Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Nice job AMR and CAL: FAA Drops New Rest Requirements ! :-(

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

propjob27

I have people skills!
Joined
Jan 15, 2003
Posts
469
FAA Drops Its Rest Plan for Pilots on Long Hauls - WSJ

FAA Drops Its Rest Plan for Pilots on Long Hauls - WSJ.com

By ANDY PASZTOR
After years of disputes with airlines over ways to reduce fatigue in the cockpit, federal aviation regulators this week withdrew a proposal mandating extra rest for U.S. pilots flying the longest international routes.

The Federal Aviation Administration's decision jettisons, at least for the time being, a policy which senior officials had championed as an important safety measure. By establishing new standards for the longest routes, the agency had hoped to set a precedent for addressing the broader issue of pilot fatigue throughout the industry. The agency had been pushing for additional rest for pilots before, during and after these long-haul runs.

The airline industry opposed the initiative, which would have mandated longer layovers for pilots and could have required some carriers to redesign cabins to provide additional sleeping areas for flight crews. Less than a month ago, the FAA asked a federal judge to throw out industry challenges to enhanced crew-rest on so-called ultralong-range routes, or nonstop flights lasting 16 hours or longer.

But earlier this week, the agency informed airlines, pilot unions and other groups it was dropping the proposal based on industry comments. "We remain committed to addressing the issue of fatigue" on such flights, "but believe additional data is necessary," an agency email said.

An FAA spokeswoman said Friday the agency will "work with airlines over the next year to gather data that will help us determine the safety requirements for these flights."

Although a number of carriers have indicated they will voluntarily comply with some provisions, it's still a setback for proponents of tougher fatigue-prevention schedules. Carriers had been concerned that by agreeing to the new policy, they could be opening the door to further FAA restrictions that could be imposed on their operations outside of the standard rule-making process.

The proposal was a building block for the FAA's campaign to use the latest research findings to revise pilot-scheduling rules that basically haven't been updated for decades. Various FAA initiatives have stalled over the years due to disagreements between airlines and pilot groups.

In late 2006 Delta Air Lines Inc. agreed to special operating restrictions on its New York-Mumbai run, but later scrapped that route for commercial reasons. The FAA hoped to hammer out similar restrictions with other carriers.

Last summer, when negotiations over voluntary changes in ultralong-range schedules seemed to be making progress, Peggy Gilligan, a senior FAA safety official, said the goal was to "better apply what we know from science" to enhance safety, sometimes by going outside traditional rule-making procedures. "We will reach some kind of agreement," she predicted at the time. A spokeswoman on Friday said Ms. Gilligan, who is now the agency's top safety official, wasn't available for comment.

Despite years of joint industry-government analyses and fatigue study groups, the FAA continues to face strong opposition from the airline industry. The impasse over these routes -- including nonstop flights by Continental Airlines Inc. from Newark, N.J. to Hong Kong and AMR Corp.'s American Airlines flights between Chicago and Delhi -- comes as outside experts express concern that tired and sleepy pilots are one of the major safety issues confronting U.S. commercial aviation. Some foreign airlines and regulators have already made significant strides in reducing such risks.

On flights lasting longer than eight hours, additional pilots typically are assigned to relieve crew members. But when nonstop flights are scheduled for 16 hours or more, even four-person cockpit crews work beyond that traditional eight-hour per day limit.

The now-stalled proposal allowed some pilots to be behind the controls for a total of more than the current eight-hour limit during a single workday. In return, airlines would have guaranteed extra-long crew rest periods before takeoff, various fatigue-prevention techniques during trips and as many as two full days of rest for pilots after arriving overseas.

When the FAA released the proposal last fall, it said "the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and studies indicate that people can have significant levels of fatigue" toward the end of such long flights that "may adversely affect safety." Since traditional flight-time rules never contemplated such lengthy trips and grueling schedules, the agency also said "it is appropriate to be cautious" by relying on extra safeguards "to maintain a high level of safety for the traveling public."

American and Continental, which filed suit with a number of other carriers to block the FAA's proposal on procedural grounds, have argued that the scheduling restrictions wouldn't make pilots more alert or in the end, enhance safety.

For years, the FAA has been criticized by the National Transportation Safety Board for failing to impose tougher, wide-ranging fatigue-prevention rules. The proposal affecting long-haul routes was an example of agency efforts to begin tailoring restrictions as a way to target portions of the industry perceived to have the greatest fatigue risks.

—Christopher Conkey contributed to this article.
Write to Andy Pasztor at [email protected]

_________________________________________

Email the FAA expressing your disappointment in their dropping the fight for stricter and safer rest requirements for both ULH Flying as well as other flying (if that's how you feel).

I did.

Contact the Aviation Safety Hotline
 
APA is still fighting the 2 CA/2 FO v. 1 CA/3 FO staffing on the ULH flights.

AMR's last concern is safety.

TC
 
Back when this proposed rule change first came out, I read a bunch of complaints against it from CAL and DAL pilots about how it would "hurt their schedules, they'd rather have an extra day off at home every month vs an extra 24 hour layover in Delhi, etc".

Sadly, it reminded of when I heard JetBlue pilots screaming about how much they wanted relief from the 8 hour rule so they could do transcon turns w/o a relief pilot.

Both made me a little bit sick.
 
two ways to change the rest rules:

1. increase in fatigue calls by crewmembers.

or.....


2. multiple crashes due to crew fatigue.....

Mookie
 
Back when this proposed rule change first came out, I read a bunch of complaints against it from CAL and DAL pilots about how it would "hurt their schedules, they'd rather have an extra day off at home every month vs an extra 24 hour layover in Delhi, etc".

Sadly, it reminded of when I heard JetBlue pilots screaming about how much they wanted relief from the 8 hour rule so they could do transcon turns w/o a relief pilot.

Both made me a little bit sick.

You didn't hear AA pilots talking about it, and lastly I am glad you titled the thread AMR... APA has opposed this.

But like so many other areas in this business the pilots are getting the SH&*&T kicked out of them.

AA
 
Just bid reserve... you will get plenty of rest.
 
You may have heard a few whiny DAL pilots, but the majority wanted the rules. DALPA Safety was a big part of pushing these rules.
 
APA is still fighting the 2 CA/2 FO v. 1 CA/3 FO staffing on the ULH flights.

AMR's last concern is safety.

TC


What are the pros and cons of the two formats....

Respectfully....
 
two ways to change the rest rules:

1. increase in fatigue calls by crewmembers.

or.....


2. multiple crashes due to crew fatigue.....

Mookie

1 or 2, 1 or 2 ... man, do I have to choose now?
 
Sadly, it reminded of when I heard JetBlue pilots screaming about how much they wanted relief from the 8 hour rule so they could do transcon turns w/o a relief pilot.

JB pilots do not have any representation, thus they have no collective opinion or voice with which to express it. As for the VERY FEW pilots that ended up in favor of essentially a management sponsored and researched proposal, they were doing so on their own behalf.

JB "pilots" have yet to endorse ANYTHING as a group -- despite company assertions that its pilots were once against the FFDO program, for the Age 65 increase, and now against the latest union drive.

My favorite opener to a JB press release:

"On behalf of JetBlue's 2,000 pilots ..."

My favorite closer to a company email:

TYFAYD

And of course ... "Happy Jetting!"
 
When they say "it's not about the money".......


....it's about the money!
 
And as a result, there is a need for fewer pilots.
 
What are the pros and cons of the two formats....

Respectfully....



Hmmmmmmmm....I would assume that AMR would have to upgrade and hire (recall) more pilots to cover the 2 CA/ 2 FO staffing formula.

Surprised I had to explain that one.
 
Back when this proposed rule change first came out, I read a bunch of complaints against it from CAL and DAL pilots about how it would "hurt their schedules, they'd rather have an extra day off at home every month vs an extra 24 hour layover in Delhi, etc".

Sadly, it reminded of when I heard JetBlue pilots screaming about how much they wanted relief from the 8 hour rule so they could do transcon turns w/o a relief pilot.

Both made me a little bit sick.

did someone say JetBlue?

From Aviation Daily 2009 January
Seven U.S. carriers have launched a lawsuit against FAA in protest against new requirements for crew rest on ultra-long range (ULR) flights.
The carriers say FAA should have gone through a rulemaking process for the changes, allowing more industry input. Their complaint is not just procedural, however — the airlines claim the crew rest requirements place an unfair financial burden on them while safety benefits are unproven. Listed on the lawsuit are American, Continental, United, US Airways and JetBlue, as well as cargo carriers Evergreen and Atlas.
FAA wrote to both American and Continental in October telling them that their operational specifications would be amended to include the new ULR requirements. In American’s case, the agency said its flight between Chicago and Delhi would be affected by the changes. ULR flights are generally considered to be longer than 16 hours.
The agency would not comment on the lawsuit itself. FAA met with these carriers and other affected parties to discuss the ULR crew rest issue before the letters were sent. Delta had already negotiated changes in its rules to address ULR flights on a particular route, and these were approved by FAA in 2006.
In the October letters, FAA said it took into account the comments of the carriers before amending crew rest requirements. FAA said the revision “contains mitigations to address risks in ultra-long-range flight operations.”
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S.

Seven U.S. carriers have launched a lawsuit against FAA in protest against new requirements for crew rest on ultra-long range (ULR) flights.
The carriers say FAA should have gone through a rulemaking process for the changes, allowing more industry input. Their complaint is not just procedural, however — the airlines claim the crew rest requirements place an unfair financial burden on them while safety benefits are unproven. Listed on the lawsuit are American, Continental, United, US Airways and JetBlue, as well as cargo carriers Evergreen and Atlas.
FAA wrote to both American and Continental in October telling them that their operational specifications would be amended to include the new ULR requirements. In American’s case, the agency said its flight between Chicago and Delhi would be affected by the changes. ULR flights are generally considered to be longer than 16 hours.

They don't have a dog in the fight but they agree less rest is best.
 
What are the pros and cons of the two formats....

Respectfully....

Rez--I'll give you the AA side first, then, IMO, the industry side.

At AA, they've been heaping more and more responsibility on the CA's since 9/11. For example, MX doesn't do walkarounds anymore so the CA has to rely on the FO to find things. Yes, I'm trained to do walkarounds but I know I can't see the same stuff a mech will on a regular basis. It's a lot of little stuff that just adds up.

It appears that the company is putting increasing responsibility on the CA's and will be the first to throw them under the bus when something goes wrong.

The larger concern is if the CA is on rest break and they go off track, he gets violated even though he's in the back, asleep. In theory, since all FO's are typed, they are technically PIC while the CA is off the flight deck. But in reality, the CA (the company designated PIC) is going to get the brunt of the punishment.

NWA used the 2/2 set up I believe. One crew takes off and the other lands. At no time (other than bathroom breaks) is there not a CA who has been designated by the company as PIC on the flight deck.

We even had this issue at my corporate job. Our FAA guy said we had to make a notation on the flight plan when we switched off PIC's. Maybe this is possible in 121 (I'm sure it is in the 2/2 situation.) but with a 1/3 crewing, I don't see the company allowing it.

Hope that give some insight--extremely complex and the only impediment is that it costs more to do the 2/2 crewing.

TC
 
The problem with the attempted change was the complete circumvention of the normal process. If they had actually bothered to ask the PILOTS who fly these trips all the time, not a bunch of management fools who play pilot once every three months, what they think- they would have found the overwhelming response to be that this change does NOTHING to improve safety. In fact, it could be argued that it actually makes these trips more tiring by letting you START to adjust to local time, just in time to leave.

I have been doing the long-haul gig for fourteen years and am convinced the spotlight needs to start on the domestic rules with the next stop being the two-man international rules.

The fact that airline management was able to influence the process is disturbing because to them it is all about money, they couldn't give a rat's ass who is tired or not. It absolutely grates on me to actually be on the same side of an issue as them, although the motivation is different, but this whole issue needs to start domestically.
 
HorseShiit.

This is about money and if anyone tells you different, they are full of it.......if the pilots at these airlines would have been compensated in pay or days off, you would not have heard one peep out of them.

This could have been a stepping stone to a closer look at domestic rules...but those who opposed just screwed themselves.

Man we are really dumb sometimes....

The problem with the attempted change was the complete circumvention of the normal process. If they had actually bothered to ask the PILOTS who fly these trips all the time, not a bunch of management fools who play pilot once every three months, what they think- they would have found the overwhelming response to be that this change does NOTHING to improve safety. In fact, it could be argued that it actually makes these trips more tiring by letting you START to adjust to local time, just in time to leave.

I have been doing the long-haul gig for fourteen years and am convinced the spotlight needs to start on the domestic rules with the next stop being the two-man international rules.

The fact that airline management was able to influence the process is disturbing because to them it is all about money, they couldn't give a rat's ass who is tired or not. It absolutely grates on me to actually be on the same side of an issue as them, although the motivation is different, but this whole issue needs to start domestically.
 
The FAAs PRM was, for lack of a better word, stupid. It took the pilots out of their normal body clock for flights to India and China. Beleive me, we are all better off leaving it the way it is.

It's not like actual LINE pilots wrote the propsed rule anyway.

Besides, the REAL fatigue gorilla in the room is US domestic. How can the FAA say they "remain committed to addressing fatigue" when they allow some of the US domestic bs to go on for years and years?

Y'all know what I'm talking about.
 
Sending an email to http://www.faa.gov/safety/safety_hotline/ is a great way to send the FAA the pilots perspective. Even better yet, an email to your local Congressman and other Government official will begin to put political pressure on the FAA in the interest of safety.
I suggested that the FAA assign a team to shadow the ultra long haul pilots in the flightdeck for the entire duty period.
 
Comments by Poser's

Back when this proposed rule change first came out, I read a bunch of complaints against it from CAL and DAL pilots about how it would "hurt their schedules, they'd rather have an extra day off at home every month vs an extra 24 hour layover in Delhi, etc".

Sadly, it reminded of when I heard JetBlue pilots screaming about how much they wanted relief from the 8 hour rule so they could do transcon turns w/o a relief pilot.

Both made me a little bit sick.



If the FAA really gave a crap about safety, how about stand up overnights, back to back red eye schedules, or schedules that reflect max allowed duty days? Why go after aircraft with bunks?

Most of you must be poser pilots, or you would understand what the current situation is like in the airline industry regarding days off, RJ commuting, and lousy pay. I am sure there are many of you in jobs you don't like that think you would do anything to fly big airplanes but for those of us in the industry and married, things look a little differently.

This industry is shaping up to be something completely different than most of us signed up for and we are doing the best we can to cope with the dynamics of it. For people like me, I am "stuck" with flying international because that is the last bastion of the major airlines. I don't need the FAA or a bunch of 'wannabee's' making my life any more difficult than it is.

My personal rest and fitness and readiness for flight is my business and professional responsibility, I don't need anyone on this web-board or the FAA regulating this for me. If you are a pilot and wanted these changes, find another profession. I go to work to work, not go on 30 hour vacations.
 
HorseShiit.

This is about money and if anyone tells you different, they are full of it.......if the pilots at these airlines would have been compensated in pay or days off, you would not have heard one peep out of them.

This could have been a stepping stone to a closer look at domestic rules...but those who opposed just screwed themselves.

Man we are really dumb sometimes....

It is all about money to the people who run airlines and unfortunately, in this case, it puts them on the same side of the issue as the guys who do this all the time saying it does NOTHING to improve safety.

Why rampage through the long haul rules just to try and change the domestic rules? There are more than a few domestic guys who would scream bloody murder if mandated longer rests turned into less days off for them.

I have done both kinds of flying and can say unequivocally that the domestic rules need change yesterday and the long haul ones don't.

One of the reasons the FAA rolled back the change was because of an overwhelming response during the "comment period" of guys telling them that their methodology was fu**ed up. You can't argue with your body clock no matter what the FAA says.
 
Would you be opposed to the FAA implementing a new domestic rest rule without going through the "normal process"?

And how does this NOT enhance safety?
 
Would you be opposed to the FAA implementing a new domestic rest rule without going through the "normal process"?

And how does this NOT enhance safety?

It allows you to start to adjust to local time just in time to leave. If you can stay on "your" time it's much less tiring going home. Period.

I don't think the FAA is qualified to do ANYTHING outside of the normal process, that's why there IS a process. No one should be making any rules without consulting with the guys who do it all the time.
 
And as a result, there is a need for fewer pilots.

Hey G long time no chat. I must say I am all for keeping the rest periods the same. Of course two captains is good for movement but I fail to see how changing to a two night layover would increase the need for any pilots. Those of us who do these trips get 19-21 days off a month. They will not have to drop any of my flying to keep me over in BOM an extra night. They will not have to staff the 777 any deeper either. Lets say we go 7 days a week, thats 4 pilots for every round trip. Increase the layover all you want but it is still 4 pilots departing each day. Not a single extra pilot would be needed until the trip went to a 7 day trip, at that point if someone did 3 in a month he'd be below the min days off. Besides, I've been on longer layovers in India and Hong Kong and I can tell you that everyone I know is more tired on the way home the longer the layover is (beyond 24). It has nothing to do with drinking either. Our reserves (777) fly an average of less than one trip a month, so an extra night in BOM isn't going to time them out or require more numbers either.

My personal experience ranks domestic redeyes the worst as far as fatigue goes. Going to Europe causes many more yawns in the pit than I have ever experienced during ULH. Heck, a long day in the 737 is much more tiring than ULH flying.

The FAA was misguided in it's attempt here. I think it is good that it is on the radar but there are so many other pilots out there flying much more tired than the ULH guys. If you want to address fatigue and staffing then require IROs for any flight on the back side of the clock. If there is a problem with ULH then the solution would be one or two more IROs not another night in a S&*%hole like BOM.

How's the family, G?

B
 
Hey G long time no chat. I must say I am all for keeping the rest periods the same. Of course two captains is good for movement but I fail to see how changing to a two night layover would increase the need for any pilots. Those of us who do these trips get 19-21 days off a month. They will not have to drop any of my flying to keep me over in BOM an extra night. They will not have to staff the 777 any deeper either. Lets say we go 7 days a week, thats 4 pilots for every round trip. Increase the layover all you want but it is still 4 pilots departing each day. Not a single extra pilot would be needed until the trip went to a 7 day trip, at that point if someone did 3 in a month he'd be below the min days off. Besides, I've been on longer layovers in India and Hong Kong and I can tell you that everyone I know is more tired on the way home the longer the layover is (beyond 24). It has nothing to do with drinking either. Our reserves (777) fly an average of less than one trip a month, so an extra night in BOM isn't going to time them out or require more numbers either.

My personal experience ranks domestic redeyes the worst as far as fatigue goes. Going to Europe causes many more yawns in the pit than I have ever experienced during ULH. Heck, a long day in the 737 is much more tiring than ULH flying.

The FAA was misguided in it's attempt here. I think it is good that it is on the radar but there are so many other pilots out there flying much more tired than the ULH guys. If you want to address fatigue and staffing then require IROs for any flight on the back side of the clock. If there is a problem with ULH then the solution would be one or two more IROs not another night in a S&*%hole like BOM.

How's the family, G?

B


Family's fine, B. Thanks for asking. I see your logic re: staffing.
 
It always comes to the widebody guys. The 1 leggers. How about addressing the numerous pilots at the despicable regionals doing 5 legs a day 12-16 hours a day with an incessant delays, edcts, ground stops, never operating the sequence as designed. It's bad enough they are paid like garbage, but they continue to be treated like garbage as well. But lets just keep looking out for those longhaul guys earning 6 figures...pathetic!!
 
What's that old sticker say.....Something like "ALPA FIGHTING FATIGUE!!!!"
Yep, looks like the hit a grand slam with this one.
Spineless choades
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom