance are degraded. There is a second, less pronounced, period of reduced alertness between 1500 and 1700. The body is also programmed for two periods of enhanced alertness and performance, and these periods are estimated to occur roughly between 0900 and 1100 and again between 2100 and 2300.
    • Non-standard schedules interrupt daily wake and sleep patterns, resulting in internal circadian disruption. For example, an individual working during the night is maintaining wakefulness in direct opposition to physiological programming to be asleep. Physiological, psychological and behavior al functions are set by the circadian system to a low status during the WOCL and a person cannot compensate by being awake and active. Conversely, the same individual sleeping during the day is in direct opposition to physiological programming to be awake. The circadian system provides a high level of functioning during the day that counteracts the drive to sleep.
    • Circadian disruption also occurs with jet lag. When the biological clock is not aligned with the external environment's time cues, desynchronization occurs both in relation to the external environment and among the various internal physiological functions. Such circadian disruptions can lead to acute sleep loss, sleep debt, decrements in performance and alertness, and various health problems (e.g., gastrointestinal).
    • Scientists agree there is no simple equation to determine the rate of circadian adjustment in any one individual. Numerous factors play a role, such as number of time zones crossed, direction of travel, amount and timing of light exposure, morning/evening types, and long sleepers vs. short sleepers. While one study in the 1970s on non-pilot volunteers suggests that when adjusting to eastbound travel, circadian rhythms adjust at a rate of 1.0 hour per day and when traveling westbound, the adjustment rate is 1.5 hours per day, this has not been confirmed with additional scientific study.

    1.4 Continuous Waking Hours

    • Extended wakefulness and prolonged periods of continuous performance or vigilance on a task will result in sleepiness and fatigue. Across duty periods, these effects can accumulate further. One way to minimize the accumulation of these effects is to limit the length of a duty period (i.e., the continuous hours of wakefulness during operations). Acute effects can be addressed through daily duty limits, and cumulative effects can be minimized by weekly limits.
    • More scientific evidence is available to support guidelines for acute limits than for determining specific cumulative limits. Nevertheless, cumulative limits (weekly and beyond) remain an accepted operational approach for minimizing accumulation of fatigue effects.

    1.5 Individual Differences

    • There are considerable individual differences in the magnitude of fatigue effects on performance, physiological alertness and subjective reports of fatigue. These differences extend to the effects of sleep loss, night work, required sleep and recovery time for an individual.
    • Individuals vary from one another in sleep requirement, overall health, age and other factors. Individuals' fatigue level can also vary from day to day based on their participation in activities that contribute to fatigue while on duty and prior to a duty period. In this regard, long-duration commutes immediately before a duty period are of concern.
    • Scientists agree that increased workload amplifies the performance degradation produced by extended hours of wakefulness and adverse circadian phase (that is, being awake during the WOCL). And individuals respond differently to the effects of workload. In aviation, workload factors can include the number of flight segments, time on task, airport characteristics, weather conditions, aircraft capabilities and other environmental conditions.

    Sources of Pilot Fatigue

    [Caldwell, pg. 6] Both long-haul and short-haul pilots commonly associate fatigue with scheduling issues

    • Night flights (operating at circadian low point)
    • Multiple time-zone crossings (jet lag)
    • Early wake ups (truncated sleep)
    • Time pressure (increased workload)
    • Multiple flight legs (extended work periods)
    • Consecutive duty periods without sufficient recovery time (chronic sleep loss)

    Symptoms of Pilot Fatigue

    [Caldwell, pg. 9]

    • Accuracy and timing degrade
    • Lower standards of performance become acceptable
    • Attentional resources are difficult to divide
    • A tendency toward preservation develops
    • The ability to integrate information is lost
    • Everything becomes more difficult to perform
    • Social interactions decline
    • The ability to logically reason is impaired
    • Attention wanes
    • Attitude and mood deteriorates
    • Involuntary lapses into sleep begin to occur

    Effects of Pilot Fatigue

    Figure: In-cockpit nodding off episodes, from Caldwell, pg. 16.

    [Caldwell, pg. 16.]

    • A study of night flights undertaken in the 1980’s revealed numerous instances of nodding off in the cockpit
    • In the early morning hours, the frequency of such lapses increased tenfold
    • Note than many of these occur well after sunrise!

    [Caldwell, pg. 18.]

    • Standardized laboratory tests show decrements in pilots’ attention, reaction time, and accuracy
    • Fatigue-induced mood changes compromise crew resource management
    • Flight simulation and in-flight studies show deteriorations in fundamental flight skills
    • And the group effects fail to highlight the full extent of impairments experienced by some pilots

    Previous 1 5 6 7 8 9 62 Next

    Related Podcasts

    EAA’s The Green Dot – An Aviation Podcast

    1

    EAA’s The Green Dot – An Aviation Podcast Aviation
    Ask Drone U

    2

    Ask Drone U Aviation
    AviatorCast: Flight Training & Aviation Podcast

    3

    AviatorCast: Flight Training & Aviation Podcast Aviation
    Betty in the Sky with a Suitcase!

    4

    Betty in the Sky with a Suitcase! Aviation
    Uncontrolled Airspace: General Aviation Podcast

    5

    Uncontrolled Airspace: General Aviation Podcast Aviation
    Pilotcast – Pilot Kent, Pilot Bill, Pilot Tiffany

    6

    Pilotcast – Pilot Kent, Pilot Bill, Pilot Tiffany Aviation
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights