Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1559054)

The Delta Pilots Association filed suit against defendants, believed to be fellow Delta pilots.

As some may recall, the DPA published that their web site had been "hacked" and redirected, then the guilty ones apologetically called offering compensation, but the DPA would not accept. "Members" of the DPA state in addition to the remedies sought in the litigation that they want these people fired from Delta.

A DPA Officer stated on an alternative web board that the incident had no effect on his organization's efforts that they had managed the situation and moved right along.

Courthouse News Service

Pilots Say Union Website Was Hijacked
By IULIA FILIP
ShareThis
MANHATTAN (CN) - Delta Pilots Association claims in court that a hacker hijacked its website and redirected viewers to a rival union's web page, to stop it from getting more members.
Delta Pilots Association sued John Doe in Federal Court, in a three-count complaint under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Tim Caplinger, a Delta pilot who lives in Florida, founded the Delta Pilots Association in May 2010 to better represent pilots working for Delta, according to the lawsuit.
Delta Air Lines operates more than 5,000 flights a day and employs nearly 12,000 commercial pilots.
Delta pilots had been represented by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), a union with 50,000 pilot-members in the United States and Canada.
From 2010 to 2013, the Delta Pilots Association got more than half of the Delta pilots to apply for membership in the new union, according to the lawsuit.
Delta Pilots Association says it uses its website for most of its business, including raising donations and campaigning to get more members.
The website, hosted by nonparty SquareSpace in New York, has publicly accessible pages and private pages that require members to log in.
"Starting on or about Nov. 8, 2013, and continuing thereafter, the integrity of DPA's website was dramatically and visibly disrupted when it was 'hacked' into," the complaint states.
"As a direct and immediate consequence of this attack, DPA's website ceased to function as intended and web pages containing data and information in the public portion of the web site were made inaccessible.
"Further, the ability of DPA's website to accept monetary donations from members and/or supporters ceased to function properly when links to a secure third-party credit card web site were severed."
The union says its website could no longer display video messages and important updates, and that visitors were redirected to other website the union does not own.
"In the early stages of the attack, viewers attempting to access DPA's website were involuntarily redirected to a web page that falsely claimed DPA had abandoned its card collection campaign and now urged support for ALPA ('work together')," the complaint states. "This page also contained a link to an ALPA web site.
"In the later stages of the attack viewers were redirected to yet another website, 'deltapilot.org,' which mimicked DPA's website, effectively a malicious 'clone' of it.
"Upon information and belief, the initial web page and the clone site were calculated or intended to dissuade any further Delta pilots from signing cards in DPA's campaign or to otherwise abandon DPA, or its campaign, by knowingly and intentionally making false statements of material fact about DPA and its campaign." (Parentheses in complaint).
The Air Line Pilots Association is not a party to the lawsuit.
Delta Pilots Association claims the hacker destroyed data, files and programs and planted malware that may attack its website again.
"To date, plaintiff has not been successful in removing all of the malicious commands or code and consequently DPA's website remains potentially vulnerable to renewed 'backdoor' attacks by defendant Doe presently and in the future," the lawsuit states.
Delta Pilots Association claims that after it announced it would sue, the hacker called its Interim President, Tim Caplinger, on Nov. 15 and tried to negotiate his way out of the lawsuit.
It claims it lost donations and spent thousands of dollars to determine the damage and restore its website.
The union seeks an injunction and compensatory damages for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
It is represented by Stanley Silverstone with Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, of White Plains.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1559167)

I do.


#1 - Because it appears that DALPA is going to try to redefine the FAR with the concept that 8 hours behind the door = an 8 hour opportunity to sleep. If they are successful in redefining this, we will have lost a major safety component that was built into FAR 117.

#2 - I'm hoping to get the word out to some degree about this, because it's possible that not many pilots have really thought about it. In light of the fact that some within DALPA are putting out wrong information, I'm trying to do what I can to counter that.

#3 - Because it really ****es me off to see the same usual suspects doing whatever they can to shield the company from real world consequences rather than focusing on doing what's best for pilots and safety.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1559139)

Then you would have pilots screaming on here about all the low time trips. A 12 hour min layover would cause havoc with trip construction. 30 hour layovers jumped substantially when we got 8 hours behind the door. Every change has consequences.

Originally Posted by LeineLodge (Post 1559163)

It's not up to anyone other than the pilot to determine that they had an 8 hour sleep opportunity.

It's very simple. If you don't have an 8 hour sleep opportunity, you don't have an option - you must comply with the FAR. Simply call Crew Tracking and let them know that your report has to be pushed back.

Originally Posted by LeineLodge (Post 1559173)

Who "within DALPA" is putting out wrong information? Maybe I missed it in the previous several pages...

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1559177)

So what happens if someone takes to heart our Scheduling Committee Chairman's assertion that 8 hours behind the door satisfies the requirement for an 8 hour sleep opportunity? What if that pilot the next morning, heaven forbid, runs off the runway? When the FAA investigates and discovered that the pilot only spent 8 hours in the room (which means there was no opportunity to get 8 hours of sleep), they are going to hang him/her out to dry because FAR 117 was violated.

The FAR does make it up to us to determine for ourselves if we have an 8 hour sleep opportunity. But that doesn't change the laws of physics... it's impossible to have an opportunity for 8 hours of sleep with no more than 8 hours in the room. How much more? THAT is where our individual decision/judgment/common sense comes into play.

Originally Posted by groundstop (Post 1559185)

I hope we can improve on FAR 117 on our next contract. I would like to see 8 hour block restored. The problem is, for every guy that wants better rules for rest, there are guys out there that want to work work work and don't care about rest. They want 32 hour 5 day trips, and now they are getting them.

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1559184)

I do wonder if the actual "intent" was in fact, 8 hours behind the door? Not that it matters because that is not what it says.

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1559184)

If the FAA want us to have an 8 hour uninterrupted sleep opportunity I would think we would need about 9 hours in the room minimum.

Scoop

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1559171)

So it's a fishing expedition?