H.R. 182, the Safe Skies Act (end cargo carve-out)

[Autothrust Blue]

H.R. 182, the Safe Skies Act, would eliminate the "cargo carve-out" from Part 117, and require cargo operations to comply with Part 117 as well. Right now, cargo operations are excluded from complying with Part 117, a wholly illogical state of things. Fatigue is fatigue; it doesn't matter if there are passengers or boxes in back.

Here's a short fact sheet (PDF target) about the law; the bill itself is available here. If you'd like to dash out a message to your elected representation in support of H.R. 182, you can click here and do so without leaving your desk. (While some of these links are to ALPA's site, the generate-a-message function is operated by PopVOX and is wholly independent of the Air Line Pilots Association.)

If you are so inclined, please take a moment and tell your representation that you support one level of safety.

 

[Bandit_Driver]

This will be interesting to see if gains any traction in congress. I personally don't think the cargo rules will change until a 747 gets dropped into a heavy populated area. I hope I am wrong but as we the know the CFR's are written in blood.

This bill also hasn't moved in over a year

 

[Patrick]

This will be interesting to see if gains any traction in congress. I personally don't think the cargo rules will change until a 747 gets dropped into a heavy populated area. I hope I am wrong but as we the know the CFR's are written in blood.

This bill also hasn't moved in over a year

Sadly, I fully concur.

 

[ctab5060X]

This will be interesting to see if gains any traction in congress. I personally don't think the cargo rules will change until a 747 gets dropped into a heavy populated area. I hope I am wrong but as we the know the CFR's are written in blood.

This bill also hasn't moved in over a year

Damn near dropped an Airbus into a populated area last year. Why do we have to wait until innocent bystanders get killed to see change??

 

[z987k]

Well if we're really going for 1 level shouldn't 135 get thrown in to?

 

[ASpilot2be]

Well if we're really going for 1 level shouldn't 135 get thrown in to?

I think we should get rid of the Alaska exemption.

 

[z987k]

I think we should get rid of the Alaska exemption.

Having never actually flown under an Alaskan certificate I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Roger Roger]

Having never actually flown under an Alaskan certificate I don't know what you're talking about.

Scheduled 135 using unsked rest rules.

 

[z987k]

Scheduled 135 using unsked rest rules.

Well using the scheduled or unscheduled rest rules has little to do with what type of flying you do, and more(100%) to do with what you were able to get the POI to sign off on for opspecs, because that is where you are essentially given the type of rest rules you use.

 

[ASpilot2be]

Well using the scheduled or unscheduled rest rules has little to do with what type of flying you do, and more(100%) to do with what you were able to get the POI to sign off on for opspecs, because that is where you are essentially given the type of rest rules you use.

Right. But I wish they would just take out the part about 135 scheduled carriers in Alaska being exempt from the scheduled 135 rest rules

 

[Roger Roger]

Well using the scheduled or unscheduled rest rules has little to do with what type of flying you do, and more(100%) to do with what you were able to get the POI to sign off on for opspecs, because that is where you are essentially given the type of rest rules you use.

Hm, I'd never noticed 135.261 (b) 2 before.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Well if we're really going for 1 level shouldn't 135 get thrown in to?

I'm not opposed to that; I'll settle for all 121s being subject to Part 117 for the moment, though.

 

[Capt. Chaos]

Right. But I wish they would just take out the part about 135 scheduled carriers in Alaska being exempt from the scheduled 135 rest rules

Kiss your rotation out of the bush goodbye.

 

[ASpilot2be]

Kiss your rotation out of the bush goodbye.

That is true. That would be the only down side.

 

[dasleben]

Well if we're really going for 1 level shouldn't 135 get thrown in to?

Thrown into what?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Bandit_Driver]

Damn near dropped an Airbus into a populated area last year. Why do we have to wait until innocent bystanders get killed to see change??

Because it is all about the money. Congress won't change it until they get a lot of bad PR and pressure from the public. FAR 117 regs would drive the costs up in the cargo market dramatically as the cargo operators would have to hire a lot more crews and positioning crews would be a nightmare. A lot of cargo that moves in the middle of the night is unscheduled and usually occurs because some plant is out of parts due to wx, productions problems etc.

How would you call a crew out at 4am to go from Detroit-Mexico-Texas-Canada-Detroit. With delays that can be a 16-20 hour duty day and 8-12 hours of flying. This is legally allowed under the current regs for one crew. Under 117 that would take at least 2 crews possible more. How do you get the crews into position and rested and complete the trip in a time frame to keep the plant running?

 

[Adler]

How would you call a crew out at 4am to go from Detroit-Mexico-Texas-Canada-Detroit. With delays that can be a 16-20 hour duty day and 8-12 hours of flying.

16 hour days? That sounds too easy.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Because it is all about the money. Congress won't change it until they get a lot of bad PR and pressure from the public. FAR 117 regs would drive the costs up in the cargo market dramatically as the cargo operators would have to hire a lot more crews and positioning crews would be a nightmare. A lot of cargo that moves in the middle of the night is unscheduled and usually occurs because some plant is out of parts due to wx, productions problems etc.

How would you call a crew out at 4am to go from Detroit-Mexico-Texas-Canada-Detroit. With delays that can be a 16-20 hour duty day and 8-12 hours of flying. This is legally allowed under the current regs for one crew. Under 117 that would take at least 2 crews possible more. How do you get the crews into position and rested and complete the trip in a time frame to keep the plant running?

This is why it took this side of forever to get anything done with passenger 121 rest rules, too.

 

[99driver]

H.R. 182, the Safe Skies Act, would eliminate the "cargo carve-out" from Part 117, and require cargo operations to comply with Part 117 as well. Right now, cargo operations are excluded from complying with Part 117, a wholly illogical state of things. Fatigue is fatigue; it doesn't matter if there are passengers or boxes in back.

Here's a short fact sheet (PDF target) about the law; the bill itself is available here. If you'd like to dash out a message to your elected representation in support of H.R. 182, you can click here and do so without leaving your desk. (While some of these links are to ALPA's site, the generate-a-message function is operated by PopVOX and is wholly independent of the Air Line Pilots Association.)

If you are so inclined, please take a moment and tell your representation that you support one level of safety.

You seem to be under the illusion that 117 reduces fatigue.
That's ok if you are. The scary thing is that the FAA is too.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

You seem to be under the illusion that 117 reduces fatigue.

Uh, well, in my experience, it does; I think there are some downright rotten parts of it, but I think we're way better off under it than we were before. I can no longer fly a 16-hour 8-leg day with multiple extended flow delays; I consider that alone to be a great victory.