FDX - MD-11 Disputed pairings JUN15
05-28-2015 | 03:17 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Organizational Learning
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,948
Likes: 0
From: Directly behind the combiner
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
Thread Starter
Organizational Learning
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,948
Likes: 0
From: Directly behind the combiner
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
Thread Starter
Organizational Learning
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,948
Likes: 0
From: Directly behind the combiner
I guess I don't understand your beef. As currently written, the pairing has no 8-in-24 issue. You asked, "What if ...?" If the layover were to be shortened to observe normal circadian sleep patterns, there would be an 8-in-24 issue.
Both problems could be resolved by LENGTHENING the layover to observe normal circadian sleep patterns.
.
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: Sep 2014
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
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: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,876
Likes: 0
From: 767 CA
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: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,064
Likes: 37
From: 767 Captain
Speaking in generalities, the concept you're referring to (preferring a shorter layover to a longer one) is very valid in certain circumstances.
Last edited by Adlerdriver; 05-29-2015 at 08:29 AM.
05-29-2015 | 08:37 AM
#10
Thread Starter
Organizational Learning
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,948
Likes: 0
From: Directly behind the combiner
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
