Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Long Day For Corporate Air (AA Connection) J32 Crew

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
I flew under part 125 hauling auto parts. We were on call 24/7 with no days off. I had months where i flew 180+ hours over a 30 day period, and some months where i flew 2 hours. under 125 all you need is 8hrs of rest in a 24 hour period. sometimes we would be up all day, crawl into bed at 10pm and the phone would ring, dispatch telling you that you are flying down to mexico city (4hr), after waiting for freight for (3hrs), you would fly to laredo to clear customs (2.5 hrs), then fly to norfolk (chesapeake bay) maybe another (4.5 hrs). plus misc. ground time (17 hours total)....then if you want a hotel room you have to fly to knoxville because jet fuel is cheaper and there are no hotel rooms near cheasapeake bay (another 2.0hrs). is it legal??? well you dropped the freight off, so now you are part 91.....i think you get the point....this sheeit happens, and it is legal.
keep in mind what the FAA/NTSB will say.


this is a very unfortuante accident and i pray for the families and the tired pilots out there.
 
16 hour duty is a FAR.

To change this rule will take an act of congress, literally....

It is all politics

How do you influence legislators to change the code?

ALPA-PAC......
 
Why am I not suprised they were maxing out on duty:

I think that fingers should be pointed at the FAA and the ATA for what is a blatant safety hazard. People ask me all the time what I believe is the most dangerous thing about the airlines. I do not hesitate to explain just how bad fatigue can be and how much we are pushed to the limit legally. If they walk away scared by this conversation, GOOD, cause this needs to be changed now.

There have been plenty of accidents where fatigue was a huge factor, but FOR CRYING OUT LOUD LOOK AT AA 1420 IN LITTLE ROCK! A chief pilot at the controls blasts into dogsh!t weather in order to get it in. What a coincidence they were pushing 16 hours of duty!?!

Shame on the FAA and greedy ATA for refusing to accept the reality that we can be too beaten down under the current system. Sometimes the possiblity of calling fatigue does not save the day, you need an altered limit. I have no fears about calling in fatigued but others might. My sympathies to the Corpex crew and victims. When you go 15 hours esp in the Jetstream you are beat period. Could of happened to any of us.

BTW, I back the PAC for reasons like this...
 
Are there funds set up for the crewmembers?

I'd like to help out here, just as I will with the PCL families.
 
nimtz said:
There have been plenty of accidents where fatigue was a huge factor, but FOR CRYING OUT LOUD LOOK AT AA 1420 IN LITTLE ROCK! A chief pilot at the controls blasts into dogsh!t weather in order to get it in. What a coincidence they were pushing 16 hours of duty!?!
Just for accuracy sake, the crew in AA1420 was pushing the 14 hour contractual duty limit, not the 16 hour FAA limit. The Board did cite fatigue as a factor in their performance.

NTSB Ops Chairman's Factual Report page 3 said:
"Flight 1420, the accident flight, was scheduled to depart DFW at 2028 as flight 1420. The airplane scheduled for use on the flight was delayed due to weather and according to the dispatcher of flight 1420, using the original airplane, would not allow the flightcrew to remain within the contractual crew duty day limit of 14 hours2. As a result, the accident airplane, N215AA, was substituted for flight 1420."







 
tin kicker said:
Just for accuracy sake, the crew in AA1420 was pushing the 14 hour contractual duty limit, not the 16 hour FAA limit. The Board did cite fatigue as a factor in their performance.

[/font][/left]
[/font]
And as I recall they didn't have the fuel to hold and let the weather pass, so the choice was divert and risk running past 16 hours. It was a sh!tty night all across the South without alot of options. That's quite a mess to have a full planeload of people at an outstation stuck for the night with no means to get them out of the airline's hair. Heady stuff to weighing in on without even considering whether or not you're fatigued.
 
jetexas said:
There was already another crash several years ago in LIT where they were trying to get in after an approx. 14 hour duty day. Absolutely nothing was done to change duty times then. I don't expect anything to be done now.
Those that make the rules don't face them. It's real easy to fly a desk, having never flown Part 121, and feel that a 14 hour duty day is perfectly O.K.

Yeah, but they were able to pin that one on the lack of recent experience on the part of the captain combined with a new FO.

Pilots don't need sleep anyway! How are airlines supposed to make money and remain solvent if their pilots can't stay awake for 27 hours a day?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom