steel

This is ridiculously absurd and unsafe. Please help us all by checking one's email regarding the email sent yesterday. It will only take a minute to enter an objection.
Thank you.

Also, please check to ensure you and your ALPA brethren are subscribed to ALPA email and text messaging.

Senator Inhofe (R-OK) proposed amendment SA 7 to S.223 (S.223 -- FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act ) which exempts supplemental operations from any of the FAA proposed FAR rule changes. The specific language is enclosed below:

On page 230, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

SEC. 565. RESTRICTION ON ALTERATION OF FLIGHT TIME LIMITATIONS AND REST REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS.
(a) In General.--The flight time limitations and rest requirements for supplemental operations under subpart S of part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act), shall remain in effect unless and until the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration issues a final rule in a rulemaking proceeding described in subsection (b).
(b) Rulemaking Proceeding Described.--A rulemaking proceeding described in this subsection is a rulemaking proceeding--
(1) with respect to modernizing the flight time limitations and rest requirements only with respect to supplemental operations under subpart S of part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations; and
(2) that is not a part of, or otherwise connected to, the rulemaking proceeding under Docket No. FAA-2009-1093, http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/FAA_2010_22626.pdf , as described in the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 55852).
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section requires the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct a rulemaking proceeding with respect to the flight time limitations and rest requirements for supplemental operations under subpart S of part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, if the Administrator determines that the flight time limitations and rest requirements under that subpart (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act) are sufficient to ensure the safety of supplemental operations.


ALSO, SEE
http://www.capapilots.org/capa-oppos...-pilot-fatigue

Lifizgud

OK, why the singling out of cargo ops? Is this pushed by UPS?

MaydayMark

I was under the impression it was being pushed by the non-skeds?

Section Eight

Haven't you heard? They have pilots on furlough, non umion pilots flying their trips, and times are tough. Only ~4 Billion in profit last year. Besides if this went through they would have to mod their 767's to the tune of some 20 million. They would probably go out of business overnight.

You decide, here are some of their comments from the nprm:

"UPS’s typical cargo often includes critically needed medical supplies and pharmaceuticals, and so timely delivery often is, quite literally, a matter of life and death."

"A key attribute and result of this business model is that pilots in the scheduled cargo express industry fly significantly fewer hours per month than their passenger airline peers—a material fact that the FAA has ignored in its proposal. They work fewer hours pursuant to carefully developed work rules and thus are better rested than their peers in the passenger segment."

"As a result of this flexible legal framework, UPS need not base its pilots in foreign cities, a circumstance that would require a reassessment if the proposed rules are adopted."

"Indeed, UPS has already adopted most of the components of the FRMP in the absence of a federal mandate and made enormous investments in sleep facilities at UPS’s regional hubs without any legal requirement to do so."

"Likewise, many of UPS’s long haul aircraft are equipped with high quality lie-flat bunks or substantially reclined rest facilities."

"The proposed regulations failed to account for the substantial costs of increasing pilot reserve staffing to deal with unintended trip drops as crewmembers “time out.” Large increases in the necessary reserve pool will be required due to the inability to reschedule crews, three- consecutive night limit, and the mandatory 14-hour requirement before a reserve pilot may be given another assignment.The increased weekly time off—from 24 hours off in every seven days to either 30 hours or 36 hours off (depending on the theater of operation)—will drive additional staffing. There is also significant expense transporting “deadheading” crews utilizing commercial travel on passenger carriers and paying for hotels and per diem amounts."

"In making this proposal, the FAA is seemingly oblivious to UPS’s existing fatigue-mitigation strategies memorialized in its labor agreements and would effectively penalize UPS for its good-faith efforts."

"the FAA has overstepped its bounds and moved from safety regulation into the realm of labor arbitration."

"Moreover, the rule permits cumulative duty extensions only if crewmembers scheduled to “deadhead” do so in first class, yet another example of the FAA solving a labor management conflict and not a safety problem."

"As proposed, “rest” in Section 117.25 does not start until a crewmember arrives at the hotel or sleep facility, even though his or her arrival time is completely out of the certificate holder’s control in the best of cases and is subject to crew manipulation in the worst of them."

"Treating reserve as if it were flight duty makes no sense. Consider a crew whose members have been sitting at home for five days straight observing a 14-hour on-call period each day. On the sixth day, the company would like to schedule the crew for a two-day trip requiring only 10 hours of total duty with flying entirely during the daytime. That assignment would violate the proposed regulation."

"UPS does not carry paying passengers. The risk of human loss in a fatal accident is thus orders of magnitude lower than the risk inherent in a passenger carrying airline."

"UPS has gone to extraordinary lengths to protect its pilots and other employees."

"Costs associated with increasing the company’s overall block hours to meet the stringent scheduling requirement are extremely high and effectively punitive in nature."

"The 14-hour mandatory rest rule for a reserve has no basis in science, and is simply another example of
rule making driven by collective bargaining influences versus regulating from the use of science."

"The FAA has failed to consider that, as with most collective bargaining agreements, pilot pay at UPS is based on the greater of scheduled or actual flight times. The schedule reliability provision of this new regulation will force UPS to pad its schedules—increasing block time for exactly the same trips. This will add significant costs to the airline’s payroll with absolutely no increase in flying or fatigue mitigation and no public benefit. UPS conservatively estimates the cost of this requirement alone to be approximately $435 million over ten years."

Lifizgud

Now I see...interesting...and Murcowski is leading the charge...nice...

Need4Speed

I don't doubt that UPS opposes the proposed flight time changes, but (unless I'm missing something) I see very little benefit to UPS "pushing" Inhofe's amendment. Inhofe's amendment only mentions Supplemental carriers. UPS operates all scheduled flights under Domestic or Flag rules. As far as I am aware, the only flights UPS operates as Supplemental are the Charter flights.

fr8rcaptain

Although UPS has its issues with the proposed duty/rest rules, we are a domestic/flag 121 operation. So this amendment wouldn't be pushed by them.

pipe

Isn't this Age 65 Inhofe? Isn't this ground-loop Inhofe? If ever there was an argument for a mandatory retirement age it's this clown.

PIPE

btwissel

this is also "land on a closed runway narrowly missing construction crews & i don't read NOTAMS and never will" Inhofe

EllisCoastal

This is ridiculous. Part of the purpose of the NPRM is to not separate carriers. Pilots are Pilots. Flying is Flying. When the door is closed and you are at the controls it doesn't matter if the flight release says scheduled or unscheduled. The previous airline I worked for (unscheduled passenger charter) had management who was crying wolf to congress that they would have to shut down their operation and blah blah blah if the NPRM is passed. It seemed that almost weekly they were headed to DC to complain. The NPRM needs to be ONE for ALL and absolutely little to no exemptions to the rules should be handed out to any airline with regards to rest requirements. Don't get me wrong, I think there are several improvements that need to be made to the NPRM, but it is better than what is currently in place.