New FAR 117 rest rules should be revised.

[hcaeborev]

Except that it's not over the max FDP. The max FDP that you're talking about is the planned FDP, but the science recognizes that people are frequently able to exceed those limits without issue, and the rule therefore allows you to do it if you aren't fatigued. If you aren't fatigued, why do you think you should be able to deny the assignment anyway? Because if it's not a safety issue, then it's a contract issue. Address it through the right venue, which isn't a regulation.

So what is the reason for the max FDP to be published in the reg then? Why not just publish the max FDP as the FDP+2 hours?

The FAA is being naive the think that the "employer-employee" relationship at the regional level is anything but hostile. Adding to that the FAA is naive in thinking that regional management would not take full advantage of this interpretation to build schedules they shouldn't be allowed to.

My company consistently build pairings within 15-30 minutes of max FDP with the full knowledge that they can just force the pilots to extend it anyway.

 

[hcaeborev]

I hate agreeing with you. It makes me feel so very sick. (BAD TOUCH!)

But you're right.

Agreeing with ATN's post and also agreeing with Zap's post is a direct contradiction.

If you aren't fatigued, why do you think you should be able to deny the assignment anyway? Because if it's not a safety issue, then it's a contract issue. Address it through the right venue, which isn't a regulation.

I will further agree that I do think that the Feds have fumbled on this by punting it to a labor-management relations situation, but I think that this situation will be resolved. (Yes, it's a matter for the employment relationship, but that relationship WILL eventually affect safety.)

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Agreeing with ATN's post and also agreeing with Zap's post is a direct contradiction.

I don't see it that way, necessarily.

Let me clarify: I think that it is a matter for a labor-management relationship. Indeed, it will become/probably has become a matter for said relationship to handle for some pilots and the way things shake out for those pilots will be interesting and precedent-setting. Should it have been left that way? Well, maybe, and maybe not. In an ideal world, your representation and your management would have (1) seen this coming and (2) put in some safeguards for the pilots ahead of time, while respecting the rights of management to, um, manage the pilot group and ensure reliability. It's my personal belief that no pilot should ever face disciplinary action or a reliability hit for availing themselves of FRMP, and this is something that I personally enjoy as a pilot at my employer. (I take my obligation to show up fit for duty very seriously.) It is a shame your employer does not see it that way.

Todd has it right for how things are; Zap is expressing how things should be. I see merit in both positions.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

So what is the reason for the max FDP to be published in the reg then? Why not just publish the max FDP as the FDP+2 hours?

Because airlines can't schedule to FDP+2. It's something that they can ask you to do during daily operations if circumstances beyond the airline's control result in a schedule that would extend beyond the originally planned FDP. And again, if you're fatigued, you have a right under the regulation to decline the extension.

Again I ask, why do you think you should be allowed to decline it if you aren't fatigued?

The FAA is being naive the think that the "employer-employee" relationship at the regional level is anything but hostile.

The FAA isn't naive. Labor relations simply isn't their responsibility. The relationship that you have with your employer has absolutely nothing to do with them as long as safety isn't compromised.

My company consistently build pairings within 15-30 minutes of max FDP with the full knowledge that they can just force the pilots to extend it anyway.

They can't force you to extend if you are fatigued.

 

[ComplexHiAv8r]

Being away from home for 8 days sucks.

Try 58 and I bet it's longer. 8)

 

[hcaeborev]

Because airlines can't schedule to FDP+2. It's something that they can ask you to do during daily operations if circumstances beyond the airline's control result in a schedule that would extend beyond the originally planned FDP. And again, if you're fatigued, you have a right under the regulation to decline the extension.

Again I ask, why do you think you should be allowed to decline it if you aren't fatigued?

So it isn't safe to schedule to FDP+2 but it's safe to fly it because it's "beyond the airline's control"? This isn't a once or twice a year issue, it is epidemic.

FAA isn't naive. Labor relations simply isn't their responsibility. The relationship that you have with your employer has absolutely nothing to do with them as long as safety isn't compromised.

Now this is exactly my point. It IS a safety concern. When the company is allowed, over and over again, to build schedules that they know have a very good chance of requiring an extension of a crew's max FDP and then threaten discipline when you decline, safety is compromised.

"Are you fatigued?"
"No, not right now, but I most likely will be if I accept a 1:45 extension that will push me to almost 2am and 14:15 duty."
"Fatigue is not speculative, if you are not fatigued right now you will accept this extension or I will see you in my office tomorrow."

This is an actual conversation. Is this not a safety issue?

They can't force you to extend if you are fatigued.

See above. Fatigue is not always black and white. Zap did a very good job of describing this in his original posts. The purpose of a reg like this should be to take the decision out of PILOT's and MANAGEMENT's hands, not to put it into some grey area.

Why are these "extensions" even part of the final reg? Fatigue is ever present as contributing factors in airline crashes yet we continue to play games with cost vs risk. If "science" says that 12:30 minutes of duty with 5 legs is likely to be fatiguing then that should be the end of the discussion. Not "employer-employee relations."

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

"Are you fatigued?"
"No, not right now, but I most likely will be if I accept a 1:45 extension that will push me to almost 2am and 14:15 duty."
"Fatigue is not speculative, if you are not fatigued right now you will accept this extension or I will see you in my office tomorrow."

This is an actual conversation. Is this not a safety issue?

If you can't see what you did wrong in this conversation, then I can't help you.

 

[hcaeborev]

If you can't see what you did wrong in this conversation, then I can't help you.

I already mentioned why you can't just call in fatigued.

The conversation shouldn't be a strategic duel.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I already mentioned why you can't just call in fatigued.

Really? What sort of mysterious force is stopping you? I'm intrigued.

 

[hcaeborev]

Really? What sort of mysterious force is stopping you? I'm intrigued.

I already know what your response to this is but here we go......

How many times do you think you could call in fatigued before the company has an issue with it?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I already know what your response to this is but here we go......

How many times do you think you could call in fatigued before the company has an issue with it?

There is no answer to that, because the law protects you. Will they call you into the office and ask for an explanation if you call in fatigued many times? Yes. Give them the explanation. Meeting over.

But what this really gets down to is that you want to refuse extensions when you aren't fatigued. And that's my point. The FAA isn't there to cure the deficiencies in your CBA. If you want to be able to decline extensions regardless of your fitness for duty, then bargain for it. Don't bring the FAA into the mix. That pollutes the safety debate and kills the credibility of pilots.

 

[hcaeborev]

There is no answer to that, because the law protects you. Will they call you into the office and ask for an explanation if you call in fatigued many times? Yes. Give them the explanation. Meeting over.

But what this really gets down to is that you want to refuse extensions when you aren't fatigued. And that's my point. The FAA isn't there to cure the deficiencies in your CBA. If you want to be able to decline extensions regardless of your fitness for duty, then bargain for it. Don't bring the FAA into the mix. That pollutes the safety debate and kills the credibility of pilots.

Welp, I need to go to bed because my van is at 04:10. I can see that this is going to have to end as an agree to disagree discussion, as usual.

It's never as cut and dry as "Give them and explanation because the law protects you." How many times can you call in sick before you are carpet dancing? But but but, just bring a doctors note for all occurrences, the company can't force you to fly while sick. And yet every single airline has a "dependability program" and people still lose their jobs over it.

"You want it, bargain for it" is simply not possible and you know it. This can't always be your fallback.

Pilots do not lose credibility by stating they do not want to accept an assignment that the FAA has deemed to be fatiguing, even if they are not currently fatigued. How do you know if you will be fatigued 3 hours from now? I know because 117 tells me I will be.

I fail to see how the above pollutes the safety debate. There shouldn't be a debate. That is how the reg is SUPPOSED to work. Anything more than 11:30 duty after flying 4 legs and dutying in at 04:45 is fatiguing. There shouldn't be a discussion about individual circumstances, or "every once in a while" extensions. That much duty with that many legs since that time is fatiguing......Your day should be done. Period. Are there circumstances outside of airlines control? Sure......Now hire more reserves.

Stop keeping me awake.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

It's never as cut and dry as "Give them and explanation because the law protects you." How many times can you call in sick before you are carpet dancing? But but but, just bring a doctors note for all occurrences, the company can't force you to fly while sick. And yet every single airline has a "dependability program" and people still lose their jobs over it.

"You want it, bargain for it" is simply not possible and you know it. This can't always be your fallback.

Pilots do not lose credibility by stating they do not want to accept an assignment that the FAA has deemed to be fatiguing, even if they are not currently fatigued. How do you know if you will be fatigued 3 hours from now? I know because 117 tells me I will be.

I fail to see how the above pollutes the safety debate. There shouldn't be a debate. That is how the reg is SUPPOSED to work. Anything more than 11:30 duty after flying 4 legs and dutying in at 04:45 is fatiguing. There shouldn't be a discussion about individual circumstances, or "every once in a while" extensions. That much duty with that many legs since that time is fatiguing......Your day should be done. Period. Are there circumstances outside of airlines control? Sure......Now hire more reserves.

Stop keeping me awake.

Again, this ultimately comes down to you wanting to get out of flying when you're not fatigued and using the FAA to do it for you. If you want sympathy for that, then you aren't going to get it from me.

 

[hcaeborev]

Again, this ultimately comes down to you wanting to get out of flying when you're not fatigued and using the FAA to do it for you. If you want sympathy for that, then you aren't going to get it from me.

That's absolutely not what it's about, and there has been nowhere in this discussion where I made that my stance.

I may not be fatigued right now but if we are 2 hours behind and my last leg is 3:30 block how will I know what I will feel like 20 minutes before landing? The reg SHOULD provide the answer by saying X duty with Y legs between the hours of A and B is fatiguing, therefore I should not be flying the leg.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Maybe I am extremely privileged, but in however long Part 117 has been law, I've been extended a grand total of zero times.

We are much more likely to cancel/reroute around an extension than we are to actually extend here.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

That's absolutely not what it's about, and there has been nowhere in this discussion where I made that my stance.

I may not be fatigued right now but if we are 2 hours behind and my last leg is 3:30 block how will I know what I will feel like 20 minutes before landing? The reg SHOULD provide the answer by saying X duty with Y legs between the hours of A and B is fatiguing, therefore I should not be flying the leg.

Good grief, dude, this isn't brain surgery. If you've been flying all day and they want to extend you for another 2 hours and you fully expect that you won't be safe at some point during the leg, you tell them that you decline the extension because you're fatigued.

 

[wheelsup]

If done correctly, I haven't found red eyes to be too bad. This is coming from someone that's only flown an airplane twice with the sun up in the past month, too.

Basically, I just do the short red eye turns, though. MCO-BQN or MCO-PSE isn't too terrible. Little under 6 hours of block. 10:45 pm show and you're back in base by 7 am. Now, two of those in a row, and I'm done. Three? Not happening. Luckily, we've got decent protection for that when it comes to reserves. You get tagged with a red eye, the earliest they can get you for anything is about 24-25 hours after you get back in. Hard lines? I've seen guys with three in a row. I just go ahead and bank on that third one going to a reserve.

Now JFK and BOS have some brutal red eyes. Some turns down to the islands that are around 8 hours of block and skirt the limits of FDPs. A lot of guys do those because they're high credit and they get more days off in the month. I haven't done one yet, but we do have a few red eyes followed by a day sleep with another red eye back to base. Not as many of those as there used to be. They seem to be going more towards the red eye out, 30+ hour overnight, then fly back.

There is no way to do a transcon red eye correctly.

 

[Adler]

I have never seen so many guys study the overhead panel so intently in my 8 years at my commuter as I've seen in a year here.

All is well until you've been studying the second hand on your clock so intently that you fail to notice that your "deviating left of course for weather" is now 60 miles left.

 

[DE727UPS]

Only way to win this battle is to call fat when your fat. Don't expect squat pre-fat. It isn't going to happen. Get back to us when they treat fat calls in a punitive manner. Document and report. In time the push back could give you better skeds. Will take time. And push back....

 

[z987k]

"Are you fatigued?"
"No, not right now, but I most likely will be if I accept a 1:45 extension that will push me to almost 2am and 14:15 duty."
"Fatigue is not speculative, if you are not fatigued right now you will accept this extension or I will see you in my office tomorrow."

I'd go in with a copy of that document autothrust posted in my back pocket.