DW is mad at Jetblue

[Dizel8]

As far as I know, it is the real thing, well most of it anyway

 

[G4G5]

G4G5 You seem to have a lot to say about this. I am curious, how many pilots does your company use on the GV. And what kind of trips do you fly under Part 91. From what I hear thats a pretty long range jet.

We base our crew duty limits upon the FSI Foundation recommendations. Which is basicly anything above 12 hours gets a third pilot
http://www.flightsafety.org/home.html


Our rule of thumb takes into account a variety of options:
We do 2 pilots up to 14 hours If their is only one leg or less then 3 time zone changes (North/ South). Multiple legs/Multiple time zones above 12 hrs we add a 3rd pilot up until 18. Then we do 2 crews.

This is the last trip I was on, I will use it as an example:
NY to Mumbai, with a tech stop in Helsinki, 3 pilots (under 18). Then we flew the boss to Sydney, above 12 hrs, 3 pilots. The boss wanted to do Sydney back to NY. We repositioned one of the pilots to Honolulu and brought in a part timer, above 18 equals 2 full crews.

I have done this long enough to know that their is no perfect answer, lucky for me I have a boss that defers to safety instead of cost.

 

[G4G5]

B6Guy
g4g5 you answered yourself. From a safety standpoint you stated 'the guy who just flew 28hrs in three days on the wrong side of the clock' . This is exactly what this exemption is proposed to reduce!!!

I think that you are missing my point on the 28 hour flown (re read my post). What B6 is asking is to let guys schedule more time in fewer days.
Day1 JFK-LGB-JFK turn = 11.5
Day2 JFK-FLL-JFK turn = 5.0
Day3 JFK-LGB-JFK turn= 11.5

What b6 is asking is to let guys fly west coast turns, this will allow pilots to achieve their 30 in 7 limits faster. Who here (especially commuters) wouldn't love to get 84 hours (28 x 3) in just 9 days. With what you are asking guys could be doing 6+ west coast turns every month, this doesn't improve safety one bit.

Fewer pairings flying day after day on the wrong side of the clock!!! DOH!! If the guy is a west coaster who commuted in and didn't get enough rest he's a fool. Shame on him!

Shame on him? Tell that to the folks/families who paid good money to get to there destinations safetly. When an engine has a sudden stopage failure at V1 with full pax and full fuel on the way out to the coast (500/500/500 takeoff) "Shame on him" is not what I want to read in the NTSB report.

As for 'easier in bad WX' Yes, in bad WX the controllers don't try to cram as many approaches into the same time span, ask you to see that G4, or RJ 'only' 4 miles in front of you so you can 'follow him, cleared for the visual' .

Let me introduce to this little phrase, "negative contact" you are operating under IFR in VMC conditions, if a controller jams you too tight just say, "negative contact" and he is legally responsible to provide you with IFR separation. By the way, LGA hates when you do that.

Why is it that they have greater separation in IFR? Not because it's eaiser!!!!!!!

Or worse having to follow right behind a heavy with light winds and deal with the wake. The longer downwind legs in bad wx are a drag, but needed for the approach spacing. What's the problem?

You accepted the visual behind a heavy, without proper separation.

So yes, bad WX makes the approach environment easier, that's the way I see it. As for Ice, thunderstorms, rain etc. Those decisions are for the most part taken away from us in the NY area, the traffic is diverted or put in holding patterns till the WX improves. If the WX is getting exciting, you aren't going to be sleepy anyway.

"If the WX is getting exciting, you aren't going to be sleepy anyway." Are you for real? You have the ability to just tell your body, the wx is exciting, your not tired? So sleep and rest have nothing to do with the equation? Does some one at B6 want to PM this guy? Please, tell me you are just flaming me and that you really don't work for B6. I can't go on.

 

[AA717driver]

Since going Part 91 last year, I've done three or four 11 hour legs with two pilots. You are beat when you are on approach.

It doesn't matter how many time zones you cross, how automated the plane is or how comfortable the seat is, you are wiped out.

You push people to the edge enough times and mistakes will happen.TC

 

[B6Guy]

Foaming again

g4/g5 wipe your mouth you are foaming again.

Yes I can put aside fatigue for the brief, decent and approach. After being bored all the way across the country I'm ready to actually do something.

I am much more tired after trying to sleep in OAK or LGB in a hotel and flying back on a red-eye than I would be doing a WCT. Maybe I'm wrong, I'll know in a month or two as the data gathering goes on.

I know how tired I am after a JFK-ROC-JFK-FLL-JFK, all the extra Yada Yada is wearing, a WCT sure seems like it will be easier, I'll know soon.

Yes I'm for real, are You?? You foam at the mouth over something that doesn't even apply to you. I've flown decades of pt.91 with 14 and 16 hr. days. So I know what you do.

BTW I do not accept visuals into JFK, and never let them crowd me behind a heavy. But that is home base, so we all get the approach controllers trying to throw something at us. They get mad if we back off an extra mile.

You want us all to believe your spin on this proposed exemption, and many on this thread keep forgeting about the stipulatons attached to the exemption. I'm just saying that I and many at JB do see this as a good thing, and even if you don't you really don't have much to play in the discussion, you don't work by the hour, with a commute. And you are lucky to have a boss who doesn't care if you add on extra pilots.

Chill and lets see what the study and data say.

 

[STL717]

More block time per duty period will increase the potential to get DVT.

Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) affects mainly the veins in the lower leg and the thigh. It involves the formation of a clot (thrombus) in the larger veins of the area. This thrombus may interfere with circulation of the area, and it may break off and travel through the blood stream (embolize). The embolus thus created can lodge in the brain, lungs, heart, or other area, causing severe damage to that organ.

Risks include prolonged sitting, bedrest or immobilization (such as on long plane or car trips), recent surgery or trauma (especially hip, knee or gynecological surgery), fractures, childbirth within the last 6 months and the use of medications such as estrogen and birth control pills. Risks also include a history of polycythemia vera, malignant tumor, and inherited or acquired hypercoagulability (changes in the levels of blood clotting factors making the blood more likely to clot).
Deep venous thrombosis is more commonly seen in adults over age 60 but can occur in any age group.

 

[Purple Haze]

Like watching atrain wreck

JB guys begging to move BACKWARDS on work rules that took generations to achieve -- amazing, childlike, short term thinking.

JB management must be laughing their arses off at the gullible sheep that fly their planes.

JB pilots: What you change DOES affect everyone else.
You are naive beyond belief.

 

[skykid]

What was the original pay for JB left seaters?

 

[Chest Rockwell]

What if >8 hours but no more than 10 were restricted to no more than 2 legs and a 12 hour duty day. I don't think that would qualify for a sky is falling reaction. DVT is an issue to be looked at however.

 

[General Lee]

What if >8 hours but no more than 10 were restricted to no more than 2 legs and a 12 hour duty day. I don't think that would qualify for a sky is falling reaction. DVT is an issue to be looked at however.

Let's throw in more qualifiers: the Wx must be great, not good, at both locations, and the pilots MUST have slept over 13 hours straight the night before, with no wake ups to go pee. They also must be married with nice wives (or husbands) that like to clean and cook for them. Their kids must have straight A's, so they don't worry about them on those long flying days...... What else? It's just a bad idea by a group that doesn't seem to care about anyone else.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[NewBlue]

Straight As? Dang! I was all over it until that.

 

[80drvr]

APA/AA Petitions FAA To Amend Crew Rest RequirementsResearch has proven that performance impairment after a “time since awakening” (TSA) of 17 hours is equivalent to that of a person who is legally drunk (.05% blood alcohol) according to current FARs. That’s one of the reasons APA and American Airlines have jointly petitioned the FAA to amend crew rest requirements under Subpart R- Flag Operations for non-augmented flight duty to include the look back crew rest requirements under Subpart Q – Domestic Operations.



As you are no doubt aware, current regulations under the Federal Aviation Regulations, Subpart Q – Domestic Operations, Sec. 121.471 require pilots conducting domestic operations to have received at least an eight-hour predetermined rest period within the 24-hour period prior to the scheduled completion of any flight segment under the “look back” rule. However, no such crew rest requirement exists for flights operated under Subpart R – Flag Operations, Secs. 121.481 and 121.483. Amending Subpart R (Flag Operations) to ensure prospective rest for international pilots on non-augmented flights (no relief crewmembers) will reduce known fatigue risk, raise the bar on aviation safety, and benefit the flying public. To read a copy of the APA-American Airlines petition, click here.

 

[PsubS]

A few open questions...

A few questions for those inclined to argue/debate rationally:

1. What science is behind the current 8 hour rule?
2. If the Europeans allow flight ops beyond 8 hours with a 2 person crew, does that make their operations unsafe?
3. What is the harm in determining what time limit should be placed on 2 man ops?

This waiver has not been requested; that step depends wholy on the outcome of test flights that may or may not show the scientific validity of the concept.

None of us are equiped with anything except personal anectdotes on the subject as of now. Why not see what the science provides before going off on subjective tangents on relative safety?

 

[Chest Rockwell]

It's just a bad idea by a group that doesn't seem to care about anyone else.

You seem to have no rational argument other than change is bad. Seems a bit narrow-minded. Please tell me how status quo is better than 10hours/2 legs/12 duty. I do not think anyone is in favor of raising the flight time limit without without some sort of constraint.

 

[General Lee]

You seem to have no rational argument other than change is bad. Seems a bit narrow-minded. Please tell me how status quo is better than 10hours/2 legs/12 duty. I do not think anyone is in favor of raising the flight time limit without without some sort of constraint.

How about less pilots needed? Ever think of that? Oh, that's right, you guys are hiring.....


How about knowing that you WILL BE EVEN MORE TIRED UPON ARRIVAL AND ANY BAD WEATHER WILL MAKE IT WORSE? Can you deny that one? Change is bad....

I am sure every day will be perfect, with no delays, no bad weather, no surprises......


Bye bye--General Lee