FAA rules on high speeds, naps, stand ups, cdo's..

[enuffalready]

or whatever your airline calls them. anyone read how they effect the 2nd shifters? those of us that like them would hate to see them cut or go away. any of you lawyer types interpret the rules in regards to cdo's?

 

[JoeMerchant]

or whatever your airline calls them. anyone read how they effect the 2nd shifters? those of us that like them would hate to see them cut or go away. any of you lawyer types interpret the rules in regards to cdo's?

The really bad ones with a short RON will still be legal...The really nice ones with about 8 hours on the ground won't be legal for the most part...All in all, this will be bad for Nap folks....

 

[johnsonrod]

The really bad ones with a short RON will still be legal...The really nice ones with about 8 hours on the ground won't be legal for the most part...All in all, this will be bad for Nap folks....

And bad for regionals in general. We are becoming more and more inefficient.

 

[CFI2766]

If you like the naps, good on ya', but should we really embrace a rule system (as is current) that is dangerous for the other 85-90% of the flying that we do?

 

[Freebrd]

crap this gonna suck, been napping for a few years now, likem

 

[enuffalready]

If you like the naps, good on ya', but should we really embrace a rule system (as is current) that is dangerous for the other 85-90% of the flying that we do?

they could of made reference to the naps. Lots of airlines have them. By shortening the 'duty day' to 12 hours... the company will keep the naps... they will just be less rest. Ironic that a law to give people more rest will actually give us less rest. Could of been an easy fix, such as 4 flight hours and under means you can schedule to 13 instead of 12 hours.

also... naps are real senior now... for the most part, nobody gets them that doesnt want them...

 

[JoeMerchant]

If you like the naps, good on ya', but should we really embrace a rule system (as is current) that is dangerous for the other 85-90% of the flying that we do?

1. An exception could be made for naps...As the rule is now, only the really bad naps will be legal...Doesn't make much sense to me.

2. The other 85-90% will still have "rest issues"...This doesn't change it. A 9 hour overnight with a 430 duty in will still result in me being tired...nothing really changes.

3. This will result in fewer 3 day trips and more inefficient 4 day trips..especially on the 50.

4. The current system isn't "dangerous". Statistics prove that. My drive to the ATL airport is statistically more dangerous than the worst trip you can come up with.

 

[JoeMerchant]

they could of made reference to the naps. Lots of airlines have them. By shortening the 'duty day' to 12 hours... the company will keep the naps... they will just be less rest. Ironic that a law to give people more rest will actually give us less rest. Could of been an easy fix, such as 4 flight hours and under means you can schedule to 13 instead of 12 hours.

also... naps are real senior now... for the most part, nobody gets them that doesnt want them...

Exactly...This was very predictable.....

 

[Pasturepilot]

As I understand, the "RULES" are proposals at this point and are open for comment. I'd say it's time we write some letters...

 

[79%N1]

Isn't the rest between duty periods? If you are on Continuous Duty, and stay within the duty hour limit, won't naps be OK?

 

[JoeMerchant]

Isn't the rest between duty periods? If you are on Continuous Duty, and stay within the duty hour limit, won't naps be OK?

The duty time depends on the duty in time...Naps duty in late in the day and have a reduced duty time. The naps that have 5 hours on the ground will still work...The ones with 8 hours on the ground won't work anymore...

 

[OCP]

1. An exception could be made for naps...As the rule is now, only the really bad naps will be legal...Doesn't make much sense to me.

2. The other 85-90% will still have "rest issues"...This doesn't change it. A 9 hour overnight with a 430 duty in will still result in me being tired...nothing really changes.

3. This will result in fewer 3 day trips and more inefficient 4 day trips..especially on the 50.

4. The current system isn't "dangerous". Statistics prove that. My drive to the ATL airport is statistically more dangerous than the worst trip you can come up with.

This MIGHT limit some 3 days, but really I've done, (back when we had any), 3 days that had the first night 17hrs and the 2nd night around 10hrs. Still was like a 90 hr month.
The 4 days don't have to change at all. Most have over 9 hrs of rest because that is the current min. So why would they be any more inefficient? They will probably need 10 hr min over night to have a buffer in case something goes wrong.
This does help protect the reserve who gets put on a 8:05 "overnight" with the rest of the crew, (who is on a nap) then gets a 4 day tacked on the next morning.

 

[JoeMerchant]

This MIGHT limit some 3 days, but really I've done, (back when we had any), 3 days that had the first night 17hrs and the 2nd night around 10hrs. Still was like a 90 hr month.
The 4 days don't have to change at all. Most have over 9 hrs of rest because that is the current min. So why would they be any more inefficient? They will probably need 10 hr min over night to have a buffer in case something goes wrong.
This does help protect the reserve who gets put on a 8:05 "overnight" with the rest of the crew, (who is on a nap) then gets a 4 day tacked on the next morning.

It's gotten harder to build 3 days on the 50 for several reasons. Much shorter legs, fewer "banks", and duty time limits in the contract have made it tougher. This will kill some of the ones we still have. I had 2 last month and 1 this month that won't comply.

By "inneficient 4 day", I meant many of the really efficient 3 days will now become inneficient 4 days....followed by pilots bitching about the number of 4 days...

 

[PCL_128]

Joey, I think you're missing something in the NPRM. The max flight duty period for naps is extendable by 1/2 of the amount of time provided in an adequate crew rest facility, basically defined as a decent hotel room, up to a maximum of 12 hours. So, if your max flight duty period on the chart is 9 hours for your report time for the nap, but you get 7 hours at the hotel, then your max duty day is 12 hours, not just 9. Unless you're doing long legs on your naps, then the company should easily be able to fit all naps within 12 hours of duty. Hell, most of our naps come in at around 10 hours of duty.

 

[enuffalready]

Joey, I think you're missing something in the NPRM. The max flight duty period for naps is extendable by 1/2 of the amount of time provided in an adequate crew rest facility, basically defined as a decent hotel room, up to a maximum of 12 hours. So, if your max flight duty period on the chart is 9 hours for your report time for the nap, but you get 7 hours at the hotel, then your max duty day is 12 hours, not just 9. Unless you're doing long legs on your naps, then the company should easily be able to fit all naps within 12 hours of duty. Hell, most of our naps come in at around 10 hours of duty.

tbe true good naps... on the 50.. all have 12+ hour duty day.... duty in at 715pm...duty out at 745am... 8h 45m on the ground... the company will keep the naps... again, just shorten the rest period.. .. easy fix would be... 2 legs and <= 4.30 total block time and you can schedule to 13 hours. that last sentence alone would make all the difference in the world and not effect the other 85-90% of flying..

 

[Raskal]

Bottom line is the RAA says they like the new rules, that only means we get screwed. Again.