FDX - MD-11 Disputed pairings JUN15
05-28-2015, 03:17 PM
#1
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
FDX - MD-11 Disputed pairings JUN15
If you're stupid enough to pick these up, you deserve every plague that besets you.
MEM-OAK, 20:47 or 21:22 layover (the worst -- too long to sleep once, too short to sleep twice) then OAK-RNO, RNO-MEM -- 7:19 Duty IF Reno can turn you in 1:27 -- don't hold your breath.
Trip 416 06JUN
Trip 416 13JUN
Trip 438 20JUN
Trip 416 27JUN
Let 'em rot in Open Time, brothers.
.
MEM-OAK, 20:47 or 21:22 layover (the worst -- too long to sleep once, too short to sleep twice) then OAK-RNO, RNO-MEM -- 7:19 Duty IF Reno can turn you in 1:27 -- don't hold your breath.
Trip 416 06JUN
Trip 416 13JUN
Trip 438 20JUN
Trip 416 27JUN
Let 'em rot in Open Time, brothers.
.
05-29-2015, 06:05 AM
#3
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Doorknob
So if the layover was shorter, you would be ok with it?
No, for 2 reasons. First, and most important, the PSIT disputed it, so I won't be good with it.
Second, it would exceed 8 block hours in 24 clock hours, so the FAA would frown on it.
It's disputed, what other explanation is required?
.
05-29-2015, 07:16 AM
#5
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Doorknob
8 in 24 has nothing to do with it.
Both problems could be resolved by LENGTHENING the layover to observe normal circadian sleep patterns.
.
05-29-2015, 07:30 AM
#6
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 34
The layover could be as short as 10 hours and still be legal for 8 in 24 purposes. You seem to be up on the FARs as you post them frequently. I'm not saying it's a good trip I was just wondering why you were complaining about a long layover and implying a shorter layover would be better so you could just sleep once.
05-29-2015, 07:56 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 767 CA
Posts: 1,876
Originally Posted by Doorknob
The layover could be as short as 10 hours and still be legal for 8 in 24 purposes. You seem to be up on the FARs as you post them frequently. I'm not saying it's a good trip I was just wondering why you were complaining about a long layover and implying a shorter layover would be better so you could just sleep once.
05-29-2015, 08:18 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by Doorknob
I'm not saying it's a good trip I was just wondering why you were complaining about a long layover and implying a shorter layover would be better so you could just sleep once.
Last edited by Adlerdriver; 05-29-2015 at 08:29 AM.
05-29-2015, 08:37 AM
#10
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Doorknob
The layover could be as short as 10 hours and still be legal for 8 in 24 purposes. You seem to be up on the FARs as you post them frequently. I'm not saying it's a good trip I was just wondering why you were complaining about a long layover and implying a shorter layover would be better so you could just sleep once.
Trip 416 has a 20:47 layover and 33:47 TAFB. Shorten the layover to 10:00, and the TAFB becomes 23:00.
Please show me the math where you can fit 8:33 block hours in there legally.
.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
