JonnyKnoxville

We need one level of safety for our entire industry. Here is another way to fight this carve-out being proposed. Communicate to the White House the importance of ensuring one level of safety for both passenger and cargo carriers in the new flight- and duty-time regulations.

Please call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 and state the following:

“As a professional pilot for XXXXXXXX Airlines, I believe it is critical that new flight- and duty-time rules apply equally to passenger and cargo carriers. Please do not permit any exemptions for cargo carriers. Whether you’re carrying passengers or cargo, pilot fatigue is a serious threat to public safety. Thank you for listening.”

As always, remember to maintain a professional, respectful tone in all of your contacts with policymakers.

PastV1

Change for the sake of change isn't always good. It would be nice to know what the changes are before we accept them.

What it could do to cargo is limit our week on week off flying. Swapping day/night schedules by working 3-4 days a week every week leaves no time to recuperate before you head back to work.

JonnyKnoxville

That's true. I never thought of it that way. Throw years of science and research out the window, disregard the NTSB's top safety concerns because you are too afraid of things changing.

This is not change for the sake of change and there is more than enough blood to prove it.

MeXC

A. Fear of change wasn't mentioned in his post. It was concern of how this NPRM may/may not affect a cargo schedule. The question of which is better; a week of hub turns then a week off, or 3 turns, 3 off, etc, is a valid one.
B. Surely you're not implying that because the NTSB has "top safety concerns" that this NPRM won't have some unintended consequences? Hella, the EU Food Standards Authority says that water does not prevent dehydration. And of course they passed a law saying it is illegal to claim it does.
I'm sure the government legislation will be sensible, well thought out, and have no negative aspects at all.

PastV1

Guys are tripping over themselves for change but not exactly sure what that change is. Will it make me work 3 on 3 off? Commute in 24 hrs early on my time? The problem is we don't know exactly what we will get with the change.

And don't preach about blood.

CloudSailor

Has the MEC ever communicated an answer to the questions above? Just curious.

Gunter

The ARC worked on this for a long time. Saying it's change for the sake of change only cheapens their contribution and helps our adversaries obfuscate the issue. Decision makers are observing all concerned to determine the most advantageous response. I would rather not give them ammunition like DW did with age 65 and retro. Congress still thinks they did what airline labor wanted because of him.

If they get a cutout it will include many exceptions.

Here's the link to the proposed rules.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...2010_22626.pdf

I think the SIG has been working toward incorporating NPRM limits.

From the Dec SIG notes:

MD-11

With the intent to reduce the night hub turn duty period, we alternated some night hub turn cities to minimize the night duty to less than 10:30. Also, we do not want to schedule 5 night hub turns in a row, unless the 5th night duty is less than 10 hours.

A300

With the pending NPRM limits addressing fatigue, all lines were built to fall within those duty limits.

JonnyKnoxville

All good points. Safety is important as long as it does not effect my quality of life. Your judgement concerns me, Captain.

As fatigue is a contributing factor in a large number of accidents, why would you not want to discuss the impact it had on people that died as a result of it? Oh yeah, I forgot, it is because it might effect your quality of life...got it.

nwa757

?

PastV1

Where is the photo from?