FAA Affirms Cargo Airlines Exempt From Safety Rule

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adler
  • Start date Start date
A

Adler

Guest
From AVweb:

FAA Affirms Cargo Airlines Exempt From Safety Rule

Pilots in commercial cargo operations will not be subject to the same rest and duty-time rules that apply to pilots who work for passenger-carrying airlines, the FAA affirmed on Tuesday. The FAA reviewed its final rule on the matter, issued in January 2012, in response to comments made on its financial analysis. A fresh analysis found the new rules would cost the cargo airlines about $452 million, and would produce only about $10 million in benefits. The Air Line Pilots Association and several other groups had raised questions regarding whether the FAA is allowed to consider cost and benefits at all in flight and duty time regulations. In its analysis, the FAA said yes it can, and no changes will be made to the final rule.

ALPA argued that the law requires the FAA to issue a rule based upon the "best available scientific information . . . to address problems related to pilot fatigue" and financial concerns should not be a part of the analysis. The FAA's decision to exclude all-cargo operations from the rule was based solely on cost considerations, according to ALPA, and failed to satisfy these statutory mandates. ALPA also said the law approved by Congress, which mandated the rule changes, did not include costs and benefits as factors for consideration. The FAA said Congress stated the FAA could consider in its rulemaking any matters the FAA administrator "considers appropriate." The FAA added that its financial analysis takes into account the dollar value of potential lives lost and injuries to crew, passengers and people on the ground if cargo carriers continue to operate under the current rest rules.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...lines-Exemption-From-Safety-Rule223223-1.html
​
 
It makes perfect sense guys. Take the subset of the industry that usually flies crappy equipment (or at least old), and on the backside of the clock, then give them less sleep... Sometimes I wish we would start picketing the FAA, how stupid can they get?
 
Here is a snippet from the UPS pilots union (IPA) daily news email:

FAA Reaffirms Cargo Carve-Out, IPA Lawsuit to Proceed

Writing today in the Federal Register, the FAA reaffirmed its original decision to exclude the nation’s cargo pilots from duty and rest rules applied to passenger pilots. “Today’s ruling comes as no surprise,” said IPA President Bob Travis. “We thought it unlikely that the FAA would reverse its own decision,” he added. With the FAA’s decision, however, Travis said the way is cleared for the IPA to proceed with its initial litigation challenging the carve-out. “The action now shifts back to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,” Travis stated. “Next, the Court will next take up the issue of whether the FAA had the statutory authority to exclude cargo pilots from the new duty and rest rules in the first place.”

Travis said that the IPA will continue to challenge the notion that cargo pilots should be subject to a lesser standard of protection. “The idea that science-based scheduling rules should apply to passenger pilots, but exclude cargo pilots, is ridiculous and even the FAA admits that fact." Last month the FAA’s top medical officer acknowledged that the decision to exclude cargo pilots from the new rules was “political,” and a result of lobbying pressure. “We know who is behind the ‘politics’ of the carve-out. The Association intends to hold UPS accountable, and today’s decision will place an even brighter spotlight on the Company’s actions in our mediated talks.”

Travis said that the IPA will continue to seek common sense scheduling rule changes through the bargaining process, as well as through the courts and legislative branch. “Our strategy is to engage UPS on multiple fronts. A pilot is a pilot, and cargo pilots, who work primarily on the back side of the clock, deserve no fewer protections than all others,” he added.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top