Originally Posted by
Pineapple Guy
Carl, I know you are not this dense.
Working 10 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 8
Working 8 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 6
Working 6 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 4
Working 4 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 2
Do you see a pattern yet???
What the ARC and Alfa and all other reasonable people are saying, is you can do the emotional thing, and cherry pick one item you don't like, and tube the whole set of scientifically based work rules, or you can actually use the results of the study, whatever they conclude, and go with that.
No where in the study did it say that 10 was less fatiguing than 8. What it did say, was that 10 was safe just as all of the other parameters.
It is also my understanding that ALPA recommended no more than 9, and the ATA wanted higher flight times through much of the day, and the current FAA proposal is a mix of the two. I don't believe ALPA has given up trying to get the final rule to be 9.
As APA and USAPA continue to show, when you insist on getting everything you want, which only works in forumland, you often end up with nothing that you want. In the real world, if you can get 90% of what you want, sign the deal. Because you will NEVER get everything you want.
I used to stay up on a 12 hour flight back from Europe on the ER with no problem. I didn't find it fatiguing going west bound at all. And red-eyes don't bother me.
But I do find 1 predawn leg, 2 hour sit, 1 leg, 3 hour sit, weather delay, plane delay, 1 leg short short overnight, wait for van delay, early wake up, 5 legs with the last one delayed, fatiguing.
I also find going from the late shift to the early shift fatiguing on the same trip.
But the good thing about early morning flights, I can usually find bacon.
All that to say, fatigue is a function to me of duty day, previous rest, wake times, cumulative duty time on trip and boring sits- never flight hours.