DAL 88 Driver

This has never been about concern for myself in terms of understanding the FAR. It is clearly written. I can read. My concern has centered around the fact that I became aware of interpretations being put out by some DALPA officials that are flat out wrong. My concern is for my fellow pilots, some of whom could rely on bad information put out by a rep or a committee chair and then end up with a violation. I've been pretty clear about all that, "acl." So why do you continue to ignore it and try to turn it into something that it's not?

I totally agree that reasonable PIC decisions are seldom if ever questioned at Delta. We have very good flight ops management with a very good track record in that regard. But what happens if DALPA is successful in getting the company to adopt this faulty interpretation of the 8 hour rule? What happens when I make a reasonable decision, giving me enough time in the room to get ready for bed, have the opportunity for 8 hours of sleep, and then have enough time to get ready in the morning... and then that 9 or so hours "behind the door" results in the flight being delayed the next morning, when it would have not been delayed had we had "8 hours behind the door?" Think my decision would still not be questioned? I don't know, but I think there is a good chance it would be. And I think the chief pilot might not think my decision was "reasonable" if he's going with "8 hours behind the door" as being in compliance with the FAR.

So it's really two things. I don't want to give you guys a chance to set a precedent that could result in pilots (including myself) being questioned unnecessarily for a decision in this regard. And I don't want you guys putting out bad information that, if relied upon, could get someone violated.

It's really that simple. I think I've been pretty clear about it. But, hey, I've done my part. I've communicated all this to my reps. Ball's in your court. I'm not the one who's misunderstanding the FAR and, as I've already demonstrated once, will not hesitate to make a decision to comply with it.

DAL 88 Driver

Did you look at the following two quotes?

"The contract requires 8 hours behind the door. That has not changed.
The FAR has changed to require a minimum of 8 uninterrupted hours of sleep opportunity. The eight hours begins when you get to your room and ends when you leave your room for pickup." - Chairman, DALPA Scheduling Committee

"the FAR is also quite clear that the pilots must get 8 hours of "uninterrupted sleep opportunity" at the layover hotel. This is basically the same as the 8 hours behind the door we have had in the PWA for a number of years, but now it is required. It is not 8 hours of sleep." - SLC Captain rep

Of course you did. I know because I emailed those quotes to you weeks ago.

Hillbilly

88, your statement is not correct and Purple hit on exactly why. While it is certainly the case the majority of the time, we are not always on an FDP following a layover and the 8 hours behind the door still applies and protects us. It is very appropriate to be in the Scheduling Reference Handbook.

Regarding the Scheduling Committee Chairman you are referring to, is that the new one that took over this month or the previous one?

DAL 88 Driver

You're partially right. My statement is PARTIALLY incorrect. I didn't think about the anomaly where someone could be deadheading only. So I stand corrected on that one small point. Thanks for that.

Now the rest of what I'm saying (which is the major theme of this discussion) is valid and has still not been answered to my satisfaction. The quotes I supplied from DALPA officials are still wrong. And only one of my reps will directly answer the question, which leads me to believe that the other three agree with those quotes. The quote from the scheduling committee chair is from almost a month ago. I didn't realize he had been replaced until a couple of days ago. Since I haven't seen a correction from DALPA (and knowing the new Chairman's history), I'm going to assume at this point that nothing has changed with regard to this issue.

orvil

Flaccid. Ugh.

If you were scheduled for a DH duty only period, were reassigned during DH, took 8 hours behind the door, it happens, what about your legality now? I don't think you could accept the reassignment. In that event, you might have to answer some questions. If you accepted the reassignment with this reduced rest and you had an incident, you'd be toast.

The bottom line is to never let them push you. It's your ticket, not their ticket.

dbrownie

89 hours!!!

I'd be in therapy if I flew that...

80ktsClamp

Pay, not block.

I'm at 102 hours of credit this month with about 60 hours of block. I made almost 90 hours last month with around 20 hours of block (rsv). The company is not getting their money's worth out of me.

Carl Spackler

The lawsuit that is apparently going to be filed regarding the hacking of DPA's website is getting very serious now for the pilot(s) who did this. I know it has become fashionable to produce an all-out attack blitz against DPA for pursuing the responsible parties, but the DPA guys will not do that. Ever. Even though it looks like the DPA effort to decertify ALPA has failed, they will not close up shop with allegations by DALPA that no hacking took place, or if one did, Tim probably did it to himself because he's a [insert pejorative here]. These attacks against DPA for pursuing their rightful course through the courts will only harden their resolve to prove they didn't just make this up. You guys are hurting this process...not helping.

The pilot(s) who did this are in serious legal jeopardy in my opinion. If the pilot(s) were part of the Special Committee at the time of the hacking, or part of any other DALPA endorsed program, then DALPA is in serious legal jeopardy as well. If during the course of this civil action, the judge sees substantial evidence that the hacking did indeed happen, the judge will likely turn over that evidence to the US attorney for criminal prosecution. The judge has the responsibility to do that even if the jury doesn't find enough evidence to hold the pilot(s) responsible under civil law. This means that pilot(s) responsible could face a Federal Crime conviction which eliminates their ability to ever fly for Delta again. It could also mean DALPA officials will be criminally convicted.

The college kid who hacked Sarah Palin's email account was convicted on Federal charges and sent to prison for one year. The charges carried as much as a 20 year sentence. This is serious stuff folks. Hacking is a huge and growing problem that the Feds are taking very seriously. This needs to get resolved right now or this could be an absolute tragedy for those involved.

To the pilots involved: if you truly had absolutely nothing to do with this, then fight like hell to clear your name. If you really did do this, you need to make this go away. DPA says they've offered to drop everything if you admit what happened and apologize. If you're responsible, you need to do that immediately. There are ways to write a letter like that without exposing yourself to a criminal prosecution. Ask your lawyer to help you do that.

Once this gets in front of a judge, the pilot(s) will be making an "all or nothing" gamble on their careers. There's just no reason to do that when simply owning up to what you did could end the whole matter. This advice is no different than you would give a child who does something wrong. Don't let childish pride make a childish mistake unrecoverable for you.

Carl

RockyBoy

Didn't they just dismiss the criminal suit they have been pursuing?

80ktsClamp

I guess the demise of Caplinger's baby will show his true colors- bring down fellow pilots with him. Typical. If he pursues it, that will ensure the complete death of the DPA.