forgot to bid

I used to fly 12 hours in a day with 2 pilots on a Part 135/91 gig. Not 1 leg, but multiple legs. You can surely do it and not even notice it.... on a nice clear day with most of those legs empty (as in nobody bothers you) and never dealing with an aircraft swap or airport terminal and the pilots 29 and 27 years old. I'm with dawgs the more I think about it, multiple leg days flying late is a receipe for disaster... especially on the regional side where pilots are understaffed, underpaid and without any meaningful workrules.

BTW, how many fewer pilots would an airline need if it could exceed 8 hours in a day? And how much would it cost to now negotiate and retain what was once law?

Carl Spackler

This is strange. First you tell me I'm just knocking some other guy with my own "facts", then you say I'm right. You seem confused.

Look Einstein, it's not pilot "purists" that believe this. There is NO study in existence that states fatigue is improved by working longer hours. If I'm wrong, I trust you'll post the study.

Unbelievable. The facts and science are clearly on our side, but we play into their hands if we refuse to compromise? Wow. You are a manager's/regulator's dream!

Carl

Carl Spackler

Ridiculous. Nobody gets whatever they want. But you never get what you want when you surrender. But with you PG, surrender is most appreciated by management...so keep that in mind.

Carl

dckozak

Nice edit job


Your rather frugal with the compliments so I'll take the Einstein crack as such.

Your quote "facts" as if you have volumes of scientific studies at your finger tips. So share them with us. I have only the internet and what Google finds at my current disposal. The best sources I could find in short order are a collection of 14 published papers on pilots fatigue collected by the European Pilots Association Pilot Fatigue: Scientific Studies | European Cockpit Association (ECA) the first one http://www.eurocockpit.be/sites/defa...rt_09_0122.pdf seems to be as all encompassing as any. I also reviewed EU-OPS Subpart Q, the pan European flight and duty regs. Its was interesting to note that EU-OPS nor studies I glanced over mentioned flight time as it relateds to day to day, only duty period limits. I'm not saying it shouldn't, but I cannot find a study about either that relates any flight time limit to fatigue, only time on duty.
Maybe Carl can post his (scientific papers) links in rebuttal. [/Quote]

The only "dreams" I have are a day when I and my fellow brothers don't have to drool all night on flights to ANC. I dream of my union not having to trade hard pay and bennies for QOL scheduling issues and having to fly to FAR limits as we now can (during a defined "operational emergency").
We,as in pilots have been down this road before, look up pilot duty limits as proposed in the mid 90's, the industry was able to shoot them down.

I beieive in the same things you do Carl, I just think my goals are more pragmatic. I would love it if we could keep the best of what we have and fix the worst of what is out there. On the back side of the clock and international flying, we, as a group, are at a deep disadvantage. I don't think the sunrise to sunset crowd fully understands or cares. When I read comments about how many (pilot) jobs it will cost if we allow over 8 for day flying, I see guys more concerned with their wallet and seniority rather than rest and fatigue. Make this a money issue and we will surely lose. I expect that thinking from Wall Street and Airline CEO's, not fellow pilots.

Carl Spackler

There ARE NO scientific studies that claim adding more working hours has no effect on fatigue. I can't prove a negative...the studies don't exist. If you think otherwise, post the study. Nowhere in the links that you provide does it say that working more hours has no effect on fatigue.

If by "pragmatic" you mean that we as pilots need to compromise FURTHER on fatigue and safety issues so that we can have a hand in the policy/legislation, we don't agree at all. This is a failed strategy in so many ways, and is one of the reasons our profession has seen a steady slide in the last decade.

If this NPRM was supposed to deal primarily with fatigue, then let's stick to that subject. Let's not be fooled by other goodies that will be ours...if we only compromise and work longer hours. This is the exact same "logic" that ALPA used to get people to sign off on the sale of scope. Don't fall for this same tactic again on a different subject.

Carl

dckozak

I guess we won't be seeing any links to scientific papers from Carl!!

I'm glad you brought up the scope thing, helps to get this thread back on topic. ALPA= bad/dumb/unresponsive to membership/etc, etc.
I'm sure independent DPA will march into Washington, guns' a blazing and force the bureaucrats to see it your way....right!!

Carl Spackler

Yup...I only had a couple of minutes to search, but this is an excerpt from Canada's version of OSHA:

"Many conditions can lead to fatigue. For example, fatigue resulting from long hours of work and a shorter length of time between work shifts is an important concern for the health and safety of workers on extended workdays. Some researchers report that in many cases the extended workday is more tiring than the eight-hour day. They often argue that workers will be too tired by the end of ten or twelve hours and jeopardize their own well-being, and also the safety of others on the job."

Here's the link to the full report:

OSH Answers: Extended Workday: Health & Safety Issues

Carl

Carl Spackler

I don't think they're dumb.

No...just represent the pilots of Delta Air Lines without the conflicts of interest produced by representing pilots of those companies that benefit from our scope sales.

I don't know if you work for UPS or FedEx, but you shouldn't worry yourself too much about us Delta guys. We'll either change who represents us...or not.

Carl

gloopy

You make it sound like guys are simply complaining about not getting some sort of hiring windfall. What part of up to 15 hours, 4 leg, 4am release, 10 hour (or more due to IROPS) block day being less safe than current status quo reeks of "concern over wallets and seniority"?

Upping the 2 pilot block hour limits with a few weaksauce parameters, most or all of which are extendable anyway, is nothing short of granting a massive staffing windfall to the ATA to meet or exceed their costs for some nominal improvements to the ultra high cycle/regional sectors. Hire a few more regional pilots, gut hundreds of mainline pilots. Slightly increase regional safety, significantly reduce mainline safety.

This proposal is an ATA hack job that hurts safety far more than it helps. It also will cost mainline pilot jobs. Mentioning and even complaining about the second thing in no way discredits the first thing.

DAL 88 Driver

Very tactfully put, Carl. I was thinking of something along the lines of "mind your own business", but I decided it wasn't worth the hassle/conflict to get into a back and forth with him. You said it better.