The Walrus

For fedex or ups pilots, what part of FAR Part 117 would you personally like to have enforced on the cargo pilots? Just curious.

Gunter

You know, the scientifically researched stuff concerning duty, rest and fatigue.

MaxKts

All of it.

MaydayMark

FAA AIRLINE PILOT FATIGUE ANALYSIS FLAWED COST NOMINAL TO CREATE ONE LEVEL OF SAFETY FOR PASSENGER AND CARGO FLIGHTS - Avionics Intelligence

Snarge

FAA Airline Pilot Fatigue Analysis Flawed
In a Federal Aviation Administration analysis of its new airline pilot fatigue rules, the administration has seriously overestimated the cost, and undervalued the benefits, of applying the flight- and duty-time restrictions and minimum rest requirements to all-cargo pilots, according to the Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l.

“When realistic costing is applied and the benefits to pilots’ health are considered, an investment far less than what the FAA estimates would be required to bring all airline pilots under one set of fatigue regulations, regardless of whether they fly passengers or cargo in their aircraft,” said Capt. Lee Moak, ALPA’s president.

In comments to the Initial Supplemental Regulatory Analysis of the FAA’s final pilot fatigue rule, ALPA, the world’s largest independent aviation safety organization, makes clear that the FAA’s benefit costing is arbitrary and incomplete. For example:

• The FAA’s selection of the Boeing 727 aircraft is an invalid basis for the analysis. The B-727 is being phased out by U.S. cargo carriers, with less than 3 percent of the U.S. cargo fleet analyzed by ALPA currently consisting of B-727s. As a result, any future cargo accident would likely involve a larger, heavier aircraft that can carry much larger cargo loads and fly much greater distances, and the FAA’s analysis vastly undervalues the monetary effects of not covering all-cargo pilots.

• The FAA fails to take health benefits to pilots into account. The FAA’s own analysis concludes that the final rule would reduce fatigue-related flight crew payroll costs by 0.25 percent, resulting in $4.4 million in annual cost savings for cargo-only operations through reduced fatigue-related sick calls. In the longer view, a growing body of research across industries indicates that long hours of work and night work are linked to sleep loss, which in turn leads to a variety of negative health effects and has been found to be a predictor of both short- and long-term illness.

• A 10-year accident lookback is insufficient. The air cargo industry has a relatively safe record, but accidents have occurred. The FAA initially included a 20-year lookback in its analysis. Within those 20 years, four fatigue-related air cargo hull loss accidents occurred. By reducing the lookback to 10 years, the FAA reduced the overall fatigue-related cargo accidents to one, even though three had occurred in the previous 10-year span.

ALPA estimates that, given the FAA’s total cost of applying Part 117 to cargo air carriers, the net annual cost of applying the pilot fatigue regulations to all-cargo pilots would range from $1.1 million to $9.0 million, which for the industry as a whole is nominal. The cost of this safety investment will be more than made up by scheduling changes allowed by Part 117, and if two accidents are assumed, the benefit would outweigh the costs.

“Cargo pilots fly the same aircraft, over the same routes, operate in the same airspace and use the same airports,” said Moak. “When you consider the health benefits and do cost analysis using realistic aircraft, the cost of protecting all airline pilots from fatigue becomes nominal and is something the U.S. airline industry simply must do.”

“While ALPA’s all-cargo members are on the front lines of this issue, every member of the Air Line Pilots Association is dedicated to advancing one level of safety for all who depend on air transportation in this country,” Moak concluded. “We urge Congress in the strongest possible terms to pass the Safe Skies Act of 2013 and bring all airline pilots under the FAA’s fatigue rules.”

CactusCrew

Where does this logic originate ? That the FAA will go back and rewrite all of 117 if the regulation includes cargo pilots ?

As I recall, up until the last few days, cargo pilots WERE included in the regulations. By inserting PASSENGER airline pilots into the language where applicable, the carve-out was created.

BTW ... I've been in both the IPA and ALPA (15+ years with a few on MEC, etc), so I understand both approaches. I know why ALPA does what it does. If you knew UPS, you'd understand the IPA's approach ... nuff' said.

FlyAstarJets

Site source please.

Gunter

Hazarding a guess...

Could be the same source that told him foreign pilots would take our HKG flying.

Naven

That is exactly right. The regulations were written to include all cargo pilots. They were even changed from the original NPRM so UPS and FedEX pilots could do 5 night a week trips up from the proposed 3 night a week limit.

TonyC

The FAA issued the final rule (Title 14 CFR Part 117) on December 21, 2011. On the following day, the Independent Pilots Association petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the rule. (http://www.ipapilot.org/ipavfaa/IPA_...w_12_22_11.pdf)

That petition does not specify what needs to be reviewed, but a press release that same day explains that the IPA "would challenge the rule on multiple substantive and procedural grounds." (http://www.ipapilot.org/ipavfaa/IPA_...ew_Release.pdf) It went on to further say, "The FAA's only basis for excluding cargo rests on a cost benefit analysis" and then criticized the process and result of that analysis.

On January 23, 2012 in their "Preliminary Statement of issues to be raised", the IPA listed 1) the capricious nature of the FAA's analysis of cargo cost versus societal benefits, the assumption in that analysis of one accident, 2) the undervaluing of that accident in terms of the hull cost, and the cost of the lost cargo, business, and potential loss of life because of undelivered critical medical cargo, 3) failure of the FAA to allow interested parties to review and comment on their cost-benefit calculations, 4) the decision to ignore cargo operations when the whole point of the rule was to address fatigue. (http://www.ipapilot.org/ipavfaa/IPA_...OT_Stamped.pdf)

By the way, 5 days earlier, the Cargo Airline Association (CAA) filed a motion to "Intervene In Support of the Respondent [the FAA]". (Who is the CAA? It's ABX Air, Inc., Atlas Air, Inc., FedEx Express, United Parcel Service, Capital Cargo International, DHL Express, and Kalitta Air. Among it's associate members are Ft. Wayne Int'l. Airport, Louisville Int'l. Airport, and Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority.) In it's motion, the CAA surmised that "Petitioner [IPA] appears to intend to argue that the Rule should be vacated insofar as the FAA considered the unique characteristics of the all-cargo airline industry." (http://www.ipapilot.org/ipavfaa/CAA_...ne_1_18_12.pdf) Southern Air, Inc., also filed a motion to "Intervene In Support of ..." on January 23, 2012. (http://www.ipapilot.org/ipavfaa/southernair.pdf)

Mind you, the United States Court of Appeals does not have the authority or the desire to write or rewrite the Rule. All they can do is determine whether the FAA followed proper procedures in publishishing the rule, or not. If they did, nothing gets changed. If they did not, the rule is vacated, and the FAA gets to start over at the beginning. Nevertheless, the IPA in it's January 23, 2012, Press Release stated that they did not intend to vacate or delay the rule itself.(http://www.ipapilot.org/ipavfaa/Pres...-January23.pdf)

In their Opening Brief, the IPA asks the court not to vacate the rule, but to remand only the FAA's decision to exclude all-cargo operations from the Final Rule. It asks the court to direct the "FAA to reconsider the cargo exclusion by (1) following the standards and factors mandated by Congress, and (2) providing IPA and the public sufficient notice of the substance of the proposed rule, as well as its underlying data and analysis, to provide meaningful opportunity to comment." (http://www.ipapilot.org/ipavfaa/Peti...AA_11-1483.pdf)

"During the course of reviewing the administrative record for the purpose of preparing the Brief of the Repsondent, the FAA discovered errors in calculating the scope of costs associated with the implementation of the regulations for all-cargo operations." - Motion of Respondent [FAA], May 17, 2012 (http://www.ipapilot.org/ipavfaa/FAA_5_17_Motion.pdf) The motion goes on to say, "These errors are of sufficient amount that the FAA believes that it is prudent to review the portion of its cost benefit-analysis related to all-cargo operations and allow interested parties an opportunity to comment on that analysis." Further, "In the interest of fairness and transparency, the FAA believes that it is appropriate to reopen the record by issuing a supplemental regulatory evaluation, strictly limited to the application of the new regulations to all-cargo operations."

On June 8, 2012, the court ordered the FAA embark on the process of Supplementary Regulatory Evaluation" and required the FAA to file status reports at 60 day intervals beginning on August 7, 2012. In their August 7 update, the FAA reported that the process was underway -- "in the process of assessing and drafting ..." (http://www.ipapilot.org/ipavfaa/Firs...208-7-2012.pdf) In the August 7, 2012 update, the FAA advised it had "completed its work on the Initial Supplemental Regulatory Impact Analysis, which is currently under review with the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review." (Oh, boy, that's where the original problem occurred.) (http://www.ipapilot.org/ipavfaa/Seco...010-9-2012.pdf)

It is that Initial Supplemental Regulatory Impact Analysis ("RIA") to which the most recent responses from IPA and ALPA have been directed. In the second of four documents linked above, the IPA's "Comments to FAA on Cargo Carve-Out in Initial Supplemental Regulatory Impact Analysis", the IPA sums up their 81 pages by asking the FAA to "determine that cargo operations should be included within the final rule by either determing that the FAA "has no authority to consider costs in this rule-making", or at least to "revise the benefit cost analysis to correct the errors pointed out by IPA." (http://www.ipapilot.org/ipavfaa/IPAC...ementalRIA.pdf) (By the way, check out the chair the IPA offers as an adequate rest facility on Page 61 of that document!!)

All of the documents quoted above and more can be found via links from the IPA's webpage, IPA V FAA

Nowhere in there can you find a guarantee that the court will or even might cause the FAA to change a portion of the Final Rule. They've already allowed the FAA to "do over" the benefit-cost analysis that led to their carve-out of all-cargo airlines. When that process is complete, what will happen if they reach the same conclusion, and the carve-out stands? What is the next step in the court's review of the final rule?

While they've said it's not the goal, the only remedy left is to vacate the final rule and leave the FAA to start over from scratch. Mind you, the FAA can't just decide to forget about it and leave the current rules as they are. The FAA was required by Federal Law to develop new flight and duty time restrictions and rest requirements. That may not be what they want, but that's what the courts can do.


What you want, what you fight for, what you think is right, and what the courts will do are often far different things.






.