Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UPS Pilots Suing FAA. Don't Want To Fly Tired.  
User currently offlinemurchmo From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 166 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8279 times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...cs/2017071505_apustiredpilots.html

Didn't see this posted and think It merits its own discussion. Either way I was surprised as I assumed the new regulations would include cargo ops.


"The FAA has said forcing cargo carriers to reduce the number of hours their pilots can fly would be too costly when compared with the safety benefits. Imposing the rules on cargo airlines like Federal Express or UPS would have added another $214 million to the cost, FAA officials said."

I've been taught to think critically. This just kind of makes the FAA look dumb. imHo.


$$$

[Edited 2011-12-23 04:29:32]


to strive to seek to find and not to yield
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8079 times:

Quoting murchmo (Thread starter):
I've been taught to think critically. This just kind of makes the FAA look dumb. imHo.

If that is true, you might want to read

FAA Pilot Fatigue Rules To Be Announced 12/21/11 (by HAL Dec 20 2011 in Civil Aviation)

In case it doesn't come through, I'm talking about reply 54 specifically.

It's a glimpse as to how those making the other side of the argument (not necessarily Tom himself) look at the situation.

After reading it, I'm torn. My emotional side says a life is a life is a life, and that's what I will go with, but my logical side has a hard time ignoring the statistics of it all.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinemurchmo From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7986 times:

Revelation, I know what you mean. I read the discussion and that post. This is not an easy discussion.

[Edited 2011-12-23 06:41:10]


to strive to seek to find and not to yield
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7889 times:

We're on the same wavelength.

Personally, I don't see why we can't pay a few cents more per package, or see more stuff go by ground or ship, or see some profit target missed so we can have a safer air cargo industry.

The largest US freight carriers are impacted equally by this and also are in the ground business too so I don't see why they fight tooth and nail over such things.

The industry has a lot of sheltering from foreign competition so I feel they should be held to a higher standard. The current work rules just don't pass muster now that airlines routinely schedule up to the limits, so they need to be changed.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinewingnutmn From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 632 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7845 times:

Basically what the FAA has said is that packages are not as important as people. Its OK for a cargo pilot to be fautiged, and if we lose a couple cargo planes in the process, we are still saving 214 million dollars. How will the FAA c.y.a. if we lose a cargo plane in a large city that kills many on the ground, and fact find number one is pilots that were fautiged. The bigger joke here is the line about how the FAA want cargo carriers to opt in volintarily. They just lobbied the hell out of you to stay out of these new rules!

Wingnut



Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7812 times:

Quoting wingnutmn (Reply 4):
Its OK for a cargo pilot to be fautiged, and if we lose a couple cargo planes in the process, we are still saving 214 million dollars. How will the FAA c.y.a. if we lose a cargo plane in a large city that kills many on the ground, and fact find number one is pilots that were fautiged.

Indeed if that happens things will change. However as Tom pointed out, it's not at all likely, statistically. However I'd rather err on the side of caution and reason, and to me the current limits as currently being applied are not reasonable.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineck8msp From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7589 times:

If the Colgan crash had been a cargo feeder do you think we would even be looking at these new rules?

User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21098 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7525 times:

Quoting wingnutmn (Reply 4):
How will the FAA c.y.a. if we lose a cargo plane in a large city that kills many on the ground, and fact find number one is pilots that were fautiged.

Do what they always do: blame the pilots for flying when they were fatigued.

Quoting ck8msp (Reply 6):
If the Colgan crash had been a cargo feeder do you think we would even be looking at these new rules?

Not a chance.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7525 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
Indeed if that happens things will change. However as Tom pointed out, it's not at all likely, statistically.

If they looked at a difference in time space when pax and cargo carriers operate their number may work, who knows they may have done so. Pax and cargo carriers share the same airspace more so than major airports, so certainely a fatigued cargo pilot can wreck havoc if flying in "prime time", if out-side of "primt time" the risk numbers go down.


User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 467 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 7501 times:

I'm confused. What difference does it make to safety upfront if the plane's is carrying passengers or cargo? That seems irrelevant to me. That's like saying "it's okay to drive tired or drunk, I'm a courier!".

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7310 times:

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 9):
What difference does it make to safety upfront if the plane's is carrying passengers or cargo?

Speaking statistically, if you assign X to the cost of a life, then the economic impact of cargo plane crashing is probably 2X or so whereas a pax plane is probably 150X or more. Unfortunately that is the way FAA looks at it. The claim is made they are forced by regulation to look at it this way, although I'm not sure that's what the law mandates. To me it sounds like a convenient formalism that benefits the industry.

Also, losses on the ground are not statistically expected to be high. Statistically, most planes crash into unpopulated or lightly populated terrain.

As above, I don't think these rules should be made on the basis of raw statistics alone! I think the current rules aren't reasonable for cargo carriers, given how the airlines frequently schedule right up to the limits for days on end. I think the current rules need to change.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinejetblast From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1231 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7252 times:

Quoting ck8msp (Reply 6):
If the Colgan crash had been a cargo feeder do you think we would even be looking at these new rules?

If it was a feeder I doubt we would have even heard about it on the news, much less had the FAA carrying out industry-changing investigations.

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 9):
That's like saying "it's okay to drive tired or drunk, I'm a courier!".


Agreed 100%.



Speedbird Concorde One
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8204 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7236 times:

Plenty of people die in work related accidents each year. Many of them are people without even 1/10th of the lifestyle and safety protections enjoyed by the people concerned above. Perfect safety would be good, but I have a hunch safety is not the motivation; building ranks of dues payers is.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7210 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):
The claim is made they are forced by regulation to look at it this way, although I'm not sure that's what the law mandates.

I think the law is vaguer on exactly what is required; I don't think you could show that they're forced to do it this way. However, they absolutely do do it this way and have been doing it that way for a very long time. They have to do something like it or else you'd find them regulating multi-billion dollar fixes to save a single life.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):
To me it sounds like a convenient formalism that benefits the industry.

It benefits passengers too...if all possible safety improvements that the NTSB popped out of every investigation were regulated into law, most of us couldn't afford to fly and the industry would be a tiny fraction of what it is. You have to have some way to decide what makes sense and what doesn't.

Tom.


User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3432 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7143 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

There is an existing thread on "Pilot Fatigue Rules" open for discussion. Please make use of the existing thread, which can be found here: FAA Pilot Fatigue Rules To Be Announced 12/21/11.

This thread will be locked for further contributions. Please note that posts added, after the thread lock, will be removed for housekeeping purposes only.

Rgds

SA7700



When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Airplane That Just Doesn't Want To Fly Again.. posted Wed Apr 21 2010 20:18:23 by boeing727
Want To Fly A Convair 580? Go To The Solomon Islands posted Fri Jul 10 2009 00:18:00 by SIBILLE
So Who'd Want To Fly From Stansted To Nellis AFB? posted Mon Feb 4 2008 15:47:39 by Oly720man
I Want To Fly On A Widebody posted Wed Nov 21 2007 19:10:34 by Missourifarmer
You May Just Want To Fly SU Next Time posted Wed Mar 14 2007 06:07:04 by Hjulicher
Missing UA Mileage Credit - Don't Want To Send BP posted Tue Nov 21 2006 18:53:12 by Birdwatching
I Want To Fly For Air France posted Tue Jul 18 2006 01:05:52 by ORDTerminal1
I Want To Fly On A DC-10. Is It Possible? posted Thu May 4 2006 03:46:31 by Alfa75
I Want To Fly On A DC9 posted Sat Feb 4 2006 00:42:48 by Birdwatching
What To Do If You Don't Want To Pay For Headphones posted Tue Jul 26 2005 04:53:51 by C172