JetBlue's Test of Pilot Fatigue Rule Upsets Regulatory
Apple Cart
There's a way for firms to do regulatory research
more effectively
Wall Street Journal reporters Andy
Pasztor and Susan Carey describe (subscription may be required) detailed
human factors research JetBlue performed with FAA district office approval
to test the longstanding assumption that, under certain conditions, pilots can
safely fly longer than Federal Aviation Administration rules permit. The result:
an unflattering portrayal on Page One of the Journal, a punitive
regulatory response from FAA headquarters, and an FAA threat to further punish
JetBlue by indefinitely delaying any review of the scientific merits of its
hours of service limits for pilots.
In retrospect, adherence to the
procedures and standards of the Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Quality
Act might have been a better way for JetBlue to proceed -- even though the PRA
doesn't apply to regulated entities.
JetBlue Airways sought and obtained approval from the FAA's New York district
office to conduct a test of the assumption that eight hours (the current
regulatory limit) is the maximum time pilots can safely fly.They worked with a
human factors consultant to collect detailed data on pilot alertness for "as
many as 10 or 11 hours a day."
The results of the test haven't yet been made public -- they are
expected to be published by the end of the year -- and JetBlue executives say
even they don't know the findings. But the experiment has landed JetBlue in
hot water while fueling a fierce debate within the airline industry about how
long pilots should be allowed to stay at the
controls.
Headquarters officials at any federal regulatory
agency don't like it when their district or regional counterparts don't consult
with them before making decisions that could backfire in Washington. It's
officials in Washington who have to respond to the complaints, in this case from
union and consumer activists who have their own reasons to oppose longer hours
of service rules. From their perspective, district and regional officials
perceive themselves as much more familiar with how to make regulations work in
the real world. They reject the notion that they are mere automatons and
functionaries of Washington without any capacity to exercise discretion
sensibly. They chafe under what they perceive as heavy-handed Washington control
and second-guessing.
The subhead of Pasztor and Carey's Page One article
emphasizes the fact that JetBlue did not tell passengers is was conducting the
test. This seems to imply that JetBlue placed passengers at risk, but there's no
evidence supporting that inference in their article. Under the experiment
JetBlue placed a third pilot onboard -- precisely what FAA rules require for
flights that exceed regulatory limits for the normal two-pilot crew.A more
plausible explanation is that JetBlue thought that obtaining the agreement of
FAA officials whom it knew best was sufficient. Raising the issue to FAA
headquarters in Washington could well have killed the idea, as regulators can be
highly averse to change they they do not initiate.
But these are normal
features of the federal regulatory system. Like markets, which advocates of
regulation often criticize as messy and riddled with imperfections from the
standard models offered by economists, regulatory systems are messy and riddled
with imperfections from the standard models offered by regulators. If perfect
competition is the unrealized ideal of economic theory, its analogue in
regulatory practice is the errorless effectiveness of central planning. When
evaluating the merits of a regulatory approach to remedy an imperfect market,
it's essential to take into account the analogous imperfections that arise in
implementing regulations. Too often, what's compared is a parody of the market
(in which consumers are fools and businesses are venal) within idealized and
imaginary regulatory regime (in which central planning works like a frictionless
machine).
The existing FAA rule on pilots' hours of service reflects a
sensible rule of thumb when it was established, but it is a rule of thumb
nonetheless. There is little scientific evidence showing that eight hours is the
correct upper bound on pilot hours, or for that matter, that the correct value
is constant irrespective of the type of commercial flight involved.Pasztor and
Carey write:
JetBlue and some of its pilots argue that longer flight shifts could
actually improve the quality of life for pilots and perhaps enhance their
alertness. Flying from New York to California and back in the same workday,
they say, would allow crews to sleep in their own beds, enjoy better rest and
avoid hotel stays at odd hours that tend to disrupt natural sleep
rhythms. Research could help reveal that current FAA rules are
too strict. But it also could show that they are too lenient. An hour battling a
severe thunderstorm or unexpected wind sheer might be enough for one work
day.
What JetBlue might have done instead is follow an established public
process for obtaining data, such as the Paperwork
Reduction Act. The PRA applies to federal agencies and private entities who
collect information on their behalf, but not to private parties such as JetBlue.
So if FAA had wanted to conduct an experiment like JetBlue's, it would have been
required by law to comply with the PRA.
The fact that private parties are
not covered by the PRA shouldn't be the end of the matter. Rather, regulated
entities should seriously consider following PRA procedures anyway, and adhering
to the PRA's recently enacted information quality
guidelines as well. If JetBlue had done this, it would have been assured
that the final product met the highest information quality standards and it
could have provided a sound scientific basis for for revising the pilot hours of
service rule, which it said to have been in place for 40 years. The airline also
could have avoided an unnecessary and counterproductive public relations
controversy.
As matters stand, JetBlue stands accused by FAA of trying to
skirt the hours of service regulations, according to reporters Pasztor and
Carey. If JetBlue believes it's been treated unfairly, which seems completely
reasonable, then starting over using the PRA process would be a good way to
correct the record.
Link: http://neutralsource.org/content/blog/detail/678/
|