FAA to reconsider rest exclusion for cargo fl
05-18-2012, 06:41 AM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 85
FAA to reconsider rest exclusion for cargo fl
FAA to reconsider rest exclusion for cargo flights
FAA to reconsider rest exclusion for cargo flights
By: JOHN CROFT WASHINGTON DC 52 minutes ago Source:
UPS pilots says the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will reconsider its decision to exclude cargo carriers from a slate of new crew rest rules finalised in December.
"Last night in a surprise move, the FAA admitted that it 'discovered errors' during the course of preparing its court papers," says the Independent Pilots Association (IPA), which represents UPS pilots, in an 18 May statement. "The FAA now says it is ready to provide the relief requested by the [IPA], and will take another look at whether cargo pilots should be excluded from new rest rules published in December."
Key elements of the rule, which passenger airlines will have two years to implement from December 2011, include requiring a minimum 10h rest period for pilots before a flight, up 2h from the current rule; defining flight duty time to include deadheading, simulator training and other duties as assigned by the airline, and requiring pilots to have at least 30h consecutive duty-free time on a weekly basis, a 25% increase from current rules.
There are also new monthly limits and a stipulation that a pilot sign off on the flight plan before a flight that he or she is fit for duty. Airlines will be required to switch out pilots who have determined they are not fit for duty.
US Transportation Department secretary Ray LaHood had said when the rule was finalised in December that cargo airlines could impose the rules voluntarily, a decision the IPA had said "makes as much sense as allowing truckers to 'opt-out' of drunk driving laws".
"To potentially allow fatigued cargo pilots to share the same skies with properly rested passenger pilots creates an unnecessary threat to public safety," said Robert Travis, president of the IPA, in December. IPA later filed a lawsuit over the rules.
The IPA says the FAA "discovered errors in calculating the scope of costs associated with the implementation of the regulations (rest rules) for all cargo operations", and as a result will "reopen the record by issuing a supplemental regulatory evaluation strictly limited to the application of the new regulations to all-cargo operations."
"In the context of our lawsuit, the FAA is now willing to allow for an open and public examination of the costs and benefits of having one level of aviation safety," says Travis. "The IPA welcomes this development".
The FAA was not immediately available for comment.
FAA to reconsider rest exclusion for cargo flights
By: JOHN CROFT WASHINGTON DC 52 minutes ago Source:
UPS pilots says the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will reconsider its decision to exclude cargo carriers from a slate of new crew rest rules finalised in December.
"Last night in a surprise move, the FAA admitted that it 'discovered errors' during the course of preparing its court papers," says the Independent Pilots Association (IPA), which represents UPS pilots, in an 18 May statement. "The FAA now says it is ready to provide the relief requested by the [IPA], and will take another look at whether cargo pilots should be excluded from new rest rules published in December."
Key elements of the rule, which passenger airlines will have two years to implement from December 2011, include requiring a minimum 10h rest period for pilots before a flight, up 2h from the current rule; defining flight duty time to include deadheading, simulator training and other duties as assigned by the airline, and requiring pilots to have at least 30h consecutive duty-free time on a weekly basis, a 25% increase from current rules.
There are also new monthly limits and a stipulation that a pilot sign off on the flight plan before a flight that he or she is fit for duty. Airlines will be required to switch out pilots who have determined they are not fit for duty.
US Transportation Department secretary Ray LaHood had said when the rule was finalised in December that cargo airlines could impose the rules voluntarily, a decision the IPA had said "makes as much sense as allowing truckers to 'opt-out' of drunk driving laws".
"To potentially allow fatigued cargo pilots to share the same skies with properly rested passenger pilots creates an unnecessary threat to public safety," said Robert Travis, president of the IPA, in December. IPA later filed a lawsuit over the rules.
The IPA says the FAA "discovered errors in calculating the scope of costs associated with the implementation of the regulations (rest rules) for all cargo operations", and as a result will "reopen the record by issuing a supplemental regulatory evaluation strictly limited to the application of the new regulations to all-cargo operations."
"In the context of our lawsuit, the FAA is now willing to allow for an open and public examination of the costs and benefits of having one level of aviation safety," says Travis. "The IPA welcomes this development".
The FAA was not immediately available for comment.
05-18-2012, 07:24 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by Zoso
"Last night in a surprise move, the FAA admitted that it 'discovered errors' during the course of preparing its court papers,"
I guess they didn't think they'd have to be held accountable for their decision making, and I use the term loosely. Pandering is more accurate.
I wonder who's butt is getting chewed for approving the the flawed methodology of trading potential lives for cargo company cost savings?
Thank goodness IPA is doing the heavy lifting in this arena.
05-18-2012, 01:14 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 757/767
Posts: 1,128
Originally Posted by alafly
Instead of lots of emails whining (ALPA), thank you IPA for actually doing something!!!! (ALPA are you taking notes??)
Hopefully, today was a big step towards fixing this stupid ruling.
Hopefully, today was a big step towards fixing this stupid ruling.
If Alpa was representing me i be flying heavies across the pond for 88k a yr.
05-18-2012, 02:25 PM
#8
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 61
Thank you IPA for sticking to your principles and going forward with a legal challenge despite the lack of support from the "other" unions and outright resistance from industry. I'm sure there are many detractors squirming in their seats today....and deservedly so. Great Job IPA!
05-18-2012, 03:12 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by brownie
In a fight always put your money on the little guy not the big guy with lots of talk and no walk. Im glad i wear the lanyard with symbols IPA on it.
If Alpa was representing me i be flying heavies across the pond for 88k a yr.
If Alpa was representing me i be flying heavies across the pond for 88k a yr.
05-18-2012, 03:34 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Position: 757/767
Posts: 1,128
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
If the IPA was representing me I would be furloughed and dreaming about making 88K a year at walmart and my 2nd job at home depot. Once you get a lie in your head you cant lose it can you.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
