Sol Rosenburg
Well-Known Member
FAA Sought Cargo Carrier Inclusion In New Crew Rest Rules
AWIN First Jun22, 2012
Andrew Compart andrew_compart@aviationweek.com
WASHINGTON
The FAA originally advocated the inclusion of cargo carriers in new crew rest rules for pilots because of the “higher risk” created by nighttime flying, according to a document that shows the passages that the Office of Management and Budget recommended for deletion before the FAA issued its final rule.
The FAA published its final rule on Jan. 4, 2012-with an implementation date of Jan. 4, 2014-but excluded cargo carriers from the new requirements because a cargo carrier-only cost-benefit analysis showed that the cost of the new rules would exceed the potential monetary value of the benefits, in terms of accidents avoided and lives saved. The benefits were higher in the cost-benefit analysis for passenger carriers because those flights carry more people.
But before the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Analysis weighed in on the rulemaking-as is the standard procedure-the FAA concluded that cargo carriers should be included. In a draft of the final rule, the FAA detailed its reasoning.
“Because nighttime operations raise additional safety concerns, the FAA has decided to subject certificate holders who conduct all-cargo operations to the flight, duty and rest limits imposed by this rule,” the FAA wrote in one section of the draft that was red-lined by the OMB. The red-lined document is posted on the FAA docket for the rulemaking (FAA-2009-1093).
In the deleted section, the FAA cited the risk created by the old rule’s maximum flight duty periods of 16 hours for unaugmented flights and 30 hours for augmented flights. An augmented flight contains additional flight crew members and at least one on-board rest facility, which allows pilots to work in shifts and sleep during the flight.
The scheduling flexibility permitted by those 16- and 30-hour flight duty periods is particularly important for all-cargo carriers because a large portion of their operations is conducted at night, the FAA acknowledged in its final rule draft .
But because of the “substantial safety risks ” caused by long flight-duty periods and flying at night, “the FAA has concluded certificate holders conducting all-cargo operations can no longer be permitted to schedule 16-hour unaugmented nighttime flight-duty periods and 30-hour augmented flight-duty periods,” the agency added.
“The FAA is sensitive to the fact that air carriers conducting all-cargo operations may have some flexibility-based concerns as a result of their business model,” the FAA continued in the deleted passage. “That is why this rule contains a number of provisions, such as the split-duty credit and an increase in the peak flight-time limits, which should benefit the all-cargo industry.”
Split duty is a flight duty period that has a scheduled break in duty that is less than a required rest period .
The ultimate decision to exclude cargo airlines from the final rule created some controversy.
The Independent Pilots Association (IPA) filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Court of Appeals challenging that exclusion. It argues that the congressional mandate for the FAA to update the crew rest rules for the first time in decades called for a single standard, and that the public never got to review and challenge the separate cost-benefit analysis for cargo carriers, which only showed up in the final rule .
The lawsuit is in abeyance right now, after the FAA admitted to errors in its cost-benefit analysis for cargo carriers and said the agency will produce a new one for public review.
Meanwhile, the IPA and the Air Line Pilots Association ( ALPA ) are continuing to lobby Congress, where Safe Skies legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate to compel the FAA to remove the cargo carrier exemption (S. 3263 and H.R. 4350).
Leaders from the IPA, as well as pilots from Southwest, US Airways and American Airlines , met with at least 50 members of Congress in a “lobbying day” on June 21 to press their case. ALPA said it made its 400th visit to lawmakers’ offices that same week to lobby for the law, and that its members have sent more than 2,600 messages in support of the Safe Skies Act to their elected representatives.
AWIN First Jun22, 2012
Andrew Compart andrew_compart@aviationweek.com
WASHINGTON
The FAA originally advocated the inclusion of cargo carriers in new crew rest rules for pilots because of the “higher risk” created by nighttime flying, according to a document that shows the passages that the Office of Management and Budget recommended for deletion before the FAA issued its final rule.
The FAA published its final rule on Jan. 4, 2012-with an implementation date of Jan. 4, 2014-but excluded cargo carriers from the new requirements because a cargo carrier-only cost-benefit analysis showed that the cost of the new rules would exceed the potential monetary value of the benefits, in terms of accidents avoided and lives saved. The benefits were higher in the cost-benefit analysis for passenger carriers because those flights carry more people.
But before the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Analysis weighed in on the rulemaking-as is the standard procedure-the FAA concluded that cargo carriers should be included. In a draft of the final rule, the FAA detailed its reasoning.
“Because nighttime operations raise additional safety concerns, the FAA has decided to subject certificate holders who conduct all-cargo operations to the flight, duty and rest limits imposed by this rule,” the FAA wrote in one section of the draft that was red-lined by the OMB. The red-lined document is posted on the FAA docket for the rulemaking (FAA-2009-1093).
In the deleted section, the FAA cited the risk created by the old rule’s maximum flight duty periods of 16 hours for unaugmented flights and 30 hours for augmented flights. An augmented flight contains additional flight crew members and at least one on-board rest facility, which allows pilots to work in shifts and sleep during the flight.
The scheduling flexibility permitted by those 16- and 30-hour flight duty periods is particularly important for all-cargo carriers because a large portion of their operations is conducted at night, the FAA acknowledged in its final rule draft .
But because of the “substantial safety risks ” caused by long flight-duty periods and flying at night, “the FAA has concluded certificate holders conducting all-cargo operations can no longer be permitted to schedule 16-hour unaugmented nighttime flight-duty periods and 30-hour augmented flight-duty periods,” the agency added.
“The FAA is sensitive to the fact that air carriers conducting all-cargo operations may have some flexibility-based concerns as a result of their business model,” the FAA continued in the deleted passage. “That is why this rule contains a number of provisions, such as the split-duty credit and an increase in the peak flight-time limits, which should benefit the all-cargo industry.”
Split duty is a flight duty period that has a scheduled break in duty that is less than a required rest period .
The ultimate decision to exclude cargo airlines from the final rule created some controversy.
The Independent Pilots Association (IPA) filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Court of Appeals challenging that exclusion. It argues that the congressional mandate for the FAA to update the crew rest rules for the first time in decades called for a single standard, and that the public never got to review and challenge the separate cost-benefit analysis for cargo carriers, which only showed up in the final rule .
The lawsuit is in abeyance right now, after the FAA admitted to errors in its cost-benefit analysis for cargo carriers and said the agency will produce a new one for public review.
Meanwhile, the IPA and the Air Line Pilots Association ( ALPA ) are continuing to lobby Congress, where Safe Skies legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate to compel the FAA to remove the cargo carrier exemption (S. 3263 and H.R. 4350).
Leaders from the IPA, as well as pilots from Southwest, US Airways and American Airlines , met with at least 50 members of Congress in a “lobbying day” on June 21 to press their case. ALPA said it made its 400th visit to lawmakers’ offices that same week to lobby for the law, and that its members have sent more than 2,600 messages in support of the Safe Skies Act to their elected representatives.
