Help end the Cargo Carve-Out

Explicate? Genuinely curious.

From what I was told, during the end of the FAR 117 rule making process, the OMB got a hold of it to make sure all the i's were dotted and t's were crossed as they knew it was going to be a big change and cost for the airlines. When the OMB folks were asking some pretty routine questions, the IPA Rep lost it, was actually kicked out of the process, and then UPS was able to say what they wanted to about why FAR 117 was going to be hurtful to them.

Hence the reason for the cargo carve out.
 
Here is a you tube put out to explain the stance of my union. Could have done without the ATIS guys voice but I think it makes the point. Again, not sure what precipitated any of this as I've heard nothing about anything new on the cargo cutout in quite a while. Enjoy....

 
Can't comply since I don't live in the US, but I couldnt agree more.

Here in Argentina, aviation is very small but there's a decree regulating pilot's duties both for 121 and 135. You don't have to comply if you are part 91, and medevac ops are somewhat under the grey area.
 
All the while the cargo runs you're flying count as "rest" for the purposes of FAR 117 because you aren't flying pax?
It's not that bad thankfully, but it's not great. It doesn't count as rest under 117, but they can swap you to 121 rules on the freighter up until the end of your trip. Then when you hit days off, that counts as your 117 rest. Basically, they can put you on a freighter run immediately, but you won't be able to fly passengers again until you get your 117 rest.
 
Senator Fienstiens reply. Am I reading this right? She opposes it because it costs to much? I'm on a turn right now and just skimmed it. And how does an Asian carrier reflect the safety of American carriers? I'm confused.

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) final rule on flight crew member duty and rest requirements. I appreciate hearing your input on this issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.


I recognize your concern that the final rule applies only to commercial and regional air carriers, and that cargo airline operators were not included, although all-cargo carriers may fly under the new rule if they choose. As you mention in your letter, on December 21, 2011, FAA issued a final rule updating pilot flight time, duty period, and rest regulations to address growing safety concerns about pilot fatigue following the crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 outside Buffalo, New York, in 2009.


When FAA first proposed the new rules, the agency considered including all-cargo carriers but ultimately determined that the compliance costs would significantly exceed the quantified societal benefits. It is important to note that prior to this rule, no federal restrictions on the length of flight duty periods existed. The new regulations utilized the latest fatigue research to set limits on flight duty periods based on the time of day the flight begins, the time zones crossed, and the number of landings the crew will perform during a given flight. The new rule also increased the minimum rest time for pilots from eight to 10 hours, and pilots are now required to receive a minimum of 30 consecutive hours free from duty each week – a 25% increase over previous requirements.


While the airline industry's overall performance remains the safest compared to other modes of transportation, accidents such as the one involving Asiana Airlines Flight 214 at San Francisco International Airport in California remind us that there is still a need to improve and strengthen safety regulations. I support meaningful safety reforms that guarantee members of the public that flight crews are well-rested, well-trained, and ready to safely perform their duties.


Please be assured that I have noted your concerns and will keep them in mind should relevant legislation come before me for consideration in the Senate.


Once again, I appreciate hearing from you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C., officeSenator
2) 224-3841 or visit my website at http://feinstein.senate.gov. Best regards.



Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
 
Senator Fienstiens reply. Am I reading this right? She opposes it because it costs to much? I'm on a turn right now and just skimmed it. And how does an Asian carrier reflect the safety of American carriers? I'm confused.
You are reading that right.

Pilots, apparently, are to be considered expendable. :(
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I have voted for a Republican for Senate in California.

It just amazes me that one of the most progressive states in the union continues to elect someone who basically comes right out and says that fourth amendment rights don't matter when she's trying to "protect" us.
 
It just amazes me that one of the most progressive states in the union continues to elect someone who basically comes right out and says that fourth amendment rights don't matter when she's trying to "protect" us.

She is the absolute most useless, back-asswards zit on the ass of life politician in the history of Kalifornia. I honestly do not understand how she has held office so long.
 
Got the same shiz in da email
81c8a0d4f854a7d0ba4db871ea61cad1.jpg
 
Idiot. She is so worthless, seriously worthless and has been for many years. I got the same exact response last week. I sent a reply, a long one with details, links, all sorts of info and data and never heard a peep back. How about getting off your ass and doing your job....you know the one you are PAID to do, performing 30 minutes of research and having the gumption to start some legislation instead of perhaps "keeping the public's concerns in mind" just in case some Senator in this country who actually give's a rat's, proposes some new legislation.
 
A Life Aloft said:
Idiot. She is so worthless, seriously worthless and has been for many years. I got the same exact response last week. I sent a reply, a long one with details, links, all sorts of info and data and never heard a peep back. How about getting off your ass and doing your job....you know the one you are PAID to do, performing 30 minutes of research and having the gumption to start some legislation instead of perhaps "keeping the public's concerns in mind" just in case some Senator in this country who actually give's a rat's, proposes some new legislation.

You're wasting your time putting that much thought and effort into it. The Senator never even sees the emails. None of them do. A staffer sends a form response and keeps a tally of what constituents on saying on the issue. A certain number of tallies means it may be worthwhile bringing to the Senator's attention. Otherwise, she doesn't have a clue that anyone is even emailing about it. Once you send the original email and get on the tally sheet, you've done as much as you can do.
 
Just depressing. If it's not one level of safety for my own son, or the mislabeled/under-reported risky cargo he is dragging back here from Asia that I have to worry about, maybe the government will just kill him off sooner and send out some more shipments of live anthrax.
 
Back
Top