Inhofe offers two amendments to faa reauthorization

[dontpost2]

It shouldn't be ABOUT YOU. Or your paycheck. What it right is right. This is the first time a scientifically based rest plan has been on the table. If it doesn't work then a change can be made, but if it doesn't pass this time it will be years or decades before it is considered again. If you have/get a trip rig then the paycheck will take care of itself. The increased cost will be equally passed on to the customers just as an increase in fuel.

Very well said. Excellent post.

 

[atpcliff]

The new Flt/Duty/Rest rules are VERY similar to the current CAA rules. Europe, and other CAA areas, have been using rules similar to our new ones for years.

 

[skypine69]

If you complain about the rest rules taking money out of your pockets then you are putting a price on safety....the same thing we get pissed at companies for doing.

 

[txpilottj]

It shouldn't be ABOUT YOU. Or your paycheck. What it right is right. This is the first time a scientifically based rest plan has been on the table. If it doesn't work then a change can be made, but if it doesn't pass this time it will be years or decades before it is considered again. If you have/get a trip rig then the paycheck will take care of itself. The increased cost will be equally passed on to the customers just as an increase in fuel.

No...it's not about me. I'm simply using examples to point out what the effects are going to be. We are ALL going to take it in the shorts. I'm concerned for ALL OF US cargo guys because I think this is the wrong way to go.

We do a different job than the passenger carriers. Our operation is completely different. Why should we be forced to accept rules designed in a knee-jerk reaction to a problem caused by people doing a different job?

Perhaps there was some science applied, but it was applied by people with a reactive agenda to one or two egregious situations....NOT the industry as a whole.

You say right is right...OK...explain to me why we need rules built this way? Explain why we shouldn't have rules tailored to protect us, but that also account for the differences in what we do? Right is right...tell me what's right about the current proposal, because I don't see much for us. There's plenty for the RJ crowd that started this mess in the first place, and rightfully so.

We DO need changes...I AGREE with that. I don't agree with THESE changes. And you're right...once this lands in our lap...its NOT going to change for a long time, whether it fits us or not. I want change, but I don't want the wrong changes.

Finally....trip/duty rig? Not everyone has that option available.....sucks, but it's a fact of life. After the beating our profession has taken since 9/11...do you still have that much faith in collective bargaining? Really?

 

[txpilottj]

If it has gone too far and needs to be adjusted, then they need to adjust it for all. Your body doesn't care what is in the back, what certificate you're on or what part your flying under. Pilots should be given proper rest using science, not money as a guideline.

If there was an exemption, do you really think they'd spend the time and money to figure out new rules for the cargo operations or do you think they'd just get the exemption and forget about it?

Cargo is getting the rest because the passenger carriers are getting it. No one cares about a couple of pilots sleeping their way into the ground with a load of Shrek dolls and Amazon orders. The move to make a change in the rest rules came about because they are afraid of riding a plane helplessly into the ground while their pilots are asleep.

Furthermore, trying to fragment our industry out is a bad, bad idea and a slippery slope that we should have learned our lessons from 10 times over by now.

Tell me why rules designed for us, that account for our needs AS WELL AS our safety are a bad idea? Come on.....let's get real. Yes a 12 hr nonstop is fatiguing....yes there should be adequate rest on the end of it. There's no question about that.

But....I say a 12 hr day in an RJ flying 5 or 6 approaches with no chance for rest and minimal time to eat is VERY DIFFERENT from 12 hrs in a 747-400 or MD-11 with an augmented crew, decent bunks and decent meals aboard. I've done BOTH....so I do have some room to comment here.

As I said previously, sure, some science was applied, but it was applied by people shooting at a different target. Just because someone waves a wand and declares it scientific doesn't mean it's right.

 

[dash8driver]

Tell me why rules designed for us, that account for our needs AS WELL AS our safety are a bad idea? Come on.....let's get real. Yes a 12 hr nonstop is fatiguing....yes there should be adequate rest on the end of it. There's no question about that.

But....I say a 12 hr day in an RJ flying 5 or 6 approaches with no chance for rest and minimal time to eat is VERY DIFFERENT from 12 hrs in a 747-400 or MD-11 with an augmented crew, decent bunks and decent meals aboard. I've done BOTH....so I do have some room to comment here.

As I said previously, sure, some science was applied, but it was applied by people shooting at a different target. Just because someone waves a wand and declares it scientific doesn't mean it's right.

You didn't even read what I wrote...

 

[pilotyip]

The same pay for less work.

how does that work, right now most of our pilots break guar, with the new rules they won't be able to as easily, so how to they make the same pay? Not to mention more days on the road in hotels

 

[dontpost2]

What is up with my fellow cargo guys here? For the life of me I cannot figure out why some think these rules shouldn't apply to supplemental carriers and were designed as a "knee jerk" reaction to problems at the passenger carriers. As professional pilots, fatigue is a problem for all of us. I believe cargo pilots will benefit more from this than anyone.
This isn't a problem specific to, and in reaction to, the Buffalo tragedy. This is a problem that started years ago with the crash of a supplemental cargo flight. Yes indeed, that would be Kalitta in Guantanamo. Incidentally, this was the first accident attributed to fatigue. Another crash around about that time attributed to fatigue was operated by another small supplemental by the name of ATI (Kansas City). This one is actually referenced in the NPRM were arguing about.
Some of you seem to be against it for the noble reason that it will hurt your paycheck or you might have to spend an extra day in a hotel. WTF?
Get off your butt and get a decent contract with the pay you deserve. Go for some duty rigs as well. How 'bout a provision to ferry the jet to a safe nearby island after dropping off the freight so I don't have to hear you whine about staying the extra day at the hotel in Lagos.
Spare me the bs about how the boss can't afford it, I just read about one operator who enjoyed a 102% increase in revenue and record profits last year. If you work for one of the smaller outfits the: we can't afford this crap wont work either. One small supplemental owner is building a luxury waterpark in Mcminnville OR. with a 747 on top.

 

[txpilottj]

You didn't even read what I wrote...

You didn't even answer my question.....

 

[stupidpilot]

I love this part of Inhofe's testimony:

A possible fourth incident report could be in the works: The FAA is looking into a landing that Inhofe made this month on a closed runway at the Port Isabel-Cameron County airport in Texas.

One of the key issues for the FAA is expected to be why Inhofe would land on a closed runway, where a crew had been working for several days, despite a Notice to Airmen, NOTAM for short, that the runway was closed.

Inhofe conceded that checking for a NOTAM about a closed runway "probably'' is "technically'' something a pilot should do.

"People who fly a lot just don't do it,'' he said.

Really? I've been flying for 20 years and I always check NOTAMS. I guess I don't fly a lot.

 

[Victor Meldrew]

The provision in Senator Inhofe’s amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Bill which would exempt supplemental carriers, operating under 121 subpart S, from proposed changes to flight, duty and rest regulations was withdrawn early this week.

 

[pilotman700]

Give us a new set of rules that fit what WE do, not some nitwits in an RJ or some turboprop.

Stay classy.

I guess you were a non-nitwit when you flew the SAAB and CRJ?

 

[pilotyip]

This isn't a problem specific to, and in reaction to, the Buffalo tragedy.

But these new rules would still have made that a legal flight. 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 nights of 11PM to 7AM flying 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. The biggest sham in Part 117, is no controlled napping ion 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.

 

[lionflyer]

how does that work, right now most of our pilots break guar, with the new rules they won't be able to as easily, so how to they make the same pay? Not to mention more days on the road in hotels

I'm refering to longhaul ops. The new rules would require more heavy or double crews for many flights especially night flights. Right now a single crew on a classic 747 can fly up to 12 hrs. That same flight under the proposed rules will require more crewmembers. All those crewmembers will get paid 12hrs but only operate for a portion of that and hit the bunk (or watch porn etc) for the other portion. Hence, the same pay for less "work". I'm for the new rules because I pesonally don't like flying over 70hrs/mo and I would like live a few years beyond 60. I know they're guys on here that will disagree with me because they like busting their butts and getting their 150hr credit and that's fine. I've done the brutal days and something needs to change. After about 13-14hrs on duty, you start going downhill quick.

 

[OrionFE]

I do believe that rules need to be changed. Companies should never be allowed to put a crew in a position where they have to "call fatigue". I also believe that Supplementals should not be stamped with the same cookie cutter as sheduled carriers.
However, with all due respect Lion, do you honestly think monthly pay guarantees will not be whittled down as a result. Even with today's (temporary, since the industry is cyclical) "hand-over-fist" income, how can companies afford to effectively double current staffing with their current revenue, yet continue to pay 60 to 70 hour guarantees, especially if crews are only allowed to fly maybe 40 hours under the new regulation?

You really need to look at the whole effect. This won't be a good deal for any of our paychecks.

On the bright side, we'll be well rested for our side jobs!

You hit the nail on the head! Next will be two to a room, because the hotels will be full with all the well rested crews that are flying <40 hours/month!