To me it seems it has always been our personal and professional responsibility to show up fit for duty. You can create all the regulations in the world and that will not change the fact that some pilots will choose to push the limits and commute into a trip fatigued. You can regulate airlines to require pilots to live in domicile, and some pilots would still show up inadequately rested. It's on us, and even more so, the PIC. The beauty of that responsibility is that it comes with freedom of choice.

I'd say it is more on the PERSON themselves. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
You can lie to the PIC just as easily as lying to dispatch if they ask you if you're rested or to anyone else.

USMCFLYR

Completely agree, and you clarified it. PERSONAL responsibility is at the core of this. As in other aspects of life, the only person who can change you, is yourself, not the threats, nor the coercion, nor over-regulation can effectively change someone's decision making process.

If you commute to work, exceed limits, then are responsible for a major accident, god save you. The government right wingers will make you a poster child for why commuting needs to be regulated and why unions really don't care about safety. There is no doubt that ALPA convinced the Obama Administration to be hands off on the real fatigue issue in the Colgan accident, that is irresponsible commuting practices.

Let's face it, this FDT rule was all about hoping that Babbitt could deliver a free-bie at the negotiating table. Watching the IPA sue the FAA is like watching an OWS protest. Cool, but are you real serious about addressing the problem, or are you simply trying to create media hype?

No, the dirty little truth is each of us is only as good as our LAST checkride. If I pass a ride, then I am qualified. Or is there something I am missing?

Should rides be more difficult? Maybe, and I am all for it. But the fact is just like the old joke:

Q: What do you call a guy who graduated last in his class at medical school?

A: Doctor.

If you don't like the minimums (and I do not), then write your congressman. But the reality is, if one meets the requirements (even just barely), by definition, one is qualified. And that means if we require our ATPs to get 97%, there will still be folks who just squeak by.

Maybe, just maybe, the ATP requirement will come into affect without any loop holes (I hope so), and maybe it will have a positive effect. We shall see.

One thing is for sure: as long as new 121 pilots are based in expensive cities and paid very little, they will find the grey areas of any law and exploit them.

Another thing is, like it or not, regulations that increase cost are based on cost vs. loss analysis. If we come up with a regulation to cut accidents in half, but the price is ten times as high, that reg will not be implemented. I can design a car that will reduce fatalities to zero. It includes a breathalizer, 92 airbags, the top speed is 20 mph, and the cost would be $97,000 for the economy model. Unfortunately, nobody wants it. They would rather take their chances in a cheaper vehicle.

That is reality.

What limits? The regulators, rightfully so, realized you cant legislate what it means to be fit for duty. Just because you can "see" where a commuting pilot was physically located prior to duty does not make them "unfit" for duty. All accidents take a 72 hour look back (minimum) at the pilots personal life and rest, your single lens view on the dreaded "commuter" is ridiculous, ANY pilot who would show a questionable rest and action history prior to showing for a duty period would be negatively viewed.

Your callous remarks fly in the face of the hard work done by pilots at your own Company to fight fatigue, the new rules are not a "freebie", are you saying the science based rules are just a way to get free work rules and have no improved levels of safety built in?

The enemy is not the commuter, it is all pilots, who act in questionable ways and show up "unfit" for duty. It is a litmus test that may someday be quantifiable by some fancy and objective device or machine, but until then we need these new rules and to not blame a travel habit as the only indicator of fitness for duty.

Nowhere in the numerous court cases clarifying FAA mandated rest are commute rules specifically defined despite your claim that they are. YOUR definition is not law nor precedent.

I thought the new FDT rules were about mandating an opportunity for proper rest and limiting duty to make the sky safe. The FAA and DOT have made public announcements stating the rules now make air travel safe for the public. Not safer or to ensure safety but to actually make it safe. Sorry you're not on board with the rest of us. Your union comment is out of left field and makes no sense.

But it doesn't really matter since they don't apply to FedEx or UPS. All we have is a hope that we get rest with the old, outdated regulations (as stated by the DOT) and a mandate to call fatigued if we judge ourselves to be too tired. Anything more is too costly. This policy didn't work too well in the past but somehow it's supposed to work better going forward.

Remember how over tired people really aren't the best judge of their fatigued state? Somehow that doesn't enter the equation.

Perhaps someone should make a poster child of our government officials should the new FDT rules fail due to the cargo cutout.