FAR 117 being re-worked?

[Seggy]

To tie this back to the thread, fatigue is a subjective

VERY slippery line of thinking. While there are some outliers that do make it individualized, a vast majority of fatigue inducing situations can be taken care of with proper regulation like we see in Part 117. There are many studies that show if you have been awake 17 hours and operate machinery you are operating in a coorelating manner as if you had a BAC of .05, more than 21 hours awake and a BAC of .08. That is objective science. Part 117 prevents that as long as the crew is taking personal responsibility for their actions.

The bottom line is FAR 117 took the science out there and grouped it so it is not subjective and it is objective.

and the bottom line remains "if you're fatigued, do not work."

While I agree with this, then why even have flight time duty rules if you leave it up to the individual?

 

[Autothrust Blue]

VERY slippery line of thinking. While there are some outliers that do make it individualized, a vast majority of fatigue inducing situations can be taken care of with proper regulation like we see in Part 117. There are many studies that show if you have been awake 17 hours and operate machinery you are operating in a coorelating manner as if you had a BAC of .05, more than 21 hours awake and a BAC of .08. That is objective science. Part 117 prevents that as long as the crew is taking personal responsibility for their actions.

The bottom line is FAR 117 took the science out there and grouped it so it is not subjective and it is objective.

And I think they did a fairly good job of that, and I think it was long past time that something be done.

What I really rather like about Part 117 is something that you're saying - specific to the unaugmented duty time limitations and the various cumulative flight duty period limits, it has increased the margin to eliminate (or, in hopes of eliminating) those fatiguing situations. I certainly don't dread multi-hour EDCT situations as much as I used to with the knowledge that I am less likely to encounter a situation where a fatigue call is required.

I think I've encountered one situation where I was still feeling okay to fly, but timed out anyway. I've also encountered the opposite situation (sometimes, you just don't sleep well). Even with all the added safety nets in the form of regulations and guidance, it's still up to us.

While I agree with this, then why even have flight time duty rules if you leave it up to the individual?

You know, and I know, why we have rules. (System safety, human factors etc. here)

 

[ScorpionStinger]

Maybe they will decide the guys that fly all night all the time should be included in the reg.....

IF they truely cared about saftey.

Profits above saftey.

 

[SteveC]

Alright, Steve, then let's extend your arguments in some other realms.

We use V1 as a decision speed on departure, and it's based on determining whether you'll have enough runway to stop, or enough performance to continue to climb. That's based on science, do you think it's reasonable to disagree with that? Do you think that if somebody disagreed with takeoff performance analysis that they'd be a reasonable person? Or said another way, if somebody tossed all the numbers and said, "We're not likely to lose an engine, so let's just go," do you think that person would be safe? Do you think that person would have a valid point?

Because I think takeoff performance data is beyond reproach, and I think anybody that came on here trying to make an argument about how V1 calculations were little more than an opinion would be dismissed out of hand.

I think that whoever brought up the global climate change science had a better comparison than using V1. V1 is based on a very specific situation and there isn't room for a "policy" discussion on its use. Global climate change on the other hand, also has very strong science behind it, but decisions on how best to use that science are much more subject to opinion and debate. I believe that policy decisions should be based on the science. I don't believe that just because a policy or rule is based on the science makes it inviolate.

Same with the rest regulations. I seriously applaud the work that has been done, and the effort made to make it a policy based on science. I have made zero input into the quality of those policies, and that is the farthest thing from my intent. My intent is simply to point out that quashing discussion on the topic simply because the rule is science-based is disingenuous. People who are reading more than that into my posts here are doing simply that - reading more into it than is there.

I do the same with your views on this issue, and you've tried the patience of people that have to live with this rule. I think you're being cute with an issue that multiple people in this thread lobbied to get through the congress, and I think that your caviler attitude toward how these rules came about is degrading.

Then I guess I'll have to take some blame for not communicating better. I have not intentionally been "cute"*, and I have said nothing about the origin of the rules, nor the people that worked on them. As far as "degrading", I am sad that that is your take away. For some reason you are reading way more into what I've written then was intended.

"What we've got heah...is failyah to communicate."




(*edit to add: I think I did make one smart-ass comment in response to Seggy's lack-of-substance, drive-by post. Guess I'll take responsibility for that one.)

 

[Seggy]

My intent is simply to point out that quashing discussion on the topic simply because the rule is science-based is disingenuous.

Why don't you go back and point out where I said that? I made it quite clear some changes and tweaks need to be made. Those changes and tweaks can be made and stay within the science of the rules.

(*edit to add: I think I did make one smart-ass comment in response to Seggy's lack-of-substance, drive-by post.

Yeah, sure, the only one you have ever made towards me.

 

[SteveC]

My intent is simply to point out that quashing discussion on the topic simply because the rule is science-based is disingenuous.

Why don't you go back and point out where I said that?

The new rules are science based so everyone's opinion really doesn't matter.

Key post right there.


.

I made it quite clear some changes and tweaks need to be made. Those changes and tweaks can be made and stay within the science of the rules.

Ah, that's good. Maybe I missed that because of the apparent rigidness of your "...everyone's opinion really doesn't matter" post. I was just skimming along and that post jumped out at me, and that is what I commented on. I agree with the thought that "changes and tweaks can be made and stay within the science of the rules" statement, and in fact that is the basis of the point that I have been trying to make all along. So why does it feel like you're arguing with me (or, to be fair, me with you)?

(*edit to add: I think I did make one smart-ass comment in response to Seggy's lack-of-substance, drive-by post.

Yeah, sure, the only one you have ever made towards me.

My comment was in regards to this thread. If you're interested in expanding the discussion beyond that, then I would ask if it is your intention to imply that this alleged shortage of respect is a one-way street?

 

[Speed Pilot]

Are you going to do that before or after you accept the fact that I don't give a damn about your opinion?

Spoken like a true ALPA rep.

 

[Seggy]

Key post right there.

Yes, it is a key post. The point you (and others) are missing is the fact that if these rules weren't based on science there wasn't a snowballs chance in hell that the rules that came out of the Aviation Rule Making Committee (ARC) would have made it to be actual regulation.


.

Rules being written based on science does not mean that science proves that they are the best possible rules.

I believe in the science for both climate change and the basis for the current rest rules.

I respectfully disagree that simply basing rules on science, even to the best of a committee's abilities, means that they are automatically the best possible rules and should not be questioned (i.e. other's opinions don't matter).

Implementation of guidelines based on proven science does not guarantee that the method of implementation is the best possible solution.

So if you believe in the science behind the current rest rules, I would love to hear how YOU would have changed the implementation of the regulations. What would be the framework YOU would base that implementation on?

If you look at the ARC's recommendations that became regulation, besides the cargo cutout, the ARC's recommendation for Part 117 and the actual Part 117 rules are almost word for word. That NEVER happens with these processes, but because the ARC left the labor and industrial side out of it (besides the cargo cut out) and focused the rule's on science the FAA respected the recommendation and fought for it's implementation.

Ah, that's good. Maybe I missed that because of the apparent rigidness of your "...everyone's opinion really doesn't matter" post. I was just skimming along and that post jumped out at me, and that is what I commented on. I agree with the thought that "changes and tweaks can be made and stay within the science of the rules" statement, and in fact that is the basis of the point that I have been trying to make all along. So why does it feel like you're arguing with me (or, to be fair, me with you)?



My comment was in regards to this thread. If you're interested in expanding the discussion beyond that, then I would ask if it is your intention to imply that this alleged shortage of respect is a one-way street?

I can say the sky is blue and you would say, well, it can be grey if it is raining, or orange, or green if you are in a Northern Light area. You LOVE having squirrel type discussions with me on topics I am adamant upon. Perfect example is how you redirected the excellent point about science and V1 speeds. You didn't have a tangible response to that point so you brought up climate change.

 

[Seggy]

Spoken like a true ALPA rep.

I am positive the feeling is mutual by others on here towards me.

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

Yes, it is a key post. The point you (and others) are missing is the fact that if these rules weren't based on science there wasn't a snowballs chance in hell that the rules that came out of the Aviation Rule Making Committee (ARC) would have made it to be actual regulation.


.




So if you believe in the science behind the current rest rules, I would love to hear how YOU would have changed the implementation of the regulations. What would be the framework YOU would base that implementation on?

If you look at the ARC's recommendations that became regulation, besides the cargo cutout, the ARC's recommendation for Part 117 and the actual Part 117 rules are almost word for word. That NEVER happens with these processes, but because the ARC left the labor and industrial side out of it (besides the cargo cut out) and focused the rule's on science the FAA respected the recommendation and fought for it's implementation.




I can say the sky is blue and you would say, well, it can be grey if it is raining, or orange, or green if you are in a Northern Light area. You LOVE having squirrel type discussions with me on topics I am adamant upon. Perfect example is how you redirected the excellent point about science and V1 speeds. You didn't have a tangible response to that point so you brought up climate change.

I know you hate these types of discussions, but he isn't saying anything specifically about FAR 117. He's making a more conceptual argument that the fact that something is based on science does not automatically make the policy immune from discussion. In fact, depending on the implementation, a policy "based" on science could be wildly different than originally designed when finally out in the wild.

Yes, it's a more "philosophical" discussion, and isn't concrete. He was just disagreeing with you in principle, not specifically about FAR 117. At least, that's my interpretation of his response. As you so rightly established, I don't have good reading comprehension skills, so who knows.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

If he's just talking about broad concepts instead of about the issue actually being discussed (which I don't buy, but for the sake of argument), then he's just looking to argue or be a smartass rather than making a productive contribution to the discussion. We're talking about 117 here, not broad concepts.

 

[Dugie8]

If he's just talking about broad concepts instead of about the issue actually being discussed (which I don't buy, but for the sake of argument), then he's just looking to argue or be a smartass rather than making a productive contribution to the discussion. We're talking about 117 here, not broad concepts.

I think the line between the science and the policy are being blurred a bit. 117 isn't the "science", 117 is the policy based on the science. The science is a no brainer. More work = more rest, working through or near the WOCL = less work done, yadda yadda yadda. All that isn't really up for debate. However, debating how a policy is written that follows the science is absolutely up for debate. The whole letter of the "law" vs the "spirit" thing. The best example being the 2 hour extension and how airlines are treating it. The science is there but the policy is lacking.

 

[Seggy]

I know you hate these types of discussions, but he isn't saying anything specifically about FAR 117. He's making a more conceptual argument that the fact that something is based on science does not automatically make the policy immune from discussion. In fact, depending on the implementation, a policy "based" on science could be wildly different than originally designed when finally out in the wild.

Yes, it's a more "philosophical" discussion, and isn't concrete. He was just disagreeing with you in principle, not specifically about FAR 117. At least, that's my interpretation of his response. As you so rightly established, I don't have good reading comprehension skills, so who knows.

Then, if your line of reasoning is correct, shouldn't he have brought this up in the lav instead of trying to be cute?

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

Then, if your line of reasoning is correct, shouldn't he have brought this up in the lav instead of trying to be cute?

I dunno. I think when you see someone make a broad generalization that you disagree with in principle, you are at liberty to discuss it. But those are the kinds of discussions that I find interesting, so I'm biased.

 

[Stone Cold]

Then, if your line of reasoning correct, shouldn't he have brought this up in the lav instead of trying to be cute?

If that were the case, then 3/4 of your posts should be in the lav also.

See, i put a smiley on it, so all is good. Right, ATN_pilot? Oh, sorry, I've ignored him...man, it actually feels good to come on here now!

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

VERY slippery line of thinking. While there are some outliers that do make it individualized, a vast majority of fatigue inducing situations can be taken care of with proper regulation like we see in Part 117. There are many studies that show if you have been awake 17 hours and operate machinery you are operating in a coorelating manner as if you had a BAC of .05, more than 21 hours awake and a BAC of .08. That is objective science. Part 117 prevents that as long as the crew is taking personal responsibility for their actions.

The bottom line is FAR 117 took the science out there and grouped it so it is not subjective and it is objective.




While I agree with this, then why even have flight time duty rules if you leave it up to the individual?

What die hard ALPAists don't mention is that numerous cases of fatigue are self-induced. It's the commuting that really does it for a lot of people. Every guy I ever flew with that felt fatigued and/or called out for it, there was a terrible commute beforehand. I have yet to fly with a guy living in base who calls out fatigued. For the commuters, some are arguably self-induced and could be prevented had they flown in the day before and gotten proper sleep, instead of waking up at 4am to take a 7am flight to report for a 1pm show to do a 12 hr duty day. Sorry, but that's just not safe. FAR 117 and it's great "science" stopped short of addressing the true problem which is commuting to duty on the day of work. All they did was say that you should be able to show an opportunity for 8 hrs of sleep prior to duty, and that supposedly is suppose to "forbid" crews from commuting into work on day 1, but we all know, that is certainly not the case.

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

What die hard ALPAists don't mention is that numerous cases of fatigue are self-induced. It's the commuting that really does it for a lot of people. Every guy I ever flew with that felt fatigued and/or called out for it, there was a terrible commute beforehand. I have yet to fly with a guy living in base who calls out fatigued. For the commuters, some are arguably self-induced and could be prevented had they flown in the day before and gotten proper sleep, instead of waking up at 4am to take a 7am flight to report for a 1pm show to do a 12 hr duty day. Sorry, but that's just not safe. FAR 117 and it's great "science" stopped short of addressing the true problem which is commuting to duty on the day of work. All they did was say that you should be able to show an opportunity for 8 hrs of sleep prior to duty, and that supposedly is suppose to "forbid" crews from commuting into work on day 1, but we all know, that is certainly not the case.

Well, add to the commute issue the fact that fatigue is difficult to self-assess, and you see how big of a problem it can be. Fatigue is like being drunk. As you are leaving the bar you might feel perfectly capable of driving home. The next day you think, "Why in the heck did I drive home?" The exact same thing can happen with fatigue.

That's precisely why it is important that we have regs with hard limits, and not limits that the PIC or SIC can "waive." The individual in the heat of battle is not capable of self-assessing their fatigue level. Commuting just muddies those waters. I say this as a long-time commuter. (So I understand the plight of the commuter, and the challenges associated with choosing between being home an extra day or being well rested.)

 

[ppragman]

So if you believe in the science behind the current rest rules, I would love to hear how YOU would have changed the implementation of the regulations. What would be the framework YOU would base that implementation on?

Dude, I actually agree with what most of what you're saying in previous posts on this topic, but this line of reasoning I quoted above doesn't quite follow. Steve says he agrees with the rest rules and so on and so far. If I was reading this right, he's merely suggesting that policy decisions that are based on science should still be open for discussion. That is to say, they are not unassailable as you suggest. Instead of acknowledging that maybe the policy may not always match up with the science, you move the goal post for him - you tell him that in order for his point to be valid, he has to come up with an alternative. It is fallacious to suggest that if someone doesn't have an alternative solution that their critiques are invalid.

For another example of when the science doesn't necessarily get implemented properly in policy, consider HAZMAT regulations. There are exemptions for carrying all sorts of stuff in Alaska (which is ludicrous, it's not like the stuff is any less dangerous in Alaska than in Memphis). Dry ice packaging is another good one. If memory serves (it's been awhile since I was hauling that with any great regularity), I have a limit to how much dry ice I can carry when it's carried in large enough quantities per box, but not when it's small. I'd be limited to 200kg of dry ice with a big hunk of it, but 1000 tiny boxes with a minute amount of CO2 solid each totaling 1000lbs wouldn't even need paperwork. The decision to take science and convert it to policy is great if it's done properly, but just because it was "science based policy making" doesn't make the position un-debatable.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

There's a reason Seggy is questioning the reading comprehension of some people. He's already addressed the point that several of you are making: while sometimes regulations based on science get watered down through the policy making process, that wasn't the case here. As Seggy said, with the exception of the cargo carve-out, these regulations are essentially identical to what the ARC recommended, based purely on the science.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

There's a reason Seggy is questioning the reading comprehension of some people. He's already addressed the point that several of you are making: while sometimes regulations based on science get watered down through the policy making process, that wasn't the case here. As Seggy said, with the exception of the cargo carve-out, these regulations are essentially identical to what the ARC recommended, based purely on the science.

Why are we allowed to exceed the scientifically determined maximums?

Btw I will never exceed table B; I don't want to be liable if something happens during the extension period. Will I be fatigued at the end of the table B time? Probably not, but that's not the point.