Originally Posted by Oberon

Data you say? Link?

Originally Posted by RetiredFTS

Not sure I can get it. This was a presentation to both student and IPs during one of our quarterly safety stand arounds in the training command in Corpus Christi, presented by NAMI.
I'll look online.

Originally Posted by tonyp

for you.......not for me. I got my 8 hours a day when I did these things but a pilot being irresponsible is an entirely different matter. They should be held accountable, just like someone that shows up for a 6am report and pulled an all nighter.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver

Explain to me again what makes CDO's so attractive? Seems like you're spending considerably LESS time at home (awake). And then there's that pesky anecdotal evidence where virtually every pilot I've ever heard who liked CDO's talked about their primary reason for liking them being all that extra time they have at home. Just not quite adding up, is it?

Originally Posted by Oberon

Only you and DAL 88 Driver are saying "fatigued". I posted the FAA definition of fatigue and no one has even attempted to draw a coherent line between CDOs and fatigue. DAL 88 Driver says CDOs are fatiguing because they force professional pilots to be unprofessional and not sleep during the day but by his own admission he made that up.

Pointing out the WOCL flying we already do isn't justifying CDOs, it's discounting the argument that we shouldn't do CDOs for safety reasons. That isn't the same thing. CDOs are undesirable flying. That's a pretty good reason not to do them. You don't have to be sensational to have a good argument. "CDOs are unsafe" is a bad argument unless you can provide some sort of evidence. There are countless airlines who do CDOs with FOQA and ASAP programs. I've never seen any data that indicates CDOs are unsafe. That data might exist. Find it and post it and I'll agree with you.

FAA definition


Being tired isn't the same as being fatigued. I fly tired all the time and I suspect everyone here does too. Yawning doesn't affect my ability to pilot an airplane.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Data you say? Link?

Originally Posted by sailingfun

Don't know him, the study simply takes form 4 data and collates it. Most likely by undergrad students. Very easy to verify by anyone including the union. Oh wait the pilots working for the union want to keep their pay as low as possible so they lie about it also!

Originally Posted by scambo1

Nobody is saying the pilots lie about the data. What they are saying is data is selected which fits the scenario being "pushed." The data is still that, data.

Data doesn't become information or fact unless it is put in context. If you choose/control the context, you control the information. The data itself is meaningless unless used in the proper context...proper.

Example: all the back and forth on CDOs. One guy says nobody sleeps. One guy says he sleeps. Therefore, the nobody sleeps is invalid. If an alcoholic is in charge of making rules about drinking before flight, would his perspective be the same as a teatotaler?

Form 4 data is data out of correct context.

Originally Posted by EdGrimley

This may be one of the most relevant posts I've seen regarding the DALPA Flight Loss Pay Crew and company propagandists that come here including SF. There is a boatload of data. They access and extract it and likely have guys at the office help put together an argument (often to lower expectations) and selectively apply it. They try to present it boldly as a universal fact while sniggering under their breath because they know it could be flipped 180 degrees from what they are saying if they used the "other data" and interpretation that was selectively left out.

For the record, I think FPL should be banned for anyone to be posting on message boards UNLESS they state their name and position with ALPA and are willing to show their time card. Hiding behind "these are just my own opinions" while getting paid is pure nonsense and a waste of dues money that should be used to campaign for restoration.