CJC ALPA's response to the 18 hour memo

[suupah]

Fellow Pilots,

In Read and Sign #09-05, Colgan management clarified the FSDO’s interpretation of Flight Time Duty Time regulations, which lead to the Letters of Investigation earlier this year. At this point, we consider that issue resolved. We echo Harry Mitchel in suggesting that all pilots carry with them a copy of ALPA’s Guide to Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements which you can access online by going to the Flight Time/Duty Time Committee’s webpage on the ALPA members-only website, https://crewroom.alpa.org, and clicking on “Guide to FTDT Limitations.”

However, your MEC is concerned about the following statement from Harry Mitchel’s memo: “The interpretation is clear that Part 91 flying is not subject to 121 Duty Time Rules. Part 91 is not subject to 8 hrs or 16 hour duty day. However, common sense and in the interest of Safety, Colgan Air will prohibit any flight activity when duty will exceed 18 hours.”

While we agree Part 91 is not subject to Part 121 regulations, Read and Sign #09-05 contradicts FOPPM Bulletin #09-001 which was presented by representatives for our management at the NTSB public hearing and is now included as part of the public record. The FOPPM bulletin states on page 3 of 6 that “Fatigue can also mimic the effects of alcohol. Being awake for 17 hours can have a similar effect to having a blood alcohol level of .05% in terms of reaction times and judgment.” We have contacted the company about this inconsistency and they have promised us an “in depth” response to our inquiry. We will inform you of any changes that result from their response.

In the interim, our Central Air Safety Committee recommends that all crews follow the guidelines in FOPPM Bulletin #09-001 instead of Read and Sign #09-05 regarding duty days in excess of 16 hours.

Please call the Colgan MEC Hotline at 1-877-MEC-CJC1 if you have any questions about these regulations. The ALPA website also has a number of valuable resources regarding the issues of flight time/duty time and fatigue. In addition to the Guide to Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements, we also recommend you download The Airline Pilots’ Guide to Fighting Fatigue, also on the ALPA Flight Time/Duty Time Committee’s webpage under “Fatigue Resources.”

Fly safe,

The Colgan MEC

 

[Nevets]

One of the reasons why ALPA supports H.R. 915. It has this language in it thanks to ALPA:

SEC. 816. DUTY PERIODS AND FLIGHT TIME LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the following purposes:

(1) To require a flight crewmember who is employed by an air carrier conducting operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, and who accepts an additional assignment for flying under part 91 of such title from the air carrier or from any other air carrier conducting operations under part 121 or 135 of such title, to apply the period of the additional assignment (regardless of whether the assignment is performed by the flight crewmember before or after an assignment to fly under part 121 of such title) toward any limitation applicable to the flight crewmember relating to duty periods or flight times under part 121 of such title.


(2) To require a flight crewmember who is employed by an air carrier conducting operations under part 135 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, and who accepts an additional assignment for flying under part 91 of such title from the air carrier or any other air carrier conducting operations under part 121 or 135 of such title, to apply the period of the additional assignment (regardless of whether the assignment is performed by the flight crewmember before or after an assignment to fly under part 135 of such title) toward any limitation applicable to the flight crewmember relating to duty periods or flight times under part 135 of such title.

Call your Senator and tell them to insert this language into S.1451.

 

[Snaab]

Well guess what? I guess there will be a sharp increase in fatigue reporting if they expect crews to work anywhere near 16 hours (let alone 18!) to ferry a plane at the end of the day- NOT HAPPENING. This completely contradicts everything brought up about fatigue at the 3407 NTSB hearings. Hell, they even put out a memo after the accident about being awake for 17 hours as being equivalent to .05 BAC! Think you're wide-awake and will be able to reason properly after being on duty for 16+ hours (awake for probably 18)? I think NOT.

Another thing. We are HIRED and PAID to fly the Saab or Q400. That's commercial flying. To say that the more stringent 121 rules go out the window for "tail end Part 91 ferry flights" is ludicrous, unsafe, and negligent on their part.

I hope crews that are unfortunately faced with extended duty days nearing 15-16 hours CALL FATIGUE. Enough is enough! Manassas is ONLY concerned about the bottom line and getting the planes where they need to be. Not your state of being, not the last time you ate or slept, or how grueling a long day is. They have learned absolutely nothing and have only gotten worse since 3407.

 

[suupah]

Don't fly Fatigue or Sick and whatever you do, do not let ANYONE but YOU be the PIC of your ship!

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!
I was at Trans States, and they interpreted the regs differently. In ground school, we were told we could not block out, or takeoff, on the LAST LEG of a trip, if, by doing so, we would go over our flight and duty time limits. It didn't matter what delays happened before the last leg began, or what we were originally scheduled for, if we couldn't complete the flight on time, we couldn't leave the gate and/or takeoff. If we were OK leaving the gate and taking off on the LAST LEG, and THEN we were delayed (vectors, holding, thunderstorm avoidance), ONLY then was it OK to go over our flight/duty time max limits.

Obviously, Colgan interprets the regs differently than TSA, and the FSDO at Colgan must also interpret it differently than the TSA FSDO. I REALLY do NOT like this about the FAA. They have regs, and they are interpreted and enforced differently all over the country. Not very nice!

cliff
NBO
PS-Just did a 17+59 duty day. Again, not very nice. I was glad that we landed.

 

[Nevets]

Hi!
I was at Trans States, and they interpreted the regs differently. In ground school, we were told we could not block out, or takeoff, on the LAST LEG of a trip, if, by doing so, we would go over our flight and duty time limits. It didn't matter what delays happened before the last leg began, or what we were originally scheduled for, if we couldn't complete the flight on time, we couldn't leave the gate and/or takeoff. If we were OK leaving the gate and taking off on the LAST LEG, and THEN we were delayed (vectors, holding, thunderstorm avoidance), ONLY then was it OK to go over our flight/duty time max limits.

Obviously, Colgan interprets the regs differently than TSA, and the FSDO at Colgan must also interpret it differently than the TSA FSDO. I REALLY do NOT like this about the FAA. They have regs, and they are interpreted and enforced differently all over the country. Not very nice!

cliff
NBO
PS-Just did a 17+59 duty day. Again, not very nice. I was glad that we landed.

I think you are getting confused between what you are talking about and doing a part 91 leg at the end of your duty day. Now, if they didn't allow part 91 legs to exceed part 121 flight time limitations and rest requirements, then good for them.

 

[Browntothebone]

Hi!
I was at Trans States, and they interpreted the regs differently. In ground school, we were told we could not block out, or takeoff, on the LAST LEG of a trip, if, by doing so, we would go over our flight and duty time limits. It didn't matter what delays happened before the last leg began, or what we were originally scheduled for, if we couldn't complete the flight on time, we couldn't leave the gate and/or takeoff. If we were OK leaving the gate and taking off on the LAST LEG, and THEN we were delayed (vectors, holding, thunderstorm avoidance), ONLY then was it OK to go over our flight/duty time max limits.

Obviously, Colgan interprets the regs differently than TSA, and the FSDO at Colgan must also interpret it differently than the TSA FSDO. I REALLY do NOT like this about the FAA. They have regs, and they are interpreted and enforced differently all over the country. Not very nice!

cliff
NBO
PS-Just did a 17+59 duty day. Again, not very nice. I was glad that we landed.

Why didn't you call in fatigued? You are part of the problem to.

 

[crj567]

Why didn't you call in fatigued? You are part of the problem to.[/QUOTE]

The word is "too," dumbass!!! Welcome to the second grade!

-Boneheadtothebone.

 

[ex j-41]

You know that when you do a repo flight it is not Part 91. If you have a release, look at what you are signing. How about using your Part 121 Call Sign? It all points to the flight being Part 121 and not part 91. It is a grey area that if something was to happen the company can point to Pilot Error and say that you were not in complience.
If you want to fly part 91 then you have to use your N number on your airplane and have a flight plan specifically stating that it is a part 91 flight. And you do not sign a release. Otherwise tell scheduling to pound sand if they want you to fly over and above the 121 legal limit.

 

[Nevets]

You know that when you do a repo flight it is not Part 91. If you have a release, look at what you are signing. How about using your Part 121 Call Sign? It all points to the flight being Part 121 and not part 91. It is a grey area that if something was to happen the company can point to Pilot Error and say that you were not in complience.
If you want to fly part 91 then you have to use your N number on your airplane and have a flight plan specifically stating that it is a part 91 flight. And you do not sign a release. Otherwise tell scheduling to pound sand if they want you to fly over and above the 121 legal limit.

Call signs have nothing to do with what part you are operating. I've flown in non-carrier operations in which we had FAA approved call signs for our flights. As for the release, that is dependent on each carrier. At mine, for example, it actually says that you are operating the flight solely under part 91 anytime we have a repo or mx flight.