Why new FT/DT rules are taking so long...
02-25-2010, 09:06 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 443
Why new FT/DT rules are taking so long...
This might be old but I stumbled upon the January issue of Air Transport world magazine. They interviewed Randy Babbitt and asked him about the new FT/DT rules. Here is what he had to say.
Can you provide an update on the status of the new flight duty time regulation? The Aviation Rulemaking Committee made its recommendations in September. When might we see a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
We take those recommendations and we have to convert them to regulatory language. We also have to do a cost benefit analysis. Then we turn it over to the Office of the Secretary [of Transportation]. Eventually it goes before the [Office of Management and Budget] and then we put it out as an NPRM. I'm hopeful that we can get it out early in 2010. One of the issues that we've run into has been that it's a complicated cost benefit analysis because you essentially have to ask carriers to run these models in their software. You have to see what the cost side of it is, meaning if we implement these changes and do nothing else, would it in fact require more pilots?
ATW Interview: Randy Babbitt
This infuriates me to no end. The FAA's job is not to see if the airlines can afford a change. This is proof that SAFETY does not come first. Cost is number 1. Completely unacceptable.
Can you provide an update on the status of the new flight duty time regulation? The Aviation Rulemaking Committee made its recommendations in September. When might we see a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
We take those recommendations and we have to convert them to regulatory language. We also have to do a cost benefit analysis. Then we turn it over to the Office of the Secretary [of Transportation]. Eventually it goes before the [Office of Management and Budget] and then we put it out as an NPRM. I'm hopeful that we can get it out early in 2010. One of the issues that we've run into has been that it's a complicated cost benefit analysis because you essentially have to ask carriers to run these models in their software. You have to see what the cost side of it is, meaning if we implement these changes and do nothing else, would it in fact require more pilots?
ATW Interview: Randy Babbitt
This infuriates me to no end. The FAA's job is not to see if the airlines can afford a change. This is proof that SAFETY does not come first. Cost is number 1. Completely unacceptable.
02-25-2010, 09:51 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 769
This infuriates me to no end. The FAA's job is not to see if the airlines can afford a change. This is proof that SAFETY does not come first. Cost is number 1. Completely unacceptable.[/quote]
Mission statement of the FAA from their website:
Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.
Actually the FAA is supposed to see if the airlines can afford a change. You and I disagree with that, but that is part of their mission. Unfortunately, Safe and efficient are generally polar opposites when it comes to this industry, but you know which side the FAA will come down on.
Mission statement of the FAA from their website:
Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.
Actually the FAA is supposed to see if the airlines can afford a change. You and I disagree with that, but that is part of their mission. Unfortunately, Safe and efficient are generally polar opposites when it comes to this industry, but you know which side the FAA will come down on.
02-25-2010, 09:55 AM
#3
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Tiki bar
Posts: 2,633
This is unreal.... I guess we know where the FAA's priorities lie. I was naive to think that having Babbitt head the FAA after being ALPA president and a 25 year airline guy would be a good thing. They must be feeding him some good lobster on the hill.
02-25-2010, 10:04 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 284
"Cost" MUST (repeat MUST"|) be a component of every rule. If safety were the total, over-riding concern, the planes wouldn't fly. Ever.
It would be "safer" to have a complete maintenance inspection after every flight. It would be "safer" to have the engines boroscoped after every flight. Conduct a D check weekly. Pilots should be in the simulator once a week, a check ride every month, and an astronaut flight physical before each leg. Drug testing at the start of each trip, with the crewmembers quarantined until the results are back. Put a check airman in the jump seat of every leg. I could go on. All of these measures would improve safety. They are also excessive to the point of "unreasonable." No airline could operate, and the transportation system would collapse.
They are (and should) looking at the cost of each proposal and compare it to the relative benefit (i.e. improvement in safety) that comes with each idea.
Careful what you ask for. They could say things like no more commuting-- Pilots must live within 30 minutes of the airport. No drinking, even off duty. A GPS device that records a pilot’s location and movements in the 12 hours prior to departure. I can come up with LOTS of ideas that would put safety “Number One,” but you get the idea…
It would be "safer" to have a complete maintenance inspection after every flight. It would be "safer" to have the engines boroscoped after every flight. Conduct a D check weekly. Pilots should be in the simulator once a week, a check ride every month, and an astronaut flight physical before each leg. Drug testing at the start of each trip, with the crewmembers quarantined until the results are back. Put a check airman in the jump seat of every leg. I could go on. All of these measures would improve safety. They are also excessive to the point of "unreasonable." No airline could operate, and the transportation system would collapse.
They are (and should) looking at the cost of each proposal and compare it to the relative benefit (i.e. improvement in safety) that comes with each idea.
Careful what you ask for. They could say things like no more commuting-- Pilots must live within 30 minutes of the airport. No drinking, even off duty. A GPS device that records a pilot’s location and movements in the 12 hours prior to departure. I can come up with LOTS of ideas that would put safety “Number One,” but you get the idea…
02-25-2010, 10:14 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: A320 eff oh
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by ClipperJet
"Cost" MUST (repeat MUST"|) be a component of every rule. If safety were the total, over-riding concern, the planes wouldn't fly. Ever.
It would be "safer" to have a complete maintenance inspection after every flight. It would be "safer" to have the engines boroscoped after every flight. Conduct a D check weekly. Pilots should be in the simulator once a week, a check ride every month, and an astronaut flight physical before each leg. Drug testing at the start of each trip, with the crewmembers quarantined until the results are back. Put a check airman in the jump seat of every leg. I could go on. All of these measures would improve safety. They are also excessive to the point of "unreasonable." No airline could operate, and the transportation system would collapse.
They are (and should) looking at the cost of each proposal and compare it to the relative benefit (i.e. improvement in safety) that comes with each idea.
Careful what you ask for. They could say things like no more commuting-- Pilots must live within 30 minutes of the airport. No drinking, even off duty. A GPS device that records a pilot’s location and movements in the 12 hours prior to departure. I can come up with LOTS of ideas that would put safety “Number One,” but you get the idea…
It would be "safer" to have a complete maintenance inspection after every flight. It would be "safer" to have the engines boroscoped after every flight. Conduct a D check weekly. Pilots should be in the simulator once a week, a check ride every month, and an astronaut flight physical before each leg. Drug testing at the start of each trip, with the crewmembers quarantined until the results are back. Put a check airman in the jump seat of every leg. I could go on. All of these measures would improve safety. They are also excessive to the point of "unreasonable." No airline could operate, and the transportation system would collapse.
They are (and should) looking at the cost of each proposal and compare it to the relative benefit (i.e. improvement in safety) that comes with each idea.
Careful what you ask for. They could say things like no more commuting-- Pilots must live within 30 minutes of the airport. No drinking, even off duty. A GPS device that records a pilot’s location and movements in the 12 hours prior to departure. I can come up with LOTS of ideas that would put safety “Number One,” but you get the idea…
02-25-2010, 10:15 AM
#6
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Tiki bar
Posts: 2,633
Originally Posted by ClipperJet
They are (and should) looking at the cost of each proposal and compare it to the relative benefit (i.e. improvement in safety) that comes with each idea.
02-25-2010, 10:34 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by ThrustMonkey
This would trigger people leaving the industry en mass and would cripple the transport world. As close to house arrest as you can get without a conviction
I think folks have this "expectation" that the new rules will say the airlines have to work us less, pay for a hotel when we commute, more days off, etc., all while paying us the same or more.
The rules that come out are likely to be very unpopular among the pilots...
02-25-2010, 11:32 AM
#8
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by ClipperJet
Exactly my point. But it would "make sure we were at home" (30 mins from the airport) and "resting" before flying.
I think folks have this "expectation" that the new rules will say the airlines have to work us less, pay for a hotel when we commute, more days off, etc., all while paying us the same or more.
The rules that come out are likely to be very unpopular among the pilots...
I think folks have this "expectation" that the new rules will say the airlines have to work us less, pay for a hotel when we commute, more days off, etc., all while paying us the same or more.
The rules that come out are likely to be very unpopular among the pilots...
02-25-2010, 12:20 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
Originally Posted by shfo
This might be old but I stumbled upon the January issue of Air Transport world magazine. They interviewed Randy Babbitt and asked him about the new FT/DT rules. Here is what he had to say.
Can you provide an update on the status of the new flight duty time regulation? The Aviation Rulemaking Committee made its recommendations in September. When might we see a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
We take those recommendations and we have to convert them to regulatory language. We also have to do a cost benefit analysis. Then we turn it over to the Office of the Secretary [of Transportation]. Eventually it goes before the [Office of Management and Budget] and then we put it out as an NPRM. I'm hopeful that we can get it out early in 2010. One of the issues that we've run into has been that it's a complicated cost benefit analysis because you essentially have to ask carriers to run these models in their software. You have to see what the cost side of it is, meaning if we implement these changes and do nothing else, would it in fact require more pilots?
ATW Interview: Randy Babbitt
This infuriates me to no end. The FAA's job is not to see if the airlines can afford a change. This is proof that SAFETY does not come first. Cost is number 1. Completely unacceptable.
Can you provide an update on the status of the new flight duty time regulation? The Aviation Rulemaking Committee made its recommendations in September. When might we see a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
We take those recommendations and we have to convert them to regulatory language. We also have to do a cost benefit analysis. Then we turn it over to the Office of the Secretary [of Transportation]. Eventually it goes before the [Office of Management and Budget] and then we put it out as an NPRM. I'm hopeful that we can get it out early in 2010. One of the issues that we've run into has been that it's a complicated cost benefit analysis because you essentially have to ask carriers to run these models in their software. You have to see what the cost side of it is, meaning if we implement these changes and do nothing else, would it in fact require more pilots?
ATW Interview: Randy Babbitt
This infuriates me to no end. The FAA's job is not to see if the airlines can afford a change. This is proof that SAFETY does not come first. Cost is number 1. Completely unacceptable.
Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations Under Executive Order 12866
02-28-2010, 09:09 AM
#10
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: Dispatcher / Meteorolgist
Posts: 49
They have it all tied up with the Lawyer's:
Typical Beltway methods. Delay, Delay, Delay.
This what they told Congress 1-Feb-2010.
Fatigue: In July 2009, the FAA charted an ARC to develop recommendations for an FAA rule on
pilot flight and duty time. The ARC met its September 1, 2009, deadline and provided the FAA
with a broad framework for drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that the agency
planned to publish by December 31, 2009. The FAA now plans to publish an NPRM in April 2010.
http://transportation.house.gov/Medi...204/SSM_Av.pdf
This what they told Congress 1-Feb-2010.
Fatigue: In July 2009, the FAA charted an ARC to develop recommendations for an FAA rule on
pilot flight and duty time. The ARC met its September 1, 2009, deadline and provided the FAA
with a broad framework for drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that the agency
planned to publish by December 31, 2009. The FAA now plans to publish an NPRM in April 2010.
http://transportation.house.gov/Medi...204/SSM_Av.pdf
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
