Article on FAA Rest Rules

[ABXbooger]

This is absolutely asinine, the ONLY people saying this doesn't need to be done are the trade associations. They are blatantly saying that profit outweighs safety, at least for cargo ops, the pax ops, well, now we can't touch that! So hypocritical!

The first freighter that plows into a plane load of pax due to a R/W incursion or smoking holes into a neighborhood should have them singing a different tune.

 

[ABXbooger]

More to the point:
The ATA, etc. are saying yes to the new rules for their pax ops, no argument at all. But take that same pilot and sit them in a freighter and suddenly the argument changes...because they cannot be...wait for it... PROFITABLE? I call BS on this one.

With the coming hiring increases (age 65, new rules for regionals, new rules for fly/duty time) there is going to be a lot less experience to get people out of trouble, especially at the lower tier employers.

We cannot maintain the "push on" attitude so well displayed in several posts on this board. Professionalism breeds safety, and just because a flight is "legal" does not mean it should go, or that it is professional to do so, in fact quite the opposite.

If these rules are not needed then let's make it across the industry, not just cargo, science and fact be damned!

 

[pilotyip]

More to the point:
..because they cannot be...wait for it... PROFITABLE? I call BS on this one.

Yes profits are terrible, why with profits companies stay in business, employees make money, and hire new people. We just can not have this, no more of this profit stuff.

or smoking holes into a neighborhood should have them singing a different tune.

Especially if it crashes into a Human society full of new puppies waiting for adoption, that would be even more tragic.

 

[HA25]

Yes profits are terrible, why with profits companies stay in business, employees make money, and hire new people. We just can not have this, no more of this profit stuff.

Especially if it crashes into a Human society full of new puppies waiting for adoption, that would be even more tragic.

you are a sad individual..

 

[pilotyip]

you are a sad individual..

and you are an expert on sad? BTW Does this mean you don't like puppies and profits?

 

[tailwindz]

Would that be "Human" puppies?

 

[ABXbooger]

Hey Yip, you lose all credibility with comments like that.

You seem like the perfect individual to fill that management position.

How does it feel to have a hand shoved up your rear mouth puppet?

 

[pilotyip]

Hey Yip, you lose all credibility with comments like that.

You seem like the perfect individual to fill that management position.

How does it feel to have a hand shoved up your rear mouth puppet?

Only commenting to the drift in comments on crew rest with the interjection of "Oh my Gad, there will be a Crash". Sounds the same as the anti-airport people of "Oh my Gad one of those little airplanes may crash into my child's school bus when it drives by the airport" Well we can't have kids in school buses killed so the township closes the airport. So I was making the crash scenario you mentioned a little worse so it would get more importance.

Yes there can be changes made to crew rest regs for the better, I have stated that so many times. But there is no reg. that will eliminate all fatigue, particularly for those of us who fly at night. But I guess because I am longer a card holding union line pilot my comments are not allowed to have any importance.

Go ahead attack me personally if it makes you feel better. I am all about people feeling better. I am used to the union anti-management. When I was a union line pilot (ALPA/IBT) , I got listen to it all the time, well only until the companies went out of business. Now back to the thread.

 

[ABXbooger]

Not a drift, my previous statement addresses the fact that we fly the exact Same airplane in the exact same airspace at exactly the same time.

Why should there be two sets of rules?

The only reason is because the ATA claims that their member airlines cannot be profitable under the new rules.


I am not crying "there will be crashes!"... the crashes have already happened, and the NTSB has only started listing fatigue as a causal factor in the last 10 years, imagine if we went back over time how many lives this has ruined.

Flat out: the airlines are LYING...they can, and will make money with the new rest rules, yes, it will add some cost, but the case that the ATA makes of
something like 22 billion is ludicrous. The playing field is level, all airlines will have the same rules.

Yip, I have no problem with your comments, I welcome debate, but let's keep it based on facts that are true. I have sat and listened to too many "management" people spout complete lies while towing the company line all in the sake of keeping themselves employed; business, truth, or other pilots be damned.

 

[b19]

A straight answer, please.

Not true at all, go back and read by posts, I am admitted that there are some good points in the proposed rule making, like counting double duty in the middle of the night, if you fly at night you must have 16 hours rest, quiet areas in hotels for resting crews, etc.

Being legally rested has nothing to do with being alert and capable of not flying when fatigued. There is no way anyone who lives on their days off on a 7AM to 11PM wake cycle with their family, can now pick up three night of 12AM to 9AM flying with four legs and not be exhausted.

I have been there and done that when I used to fly the Emery sort at KDAY, if you did not sleep in the cockpit, you did not survive. A typical night was only 10-12 hours of duty and about 6 hours of flight. Well below any proposal out there now.

The biggest sham in Part 117, is no controlled napping in the cockpit like some int’l air carriers. I am betting a result of this is going to be more time in hotels on the road in order to make guarantee.

My point is there is no rule they will eliminate all fatigue in the cockpit. And any new rules are going to have unintended consequences and no one knows what those will be. Anyone remember the unintended consequences of the UAL 2000 contract?

Yip, not an attack but I have asked you for your opinion, if 121 supp. int'l limits a four pilot crew without adequate rest facilities to a twenty hour duty day - What do think it should be for a three man crew ?

You have expressed your opinions often, so what do you think it should be ?

 

[pilotyip]

Yip, not an attack but I have asked you for your opinion, if 121 supp. int'l limits a four pilot crew without adequate rest facilities to a twenty hour duty day - What do think it should be for a three man crew ?

You have expressed your opinions often, so what do you think it should be ?

In the end I don't care what the rules are going to be, We will still fly fatigued when flying chaining schedule. So I have comment, I never done it. BTW Although I did do a 22 hour duty day with three pilots, and a 16 hour duty day with two pilots in the military.

 

[HA25]

In the end I don't care what the rules are going to be, We will still fly fatigued when flying chaining schedule. So I have comment, I never done it. BTW Although I did do a 22 hour duty day with three pilots, and a 16 hour duty day with two pilots in the military.

did you type this after one of your 22 hour duty days? or maybe a 6 pack?

 

[pilotyip]

did you type this after one of your 22 hour duty days? or maybe a 6 pack?

Now there is something we can agree on, after 22 hours on duty and a six pack, you would be fatigued. And no rule would fix that

 

[HA25]

Now there is something we can agree on, after 22 hours on duty and a six pack, you would be fatigued. And no rule would fix that

Hey yip, let me help you out with some basic logic and math review..

AND and OR are different statements, one requires both conditions and the other requires one condition.

I used the term "OR" in the above sentence, therefore requiring either one OR the other... Got that? or shall I re-phrase?

 

[pilotyip]

Hey yip, let me help you out with some basic logic and math review..

AND and OR are different statements, one requires both conditions and the other requires one condition.

I used the term "OR" in the above sentence, therefore requiring either one OR the other... Got that? or shall I re-phrase?

oh my gad the grammar police, this is as bad a the speeling police.

i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! If you can raed tihs forwrad it.

You one of those guys with a college degree that makes a big deal out of nothing