Possible FAA duty times changes

wheelsup

Well-Known Member
By ANDY PASZTOR

Representatives of the airline industry and pilots unions agreed to an overhaul of rules aimed at combating cockpit fatigue, according to people familiar with the situation, a move that could bring sweeping changes to the way airlines run their operations.

The group urged Federal Aviation Administration chief Randy Babbitt on Wednesday to jettison decades-old regulations that set uniform limits on how many hours pilots can fly and replace them with more flexible rules based on scientific studies about what causes fatigue. The recommendations call for drafting rules that would limit each pilot's flight hours based on the time of day, the number of takeoffs, or segments, during a trip, and the internal body clocks of pilots.

The proposal envisions a sliding scale of between seven and 11 scheduled flight hours for pilots per day, compared with the current maximum of eight hours, these people said. Rules on total hours spent on duty, which aren't regulated as strictly as flight time, also would be adjusted.

If the FAA moves to implement such far-reaching changes -- which could come at the earliest by the end of next year -- it would substantially alter the workdays of many pilots. It would also likely increase personnel costs for many regional carriers, which fly shorter routes. Many commuter pilots -- who work grueling schedules that include multiple takeoffs and landings a day -- likely would have less time behind the controls than they do now.

But major carriers could save, for example, because they could schedule the same cockpit crew for a morning trip from the West Coast to the East Coast and then a return flight the same day, according to people familiar with the proposal. Rules now require a new crew on the second flight.

Mr. Babbitt has championed efforts for change in the wake of recent airliner incidents and accidents, including February's crash of a Colgan Air turboprop near Buffalo, N.Y., that killed 50 people. That accident highlighted widespread fatigue faced by commuter crews stemming from reduced rest periods and workdays lasting up to 16 hours.

Although the U.K. and other countries pioneered scientifically based pilot scheduling years ago, the U.S. has largely stuck with a one-size-fits-all rule because regulators, airlines and pilots couldn't agree on changes. But in recent years, lawmakers, federal air-accident investigators and outside safety experts have intensified their calls for a sweeping rewrite of fatigue regulations.

In spite of broad agreement on much of the package, some portions remain controversial, and the FAA ultimately will have to sort out disagreements. Some of the thorniest disputes involve cargo airlines, which contend they would be economically devastated by portions of the proposal. Some charter carriers that routinely fly at odd hours complain they would also be handicapped. These groups are pushing for a separate set of rules, according to people familiar with the talks.

Spokeswomen for the FAA and the Air Line Pilots Association declined to comment, as did a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, which represents mainline carriers. Without discussing specifics, Roger Cohen, head of the country's largest regional airline association, said his group has "total and complete commitment" to the process, and a number of regional airline chiefs participated actively in the deliberations.

Commuter pilots are bound to feel more tired than long-haul crews, according to Mr. Babbitt. "There's weight given to [the number of] takeoffs and landings," Mr. Babbitt said in an interview earlier this year, but scheduling issues "are so intertwined" that "we're obliged to address them all at once."

The same day, the FAA chief told a pilot safety conference in Washington that existing regulations "don't reflect the difference" between commuter and long-haul operations. "Not only does one size not fit all" carriers, he said, "it's absolutely unsafe to think that it can."

Even before discussion of revamped rules, large and smaller airlines stepped up efforts to develop their own fatigue-mitigation techniques and train pilots how to recognize the danger signs of sleeplessness.

Regional carriers have assumed a larger role in domestic aviation by offering their big-airline partners less costly flight crews and high productivity. New fatigue rules could erode some of those advantages because they would be required to use more pilots to cover the same flight hours. As it is, the major airlines, themselves financially strapped, are attempting to cut the rates they pay their regional partners and reduce the number of regional planes under their contracts. So tougher fatigue-mitigation regulations could end up hurting the bottom lines of regional carriers.

One highly-charged area the group of fatigue experts stayed away from involves personal commuting by airline pilots to get to work. FAA and pilot union officials have said individual aviators ought to be held accountable for reporting rested and in condition to start flying. The FAA-chartered group of experts didn't end up making any formal recommendations on this topic, according to people close to the discussions

As federal officials struggle to draft new scheduling principles -- a process a former FAA administrator once called "the third rail of aviation safety regulation" --- European regulators also are working on comprehensive revisions to fatigue-prevention measures. At the same time, international aviation safety groups are prodding other countries and carriers to update workday limits based on the latest scientific data.
—Susan Carey contributed to this article.

Write to Andy Pasztor at andy.pasztor@wsj.com
This was posted on my company message board. Apparently crew scheduling put those new rules in place and ran some schedules. We're looking at less days off (12-13) and 75 hours of pay for every pilot.

AND THE LAWS DON'T EVEN BOTHER MENTIONING COMMUTING, which is what prompted the Colgan crash anyway.

This is freaking retarded.

So they're going to cut our already low pay forcing more of us to get second jobs, and increasing financial stresses. Smart.
 
I suppose if people can't handle it. . .they'll leave. Right?

:sarcasm:

I see how the article states earliest implementation as late next year. Hmm.
 
T
AND THE LAWS DON'T EVEN BOTHER MENTIONING COMMUTING, which is what prompted the Colgan crash anyway.

This is freaking retarded.

Interesting indeed. Just from flying the line I can tell you that pilots 1. Want changes in duty day and rest issues and 2. Don't want any obstacles as it relates to their commute, whether it increases rest or not.

I don't see how you can have it both ways.
 
This was posted on my company message board. Apparently crew scheduling put those new rules in place and ran some schedules. We're looking at less days off (12-13) and 75 hours of pay for every pilot.

At our company all the junior guys are getting 11 or 10 days off and senior guys 13 - 14 with lines built to about 90 hrs. I think it would be an improvement.
 
Well, for me, I can't get any FEWER days off, so I've got no where to go but up. Sorry to the senior guys that are getting 19-20 days off a month, but I won't be crying a river for them since HOPEFULLY I won't be doing the 13 hour duty day, 8 hours of rest, followed by the 12 hours of duty, 10 hours rest, rinse, repeat ad naseum.

It's not the hours of FLYING that wear on me, it's the 4 day trip of 10-12 hour duty days every day.
 
Your company is using scare tactics. Mainline has these sort of duty restriction built into their contract and I don't see any of them with 100% min day schedules. At ASA we got min day credit built into our contract so if they want to stretch everybody down to min days off they'll be paying for it.
 
"....and until then, please continue to operate in a manner we just deemed unsafe.

Chao!
Randy"

Yeah, that same unprofessional behavior. . .

Federal Aviation Administration said:
Let's drag our feet. . .oooooooooooooh yeah! There surely won't be another accident where fatigue is an issue between now and when we finally get this done. Nope, just won't happen.
 
Yeah, that same unprofessional behavior. . .


I can appreciate that once this passed down, operators will have to make some changes that won't occur overnight. 15 months is just stupid, though.

I'm betting that the first move will be contractual min days off, they'll see how that works for a couple of months (over the winter), and THEN the idea of recalls/hiring will be kicked around after the first of the year.
 
I can appreciate that once this passed down, operators will have to make some changes that won't occur overnight. 15 months is just stupid, though.

I'm betting that the first move will be contractual min days off, they'll see how that works for a couple of months (over the winter), and THEN the idea of recalls/hiring will be kicked around after the first of the year.

I'd like to know how a company that constructs the lines through PBS will be able to deal.

Since it seems my company will be embracing PBS within the next year, I'm sure our respective companies can play some magic with PBS to keep guys from getting back to work. Excuse me, I meant to say, to keep spending in line with revenue.
 
Your company is using scare tactics. Mainline has these sort of duty restriction built into their contract and I don't see any of them with 100% min day schedules. At ASA we got min day credit built into our contract so if they want to stretch everybody down to min days off they'll be paying for it.

Mainline also doesn't do 5-6 legs a day for the most part. If you read the article it touches on that - the larger carriers typically do 1-3 legs a day vs. the commuters flying more legs. In fact, this will actually help the larger carriers and their pilots allow them to work more (up to 11 hours block a day) and do transcon turns.

Min day pay is peanuts in comparison to a full days pay with a "normal" schedule. Let's see, 3-4 hours pay vs. 7-8 and work half as many days? Gee let me think.

I guess this will only hurt the better commuters out there, bringing them down to every one else's level. Wonderful.

Really the only thing that needed to be re-addressed was rest at night. 9 hours behind the door would've made everyone bright eyed and bushy tailed.

I can count on ONE HAND how many times I've used the 8 hours behind the door clause in our contract.
 
At our company all the junior guys are getting 11 or 10 days off and senior guys 13 - 14 with lines built to about 90 hrs. I think it would be an improvement.

They'll be working the same or more days and lose 15 hours of pay a month. How is that an improvement?
 
Actually, I'd LOVE a min day. Or duty rigs. Or trip rigs. The powers that bid said "Oh no! You don't want those!" When we asked why most airlines with contracts considered "good" had them.....crickets. Let's just say the road shows for this TA are starting to resemble Obama town hall meetings.....
 
I can count on ONE HAND how many times I've used the 8 hours behind the door clause in our contract.

Well, lucky you.

I've been reduced down to less than 9 hours (and it ain't behind door) 5 times this calendar year, and I've only flown 300 hours.

Lots of places suck a whole lot worse than where you are and really need some safety changes put in place.
 
I hear all this talk about rest rules and staffing and reduction of days of and blah blah blah. I agree that rest rules must be changed. Must be changed! They are absolutely unacceptable. I can promise you that the airlines will use scare tactics of every type to convince us that these rules might actually make life worse. I feel sorry for those of you that actually believe them....

What bothers me even more deeply is that I feel we are skipping a much more important topic. Experience of flight crews. I can promise you this: If there is no minimum flight time or experience included in these new rules (such as an atp or at least atp mins) our value will not increase at all. This is a rare oppurtunity for us to increase the value of a pilot. In my opinion, this is the only rule change that matters! All of you better hope and pray that some form of minimum experience is included in these new rules, because if it is not, plan on life for us to remain the same.

Without a minimum experience level, there will never be a shortage of pilots. Ever. New pilots could be trained in one year or less. (Zero time to Commercial Multi). Just imagine what kind of problems management would have if they were losing 30 pilots per month and the only ones that could replace them were pilots with at least an ATP. Everything would change for us, inculding rest, days off, pay, retirement, treatment, and respect. What ATP will work for new hire pay and treatment at the worst or even the best regionals? How many people with ATP's are even out there right now? (yes I realize there are many people on furlough, but the number with ATP's is much less than the number with just a commercial multi). Pilot retention would become a major priority!

The entire business model of airlines such as Mesa or Great Lakes is such that, as long as pilots are able to be trained quickly, they can pay as little as they want. They can always go to a flight school and gobble up all of their available new graduates and rookie flight instructors to replace their abused workers that can't cut it anymore. This cycle will never stop until a new minimum is required by the FAA or congress. To show my point, just think about how long it takes to train other professionals out of high school. Doctors, 12 years min. (4 college, 4 medical school, and 4 residency). Lawyers 7 years min.(4 college, 3 law school). Dentists min. (4 college, 4 dental school). Airline pilot 1 year max. See the problem. If we can fix this, all our other problems will fix themselves. They will have to in order to keep us around and maintain staffing.

I fear that the rules have already been decided and we are awaiting their announcement. I fear that the airlines know how much this rule will help us (they are probably terrified of it and are doing everything in their power to prevent it). I pray to God, as all of you should, that this change is included. I can guarantee you that the airlines are doing everything in their power to ensure that these changes are never ratified. It is as simple as this: the airlines can treat us however they want becasue they can. Because we are easily replaced. I'll ask this one rhetorical question to all of you who are still reading. What would our careers be like if we weren't easily replaced? What if we were very hard to replace? Age 65 is coming. What if instead of just age 65, it was age 65 and ATP Minimum? What if the number of avaliable workers was reduced by 75% or more? What would it be like?

Rant over, what do I know anyways....
 
Well, lucky you.

I've been reduced down to less than 9 hours (and it ain't behind door) 5 times this calendar year, and I've only flown 300 hours.

Lots of places suck a whole lot worse than where you are and really need some safety changes put in place.

My regional sucks more than yours, so there. :)
 
Back
Top