Yes, lets. At the conclusion of YOUR review, you posted this:

Please put down the weed, so you can follow along. Here's the actual wording.


To which I replied:
And FlyingViking felt compelled to jump in:

What I actually said was:

So where are we?

tsquare states its UNSAFE, and Flying says that must be true because COMMON SENSE says so.

I say there's no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that its unsafe, but do freely admit its more FATIGUING. But is it TOO fatiguing?

Do you see the difference, Carl? Of course 9 hrs is more fatiguing than 8. But then again, 8 hours is more fatiguing than 7, and I'm pretty sure 7 is more fatiguing than 6, etc. etc. etc. But making the leap from fatiguing to unsafe has no scientific basis.

And if we go by FlyingViking's standard of "common sense", I'm pretty sure the ATA's "common sense" expert will testify that 10 hrs is perfectly safe.

ALPA is relying on science, and has crafted a comprehensive package that, in total, reduces fatigue significantly; not in EVERY situation, but in most. And in those situations where it increases fatigue, it is still within scientifically verified "safe" regimes.

The ATA would like nothing more than to rely on "common sense" and accept status quo. Of course, all of us would prefer much tighter standards everywhere, but we don't have veto authority, and its better to get 90% of what you want than 0%. APA has finally figured that out, CAPA will too.... maybe.