Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
I am sorry but you are viewing this process through an industrial lens and not through a scientific lens. There were no tradeoffs done to satisfy any party. What the ARC did was to look at two very large studies done on pilot fatigue along with other scientific research on sleep and fatigue. Most of what they found falls into the pilot "duh" category and includes:
So what part of the study showed that pilot's fatigue is not increased by making them work 2 additional hours in a duty period?
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
No one can point to any study or any scientific reason that 8 hours was picked for the current regulation other than 8 hours used to be the standard work day.
And no one can point to a credible study that shows fatigue will not increase by working 2 additional hours.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
The ETOPS issue is just another DPA red herring. First, our contract prohibits ocean crossings over 8 hours without augmentation. Our contract already contains many restrictions far beyond the FAA minimums so it seems unlikely that there is any consensus amongst our pilots that we would want to change this provision.
What about the pilot groups that don't have what we have in their contracts? This was supposed to be an answer to what was perceived to be fatigue related accidents in our industry. Instead, ATA used it as an opportunity to get their deeply desired JetBlue rule of 10 hours flight time for a 2 man crew. ALPA used it as an opportunity to fill up on the buffet.
Carl