Pilot-Fatigue amendment may reduce safety

jtrain609

Antisocial Monster
Or according to the WSJ, it may "complicate FAA bill."

As far as I'm concerned, we need one level of safety, though I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here.

Emphasis added.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703960804576120363912778334.html

By ANDY PASZTOR

A bid to exempt some flights from proposed pilot-fatigue regulations threatens to complicate long-delayed congressional action on tougher Federal Aviation Administration rules.

With the FAA poised to impose more-stringent rules later this year limiting flight time and workday lengths for all airline pilots, the Senate is about to consider an amendment exempting certain cargo and passenger operations from those tougher limits. It is one of the most contentious issues roiling the aviation industry, pitting different airlines and pilot groups against each other.

Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe is expected to introduce an amendment Wednesday barring the FAA, as part of its current comprehensive rule-making effort, from imposing new restrictions on pilots flying for nonscheduled carriers. The exemption would cover charter flights carrying commercial cargo, as well as flights contracted by the Pentagon to transport troops or materials.

By retaining the current regulatory treatment of such flights, the amendment would allow some pilots flying cargo and passengers on charter trips to remain on duty for several hours longer than other airline crews. Pilots for nonscheduled carriers also could be required to stay behind the controls for longer stretches and report to work after shorter rest periods than those employed by the rest of the industry.

Under Sen. Inhofe's amendment, however, the FAA would have to initiate a separate, lengthy rule-making process to mandate any changes to the pilot-fatigue rules.

The amendment is intended to benefit carriers such as Evergreen International Airlines Inc., the World Airways Inc. unit of Global Aviation Holdings Inc. and Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings Inc.

The National Air Carriers Association, which represents nonscheduled airlines, previously submitted comments to the FAA arguing that such carriers have "distinctly different operations" than scheduled airlines and a "one size fits all" regulatory approach isn't appropriate. The association told the FAA that complying with the proposed rule would require a roughly 40% increase in the number of pilots working for nonscheduled carriers.

Nonscheduled carriers carry nearly 95% of U.S. military passengers around the world.

In remarks prepared for delivery on the Senate floor on Wednesday, Sen. Inhofe said his amendment "would ensure that a segment of our economy" heavily relied on by the Pentagon "is treated fairly" by the FAA. According to Sen. Inhofe, the FAA should "recognize the peculiar operating environment" in which non-scheduled carriers operate and provide them additional flexibility in scheduling crews.

The Air Line Pilots Association, the largest U.S. pilots union, delivered a letter to all Senators Tuesday strongly opposing Sen. Inhofe's amendment. The union has maintained that the proposed comprehensive rules, covering the entire industry, are based on the latest scientific evidence about the dangers of fatigue in the cockpit.

"Pilot fatigue is universal and the factors that lead to fatigue in most individuals are common," Lee Moak, ALPA's president, said in the letter. "There is no rational or scientific basis to support different 'fatigue rules' depending on the type of operation," according to the letter, which added: "ALPA is adamantly opposed to any 'carve out' " for nonscheduled carriers.

The National Air Carriers Association also has said that the proposed rules, if they become final, would have a "disastrous" economic impact on its members. Oakley Brooks, the president of the association, on Wednesday said consideration of the issue "is in its early days" and it is premature to predict how much support it will generate on Capitol Hill.

Senate Democratic leaders have indicated they hope to get bipartisan support for a "clean" FAA bill, free of controversial amendments. The legislation authorizes about $8 billion for airport construction and also includes money to continue funding the government's share of modernizing the nation's air-traffic-control system. The House is expected to take up its version of the FAA reauthorization bill later this month.

The FAA's anticipated new fatigue rules, which Congress ordered to be finalized by the beginning of August, seek to replace a decades-old system with new, flexible rules spelling out daily and weekly pilot-scheduling limits based on various operational and physiological factors. The limits vary depending on the time of day, length of flights and number of takeoffs performed by crews between rest periods. The proposal also covers commuter and ultra-long-haul operations.

While the rest of the industry also has criticized the FAA's proposal as overly restrictive and expensive, those airlines and associations generally haven't asked for an explicit exemption. Rather, they have urged the agency to amend its proposal to resolve their concerns.

Write to Andy Pasztor at andy.pasztor@wsj.com
 
Oh so the pilot's carrying the military around needs less sleep than a pilot at a 121 airline?

As far as I'm concerned, every pilot IS important. I'm pretty sure that no one wants an airplane crashing into their house with cargo or passengers because of fatigue rules being different. THERE SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE!
 
As usual, a well written and thought out idea is overridden by the almighty dollar.

We should have learned by now.
 
Oh so the pilot's carrying the military around needs less sleep than a pilot at a 121 airline?

Pilots that carry the military fly for 121 airlines. However, there is a rule for "supplemental carriers". It makes anything the domestic commuter pilots fly seem quite posh.
 
Pilots that carry the military fly for 121 airlines. However, there is a rule for "supplemental carriers". It makes anything the domestic commuter pilots fly seem quite posh.

Thanks for the information.

This whole story seems like a Human Rights Violation. :panic:
 
FAR 121 Subpart S

just a taste said:
§ 121.521 Flight time limitations: Crew of two pilots and one additional airman as required.

(a) No certificate holder conducting supplemental operations may schedule an airman to be aloft as a member of the flight crew in an airplane that has a crew of two pilots and at least one additional flight crewmember for more than 12 hours during any 24 consecutive hours.

(b) If an airman has been aloft as a member of a flight crew for 20 or more hours during any 48 consecutive hours or 24 or more hours during any 72 consecutive hours, he must be given at least 18 hours of rest before being assigned to any duty with the certificate holder. In any case, he must be relieved of all duty for at least 24 consecutive hours during any seven consecutive days.

§ 121.523 Flight time limitations: Crew of three or more pilots and additional airmen as required.

(a) No certificate holder conducting supplemental operations may schedule an airman for flight deck duty as a flight engineer, or navigator in a crew of three or more pilots and additional airmen for a total of more than 12 hours during any 24 consecutive hours.

(b) Each certificate holder conducting supplemental operations shall schedule its flight hours to provide adequate rest periods on the ground for each airman who is away from his principal operations base. It shall also provide adequate sleeping quarters on the airplane whenever an airman is scheduled to be aloft as a flight crewmember for more than 12 hours during any 24 consecutive hours.

(c) No certificate holder conducting supplemental operations may schedule any flight crewmember to be on continuous duty for more than 30 hours. Such a crewmember is considered to be on continuous duty from the time he reports for duty until the time he is released from duty for a rest period of at least 10 hours on the ground. If a flight crewmember is on continuous duty for more than 24 hours (whether scheduled or not) duty any scheduled duty period, he must be given at least 16 hours for rest on the ground after completing the last flight scheduled for that scheduled duty period before being assigned any further flight duty.

(d) If a flight crewmember is required to engage in deadhead transportation for more than four hours before beginning flight duty, one half of the time spent in deadhead transportation must be treated as duty time for the purpose of complying with duty time limitations, unless he is given at least 10 hours of rest on the ground before being assigned to flight duty.

(e) Each certificate holder conducting supplemental operations shall give each airman, upon return to his operations base from any flight or series of flights, a rest period that is at least twice the total number of hours he was aloft as a flight crewmember since the last rest period at his base, before assigning him to any further duty. If the required rest period is more than seven days, that part of the rest period that is more than seven days may be given at any time before the pilot is again scheduled for flight duty.

(f) No airman may be aloft as a flight crewmember for more than 350 hours in any 90 consecutive days.

It's important to have a good CBA, ya'll....
 
We ain't licked yet!

I'm sure this guy is making the effort at least in part because his campaign contributors want him to. Whether or not it sticks is another thing.

Frankly, I think it might be a good time to let our elected officials know what we support the pilots flying our troops into hostile areas of the world getting adequate rest before they do so. Do our troops coming home from deserve any less consideration of their safety once they're out of the area of operations?

Frankly, if anybody answers 'yes' to that question, it begs another: Sure, the troops can be put at greater risk for our freedom. But does their expectation of greater risk include doing so for the financial benefit of civilian companies? Seems kind of silly, asking people to endure additional risk so some corporate share holders can save a few bucks.

Oh, wait.

www.remember3407project.org
www.3407memorial.com
 
Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe is expected to introduce an amendment Wednesday barring the FAA, as part of its current comprehensive rule-making effort, from imposing new restrictions on pilots flying for nonscheduled carriers. The exemption would cover charter flights carrying commercial cargo, as well as flights contracted by the Pentagon to transport troops or materials.

There's your problem right there - Mr Safety has his hands in it.

NOTAMs, preflight briefing, sleep, real pilots don't need any of that....

Did anyone else share with him how impressed they were with his ADM and GA PR skillz after his stunt last fall?

Massive thread creep, but here's his 'punishment':
http://www.p3air.com/2011/us-senator-inhofe-takes-training-program-in-agreement-with-faa/

Text from article :
Inhofe said he was given a choice: either face possible legal action or complete the remedial training program.

“I elected the remedial training program because that is something that is very easy to do,” he said, explaining he took the training in Tulsa from a young man he had trained to fly.
 
Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe is expected to introduce an amendment Wednesday barring the FAA, as part of its current comprehensive rule-making effort, from imposing new restrictions on pilots flying for nonscheduled carriers. The exemption would cover charter flights carrying commercial cargo, as well as flights contracted by the Pentagon to transport troops or materials.

There's your problem right there - Mr Safety has his hands in it.

NOTAMs, preflight briefing, sleep, real pilots don't need any of that....

Did anyone else share with him how impressed they were with his ADM and GA PR skillz after his stunt last fall?

Massive thread creep, but here's his 'punishment':
http://www.p3air.com/2011/us-senator-inhofe-takes-training-program-in-agreement-with-faa/

Text from article :
Inhofe said he was given a choice: either face possible legal action or complete the remedial training program.

“I elected the remedial training program because that is something that is very easy to do,” he said, explaining he took the training in Tulsa from a young man he had trained to fly.

And if that would have happened to any of us, "Give me your certificates son, so I can tear em' in half!"
 
I wonder if the fact that Inhofe is proffering the amendment is noted as irony by any of the Capitol Hill types. Surely this clown can't be taken too seriously.

Sure, he thinks this is a good idea in the interest of safety. But hey, he thumbs his nose at all the other regs. Why not a few more?
 
Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe is expected to introduce an amendment Wednesday barring the FAA, as part of its current comprehensive rule-making effort, from imposing new restrictions on pilots flying for nonscheduled carriers. The exemption would cover charter flights carrying commercial cargo, as well as flights contracted by the Pentagon to transport troops or materials.

There's your problem right there - Mr Safety has his hands in it.

NOTAMs, preflight briefing, sleep, real pilots don't need any of that....

Did anyone else share with him how impressed they were with his ADM and GA PR skillz after his stunt last fall?

Massive thread creep, but here's his 'punishment':
http://www.p3air.com/2011/us-senator-inhofe-takes-training-program-in-agreement-with-faa/

Text from article :
Inhofe said he was given a choice: either face possible legal action or complete the remedial training program.

“I elected the remedial training program because that is something that is very easy to do,” he said, explaining he took the training in Tulsa from a young man he had trained to fly.

He also said:

Inhofe said he did not realize there was work being done on the runway until after he had lowered his gear and flaps on his plane.
“There is a point of no return,” he said, explaining how he ended up landing on the second half of that runway.
I must have had an awful instructor because no one trained me on this point of no return. They trained me on go arounds, which must be some antiquated maneuver people don't use any more.

And from an Avweb article, this:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) says he won't guarantee he'll be more vigilant about checking NOTAMs after he landed on a closed runway occupied by maintenance workers ten days ago in Texas. "People who fly a lot just don't do it," Inhofe told the Tulsa World. "I won't make any commitments." Inhofe added that while "technically" pilots should "probably" check NOTAMs, it would be impractical for him to do so on the many flights he makes to small airports in Oklahoma each year.
I agree. If only there were some sort of phone or internet service available to check notams. Until technology catches up though, notams are too difficult research.

And wow... not related but a prop falling off and a ground loop as well!

Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 4:25:44 PM by PDR
U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe and an aide escaped injury Thursday when the small plane the Oklahoma Republican was flying spun out of control after landing at Tulsa's Jones Riverside Airport.



The senator was forced to make an emergency landing in 1999 at the Claremore Municipal Airport after the propeller fell off the Grumman American AA-5B he was flying.
 
Here is the root of the problem as I see it...If( for the sake of discussion) a vote was put out to the general public:

Choice A: Create rules that actually do address pilot fatigue that are standardized across the board for all pilots in all areas of commercial aviation, pay more for your ticket, and have you chances of being in a crash reduced from 1 in 10,000.

Choice B: Create "feel good" rules that do little to change the situation regarding pilot fatigue, pay what you are paying now for airfare and have your chances of being in a crash remain as what they are 1 in 9999.

If you were an uninformed member of the general public you will see this:

Choice A: Create rules that actually do address pilot fatigue that are standardized a cross the board for all pilots in all areas of commercial aviation, pay more for your ticket, and have you chances of being in a crash reduced from 1 in 10,000.

Choice B: Create "feel good" rules that do little to change the situation regarding pilot fatigue, pay what you are paying now for airfare and have your chances of being in a crash remain as what they are 1 in 9999.

The differences in actual crash potential statistics won't change enough to persuade the public to ignore the Bold for the rest of the above's intrinsic value...Not now...not ever.
 
Fortunately, we don't have to put it to a popular vote of the masses. The people educated by the ever-so-factually-accurate media don't make the decisions.
We're a representative democracy, and I'm very glad for that. It makes actual deliberation of an issue much easier.

Even if we weren't, I think you underestimate the general public's fear of dying in a plane crash. Too many of them the risk is not only real, but exaggerated. I was on a deadhead not too long ago on an Embraer 145. The Captain came on the PA and told everybody we'd popped a generator and whatnot, and we were returning to our airport of origin. He added that were weren't in an emergency status or any danger, but it was better to err on the side of caution. The woman two rows ahead of me across the aisle started crying. She thought we were all going to die. Nevermind that the -145 has three other engine driven generators.. and a spare on the APU. We landed without event.

Ultimately, a lot of the traveling public is beginning to understand that there's a price to pay to fly too cheaply. The point *is* being made. I hear it in airports all the time. Sure, on occasion I meet some rocket scientist who misses Skybus and their $10 fares, but for the most part, most people are becoming aware. They're aware, and they support change for the better. Nobody thinks saving a few bucks is worth their life.
 
Back
Top