FAR 117 being re-worked?

cencal83406 said:
Why are we allowed to exceed the scientifically determined maximums?
Click to expand...

The key word there is "allowed." I've told our schedulers that I won't. "Well, wait and see how you feel when you hit the limit." No, that's okay, I can tell you right now that I'm not exceeding. Thanks for asking, though.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The key word there is "allowed." I've told our schedulers that I won't. "Well, wait and see how you feel when you hit the limit." No, that's okay, I can tell you right now that I'm not exceeding. Thanks for asking, though.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping that someday every pilot will have an app (similar to SAFTE-FAST) that they can use to evaluate their fatigue level by entering their sleep history and work schedule. Scheduling can already evaluate pairings to look for fatigue risk in the operation with SAFTE-FAST, but it's expensive.

With a tool like that I might be willing to self-assess, but not just on my own.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
I'm hoping that someday every pilot will have an app (similar to SAFTE-FAST) that they can use to evaluate their fatigue level by entering their sleep history and work schedule. Scheduling can already evaluate pairings to look for fatigue risk in the operation with SAFTE-FAST, but it's expensive.

With a tool like that I might be willing to self-assess, but not just on my own.
Click to expand...
Get to programming son.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
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.)
Click to expand...

True, and those are good points. But also want to mention that, at least as its written on paper, only the PIC can make that judgement to extend. The SIC is specifically missing on paper in the way the rule was written. Must be that "science" Seggy was talking about. I as a SIC can't decide for myself, my PIC has to make my judgement.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The key word there is "allowed." I've told our schedulers that I won't. "Well, wait and see how you feel when you hit the limit." No, that's okay, I can tell you right now that I'm not exceeding. Thanks for asking, though.
Click to expand...

You already upgraded at Southwest? If I am reading the FAR 117 reg properly, their correct response should be, "Sir, you can't make that decision, please pass the phone to the pilot in command."
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
You already upgraded at Southwest? If I am reading the FAR 117 reg properly, their correct response should be, "Sir, you can't make that decision, please pass the phone to the pilot in command."
Click to expand...

I dunno... I'm pretty certain that any FO with the testicular fortitude required to actually be sitting in the seat shouldn't have a problem telling the captain that while the left half of the cockpit may be accepting the extension, the right half will be too fatigued to continue.
 
BobDDuck said:
I dunno... I'm pretty certain that any FO with the testicular fortitude required to actually be sitting in the seat shouldn't have a problem telling the captain that while the left half of the cockpit may be accepting the extension, the right half will be too fatigued to continue.
Click to expand...
I think he's just trying to get a cheap dig in. He'd have to be brain dead to believe that.
 
BobDDuck said:
Or not have any balls. That could be the issue as well.

But seeing as neither of those is probably the case (he writes well even if I disagree with most of it, and he's mentioned a kid before), I'll go with the cheap dig option.
Click to expand...
Makes sense, I made a flow chart for most conversations with CC and I think we're at the "is he a troll?" step.
 
BobDDuck said:
I dunno... I'm pretty certain that any FO with the testicular fortitude required to actually be sitting in the seat shouldn't have a problem telling the captain that while the left half of the cockpit may be accepting the extension, the right half will be too fatigued to continue.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough and what I'd do as well.

But FYI, here is what it states:

117.19 Flight duty period extensions.
(a) For augmented and unaugmented operations, if unforeseen
operational circumstances arise prior to takeoff:

(1) The pilot in command and the certificate holder may extend
the maximum flight duty period permitted in Tables B or C of this part
up to 2 hours. The pilot in command and the certificate holder may also
extend the maximum combined flight duty period and reserve availability
period limits specified in § 117.21(c)(3) and (4) of this part up to 2 hours.


And since that's the way it's written, I would imagine most airline schedulers are taught to deal with the PIC about extensions. ATN saying he'll call in and refuse an extension isn't really addressed here. The FO at this point can call in fatigued which is fine, but the way the rule is written, it's not up to him to tell the scheduler that he won't accept an extension. Fatigue and extension are two different things. The way the rule is written, the SIC would have to tell the PIC about him not wanting to extend, and the PIC would have to make that final call.

As for me personally, I don't fly fatigued and I have never had to be extended because the route structure is mostly one leg transcons. As long as I'm not tired/fatigued, I would accept an extension by letting the PIC know, and let him/her talk with the scheduler. That's how I take the FAR 117 rule.
 
@Shyguy, remember in (@PhilosopherPilot I am going to make a broad statement!) all Part 121 FOMs I have seen, the PIC can delegate responsibility. That fact alone would probably cover a First Officer if management was stupid enough to make a point of going after the FO for refusing an extension.
 
"As for me personally, I don't fly fatigued and I have never had to be extended because the route structure is mostly one leg transcons."

Well isn't that special. And you tell me to suck it up cause I'm a highly paid UPS pilot? You just admitted you don't do what I do. Yet you willingly opine that I should stop whining about the cargo cutout cause I signed up for the job and should have known better. If it wasn't for the unions (ALPA and IPA) whining we wouldn't have TCAS. We only got a full face O2 mask after we lost a 747 in a cockpit smoke incident. Should I shut up and color or fight for whats right? Yeah, that's why my union is suing the FAA over the cargo cutout. We may lose but at least we didn't shut up and color cause we were highly paid UPS pilots....
 
DE727UPS said:
"As for me personally, I don't fly fatigued and I have never had to be extended because the route structure is mostly one leg transcons."

Well isn't that special. And you tell me to suck it up cause I'm a highly paid UPS pilot? You just admitted you don't do what I do. Yet you willingly opine that I should stop whining about the cargo cutout cause I signed up for the job and should have known better.
Click to expand...

?
I do redeyes so that flies through the night, and without any special override/night differential. Sometimes we have one leg before the redeye.


If it wasn't for the unions (ALPA and IPA) whining we wouldn't have TCAS
Click to expand...
.

Aeromexico DC9 and Piper single engine collision over Cerritos, CA:
"As a result of this accident and other near mid-air collisions (NMAC) in terminal control areas, the Federal Aviation Administration required that all jets in US airspace be equipped with a Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), and required that light aircraft operating in dense airspaces be equipped with "Mode C" transponders which can report its altitude."

Unions just create background noise. Unfortunately in aviation, it takes blood to make changes and after the PSA collision over San Diego and this one over LA, there were enough body counts to mandate TCAS.

We only got a full face O2 mask after we lost a 747 in a cockpit smoke incident.
Click to expand...
Yes, but again, it took blood before changes were seen.

Should I shut up and color or fight for whats right? Yeah, that's why my union is suing the FAA over the cargo cutout. We may lose but at least we didn't shut up and color cause we were highly paid UPS pilots....
Click to expand...

Wasn't it already proven that their day was compliant with FAR 117 rules? Not sure if saying that had FAR 117 been in place, it would have prevented the crash is an accurate statement. If something comes to vote that says cargo airlines should fall under FAR 117, show me and I'll sign it. I just don't know how FAR 117 would effectively deal with constant, long-term backside of the clock flying that makes a huge portion of flying that Fedex and UPS do.
 
Cherokee, I can't believe you actually cut and paste Wiki for your Jetcareers posts? Do we not expect more people....

Cherokee said:
"As a result of this accident and other near mid-air collisions (NMAC) in terminal control areas, the Federal Aviation Administration required that all jets in US airspace be equipped with a Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), and required that light aircraft operating in dense airspaces be equipped with "Mode C" transponders which can report its altitude."

Wiki says:
"As a result of this accident and other near mid-air collisions (NMAC) in terminal control areas, the Federal Aviation Administration required that all jets in US airspace be equipped with a Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), and required that light aircraft operating in dense airspaces be equipped with "Mode C" transponders which can report its altitude"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Cerritos_mid-air_collision

While it's laughable that you seek facts for your postings here, from Wiki, I gotta tell you, I got hired at UPS in 2000, and we didn't have TCAS. I don't need to cite Wiki, I was there. By the way, the Cerritos thing happened in 86, right after I left LA TRACON. I knew the controller working the Aeromexico flight. Nice guy. Totally not his fault.
 
While it's laughable that you seek facts for your postings here, from Wiki, I gotta tell you, I got hired at UPS in 2000, and we didn't have TCAS. I don't need to cite Wiki, I was there. By the way, the Cerritos thing happened in 86, right after I left LA TRACON. I knew the controller working the Aeromexico flight. Nice guy. Totally not his fault.
Click to expand...
Yes it's a copy from wiki. But the fact remains on passenger planes, TCAS started to show up, and it wasn't to appease union demands. It didn't seem to include a cargo jet carve out, as you said it they didn't have TCAS in 2000 (though I thought you were hired there in '90 but anyway). As I said, if there's a vote to put cargo airlines under 117, I'll sign it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top