Originally Posted by
minitour
No, Bob's right. That's not a hijack....it's a valid point. Why does it matter what the rules are when people are going to do what they need to do "to pay the bills" anyway?
Let's pretend they changed it to 8 hours on duty max, 4 hours of flying max and then 36 hours of rest.
...do you REALLY think people would do that, or would they still just pretend to be at rest even though they're tethered to their blackberry waiting for a trip so they can launch within 15 minutes?
Until the FAA grants the pilots immunity for advising them of the operators doing illegal 24/7 on-call and shuts down those operators........the actual rules don't matter to most people. Those of us following the rules will continue to do so and those who don't will continue to not. Nothing changes except I might get 9 hours behind the door rather than 10 hours including a 30 minute cab ride each side, 30 minutes to prep my uniform, 60 minutes for dinner, 30 minutes to unwind and talk to the wife and 6 hours of sleep if I'm lucky, so I can wake up and get myself ready...and skip breakfast. Or I can have 5 hours of sleep, get ready and have time for breakfast. Really, it's a wash. By the end of my 8-day "tour", I'm going to be fatigued...hopefully not enough to compromise safety, just enough to make me skip working out so I can get sleep.
-mini
I agree completely and think that this is the heart of the matter, I am sorry, bob for jumping on you like that, I think that the amnesty is a great idea, however why do this when no one is complaining about not changing the 135 reg the way they did about changing the 121's. I think (I don't know because I have never had the luxury) that knowing my flight schedule ahead of time would be much less stressing than waiting at the airport nine hours after flying four hours to see if I have a trip. I just don't see how 121 is "more" fatiguing, or is it a matter of what is in back?