Originally Posted by
Adlerdriver
117 Proponents - how about you find an onerous pairing or series of the same in one of our current bid packs. Show us how 117 will make a clear, definable safety improvement to that situation. If you're going to cherry pick NTSB statements, go the final mile and show us how 117 would have prevented the accident to which they refer. Would it have made any difference in the UPS 1354 accident? Would those two pilots have been resting comfortably in a hotel or completely lacking in fatigue flying into BHM that morning if their schedule had been governed by 117? Or is that just convenient rhetoric from the NTSB that happens to support your agenda?
Usually when someone wants to change something for the better, they offer some tangible examples to support their effort. Like the OP said, "Change my view".
I’ll pick any schedule that has a week of consecutive night hub turns without at least two hours behind the sleep room door each night. Or how about being extended to 16 hours? That’s onerous.
When it comes to safety, we pilots are like hydraulic accumulators. We make up the slack. The lack of an accident doesn’t mean a flight is safe. This is a fundamental safety concept.