Schuster amendment dropped from FAA Bill

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.
Click to expand...

Wow, I would love to work for the airline you did. If the schedules you speak of were consistent throughout the industry, then why is there such resistance to the possible changes coming.

That schedule wasn't true 90% of the time where I worked.
 
piperpilot12w said:
We shouldn't have to subsidize the cheap vacation for the average family, while getting only 5 hours sleep on a reduced rest overnight.
Click to expand...
Again, just playing devils advocate, but you DON'T have to. You knew the schedule going in and there is always the almighty fatigued call.
 
I'd engage, but I kind of feel like an Electrician debating workplace safety with a guy with a Tandy Science Kit.

I don't mean for it to sound sarcastic, but really. The rest rules stink and, from the outside, you're just not going to get it.
 
Doug Taylor said:
I'd engage, but I kind of feel like an Electrician debating workplace safety with a guy with a Tandy Science Kit.

I don't mean for it to sound sarcastic, but really. The rest rules stink and, from the outside, you're just not going to get it.
Click to expand...
Doug, I'm with you 100 percent. Not because I've been there and done that, because I haven't, but because I believe what I hear (read) from people who are there and are doing that right now. BUUUUT.... To people outside the industry the statistics in favor of a change are not exactly compelling. By the things some people say you'd think planes are falling out of the sky right and left, which is simply not the case. I think that Blackhawk had good points in his earlier posts, especially in pointing the finger at training which seems to have been a large factor in 3407 and certainly was in the pinnacle crash. In any case it looks to be moot, as it seems that the new rest requirements are a done deal.
 
I'll never convince my neighbor, owner of an automobile repair shop, that our current rest rules are inadequate. Two reasons, first, he has no knowledge of professional aviation other than, "Man, Hawaiian Airlines gave me a whole can of coke and my bag got lost once", secondly, there is no need to do so.

Modernizing the rest rules will improve safety. More rest = better.

Why? Every accident that took place is a result of a series of events. The engine just never explodes and everyone on board dies. Generally speaking, AD's weren't properly followed, perhaps an insufficient preflight inspection, procedural problems, blah blah blah, but most accidents include some form of pilot fatigue.

Pilots were tired, plane crashed. No.

Late night flight after reduced rest overnight, pilots were tired, misinterpreted ATC instruction, selected incorrect NAVAID, confusion, inaction, realization, reaction too late WHAM, right into the side of the mountain.

If you can reduce pilot fatigue, you're reducing one of the correctable factors in the chain of events that lead to an accident.

Just like with modern navigation displays with terrain depictions. Did it directly save lives? Not directly, but did it draw down CFIT accidents and increase situational awareness to mitigate those events from the accident chain? Absolutely without a doubt.
 
Doug Taylor said:
I'll never convince my neighbor, owner of an automobile repair shop, that our current rest rules are inadequate. Two reasons, first, he has no knowledge of professional aviation other than, "Man, Hawaiian Airlines gave me a whole can of coke and my bag got lost once", secondly, there is no need to do so.

Modernizing the rest rules will improve safety. More rest = better.

Why? Every accident that took place is a result of a series of events. The engine just never explodes and everyone on board dies. Generally speaking, AD's weren't properly followed, perhaps an insufficient preflight inspection, procedural problems, blah blah blah, but most accidents include some form of pilot fatigue.

Pilots were tired, plane crashed. No.

Late night flight after reduced rest overnight, pilots were tired, misinterpreted ATC instruction, selected incorrect NAVAID, confusion, inaction, realization, reaction too late WHAM, right into the side of the mountain.

If you can reduce pilot fatigue, you're reducing one of the correctable factors in the chain of events that lead to an accident.

Just like with modern navigation displays with terrain depictions. Did it directly save lives? Not directly, but did it draw down CFIT accidents and increase situational awareness to mitigate those events from the accident chain? Absolutely without a doubt.
Click to expand...

In other words, filling the holes of the swiss cheese model a little at a time?
 
O&M said:
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.
Click to expand...

My worst day in 121 so far has been an 18 hour duty day (3-man crew, so it was legal), 11 hours block, over 3 legs. Saw the sun set about halfway through the first leg, the sun rise while we were waiting out a dust storm in the Middle East after a diversion, then saw the sunset again right as I was going to sleep in the hotel.

Not all 121 is created equal, and as I recall, this Schuster amendment was directly targeting my type of flying, saying the above was more than adequate. You be the judge.
 
Roger said:
Again, just playing devils advocate, but you DON'T have to. You knew the schedule going in and there is always the almighty fatigued call.
Click to expand...

So everyone who does not like the current rest rules should just avoid airline employment? There wouldn't be many flights going on.
 
Hernandezcfi said:
So everyone who does not like the current rest rules should just avoid airline employment?
Click to expand...

Well yeah, that is actually an option. Same thing with the pay. Don't like it, don't do it. Getting people to say "no, we won't work these hours for this money" would be my preferred method of changing things, rather than getting the federal government which is, by nature, slow and inefficient, to step in. Unfortunately, that does not seem likely to happen in this flawed world we live in.
 
Roger said:
Well yeah, that is actually an option. Same thing with the pay. Don't like it, don't do it. Getting people to say "no, we won't work these hours for this money" would be my preferred method of changing things, rather than getting the federal government which is, by nature, slow and inefficient, to step in. Unfortunately, that does not seem likely to happen in this flawed world we live in.
Click to expand...

Boy you can say that again.

Fortunately, you can still abuse the job for free medical, flight benefits, days off, and a cheap Fedex package sent from time to time. :)
 
O&M said:
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.
Click to expand...

I did spend 5 years at a commuter; I was exhausted all the time, flying so sleepy I could not stay awake. More than once both of us fell asleep at the same time. Although you worked in the industry, it is grossly obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. I am really surprised I am here writing this today and I didn't end up in a smoking hole.

O&M said:
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.
Click to expand...

The passengers need to decide if they want "good, fast, and cheap. Pick any two."
 
Roger said:
Well yeah, that is actually an option. Same thing with the pay. Don't like it, don't do it. Getting people to say "no, we won't work these hours for this money" would be my preferred method of changing things, rather than getting the federal government which is, by nature, slow and inefficient, to step in. Unfortunately, that does not seem likely to happen in this flawed world we live in.
Click to expand...

The world is fine.

Here's the trick. We live in a large country, have no real rail network and we want to leave our homes in LAX and be at Walt Disney World that same day.

If that plane drops over Dallas, kills 250 people and another few hundred on the ground people will demand action. The airline doesn't care because it was an actuarial risk by having the pilots on a reduced rest layover after a transcon flight. The Lessor doesn't care because they figure for every 100,000 hours of operation, they're going to have X number of hull losses. The guy flying from LGA to DCA isn't going to care because he got a el cheapo ticket on Orbitz and he's not even flying that airline.

But when the survivors of the 250 victims of the airplane crash, the deceased crews and those lost on the ground call for action, who are they going to call?

The Airlines? Hey, pilot error, not our problem, pass the champagne around.
The Aircraft Lessor? Hey, statistically speaking, we're still beneath our projected hull loss for the fiscal year so our insurer is covering the loss.
The Manufacturer? Hey, probably an operational error.
The FAA? Ask the NTSB.
The NTSB? Well, why did this happen.... but then the FAA, Airline Industry, manufacturers and the general public will absolutely lose their cookies if their recommendations and synopsis is going to cost $0.01

Ask yourself this. If both Captain Al Haynes and Captain Sully Sullenberger were on 15 of 16 hours of duty day when all of the planets aligned and the event occurred, would it have resulted in a similar, better or worse outcome?

Do you want a sharp, well-rested pilot in the cockpit when the plane hits a flock of birds and you'll be ditching in the Hudson, or is a guy off a 9 hr overnight where after a meal, preparing his uniform for the next day and the round trip shuttle from the hotel reduced his sleep opportunity to 6 hours the night before when on his 15th of 16 hour duty day, there's an explosion on the #2 engine, hydraulics are out and you have no aircraft control other than differential power in large or somewhat smaller descending circles over Sioux City.

Remember, there are MANY MANY factors that have to occur to have an accident, if there's an opportunity to solve something as simple as pilot fatigue and pull that out of the chain, the blood is on our hands if we miss an opportunity to mitigate that risk.
 
1f140c004768012e126700163e41dd5b.jpeg
 
Doug Taylor said:
The world is fine.
Click to expand...
Your definition of fine and mine are different. In my world, if things were fine, people who truly felt that career "a" offered hazardous working conditions, horrendous schedule, and pay not commensurate to the conditions, they would choose career "b" or even "c" in such quantities that management in career "a" would be forced to improve at least one of the factors to attract sufficient qualified workers. You and I both know that that is true in very few industries, and especially untrue in aviation. For what it's worth I am glad there ARE people like Seggy and ATN Pilot who stick with career "a" and work to improve pay and working conditions rather than getting out and letting other poor saps deal with it.

the general public will absolutely lose their cookies if their recommendations and synopsis is going to cost $0.01
Click to expand...
Well, in that case, I would say that though a minute percentage of the customer base (those who lost family members) is unhappy, the vast majority of the market has spoken and said that over all the small reduction in an already minute risk (and the risk of dying in an airline crash in the US is truly minute) is simply not worth the added cost. From a human perspective it is tragic, but from a purely numbers standpoint, well... If they don't want to pay for an improvement in safety, they don't get it, and if the market has decided that x number of hull losses and fatalities is acceptable, then that's that.

At this point I'm really just arguing the point because I find it interesting to try to take emotion and personal involvement out of the picture and look at what accident numbers and people's purchasing behavior says about our real priorities, which are often different than what WE say our priorities are. Also, because it's Saturday morning and I'm home alone and bored.
 
piperpilot12w said:
Wow, I would love to work for the airline you did. If the schedules you speak of were consistent throughout the industry, then why is there such resistance to the possible changes coming.

That schedule wasn't true 90% of the time where I worked.
Click to expand...

What O&M wrote is pretty much spot on at SkyWest. If you want a commutable trip then there's probably a 8-9 hour overnight to switch the morning/afternoon schedule but the other two overnights are 12-18 hours. In fact, at Colgan I usually didn't work a duty day that was scheduled longer than 10 hours. I agree with O&M that 14 hour duty days at the regionals that I have direct experience with are usually the result of irregular operations.

My biggest beef with the rest rules is reducing to 8 hours min rest, which is way too low. IMO it should only be reducable to 9.5 hours during irregular ops and no overnight should be scheduled less than 10.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
O&M, as usual, you are clueless. Pinnacle regularly scheduled duty days in excess of 14 hours, and most trips had reduced rest overnights.
Click to expand...

His observations seem to be fair to me having worked at SKW and Colgan. I'd bet the same is true at a lot of other regionals as well.
 
GaTechKid said:
His observations seem to be fair to me having worked at SKW and Colgan. I'd bet the same is true at a lot of other regionals as well.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is a regional pilot. In fact, this bill had nothing to do with regional pilots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top