Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules  
User currently offlineJetBlueGuy2006 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1652 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5251 times:

I didn't see this posted yet, so if it is, Mods, feel free to delete.

The FAA will reopen the cargo pilot fatigue rules. If you remember, when the FAA revised the fatigue rules, it only applied to passenger carriers.

Quote:
The Federal Aviation Administration will revisit a decision to exempt cargo airlines from new rules to prevent pilot fatigue, saying it made "errors" in cost calculations used to justify the exemption.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...d=f1588655f9754beba4a6eb370224d28b

I do find it intereting the the DOJ would represent the FAA versus their own lawyers or lawyers from the DOT.

[Edited 2012-05-19 06:08:07]


Home Airport: Capital Region International Airport (KLAN)
50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3392 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5238 times:

I think it was and is outrageous that they were exempted.

They fly cargo, so the same fatiguing activities of those that fly people need not apply?

How about the fact that they are still on short final with a "Heavy" jet over your house?

Or they are 5 miles in front of or 5 miles behing my airplane loaded with passengers?


It goes to show how much lobbying effects the outcome of all of these "safety" decisions. And sadly, how corrupt it all is.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8943 posts, RR: 40
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5182 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 1):
It goes to show how much lobbying effects the outcome of all of these "safety" decisions. And sadly, how corrupt it all is.

Let's take the other side for a minute. . .


Cargo pilots obviously do not have as many lives in their hands as pax pilots. They fly hundreds of pax AND fly over your house.

So yes, it goes to show how much lobbying influences the process and how corrupt it all is. It's impossible to come up with a regulation that actually takes these common-sense things into account.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1520 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5143 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 2):
Cargo pilots obviously do not have as many lives in their hands as pax pilots. They fly hundreds of pax AND fly over your house.

So what. The regulatory and labor sides of the airline house have been preaching one level of safety for years. The FAA missed on this deal and it's a good thing the rules are being revisited.

Regs aren't there JUST for passenger / public safety. They are also there for airline and aircrew safety. This was a huge hole that was left due to pressure exerted from airline management.

FAA: Federally Aiding Airlines


User currently offlineGoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2683 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4970 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 2):
Cargo pilots obviously do not have as many lives in their hands as pax pilots. They fly hundreds of pax AND fly over your house.

And if a cargo plane winds up doing a Tenerife into a plane YOU'RE sitting in, are you going to care what was in their airplane and require them to get less rest because of it???


User currently offlinetribird1011 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 208 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4956 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 2):
Cargo pilots obviously do not have as many lives in their hands as pax pilots. They fly hundreds of pax AND fly over your house

True, but somewhat irrelevant.

Put it this way, you have 2 747-400's in line for take-off (one pax, one cargo). Let's say the routing is SEA-FRA, on very similar flight plans. (let's ignore the fact that the cargo bird may or may not have the range for this route). If these 2 aircraft take off one after the other, why would the cargo pilots be any less fatigued than the pax pilots?

The point being, from a fatigue point of view, once you close the cockpit door, whatever is behind it is pretty much irrelevant.


User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1551 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4950 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 2):
Cargo pilots obviously do not have as many lives in their hands as pax pilots. They fly hundreds of pax AND fly over your house.

Wow..seriously? So if a cargo 747 plows into a suburban neighborhood because the pilots were fatigued, due the lack of rest rules they have, that's ok because they are not responsible for as many passengers? Hate to break it to you, the cargo planes that fly every day, also fly over YOUR house and are also responsible for the lives around their plane!

But hey, truck drivers don't have any lives in their hands, why do they have rest rules???



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8943 posts, RR: 40
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4942 times:

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 3):
The regulatory and labor sides of the airline house have been preaching one level of safety for years.

So what?

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 3):
This was a huge hole that was left due to pressure exerted from airline management.

The risks are just not the same.

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 4):
And if a cargo plane winds up doing a Tenerife into a plane YOU'RE sitting in, are you going to care what was in their airplane and require them to get less rest because of it???

Highly unlikely.

You both are pilots, so it's obvious you will lobby for your own self-interests. And you will also try to paint your self interest as everybody's self interest. It's to be expected, and normal. Same story with the airlines.

Bottom line is, we need both safety and productivity. And no matter how many times you scream SAFETY or "Tenerife into a plane YOU'RE sitting in", it will never, ever change this very simple fact.

[Edited 2012-05-19 10:28:17]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8943 posts, RR: 40
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4938 times:

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 5):

I never said fatigue would be different.

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 6):
Wow..seriously? So if a cargo 747 plows into a suburban neighborhood because the pilots were fatigued, due the lack of rest rules they have, that's ok because they are not responsible for as many passengers? Hate to break it to you, the cargo planes that fly every day, also fly over YOUR house and are also responsible for the lives around their plane!

Hate to break it to you, but you're not thinking this through.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1551 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4918 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 8):
Hate to break it to you, but you're not thinking this through.

How am I not thinking this through?

you said...

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 2):
Cargo pilots obviously do not have as many lives in their hands as pax pilots. They fly hundreds of pax AND fly over your house.

I'm saying that so what if the plane has passengers or boxes in the back? If a 747 crashes due to fatigue in a major city, BECAUSE the new rest rules do not apply to them, then essentially the outcome will be the same, a disaster! I don't agree with your logic at all!

I don't know if you are thinking this through entirely. Even if we forget about the large cargo carriers and focus on the small ones, the guys who fly caravans and metroliners, single pilot at night, they are the ones who need these rules the most. It's generally the smaller companies that will push these pilots to their limits to get the job done and this is where the new rest rules will have the greatest benefit.



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4915 times:

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 3):
Regs aren't there JUST for passenger / public safety. They are also there for airline and aircrew safety.

   Airlines aren't going to want to give their crews any more rest than they have to. And if the current rest rules are insufficient (and anyone in the business knows that they are), they need to be altered. Otherwise, the airlines will offer the pilots the choice of doing something that isn't safe or finding another job. Which is unacceptable.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8943 posts, RR: 40
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4904 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 9):

I never said fatigue would be different. I am saying that because the risks are different, it's logical that the rules are different.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10):
Quoting DashTrash (Reply 3):
Regs aren't there JUST for passenger / public safety. They are also there for airline and aircrew safety.

   Airlines aren't going to want to give their crews any more rest than they have to. And if the current rest rules are insufficient (and anyone in the business knows that they are), they need to be altered. Otherwise, the airlines will offer the pilots the choice of doing something that isn't safe or finding another job. Which is unacceptable.

What about military aircraft and crew? From what I understand, the military doesn't go through the same regulations civilians do.

Does that mean people in the military aren't worth as much as civilians? They don't deserve the same levels of safety? The government doesn't care about them? Their jets do crash into neighborhoods, too. And they could go Tenerife on you too!

And as for the rules being sufficient, remember that accidents are at an all-time low. And no, just because one happens where fatigue MAY be a contributing cause does not mean you need to revamp the rules for everybody.

[Edited 2012-05-19 10:51:08]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1551 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4899 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 11):
I never said fatigue would be different. I am saying that because the risks are different, it's logical that the rules are different.

I still fail to see how the risks are different? You keep arguing that fatigue is different, but the precise rest rules that we are discussing are their to reduce fatigue. By your argument, cargo pilots should not have the same rest rules, just because they don't have passengers in the back? Yet they fly the same airplane, into the same airport, under the same conditions that the passenger pilots fly into? Your logic just does not make sense at all!



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4874 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 11):
From what I understand, the military doesn't go through the same regulations civilians do.

The military has their own rules, yes. That doesn't mean that they are more lax. I'm sure some of them are, but I'm sure that some of them are stricter. I can't comment on which are which, so unless you can, it's not really worth discussing.

Though I will say this about the military: they've got a different outlook on mission completion than civilian carriers do. So yes, when the chips are down and something HAS to get done, the military may well make its pilots fly some incredibly long hours. But they're in the national security business, and no package is that important.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 11):

And as for the rules being sufficient, remember that accidents are at an all-time low.

If you make rules based on accidents, you'll do a very bad job of it. Current thinking is to look at incidents where an accident was possible but averted to see what things need to be changed. And ask anyone who flies for the airlines and you'll hear that the current fatigue rules are an unacceptable degradation of safety.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7197 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4843 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's like a giant mancave in the cockpit and rest area of a cargo plane. They can rack out whenever.   

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 7):
The risks are just not the same.

Risk maybe, liability no.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4834 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 2):
Cargo pilots obviously do not have as many lives in their hands as pax pilots. They fly hundreds of pax AND fly over your house.

How in the world does the number of passengers on the plane matter? How can it be acceptable to take more risks if you pilot a 737 than a A380?

While I have not been able to discuss it with my house I'm confident it would, if it could, bitch just as much after being hit by a freighter as a passenger plane.


User currently offlinefxra From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 705 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4834 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 11):
I never said fatigue would be different. I am saying that because the risks are different, it's logical that the rules are different.

At what point do you draw the line? Do you cargo operators to work out of a different MEL completely (Who needs all engines all the time)? Or except them from certain weather minimums (disregard that crosswind limit and just plow in through the hurricane)?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 7):
Quoting DashTrash (Reply 3):
The regulatory and labor sides of the airline house have been preaching one level of safety for years.

So what?

I think the point here is the hypocrisy of the FAA and corruption of the government in general. If you preach "one level of safety for all" then go and except all the cargo carriers because they have more money to throw at lobbyists, that's just telling me safety at all costs, unless it hurts the bottom line too much.



Visualize Whirled Peas
User currently offlinefxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7197 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4824 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fxra (Reply 16):
I think the point here is the hypocrisy of the FAA and corruption of the government in general. If you preach "one level of safety for all" then go and except all the cargo carriers because they have more money to throw at lobbyists, that's just telling me safety at all costs, unless it hurts the bottom line too much.

Well said.

One group of lobbyists is making a lot more money than the other.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19419 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4806 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 2):
Cargo pilots obviously do not have as many lives in their hands as pax pilots. They fly hundreds of pax AND fly over your house.

Until they crash into a passenger jet. Or a stadium. Or a high school.

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):
The military has their own rules, yes. That doesn't mean that they are more lax. I'm sure some of them are, but I'm sure that some of them are stricter. I can't comment on which are which, so unless you can, it's not really worth discussing.

The military also provides their pilots with modafinil* to enhance alertness and wakefulness during long runs and sedatives (typically zolpidem or zaleplon) to allow them to sleep.

Can you imagine an airline doing this?

*used to be amphetamines, either dextroamphetamine or mixed amphetamine salts, but modafinil has a more favorable side-effect profile


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4797 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
Can you imagine an airline doing this?

Don't give them any ideas.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineGoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2683 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4793 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 7):
Highly unlikely.

Nobody cares how unlikely you think it is.

That's not what we're discussing!

A crash is unlikely to begin with.

This topic revolves around increasing safety.

Any crash related to fatigue was unlikely -- but if it was partly to blame for the accident then it needs to be fixed.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8943 posts, RR: 40
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4791 times:

Quoting fxra (Reply 16):
At what point do you draw the line? Do you cargo operators to work out of a different MEL completely (Who needs all engines all the time)? Or except them from certain weather minimums (disregard that crosswind limit and just plow in through the hurricane)?

The BA 747 pilot who flew from California all the way to LHR on 3 engines thought it was no big deal. Others weren't too amused, though I tend to lean towards the BA captain. If two professionals on board a 747F make the same decision, well, I care even less for it. There would also never have been such a huge public outcry.

When we have threads discussing single-pilot operations, the discussion tends to lean towards that freighters would be a very good first use of this technology.

The reason for all of the above is straightforward: there are no pax in the back.

Quoting fxra (Reply 16):
I think the point here is the hypocrisy of the FAA and corruption of the government in general. If you preach "one level of safety for all" then go and except all the cargo carriers because they have more money to throw at lobbyists, that's just telling me safety at all costs, unless it hurts the bottom line too much.

For this rule to be reopened, somebody had to lobby the FAA. Sorry, but money is an overused scapegoat.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinetb727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1577 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4777 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 6):
But hey, truck drivers don't have any lives in their hands, why do they have rest rules???

Thank you! I'm so happy to see this being revisited. What a bummer when they initially said we were exempt.



Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4915 posts, RR: 43
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4772 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 2):
Cargo pilots obviously do not have as many lives in their hands as pax pilots. They fly hundreds of pax AND fly over your house.

How about two B747s leaving JFK for LHR. One is a freighter, full of revenue cargo, the other is an empty passenger aircraft being ferried back to a maintenance base. Both aircraft have only aircrew on board, but you are saying the empty aircraft should be held under stricter fatigue rules than the revenue cargo aircraft???

How about two B747s, both passenger ... one had only 100 passengers the other 515 passengers. Because there is greater liability in the one carrying more passengers should that one be held under stricter rules???

Of course not! ... That is why the rules should be the same in any air carrier operation, regardless of what is placed behind the cockpit door!

As air accident and incident investigation become more and more refined, and as aircraft become more reliable, two trends have been appearing over the last two decades. That is, by percentage, the number of "pilot error" accidents has been increasing ... and the greatest cause of "pilot error" accidents, is fatigue! So just like every other factor in accidents that gets "solved' so must this one.

I have always maintained that if the law allowed, airlines would make pilots fly 24 hours a day. So while these rules protect the passengers, and revenue cargo, and the airlines reputation, etc etc etc ... they are also there to protect the air crew.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4671 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 11):
I am saying that because the risks are different, it's logical that the rules are different.

There are two rules that are different: Crew rest and Dangerous Goods. All other requirements (training, MX, etc..) are the same.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
25 fxra : As I recall, they didn't make it and had to pull up short, MAN i think. At least they made it to land The problem with the the 2 professionals making
26 Post contains images par13del : The difference is money not risk, folks mix the two up to hide the money issue. If the risk are the same and the pilots are held to the same rules of
27 PPVRA : Should we allow dangerous goods on pax airliners? I am not arguing in favor of pilots flying sleep-deprived. I am arguing that the strict standards d
28 cmf : You're right. A lot of people do not understand. This is not a money issue. It is not more acceptable to kill one person than 10. It is not acceptabl
29 Maverick623 : Dangerous Goods are allowed on passenger airliners. There are many different types, some of which are prohibited on airplanes altogether, and some of
30 kalvado : OK, there is a price tag on human life - and it does affect how much is being spent on safety. Your life is worth $10 million, next please. It is per
31 cbphoto : I agree, this desperately needed to be revisited! I was truly disgusted to find out the 121 regional I fly for does not get included in the new rest
32 kalvado : $10M each, plane is more expensive than both of you on flight deck together. Because his mistake would statistically cost much more than yours. It's
33 KAUSpilot : I'm sorry but I have to say something about this. You do realize they almost ran out of fuel, right? They had to declare an emergency and divert to M
34 DocLightning : I don't have to. If the FAA allowed it today, they'd implement it tomorrow (or sooner!).
35 gemuser : They did not "almost run out of fuel". They diverted to MAN to ensure they didn't, but as it turned out they didn't have to and had sufficient fuel t
36 Mir : No need for protection - that's very logical. But the aviation industry is hardly the only one to pay those who work the hardest the least. The two a
37 KAUSpilot : A few questions for you: How much flight time do you have in the 747? Do you know how much fuel BA268 landed with in tons? Do you have any idea how t
38 gemuser : Thank you. I read air safety reports and regulations. The fact that the CAA report was ONLY concerned about the fuel management situation is my bases
39 KAUSpilot : One should't just separate those issues as if they're unrelated. Fuel management is one of the reasons why one doesn't simply fly 10 hours after an e
40 tribird1011 : Actually, my understanding of it is that they were unrelated. I believe towards the end of the flight a fuel pump become inoperative, resulting in th
41 Mir : Considering the impact of subsequent failures is part of good decision-making. When a level of redundancy is lost, one's operating parameters need to
42 Post contains images BE77 : This is generally the basis of different rules for different sized transportation companies worldwide - a fishing guide in a bass boat is working und
43 Post contains links KAUSpilot : As convenient as that might've been in explaining their fuel problems, I'm sorry to say it isn't true. There is no mention whatsover of any fuel syst
44 Post contains images par13del : Ahh the kicker, we are now saying that if he has fatigue due to working hours rules and regulations its a personal mistake, not structural. Begining
45 longhauler : There is quite a difference between Carnival Cruises, and a 16 foot bass boat with a 40 horse Johnson. That is why a Cessna 172 carrying sightseers o
46 longhauler : It goes back to the old adage ... "It is better to be paid for what you know, rather than for what you do". It is like an emergency appendectomy. In
47 kalvado : There is a certain level of complication you can have, it may cost too much to run a cost-benefit analysis every time for every flight. Lets' take th
48 longhauler : The job is virtually the same whether you are carrying freight or passengers. I suppose therefore, that some people are arguing it is acceptable to b
49 kalvado : Well,another extreme - do you think Air Force 1 is operated under same duty requirements as regular pax 747? Job is virtually the same though.
50 cbphoto : No..it's not! Air Force one does not operate under Part 121 rules, where as Large Cargo operators and Pax airlines do! AF1 and cargo pilots are not e
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...
FAA To Punish Pilot Who Violated Capital Airspace posted Sun May 15 2005 02:39:02 by TACAA320
FAA To Annouce New Carry On Rules posted Tue Oct 9 2001 00:00:20 by Spinkid
CVG To Reopen Concourse A May 15 posted Fri May 4 2012 20:44:06 by PHX787
What Has Happened To SQ Cargo Business? posted Thu May 3 2012 17:41:01 by 747400sp
Washington Dulles Aims To Become Cargo Hub posted Sun Apr 15 2012 08:14:33 by washingtonian
FAA To Rethink Electronics Use Below 10K posted Tue Mar 20 2012 15:24:32 by airtechy
ANA Wants The 737MAX To Carry Cargo Container posted Tue Mar 6 2012 04:26:37 by rheinwaldner
FAA Proposes Higher Co-pilot Qualifications posted Tue Feb 28 2012 07:24:40 by indiansbucs
What Happed To JAL Cargo 747 400F? posted Fri Oct 14 2011 11:13:26 by 747400sp
AA To Close SFO Pilot Base posted Thu Oct 13 2011 09:12:52 by CODC10