In October 1993, Japan Airlines revoked Flight time/duty time agreement with JAL Flight Crew Union, and unilaterally implemented new work rules governing maximum flight/duty time. We at Japan Airlines Flight Crew Union did not agree to the new work rule, and we filed a lawsuit at Tokyo District Court calling for judgment that no legal obligation exists for union members to comply with the unilaterally-implemented work rule. Although we have not agreed to the work rule, we are presently reserving the right to refuse to fly lest JAL penalizes individual union members.
based on the new JAL Flight Crew Work Rules unilaterally implemented by JAL
"Single Complement" i.e. Minimum Crew |
||||||||
| Number of landings | 1 landing | 2 landings | 3 landings | 4 landings | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local time of day of show up (reporting) |
Maximum Flight Time |
Maximum Duty Time |
Maximum Flight Time |
Maximum Duty Time |
Maximum Flight Time/TH> |
Maximum Duty Time |
Maximum Flight Time |
Maximum Duty Time |
| 06:00 to 07:59 | 10:30 | 14:30 | 09:00 | 13:30 | 07:30 | 12:00 | 06:00 | 11:00 |
| 08:00 to 14:59 | 11:00 | 15:00 | 09:30 | 14:00 | 07:30 | 12:00 | 06:00 | 11:00 |
| 15:00 to 21:59 | 10:30 | 14:30 | 09:00 | 13:30 | 07:30 | 12:00 | 06:00 | 11:00 |
| 22:00 to 05:59 | 09:00 | 13:00 | 08:30 | 13:00 | 07:30 | 12:00 | 06:00 | 11:00 |
"Multiple Complement" i.e. Augmented Crew |
|
| Maximum Flight Time |
Maximum Duty Time |
|---|---|
| 15:00 | 20:00 |
These limitations apply for monthly schedule planning purposes only, and newly
implemented "Principle of completion of flight duty" clause governs once a
flight departs from the boarding gate.
According to the newly implemented "Principle of completion of flight duty", as
a principle, flight crew must complete a flight duty to the final destination once the
airplane leaves the departure point. However, the pilot in command must discontinue the
flight if he considers that safety may be jeopardized by extended period of flight duty
upon consideration of operational situations, crew fatigue etc. and with consultation with
other crew members.
based on the Japan Airlines Flight Crew Work Rules and
The flight time/duty time agreement between JAL and JAL Flight Crew Union (which JAL
unilaterally revoked)
| Number of landings | 1 landing | 2 landings | 3 landings | 4 landings | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum Flight and Duty time period (regardless of reporting time) |
Maximum Flight Time |
Maximum Duty Time |
Maximum Flight Time |
Maximum Duty Time |
Maximum Flight Time |
Maximum Duty Time |
Maximum Flight Time |
Maximum Duty Time |
| @ | 09:00 | 13:00 | 08:30 | 13:00 | 07:30 | 12:00 | 06:00 | 10:00 |
| Maximum Flight Time |
Maximum Duty Time |
|---|---|
| 14:00 | 20:00 |
Japan Airlines might seem to have achieved the radical change (extension) of flight/duty time limitations. But the fact is that we at Japan Airlines Flight Crew Union have not agreed to the new standard, and it is currently under a civil lawsuit. It is possible that the court may judge against the working condition JAL unilaterally implemented.
Japan Airlines has to be condemned for the way it changed the flight and duty time
limitations. They did it without any agreement from its flight crew union.
The problem is not just miserable labor-management relations. The safety of flights are
being threatened. Indications have already been seen. This document is intended to provide
the readers with the chronology and brief summary of current situation of extended-range
flight operations at Japan Airlines.
JAPA, acronym for Japan Aircraft Pilot Association, a fraternity organization, played a
crucial role in the scenario of flight/duty tome extension in Japan.
| February 1990 | At the advent of the introduction of B747-400 into the Pacific Route in August 1990,
Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) decided to enact standards for the flight time
limitations and crew composition for long range operations of air transport services.
(quoted from JAPA report) Prior to that, there had been no specific national standard, and the Japanese air carriers had stipulated their own flight and duty time limitations in their operations manuals approved by JCAB. |
|---|---|
| May | JCAB requested Japan Aircraft Pilot Association (JAPA) to review this issue. (quoted from JAPA report) |
| May | JAPA established Committee on the crew composition of long range flight operations, and it started the study of flight time limitations within consecutive 24 hour period. |
| June 25 | The JAPA Committee submitted an interim report to JCAB in which it proposed 12 hours
for three-crew aircraft and "tentatively" 8 hours for two-crew aircraft as
flight time limitations based on US current standard. In the interim report, JAPA mentioned that 8-hour limitation is tentative and much too conservative a figure because the FAA rule had been made some forty years before when recent new-generation reduced workload two-crew aircraft capable of long range international flight had been non-existent. It also stated that JAPA would propose extension of two-crew flight time limitation after comparison and analysis of workload and fatigue between two-crew and three-crew aircraft. JAPA further mentioned that, in terms of flight time limitation for recently developed two-crew aircraft, it might not be appropriate to differentiate two-crew and three-crew aircraft, and that if the workload and crew fatigue of two-crew aircraft were found comparable, the flight time limitation could be extended to match that of three-crew aircraft. |
| June 26 | A day after the JAPA interim report was submitted to Japan Civil Aviation BureauAJCAB issued a technical decree stipulating flight time limitation of 12 hours for three-crew aircraft and 8 hours for two-crew aircraft as a national standard. |
| August 1 | Japan Airlines revised its Operations Manual and extended the flight time limitation for three-crew aircraft from former 10 hours to 12 hours "to match the national standard (quote)". This revision was accompanied by the note from the Director of Flight Operations mentioning that the new standard would not be applied for the time being. |
| Feb. - June 1992 | JAPA conducted crew-fatigue study on Pacific routes with participation of Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways with augmented crew complement (with one exception of non-augmented crew flight). |
| Sept. 17, 1992 | Teiki Koukuu Kyoukai (association of Japanese airline management) including Japan
Airlines, All Nippon Airways and Japan Air System submitted to JCAB a petition calling for
deregulation of safety regulations. The first item on the 32-item petition was "the extension of flight time limitation for two-crew aircraft to match that of three-crew aircraft". |
| December 17 | JAPA submitted to JCAB the final report of the study concluding that, -Workload and
crew fatigue levels of two-crew and three crew aircraft are comparable judging from the
results of workload analysis conducted in the certification processes of new-generation
two-crew aircraft, the results of the field measurement/comparison of crew fatigue as well
as current limitations in effect in other countries. -Therefore, it is not necessary to make two-crew flight time limitation more stringent than that of three-crew aircraft. -Therefore, it is appropriate that the flight time limitation and crew complement for new-generation two-crew aircraft engaged in international long-range operations should be the same as those being applied to three-crew aircraft. |
| December 21 | Four days after the JAPA final report was submitted to JCAB, the JCAB issued an amendment of technical decree stipulating 12 hours as flight time limitation for two-crew aircraft. |
| Feb. 20, 1993 | Japan Airlines revised its Operations Manual to establish 12 hours as flight time limitation for two-crew aircraft which was 4 hours longer than the previous standard. |
| Feb. 26, 1993 | Japan Airlines presented to Japan Airlines Flight Crew Union a new work agreement proposal, extremely inferior to the former one, which would enable non-augmented flight up to 11 hour block time (two-hour extension for three-crew aircraft and four hour extension for two-crew aircraft over the agreement that existed then.) |
| July 22 | Japan Airlines notified Flight Crew Union that it would revoke the work agreement with
the union (including flight/duty time limitations) that had been in effect for the
preceding twenty years as of the end of October 1993. (Japanese regulation requires 90-day prior notice.) |
| November, '93 | Following the revocation of the work agreement with Flight Crew Union, Japan Airlines unilaterally established new work rules identical with the proposed new agreement to which Flight Crew Union did not agree, and immediately implemented them in flight operations. Japan Airlines contended that with no agreement in effect, the only applicable rule was the one company declared. |
| April 22, 1994 | Japan Airlines Flight Crew Union filed a civil lawsuit at Tokyo District Court calling for the Court's judgment that there were no obligations on the part of union members to comply with the inferior work conditions unilaterally implemented by Japan Airlines. |
It is widely acknowledged that the JAPA Committee was known only to a handful of members of JAPA . The committee members included pilots, medical doctors, and ergonomics researchers who represented or closely affiliated with Japan Airlines, All Nippon Airways or their executive management . Some three hundred and fifty members left JAPA with resentment after learning about the report.
We do not yet have sufficient scientific grounds to determine that the crew-fatigue
research done by JAPA is totally unscientific or unfounded. At least the research
measurements may be presumed to be done with legitimate medical or scientific procedures.
However, the problem is the logic or reasoning JAPA employed to reach its pre-determined
conclusion that two-crew aircraft could safely fly up to 12 hours without crew
augmentation.
The only basis for their contention is that the workload and crew fatigue levels are
comparable between two and three-crew aircraft and that American rule defines 12 hours as
maximum to be safe for three-crew aircraft.
| @ | "With regard to the flight time limitations of the US standard, however, the committee considered that 8 hour limit for two-man aircraft would be excessively short compared with 12 hour limit for three-man aircraft. These standards were enacted more than 40 years ago when long range international flights by two-man aircraft, in which the workload of flight crew is reduced by technical innovation, were not envisaged at all." |
|---|
If JAPA contends that US. flight time limitation for two-crew aircraft has to be
reviewed for change because the rule was made forty years ago when the airplanes were not
like the ones today, then why not review the limitation for three-crew aircraft. It should
be remembered that the limitation for three-crew airplane is just as old as that for
two-crew airplane. The twelve-hour limitation for three-crew airplane was made in the days
when three-crew passenger transport seldom, or maybe never, flew non-stop 12-hour flights.
We do not know of any civil transport manufactured in the 1950's that was capable of such
endurance.
FAR Part 121.483 Flight time limitations
(Subpart R - Flight Time Limitations: Flag Air Carriers):
Two pilots and one additional flight crewmembers
(a) No flag air carrier may schedule a pilot to fly, in an airplane that has a crew of two
pilots and at least one additional flight crewmember, for a total of more than 12 hours
during any consecutive 24 hours.
It is important to note that the FAR limitation refers to a maximum total amount time
during any consecutive twenty-four period. And it may never be intended to mean maximum
allowable flight time for single-hop long-range flights without crew augmentation. When
the rule was made years ago, the objective must have been to ensure minimum period of rest
for pilots, rather than to define the maximum periods of uninterrupted flights without
crew augmentation.
However, JAPA avoided the use of word "for a total of" in its report, and they
added a misleading footnote on the table of flight/duty time limitations of countries of
the world to say "Flight time and flight duty time figures are for the limitations
for a single-hop flights". JAPA apparently tried to give impression that the American
12- hour maximum flight time limitation for three-crew aircraft is for single-hop flights.
Was the FAR 12-hour limitation for three-crew established on any scientific grounds? Was any consideration for crew alertness and performance in extended range operations across time zones given and incorporated in the rule making? After all, does the FAR 12-hour limitation for three-crew aircraft assures safety for 12-hour uninterrupted flight without crew augmentation? It does not. And the JAPA's conclusion that two-crew aircraft can safely fly up to 12 hours without crew augmentation fragilely rests on the assumption that three-crew aircraft can safely fly up to 12-hours without additional crew.
JAPA report has to be criticized for lack of any substantial scientific study on the flight/duty time limitations for three-crew aircraft, and also because they borrowed American rules and falsified the meaning of them.
JAPA did their research on Japan-US East Coast routes with full crew augmentation. Four
pilots for two-crew aircraft (747-400) and four pilots plus two flight engineers for
three-crew aircraft (747) were aboard on those flights, with an exception of 747-400 ferry
flight from Seattle to Tokyo which carried two pilots and one additional relief pilot to
be on duty when one of the subject pilots was given measurements. On those flights except
the SEA-TYO ferry flight, the subjects had time and facilities available for sleep for
roughly half the cruise periods that must have helped crew recuperate from fatigue and
compensate for sleep loss and disruption of circadian rhythmicity. However, as a result of
the JAPA report based on the research, the flight time limitations for two-crew and
three-crew aircraft were extended, and work agreements were revoked unilaterally by JAL,
Japan Airlines pilots and flight engineers are now suffering seriously from the fatigue,
sleepiness and reduced alertness/performance on their extended-range flights without
additional crew on such routes as NRT-SFO(747/747-400/9hr+15min.),
SFO-NRT(747/747-400/10+35/10+55winter), NRT-LAX(747/747-400/10+00), NRT-AKL(747/10+15),
AKL-NRT(10+45), KIX-LAX(747-.400/10+15), NRT-SYD(7479+35), SYD-NRT(9+35) where they used
to have additional crew and period to rest before the change.
We at Japan Airlines Flight Crew Union have received hundreds of remarks from our pilots
and flight engineers about the experiences of overwhelming fatigue, sleepiness, slowed
mental function, and after all reduced safety margin and increased vulnerability for
human-factor accidents. Especially with regard to San Francisco-Tokyo flight with minimum
crew on two-crew 747-400 which takes 10 hours 55 minutes block time, many of the pilots
seem to have acquired habits of cockpit nap which is not permitted at all. East-bound
flight to US West Coast, resultant circadian disruption and sleep loss during layover as
well as excessively long flight hours with no rest may be the factors. It is understood
that they do this because if they do not, two pilots might just fall asleep or might not
remain alert and competent during approach and landing phases. They do not want any
violation of regulations nor risking anything but Japan Airlines leaves them with little
choice. As a matter of fact, an instance of two pilots falling asleep at the same time
missing position report for an hour and a half was reported "anonymous". Japan
Airlines keeps saying that the safety is their primary concern, but the company simply
disregards those cases on the ground that the cases can not be proven. The company even
has threatened that if such a case reveals itself, they might have to take serious actions
(to the persons concerned). Their stance invariably is that the extension of flight/duty
time limitation has nothing to do with flight safety. JAL claims that the safety of those
extended range flights is ensured because those flight schedules fall within the Japanese
national standard which was scientifically formulated by experts - referring to JAPA
report and JCAB decree.
As is obvious to even laymen, applying the results of the fatigue measurements done on
augmented-crew in a totally different situation, i.e. non-augmented crew on extended range
flights, is certainly something to be questioned, as Mr. Wegmann of DLR pointed out.
Other questionable areas of the JAPA report may include;
-It is weak in defining factors affecting flight safety in extended range flights.
Are they the workload, stress, or fatigue?
-No measurements were done on EEG/EOG. In other words, real-time crew alertness was not
measured.
-No continuous measurements were done except for electrocardiogram recording during
take-off and landing phases.
-Most of the measurements were done during rest periods.
-Despite the fact that the report acknowledged scientific literature that boredom and
sleepiness may result at low workload phases, JAPA used "reduced workload" to
justify longer period of flight duty.
-Statistically, the subjects do not represent entire crew. The subjects were all extremely
experienced senior captains with accumulated flight time of 13000 to 17000 hours( and most
of them were in managerial positions in the company).
-The performance tests may have been too simple for the subjects to cause any difference
in performance.
-The fact that they found little difference in crew fatigue between two-crew and
three-crew aircraft may not mean the fatiguability are at comparable levels. It may mean
that the approach was not appropriate to detect any difference.
-In the statistical data analysis, averaging was commonly used. The method may conceal
otherwise different output.
-Regarding physiological data, initial values for two-crew and three-crew were often wide
apart. The finding might change upon zero-point calibration.
-Only one non-augmented-crew flight was studied. And the flight time was about 9 hours
which is much shorter than the proposed 12 hours.
-No comparison was done between conventional type two-crew aircraft and glass cockpit
two-crew aircraft.
The Japanese legal process is very slow. The court sessions are in progress, but the
initial court decision may not come until after 1997 according to current time table. end