JetBlueGuy2006
Topic Author
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:38 am

FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 1:07 pm

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)
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 3930
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 1:12 pm

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.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7864
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 1:40 pm

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
 
DashTrash
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:44 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 2:21 pm

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
 
goboeing
Posts: 2428
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 5:31 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 5:08 pm

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???
 
tribird1011
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:08 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 5:16 pm

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.
 
cbphoto
Posts: 1115
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:23 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 5:20 pm

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
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7864
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 5:22 pm

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
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7864
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 5:27 pm

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
 
cbphoto
Posts: 1115
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:23 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 5:38 pm

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
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 5:40 pm

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
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7864
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 5:49 pm

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
 
cbphoto
Posts: 1115
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:23 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 5:55 pm

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
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 6:04 pm

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 avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 6:33 pm

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.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 6:39 pm

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
fxra
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 1999 1:03 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 6:40 pm

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 avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 6:44 pm

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 7:04 pm

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
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 7:13 pm

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
 
goboeing
Posts: 2428
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 5:31 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 7:15 pm

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.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7864
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 7:20 pm

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
 
tb727
Posts: 1732
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:40 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 7:32 pm

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 avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 7:36 pm

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.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4632
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 10:05 pm

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
 
fxra
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 1999 1:03 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 10:51 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 21):
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.

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 a decision to continue on is that exhaustion and sleep deprivation is the same as being intoxicated. Thus, a pilot not properly rested is the same as the driver who says "I've only had a few, I can make it home." Most often they do, but they also have an increased risk of running down a family in a minivan.



Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 24):
There are two rules that are different: Crew rest and Dangerous Goods. All other requirements (training, MX, etc..) are the same.

Take the shipment of Lithium batteries, had UPS6 not narrowly missed the housing development (by the grace of God) and plowed through several living rooms do you think tighter restrictions on shipping these batteries would have been implemented?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 21):
For this rule to be reopened, somebody had to lobby the FAA. Sorry, but money is an overused scapegoat.

Actually the IPA sued the FAA in federal court, and errors in the cost-benefit analysis were found. No lobbyists involved. Yet.

[Edited 2012-05-19 15:54:13]
Visualize Whirled Peas
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6661
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 11:43 pm

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.
Quoting cmf (Reply 15):
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?

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 operation why exactly would an A380 / 748 / 747 / 777 pilot be paid so much more than an RJ or 737 / A30X pilot?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 11):

What about military aircraft and crew? From what I understand, the military doesn't go through the same regulations civilians do.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
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.

Military also has a lotta single seat a/c with ejection seats, much safer than pax jets, at least they get to bail out  
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7864
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sat May 19, 2012 11:57 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 24):
There are two rules that are different: Crew rest and Dangerous Goods. All other requirements (training, MX, etc..) are the same.

Should we allow dangerous goods on pax airliners?

Quoting fxra (Reply 25):
The problem with the the 2 professionals making a decision to continue on is that exhaustion and sleep deprivation is the same as being intoxicated. Thus, a pilot not properly rested is the same as the driver who says "I've only had a few, I can make it home." Most often they do, but they also have an increased risk of running down a family in a minivan.

I am not arguing in favor of pilots flying sleep-deprived. I am arguing that the strict standards don't have to be the same for pax-carrying airliners and cargo haulers, just as is the case with dangerous goods.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 12:31 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 26):
The difference is money not risk, folks mix the two up to hide the money issue.

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 acceptable to put a few people under risks you will not put many just because it will cost you less when something goes wrong.

[quote=par13del,reply=26why exactly would an A380 / 748 / 747 / 777 pilot be paid so much more than an RJ or 737 / A30X pilot? [/quote]

Donning my protective gear: The entire payment schedule for pilots is upside down. Airplane size isn't a good indicator of workload and skill required. Not that it will change.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4632
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 12:49 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 27):
Should we allow dangerous goods on pax airliners?

Dangerous Goods are allowed on passenger airliners. There are many different types, some of which are prohibited on airplanes altogether, and some of which are prohibited on passenger airplanes. Also, every airline has their own list of what they may or may not accept.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 27):
I am arguing that the strict standards don't have to be the same

If you think the current standard is strict... well, it's clear you've never had to fly on that standard.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
kalvado
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 12:58 am

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 12):
I still fail to see how the risks are different?
Quoting cmf (Reply 28):
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 acceptable to put a few people under risks you will not put many just because it will cost you less when something goes wrong.

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 perfectly acceptable not to put a rolling cage on normal cars. That probably costs life to few unlucky people - but it would cost too much $$$. Rolling cage is being put on race cars - because risk is higher, and that shifts cost-benefit.

Cost of crashing cargo plane vs pax plane:
airframe, $100M give or take, close for pax and cargo.
Loss of life for 2 pilots: $20M, same for pax and cargo
Casualties on the ground: $1 billion * 1% probability of hitting something important - $10M, same for pax and cargo
Payload: 747 fully loaded with iPads: 100 tons/1kg=100 000 units *500 =$50M cargo
Payload: 50 souls in RJ: 50*10 million=$500 million, more than a flock of 747F's loaded with expensive electronics.

Last line does affects cost-benefit analysis more than anything else.
 
cbphoto
Posts: 1115
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:23 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 1:19 am

Quoting tb727 (Reply 22):
Thank you! I'm so happy to see this being revisited. What a bummer when they initially said we were exempt..

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 rules! But that's for a different thread!

I trulyly hope the cargo guys/gals get these new rules!

Quoting kalvado (Reply 30):
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 perfectly acceptable not to put a rolling cage on normal cars. That probably costs life to few unlucky people - but it would cost too much $$$. Rolling cage is being put on race cars - because risk is higher, and that shifts cost-benefit.

Cost of crashing cargo plane vs pax plane:
airframe, $100M give or take, close for pax and cargo.
Loss of life for 2 pilots: $20M, same for pax and cargo
Casualties on the ground: $1 billion * 1% probability of hitting something important - $10M, same for pax and cargo
Payload: 747 fully loaded with iPads: 100 tons/1kg=100 000 units *500 =$50M cargo
Payload: 50 souls in RJ: 50*10 million=$500 million, more than a flock of 747F's loaded with expensive electronics.

Last line does affects cost-benefit analysis more than anything else.

I still don't understand your guys logic. Fine there is a price on human lives, I get that, but cargo operators operate the same planes, in the same conditions as the passenger planes. Why should they be exempt from the same rules? I hate to say it, but what is the price of my life, as a crew member on these cargo planes? Why should I have to work fatigued while a friend of mine who flies the same plane, in the pax world, gets better rest rules?
ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
 
kalvado
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 1:30 am

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 31):
but what is the price of my life, as a crew member on these cargo planes?

$10M each, plane is more expensive than both of you on flight deck together.

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 31):
Why should I have to work fatigued while a friend of mine who flies the same plane, in the pax world, gets better rest rules?

Because his mistake would statistically cost much more than yours.
It's not that anyone wants to push _you_ into mistakes - it's that _your friend_ may have some extra cushion against mistakes.
 
KAUSpilot
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:15 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 1:51 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 21):
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.

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 Manchester (largely because they were unable to manage the fuel properly). You're ok with that? Trying for London was a bad decision, plain and simple. Why would you overfly dozens of suitable airports, many of which with BA ops and plenty of maintenance after you just had a FIRE and engine shutdown on board your aircraft....hopefully you wouldn't. Diverting to Chicago or New York might not have even required a fuel jettison.

The pilots were probably goaded into the whole debacle by their dispatchers and maintenance department in London. It just goes to show that some airlines will sacrifice safety to a ridiculous degree when the prospect of saving a few dollars (pounds) exists. As pilots, sometimes we must make the difficult decision to "pull the plug" when no one else will, whether that be because of maintenance problems, weather, or yes, even excessive crew fatigue. This applies equally to passenger and cargo operations. Until "planemaker" replaces us all with robots, crews will continue to be faced with these decisions. It helps crews greatly when sensible regulations exist to dissuade the airlines from attempting foolish antics such as BA 268.

You might want to pick a different example in the future, BA 268 isn't a great demonstration of regulatory overreach; in fact it's probably a good case for stricter regulation.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 2:20 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 19):
Don't give them any ideas.

I don't have to. If the FAA allowed it today, they'd implement it tomorrow (or sooner!).
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 2:51 am

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 33):
You do realize they almost ran out of fuel, right?

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 to stay completely legal into LHR. It did show up a hole in BA's emergency training, which was immediately plugged. MAN is hardly a isolated airport, there were a number of others en-route.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 33):
Trying for London was a bad decision, plain and simple. Why would you overfly dozens of suitable airports, many of which with BA ops and plenty of maintenance after you just had a FIRE and engine shutdown on board your aircraft.

It was NOT a BAD decision. It was completely legal and within BAs Operations Manual. Three engine completion of flights are not unknown in B747 operations and perfectly safe in most places. I certainly wouldn't be doing it out of SYD for SCL/EZE/JNB, but out of SIN for SYD has certainly been done.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 33):

The pilots were probably goaded into the whole debacle by their dispatchers

While I don't know if this is true or not, I would tend to think that this is utter rubbish. I find it VERY hard to imagine a BA dispatcher goading a Senior Captain into anything, it just not fit within British or BA culture.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 33):
It helps crews greatly when sensible regulations exist to dissuade the airlines from attempting foolish antics such as BA 268.

Again BA268 was COMPLETELY within UK regulations, which are the applicable ones in this case.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 5:32 am

Quoting cmf (Reply 28):
Donning my protective gear: The entire payment schedule for pilots is upside down. Airplane size isn't a good indicator of workload and skill required.

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.

Quoting gemuser (Reply 35):
It was NOT a BAD decision. It was completely legal and within BAs Operations Manual.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
KAUSpilot
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:15 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 5:59 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 35):
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 to stay completely legal into LHR. It did show up a hole in BA's emergency training, which was immediately plugged. MAN is hardly a isolated airport, there were a number of others en-route.

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 to balance fuel in a 747 on 3 engines and what might happen if you failed to do so properly? Do you know how much time, in minutes, this equated to, at their three engine cruise altitude?

Until such time as you have 747 experience and factual information about the incident as it relates to the above questions, I would kindly ask that you respect my statements. Thank you.

I apologize for sounding crass, but as a professional I grow tired of contradictions from amateurs and hobbyists.

I'll clue you in: the flight landed with 5700kg of fuel. 2000kg of that was "trapped" in the #2 tank. That left them with 3700kg of useable fuel. According to Boeing, there is a risk of engine flameout if a go-around is initiated with less than 3800kg. Also, per Boeing, a "low fuel situation" exists when less than 8000kg of fuel remain. They had less than half that amount, and about 20% of what a 744 would normally land with. To sum it up, there was a real chance of the remaining engines being starved of fuel had they gone around in MAN. The diversion was initiated far too late. This is all spelled out in the "747 Flight Crew Training Manual", published by The Boeing Company, should you wish to find a reference.

The only thing I would agree with you with is that it may have been within BA's regulations to continue, making the whole incident a prime example of why tighter regulations are in some cases needed. It's also legal and perfectly within regulations for a pilot to take off in a cessna 172 and fly straight into a level IV thunderstorm....legality and prudence often diverge starkly.

Despite what some BA "fans" may wish to think, I assure you that BA268 is now taught as a shining example to 747 pilots of how NOT to handle an engine failure on departure.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 7:18 am

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 37):
Until such time as you have 747 experience and factual information about the incident as it relates to the above questions, I would kindly ask that you respect my statements. Thank you.

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.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 37):
that BA268 is now taught as a shining example to 747 pilots of how NOT to handle an engine failure on departure.

According to a couple of B744 pilots I know at another large B744 operator, it is taught as a fuel management issue, not as a three engine diversion issue. I tend to believe them.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
KAUSpilot
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:15 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 8:17 am

Quoting gemuser (Reply 38):
According to a couple of B744 pilots I know at another large B744 operator, it is taught as a fuel management issue, not as a three engine diversion issue. I tend to believe them.

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 engine fire/shutdown in flight. Three or four hours? Perhaps if no suitable airports are closer....LAX-LHR? No. As to your CAA report, undoubtedly the "CAA" has a vested interest in protecting their best customer, especially in light of the negative press the airline received over this incident.
 
tribird1011
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:08 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 8:34 am

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 39):
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 engine fire/shutdown in flight. Three or four hours? Perhaps if no suitable airports are closer....LAX-LHR? No. As to your CAA report, undoubtedly the "CAA" has a vested interest in protecting their best customer, especially in light of the negative press the airline received over this incident

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 the flight crew not being able to transfer fuel to a working engine. Had this pump not failed, the flight would have made it all the way to LHR, and for all intents and purposes, noone would be any wiser.

For the record, the fuel pump failure was not related to the engine failure.
 
Mir
Posts: 19092
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 9:11 am

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 40):
I believe towards the end of the flight a fuel pump become inoperative, resulting in the flight crew not being able to transfer fuel to a working engine. Had this pump not failed, the flight would have made it all the way to LHR, and for all intents and purposes, noone would be any wiser.

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 adjust. "We'll be fine if everything else continues to work" isn't the sort of thing I'd feel comfortable saying before heading out into a remote area (anywhere where diversion airports are few, such as an ocean).

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
BE77
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:15 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 11:10 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 23):
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???

This is generally the basis of different rules for different sized transportation companies worldwide - a fishing guide in a bass boat is working under a different set of rules than Carnival Cruises, yet both are providing transportation and entertainment on the water.

Quoting par13del (Reply 26):
The difference is money not risk, folks mix the two up to hide the money issue.

People might 'hide' the money issue just to keep the noise down, but, it is always a money issue (well, almost always as the exception is cases where it becomes political...which is still a money issue as it might cost less to do something unreasonable / uneconomic / nonsensical but which keeps people happy - regardless of your political views, I am sure everyone has their own examples of government waste or stupid rules that make no sense, but were put in place to make 'the other guy' happy).

Quoting kalvado (Reply 30):
Last line does affects cost-benefit analysis more than anything else.


Absolutley right - actuaries will have ways to quantify the risk, but in most places that operate operate airliners, the number of people involved is by far the most significant cost factor.
Proof of how hard it is to change the math with airliners is the 'worst case' scenario ever experienced where three large airliners were crashed into buildings and yet the number of fatalities was much less than anyone would have imagined possible beforehand. So, counting the occupied seats in the plane is still a very, very good indication of the total risk.

Risk definitely has many aspects - and regardless of the terms, it comes down to the combination of the possibilities (chances of it happening) and the severity (when it happens, what is the range of likely outcomes), Frequency and Severity are two pretty common terms, and need to be measured independently and then combined in the analysis of Risk.
During the analysis, the money definitely gets included in the math - for some really good reasons actually. One reason is that for things like aircraft accidents, the cost is (sadly) well understood for just about every scenario imaginable, and also for a few scenarios that should not be imaginable (ie 9/11). More important though is that the $ needs to be included in order to make sure that the costs are being incurred in the right place...there is only so much cost that can go into 'anything' and still be worth doing, so you need to make sure the money is going into the right place - it might save more cargo pilots if they had newer planes vs an extra couple hours sleep for example, so then any new rules should retire older airframes. More realistically, it might be a lot safer for cargo pilots if more work (and therefor $) went into making sure haz mat rules were better enforced instead of adding sleep time - or perhaps maybe splitting the difference would work better. Regardless, without cinverting 'risk' into $ or some other common unit of reference, there would be no way to decide where the best investments are.

Quoting kalvado (Reply 32):
It's not that anyone wants to push _you_ into mistakes - it's that _your friend_ may have some extra cushion against mistakes.

Agree completely - air cargo is amazingly safe when compared to many / most other methods of moving stuff around. Sure it can and probably be 'more safe', but it is pretty good already...and based on risks and costs, maybe (?) it actually does not need to be as safe as people movers (as far as I know, no other industry is already as safe for the workers as the civil transport category aircrew!).

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 37):
It's also legal and perfectly within regulations for a pilot to take off in a cessna 172 and fly straight into a level IV thunderstorm

IFR maybe, but not VFR  
Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
 
KAUSpilot
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:15 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 11:49 am

Quoting tribird1011 (Reply 40):
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 the flight crew not being able to transfer fuel to a working engine. Had this pump not failed, the flight would have made it all the way to LHR, and for all intents and purposes, noone would be any wiser.

For the record, the fuel pump failure was not related to the engine failure.

As convenient as that might've been in explaining their fuel problems, I'm sorry to say it isn't true.

Quoting AAIB:
There had not been any malfunction of G-BNLG’s fuel system. (p. 36)

There is no mention whatsover of any fuel system or fuel pump malfunction in the AAIB report on BA 268. If you please, take a look at the fuel quantities remaining after block in on the #1 and #4 tanks on page 25. The fuel wasn't actually trapped there, but the crew feared it was! They thought they might be landing with even less fuel available than the really had, which makes forgoing an earlier diversion even more of a head-scratcher.

They would be relying on crosfeed pressure from tanks 2 & 3 in the event of a go-around, which should work, but it's certainly not something I would ever like to try when down to 2 tanks with only 2 tons per side!

Edited to Add Link to AAIB report: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...ng%20747-436,%20G-BNLG%2006-06.pdf

[Edited 2012-05-20 05:06:41]
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6661
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 12:43 pm

Quoting kalvado (Reply 32):
Because his mistake would statistically cost much more than yours.

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 to sound like a lawyer, looking for technicalities to ensure that the establishment survives. 
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 1:30 pm

Quoting BE77 (Reply 42):
This is generally the basis of different rules for different sized transportation companies worldwide - a fishing guide in a bass boat is working under a different set of rules than Carnival Cruises, yet both are providing transportation and entertainment on the water.

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 over Niagara Falls works under a different set of rules than a B747 flying to LHR.

Not so much though, with four B747s, one carrying freight, one being ferried empty, one with 100 passengers and one with 515 passengers. I am going to guess in the large transport category, the United States is one of the few countries with varying rules between passengers and freight.

In Canada, duty rules are the same whether the B747 is carrying freight or passengers.

Quoting BE77 (Reply 42):
Risk.
During the analysis, the money definitely gets included in the math - for some really good reasons actually.

I agree with this.

And that is why insurance rates (for example) are different for operations with passengers vice freight. In fact, they are even different for a passenger aircraft carrying passengers and one being flown empty. (At least where I work).

But it still doesn't justify why a 14 hour duty day is "safe" when carrying freight, not not "safe" on the return trip when you are carrying passengers.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 1:35 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 36):
But the aviation industry is hardly the only one to pay those who work the hardest the least.

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 the operating room you have a surgeon, an anesthetist, and two nurses. All are essential for the survival of the patient. In fact, the cleaner that washed it down the night before is essential too. So ... Who knows most? Who worked the hardest? Who got paid the most?

(I don't use the Pilot versus F/A analogy, as it draws a lot of heat around here)
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
kalvado
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Sun May 20, 2012 6:16 pm

Quoting longhauler (Reply 45):

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 over Niagara Falls works under a different set of rules than a B747 flying to LHR.

Not so much though, with four B747s, one carrying freight, one being ferried empty, one with 100 passengers and one with 515 passengers. I am going to guess in the large transport category, the United States is one of the few countries with varying rules between passengers and freight.

In Canada, duty rules are the same whether the B747 is carrying freight or passengers.

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 things to the extreme:
One can think of a system, where crew would need 4 min 17 sec extra rest time before flying planeload of electronics, compared to planeload of flowers, and get 5 seconds boost of duty time limit if there are only 50 people on 757. It may end up saving airlines a few cents on paper, but would definitely be a big big mess.
Is it reasonable to have distinction between cargo and pax? I am not sure, but I can see the line of defense for doing so.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Mon May 21, 2012 12:55 am

Quoting kalvado (Reply 47):
Is it reasonable to have distinction between cargo and pax? I am not sure, but I can see the line of defense for doing so.

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 be fatigued when carrying freight, but not passengers. A very odd stance.

Other than the United States, is there any other country where duty rules differ between a B747 carrying passengers vice one carrying freight?
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
kalvado
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

RE: FAA To Reopen Cargo Pilot Fatigue Rules

Mon May 21, 2012 1:31 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 48):
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 be fatigued when carrying freight, but not passengers. A very odd stance.

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bwest, echster, HALtheAI, Kaphias, KarelXWB, nitepilot79, Phen, RalXWB, sassiciai, SCQ83, Unflug, Yahoo [Bot] and 263 guests