Originally Posted by
Alan Shore
Agreed. I haven't seen anything from ALPA on this either, other than the new 12 G. That language states that the sleep opportunity begins when the pilot reaches his hotel room, which is consistent with the FAR interpretations that I've read. No word about when it ends, though.
The FAR has the word on that. You have to have the opportunity to get 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep. The FAR further specifies that it's up to the individual pilot to determine if he/she got that opportunity. Obviously, "8 hours behind the door" does not give any human being the possibility/opportunity for 8 hours of sleep. So the answer is that the period ends something MORE than 8 hours from the time you walk into the hotel room. To be in compliance, you would have to allow time to get ready for bed and then you would have to allow time in the morning after waking up to get ready to walk back out of the room for pickup. For me, that would be a minimum of 30 minutes to be ready for bed after walking into the room and a minimum of 30 minutes after waking up the next morning to be ready to walk out of the room. So for me, the minimum number of hours "behind the door" in order to be in compliance with FAR 117 is 9. Your mileage may vary, but I'd be surprised if anyone could honestly say it would be much less than 9. And, as I previously stated, 8 hours would be physically impossible. Maybe it's best to just leave that one alone. But when I became aware of the fact that "8 hours behind the door" was being put out as the answer by the SLC Captain rep and then the chairman of the scheduling committee agreed with that, it made me concerned that DALPA could be putting out bad information that could get a pilot in trouble with a violation. When 3 of my 4 reps wouldn't give me a straight answer to the question and even went so far as to support what the SLC Captain rep and the scheduling committee chair had said, that became yet another unsatisfactory exchange that I've had with my reps.
Originally Posted by
Alan Shore
So, your input was to remove CDOs from the TA, they did so, but you think it was because they were getting so much heat and not because of your input? What was your input, other than heat-generating negative feedback?
I strongly suspect that their ultimate reason for removing the CDO's was not directly because of the input they were getting on whether we should have CDO's or not but because it was generating so much heat that they were worried about getting recalled. They certainly seemed pretty passionate about supporting the CDO's in their email exchanges with me... until they didn't.
Originally Posted by
Alan Shore
I can guarantee you that your input will be combined with the rest of ours into a consensus of the pilot group, and that consensus will be used to craft the opener and drive negotiations thereafter.
You mean like it was in C2012?