PurpleToolBox

The point was to show that e-logs meant that nobody could cheat, but now everyone is in a race against that clock and that has made the industry less safe. The new rules make it less safe. Some companies even increased the maximum speed the trucks could drive so the driver could make up lost time. Now there's NO flexibility or common sense in the system. If the e-log says you can drive, you better be on duty or driving, even if you are tired. If you are wide awake and it says you need to be off duty, your truck better be parked.

This is why I am paralleling FAR 117 to the above. FDX has mitigation procedures in place for our unique operation. One set of rules isn't going to work for every operation. I am not advocating people cheat or fly fatigue. But I also don't want my chances of making money reduced in the name of one blanket of safety.

Just my opinion, FAR 117 isn't going to make FDX's operations safer.

PurpleToolBox

Yes, several studies now show. https://www.google.com/search?q=e-lo...more+accidents

You always have to trust. Even with FAR 117 someone can show up fatigued.

Show me one FDX, UPS, or Atlas Air accident that would have possibly changed the outcome had FAR 117 been in force. I do believe all of our accidents would have been FAR117 compliant. I could be wrong. But that's what I've read and have heard at the hub turn meetings.

BlueMoon

It sounds like, in general, the safety culture is non existent in the trucking world. That sounds like the old school pilot pushing.

Shorter time available to drive? Their solution drive faster, instead of splitting up the route or planning rest breaks efficiently.

if the driver can’t sleep on his scheduled break I don’t see how that’s any different if I can’t sleep on a scheduled rest period regardless of when the rest period occurs. It happens. If you are too tired to drive or fly, you don’t.

I don’t see it as big of a safety issue in the aviation world. We are more empowered to put a stop to unsafe situations, thanks to unions.

HDawg

Yep called up flight service over the N Atlantic and re-filed the flight plan to change destinations...need to build time for the majors.

PurpleToolBox

You just proved that we don't need FAR117. If we have an operational emergency and you're unfit to continue, you raise your hand and file a fatigue report. End of story.

pinseeker

Wow, that constitute proof?

Then you just proved that we do need it.

kronan

I’m at a loss.
When I look at our CBA limits, seems like 13:30 is the duty limit for a single RFO operation.

And, can’t quite figure why you don’t seem to want to specify a time, nor duration in theatre.
Middle of the night Memphis, middle of the night when you departed

Adlerdriver

I agree. If he's going to throw out an example of how 117 would help us, some actual details would be helpful.
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out where we fly two legs with an RFO westbound on the NATs. Talks like an MD-11 guys ("sleeper") and no rest facility kind of makes it that unless it's a 767 without a can. We used to do CDG-STN-MEM with an RFO but I don't see that in the bid packs. Was this a mil charter HDAWG?

Also, if all was well and "unfatiguing" until the change in destination at 30W, how does that suddenly make you go from a legal 13:30 max duty period to 16:23? Change your destination from one hub to any other logical FDX hub west of the Mississippi at 30W and total block time might change by an hour or so. There's got to be more to this story.

HDawg

On Duty limits
3 pilot operational duty limit 15:00 or 16:30 for extenuating circumstances or 17:30 for DH

i’ll make this easy the 12 angry men are right 117 is the devil.

Precontact

Wow - now a cargo airplane/crew cutout for Coronavirus. Great precedent that 117 cutout. anyone against 117 please consider how this singular exemption will expand to many facets of our operation...