US Airways Pilots Express Concern Following Publishing of FAA's New Rest Rules

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

How is Doug receiving any kind of crap for this? I don't care what science and doctors and guys that have 5 hours in the plane have to say about it. It's politics and Doug is right. I can't believe anyone on here would have the balls to say we need to take the "experts" at face value and totally disregard what we have thousands upon thousands of hours doing day in and day out.

Um, yeah, some of the experts involved in creating this rule having more time in the lav of a widebody airliner than you have total time. You may want to do a little more research into how this rule came about, and who was involved in getting it to this point.

 

[jtrain609]

Um, yeah, some of the experts involved in creating this rule having more time in the lav of a widebody airliner than you have total time. You may want to do a little more research into how this rule came about, and who was involved in getting it to this point.

You're not helping.

 

[RRPower]

Um, yeah, some of the experts involved in creating this rule having more time in the lav of a widebody airliner than you have total time. You may want to do a little more research into how this rule came about, and who was involved in getting it to this point.

That is the pot calling the kettle black...based on your's and Doug's posts it is apparent that you have zero time in wide body international too. So who made you the expert to argue with someone like Doug? I don't care if all the lawmakers in the world have more time wanking off in a widebody than I do total time, it doesn't mean we need to just bow down to them and take what they say as the gospel. This whole FTDT is nothing but politics and money. Yes SOME good has come out of it, but it also has this most blatant form of money corruption in it that I have ever seen. So don't stand there and lecture me about how I need to do research on anything. When more than a handful of their so-called foot notes have words like cost and money and so on, then I call shenanigans. It is nothing more than the classic golden rule...he who has the gold rules!

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

That is the pot calling the kettle black...based on your's and Doug's posts it is apparent that you have zero time in wide body international too.

Which is exactly why I wasn't involved in working on the rule, and why I only refer you to the people who were. See how that works? Let the people who both have the experience, and understand the science, deal with it.

 

[pullup]

Bottom line, around here, peer reviewed is gospel.

 

[SIUav8er]

why can't the FAA just simplify it? 10 hours of duty per day. Period. after 10 hours of work (NOT flight time) the commercial pilot can no longer work. Of course we can have a reduced rest scenario where the pilot may have to work over the allotted 10 hours, but will incur a 4 hour rest period credit for each hour over the 10 that (s)he worked. Maybe this is just me rambling after a few drinks... but it makes sense!

why do we have to differentiate between whats in the back? Cargo/pax, who cares? Or the one that really gets me, why does part 135 not get a duty/rest overhaul?

 

[zmiller4]

ATN,
I'm not well versed in sleep science--is there any chance you could cite the studies that show that there is no evidence of decreased alertness or increased accident risk from unaugmented flying for 9 hrs starting at 1800hrs (acclimated) time? I have flown 9+ hrs safely before, but it's generally been from duty times starting in the morning and ending at a reasonable hour.

I'd look through the entire document for sources, but 1) I don't have the time and 2) my personal experience tells me it would be insane to assume a 2-person crew can reliably fly a 9-hr flight starting at 6pm their time. If you want to claim that there's solid science that proves it's perfectly safe, it's up to you to show how that's the case.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

ATN,
I'm not well versed in sleep science--is there any chance you could cite the studies that show that there is no evidence of decreased alertness or increased accident risk from unaugmented flying for 9 hrs starting at 1800hrs (acclimated) time? I have flown 9+ hrs safely before, but it's generally been from duty times starting in the morning and ending at a reasonable hour.

I'd look through the entire document for sources, but 1) I don't have the time and 2) my personal experience tells me it would be insane to assume a 2-person crew can reliably fly a 9-hr flight starting at 6pm their time. If you want to claim that there's solid science that proves it's perfectly safe, it's up to you to show how that's the case.

Sorry, but I'm not going to dig through the document and copy all of the footnoted sources for you. The rule is available to everyone. You can look through it and find the sources just like I can.

 

[Ziggyfuzz]

Other than FedEx, all the carriers you listed are part 135 and non-union.Part 135 is excluded form these rest rules as they new rules are only for Part 121.

Part 135 pilots are screwed overall. No representation hurts the 135 side when I comes to stuff like this.

135 guys alreay get the minimum 10 hr break w max 14 hr duty, so no change for them...

 

[Ziggyfuzz]

"Butt-hurt?" I don't even know what that means, but no, I'm not hurt in any fashion. I just think you're behaving like a self-important douchebag, so I figured I'd try to point it out in a comical manner instead of coming right out and saying it. Mission not accomplished, I guess.

You continue to ignore the fact that I haven't personally told you anything about what it's like to fly international. Because, as you've pointed out (again, and again, and again, and.....) I don't fly international. All I've done is point you to the people who have flown international who helped to bring us these rules, and to the peer-reviewed studies.

Typical lefty, gets personal and insulting to try and spin his intellect up a notch when he and everone else know that it's flawed..the only ones that works on are his own kind! Can't just just admit to being schooled, and possibly grow a little and be smarter for it, instead just keep beating the same ole dead horse with his "heavily footnoted" usa today...

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Typical lefty

I prefer the term "socialist," but thanks!

 

[Roger Roger]

Wow, this thread sure got interesting in a hurry.

 

[Ziggyfuzz]

I prefer the term "socialist," but thanks!

I stand corrected!

 

[Douglas]

135 guys alreay get the minimum 10 hr break w max 14 hr duty, so no change for them...

True, but there is a good number of us 135ers out here flying under scheduled rest rules while being unscheduled. The "unscheduled but scheduled" rest loop hole should go away and it would be fixed.

 

[WacoFan]

I read this thread, like many in the non-lav sections, with great interest and without "talking" so that I can learn. Of course, my reading makes me wonder about cool aircraft operations (anything involving a taildragger) and I can only conclude that 121 pilots are girly-men. I think Ag pilots fly way over 8 hours per day during the season and are on duty for way longer than 12 hours some days. And, the flying they are doing is just above the crops, under power-lines, multiple landings of a taildragger per day, overloaded take-offs from short strips in hot weather, etc. I just say that for perspective. 121 pilots are Nancy's.

 

[RRPower]

I read this thread, like many in the non-lav sections, with great interest and without "talking" so that I can learn. Of course, my reading makes me wonder about cool aircraft operations (anything involving a taildragger) and I can only conclude that 121 pilots are girly-men. I think Ag pilots fly way over 8 hours per day during the season and are on duty for way longer than 12 hours some days. And, the flying they are doing is just above the crops, under power-lines, multiple landings of a taildragger per day, overloaded take-offs from short strips in hot weather, etc. I just say that for perspective. 121 pilots are Nancy's.

And I can drive better drunk...doesn't mean it's safe or that it is a smart thing to measure size too.

 

[DE727UPS]

It's sad that people have to throw insults here. One reason why the more seasoned folks you all want to hear from don't get involved with places like this.

From a pilot standpoint, there is always gonna be good and bad in the new rule. Personally, I see the good outweighing the bad, and it's especially important for those doing multiple legs and/or flying backside of the clock. I'm no expert on any of the science or background on the writing of the rule. I do know that one of our pilots who is VERY well respected within the union, the FAA, and our local scheduling expert, was in one of the working groups that helped write the language. She is a very strong supporter of the science behind the rule. Enough so that our union is suing the FAA to include cargo pilots. Be surprised if it gets far in the courts but it's just another move in the chess game to improve the lot for our pilot group.

 

[Cessna414JJB]

I read this thread, like many in the non-lav sections, with great interest and without "talking" so that I can learn. Of course, my reading makes me wonder about cool aircraft operations (anything involving a taildragger) and I can only conclude that 121 pilots are girly-men. I think Ag pilots fly way over 8 hours per day during the season and are on duty for way longer than 12 hours some days. And, the flying they are doing is just above the crops, under power-lines, multiple landings of a taildragger per day, overloaded take-offs from short strips in hot weather, etc. I just say that for perspective. 121 pilots are Nancy's.

I've done the same, in terms of learning. Having an ag pilot in my family (they're not hiring, no worries) I agree with the long hours that are flown... but you know... when they roll one up in a ball they usually kill one, maybe two people, everyone whispers "god bless" for a week and then the world goes on. Not so with a flying Tylenol carrying 300-400 passengers, who had a right to presume their pilots to be:

1. Properly compensated
2. Properly trained
3. Properly rested,
4. Free of mind altering drugs, alcohol or dangerous medication, aaand;
5. Free of psychological/ physiological defects/ ailments inhibiting their professional functionality. Sleep deprivation is one of these.

The good old days of flying knights of glory are over.

 

[derg]

I used to "flag" for crop dusters in high school, pre-GPS and the pilot was usually some Tulare yokel, but it was a lot of fun.

"Nancy" us all you'd like, Waco, however if a crop duster plows into a field, there may be a two-inch column in the local paper. A 747 plows into a field, there's going to be a wee bit more hullabaloo about the why, the how, etc.

Yes, there are 20-hour missions in B-2's, but a 737 isn't a B-2. If the B-2 doesn't complete the mission, soldiers may die. If the 737 gets delayed for crew rest, well, you might get to Disneyworld a few minutes late.

 

[WacoFan]

So everyone agrees....121 pilots are nancy's!

Actually, I only have anecdotal evidence, but my Grandpa said that he never really got tired from his job until they transitioned from the Connie's to the 707/720's. Said he was way more fatigued on layovers and when getting home after transitioning to the jets than he was after flying the Martins and then the Connie's. Said even though the flights were longer in the piston's and in the Connie's in particular there was a lot of shutting down of a 3350 frequently - the jets still made him more fatigued.