Pilotforhire587
Lycra Man
sweetness LIKE LIKE LIKE
Schuster amendment dropped from FAA Bill
- Thread starter DE727UPS
- Start date
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
Such as... which recent 121 crash? Don't try to say the Colgan crash.
As for cost/benefit analysis, it's something everyone does all the time with safety and should be done in aviation. Has everyone on this board purchased the safest car for their family, or is safety one of the considerations? Not saying this amendment was right or wrong, but we should not just throw money at problems hoping they are fixed or that that is the best use for the money.
The same might be said for maintenance- more is better, right? Well... not necessarily. More maintenance introduces the human factor and can actually decrease safety and aircraft availability (the RAF actually did a study on this during WWII).
So everyone take a deep breath, and get real with the "safety at any cost" mentality. If that were really true we would make aviation 100% safe by never flying.
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
For those interested, there is the paper "Child Safety Seats on Commercial Airliners: A Demonstration of Cross-Price Elasticities". Here is an abstract:
"The cross-price elasticity concept can be difficult for microeconomics students to grasp. The authors provide a real-life application of cross-price elasticities in policymaking. After a debate that spanned more than a decade and included input from safety engineers, medical personnel, politicians, and economists, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently announced that it would not mandate the use of child safety seats on commercial airliners. The FAA's analysis revealed that if families were forced to purchase additional airline tickets, they might opt to drive rather than fly, and driving represents a far more dangerous mode of travel. Given the relatively high cross-price elasticity between automobile travel and air travel, the FAA concluded that the mandatory child safety seat policy failed to pass the cost-benefit test--the policy would lead to a net increase in the number of fatalities. The authors review the FAA's decision-making process and highlight the role of economic analysis in developing public policy."
In other words, in this case trying to decrease infant mortality on airlines by requiring child seats would have resulted in a net increase in infant mortality as more people would be forced to drive rather than fly and more infants would be killed in car crashes.
"The cross-price elasticity concept can be difficult for microeconomics students to grasp. The authors provide a real-life application of cross-price elasticities in policymaking. After a debate that spanned more than a decade and included input from safety engineers, medical personnel, politicians, and economists, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently announced that it would not mandate the use of child safety seats on commercial airliners. The FAA's analysis revealed that if families were forced to purchase additional airline tickets, they might opt to drive rather than fly, and driving represents a far more dangerous mode of travel. Given the relatively high cross-price elasticity between automobile travel and air travel, the FAA concluded that the mandatory child safety seat policy failed to pass the cost-benefit test--the policy would lead to a net increase in the number of fatalities. The authors review the FAA's decision-making process and highlight the role of economic analysis in developing public policy."
In other words, in this case trying to decrease infant mortality on airlines by requiring child seats would have resulted in a net increase in infant mortality as more people would be forced to drive rather than fly and more infants would be killed in car crashes.
Hernandezcfi
Well-Known Member
That's a load of crap! There is science behind the need for more rest. It is not based on anyone's opinions. I don't know the numbers off hand but after a certain number of hours awake you are just as useless as being intoxicated. This is fact. ...not a problem getting money thrown at it.
If it costed too much to not permit flight crews to drink on the job should we allow it?
aloft
New Member
Any accident caused by something as simple to fix as ensuring the crew is adequately rested is one too many.
Ever been a 135 pilot? Single pilot? If you haven't, you have no idea what crappy rest rules really are. Try working a 14 hour duty day, filing multiple e-apis's, actually having to do a w&b instead of getting handed the paper work, actually having to figure out and file a flight plan, instead of having it handed to you, after commuting on a red-eye for 5 hours from one coast to another, and launching onto a thunder storm on a 91 leg to get an airplane back to base for maintenance at then end of a day only to find out your weather radar doesn't seem to be working properly because you are all of the sudden in the middle of it all. What bothers me most about your statement is the "Are you even an airline pilot?"
I'm not saying the rest rules don't need to be changed. On the contrary, 121 guys are regularly worked very hard. But 135 rules can occasionally work a pilot to the brink, and beyond.
Douglas
Old School KSUX
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree with fatigue in flying being dangerous. But there really have not been many 121 crashes where crew duty day and excessive flying were cited as a contributing factor- especially recently. You say it is a fact so list your sources that it is a major issue for 121. Does the issue need to be addressed? Probably- especially under 135. Is it the most pressing issue? I would say no- training would be toward the top for me. Addressing crew rest IS a money issue. More rest means more crews. More crews mean more costs. More costs mean consumers have to pay more for their tickets- which means some will not be able to afford flying and will drive... which is statistically more hazardous than flying... which means a higher mortality rate... which means that changing the crew rest FARs for 121could result in an overall higher mortality rate for the general population- meaning for the overall population it could result in a reduction in overall safety. Personally I get nervous when congress gets involved in this stuff and have not read the proposal so I can't comment one way or another but my gut feeling would be that it was a good thing that it was dumped. Just tough to tell.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I hope every ALPA member takes this as a reminder to contribute to ALPA-PAC. ALPA has been working overtime for the past few weeks to kill this amendment, and the hard work finally paid off. That sort of work can't be done if we don't have a strong PAC to back it up. Remember, back the PAC!
PositionAndHold
Well-Known Member
That. Was. Awesome.
piperpilot12w
Well-Known Member
Have a look through this to see some accidents where fatigue was the cause or a factor.
http://www.ntsb.gov/speeches/sumwalt/FAA-Fatigue-Conference.pdf
Ever take a look at all the taxes/fees added to an airline ticket? How many people have chosen to drive because of those? How much of those fees are wasted in the inefficient use of that money?
People in this country have become accustomed to low airfares, low interest rates for mortgages, cheap Chinese goods, etc.
If the costs of a ticket go up to end the "Sweatshop" conditions employed at some airlines, then so be it. People will adjust to it in time.
We shouldn't have to subsidize the cheap vacation for the average family, while getting only 5 hours sleep on a reduced rest overnight.
JOEFRIDAY2
Well-Known Member
Thank goodness some common sense has prevailed here. The 3407 familes have been able to do things that pilots have not been able to do in 40 years. They have my gratitude. I look forward to the day when pilots flying passengers will actually be able to get 8 hours of "good" sleep between duty days. That day is coming real soon--but not soon enough.
Joe
Joe
In all the years I worked 121 (dispatch, not pilot), it was very rare for a crew to actually work those 14 hour duty days. When they did happen, it was usually the result of irregular operations, not a planned schedule. The typical duty day for the carriers I worked at involved 4-5 legs, for 4-5 hours of flight time, over a 9-10 hour duty period, followed by a 15 hour rest period. This was true about 90% of the time. There were exceptions of course, but not that many. But were a person to judge things by this thread alone, one would be led to believe that the skies are full of bleary-eyed pilots, and only through sheer luck are airplanes not burning smoking holes in the ground. It is intellectually dishonest to say so, and those who engage in this hyperbole do themselves and their profession no good.
That said, two things occur to me: 1) As has been said, the pilot profession brings with it a certain lifestyle. Those who enter it had better be prepared to accept it and adjust their lifestyles to fit. If you do not, you are being professionally irresponsible. 2) People tend to want things that are incompatible with each other. They want high pay, good quality of life, and lots of time off. You cannot have those three things together, at least not for very long (only until your employer goes out of business). There's a saying: "You can have it good, fast, and cheap. Pick any two." The same principle applies here. Want to make a lot of money and have lots of time off? You're going to work long days. Want a lot of time off and short work days? You're not going to make a lot of money. Again, this is something that, if you want to be considered a "professional," that you had better be prepared to accept, and adjust your personal life accordingly.
That said, two things occur to me: 1) As has been said, the pilot profession brings with it a certain lifestyle. Those who enter it had better be prepared to accept it and adjust their lifestyles to fit. If you do not, you are being professionally irresponsible. 2) People tend to want things that are incompatible with each other. They want high pay, good quality of life, and lots of time off. You cannot have those three things together, at least not for very long (only until your employer goes out of business). There's a saying: "You can have it good, fast, and cheap. Pick any two." The same principle applies here. Want to make a lot of money and have lots of time off? You're going to work long days. Want a lot of time off and short work days? You're not going to make a lot of money. Again, this is something that, if you want to be considered a "professional," that you had better be prepared to accept, and adjust your personal life accordingly.
Hernandezcfi
Well-Known Member
Hernandezcfi
Well-Known Member
I think the NTSB has a tough job because even when the circumstances point to Fatigue, there is not much that can be done to prove it so it becomes very hard to list it as a contributing factor.
For years the airlines have been taking and taking. It's our turn to take something that is much needed. Sadly it took the cries of the families of deceased passengers to get the government off their ass. The airlines love to waste money! We (employees) see it every day. They can adapt to the costs if they just started learning from their mistakes and manage the business better! These things are run as bad as if they were government run! There are a couple of exceptions (SWA, etc.) but for some reason managements' keep doing a crappy job and hoping for better results.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
O&M, as usual, you are clueless. Pinnacle regularly scheduled duty days in excess of 14 hours, and most trips had reduced rest overnights.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
This. This is AWESOME news and much needed relief. I for one ammglwdmto hear it.