Originally Posted by Reroute

Lots of communications and transparency in ALPA for those who care enough to be informed.

Originally Posted by Reroute

Carl, there are some good aspects to the NPRM and some bad aspects that ALPA has problems with. ALPA has identified those areas and will work to try and improve them. Throwing a hissy fit won't effect positive change, making arguments based on science, facts and reason will.

"In testimony before the U.S. House Aviation Subcommittee later today, ALPA will present its initial analysis of the FAA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on airline pilots’ flight- and duty-time limits and minimum rest requirements.
As you know, our union has long pursued modern, science-based flight- and duty-time and minimum rest regulations that would apply to all airline pilots, regardless of the size of the equipment they fly or whether they carry cargo or passengers.
In 2007, Capt. Prater created a Blue Ribbon Panel on Pilot Fatigue to review the science and recommend an action plan for the union. In 2009, ALPA adopted a landmark pilot fatigue policy. Last year we co-chaired and were represented by seven pilots on the FAA’s Flight and Duty Time Limitations and Rest Requirements Aviation Rulemaking Committee.
ALPA is very pleased that the FAA has released a regulatory proposal. Guided by ALPA’s policy, our union’s Flight Time/Duty Time Committee is carefully reviewing the NPRM. The committee includes ALPA pilot safety experts from the range of Part 121 flying, including regional, domestic, international, and cargo operations.

While ALPA looks forward to submitting our full comments to the FAA, the FT/DT Committee offers some initial observations about the proposal. We are very encouraged by many aspects.

• First, the proposal appears to apply scientific principles and recognizes human physiological limitations with increased minimum rest periods and more reasonable duty days, and recognizes the effects of circadian rhythms on fatigue.
• The proposal applies to all FAR Part 121 flying and would eliminate “carve-outs” for supplemental operations.
• It incorporates FAR Part 91 “tag on” or ferry flights within flight- and duty-time limitations.
• The proposed rule requires fatigue education and training on a recurring basis at all airlines and provides for implementation of a fatigue risk management program.
• The NPRM mandates that all flight crewmembers report rested and fit for duty and establishes that fitness for duty is a joint responsibility of the flight crewmember and airline.
• The proposal requires airlines to accurately record and set scheduled flight and duty periods based on actual operations and to make adjustments if unreliable scheduling is used.
• It makes the decision to extend the duty period a joint responsibility of the pilot in command and the airline, and further limits the number of times the duty period may be extended for a flight crew.
• The proposal also requires positioning of crewmembers or deadheading to be counted as duty.
• And, finally, the NPRM specifically recognizes reserve duty.

All these factors mark important progress. Our union has, however, found several areas in its preliminary analysis in which the NPRM does not adequately reflect the ARC’s recommendations.

• The NPRM does not ensure that the length and quality of rest after a long-range flight across multiple time zones is sufficient before the next flight and duty period.
• We have concerns that the application of the augmented flight and duty period table will not adequately address the circadian disruption that the flight crewmember may experience during certain types of long-range flying.
• The proposal does not assess the effects of increasing the amount of block time in a duty period up to 10 hours.

After staunch advocacy by ALPA and others, the FAA has developed a proposed rule that has the potential to make significant improvements in flight and duty regulations.
The law now requires the FAA to publish new pilot flight- and duty-time rules no later than July 31, 2011. ALPA’s FT/DT Committee will submit our association’s comments to the FAA and share them with the membership. We will also track the agency’s progress toward meeting the 2011 deadline for a final rule.

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

Reroute; Ya beat me to it.

Taken right from the ALPA national site.

Originally Posted by Reroute

CAPA doesn't apparently have the significant capabilities and other services required to support it's own members, why else would the APA need to come to ALPA to get those capabilities.

Originally Posted by Reroute

"We are very pleased to announce that our talks with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) have borne fruit in many areas where we have pledged mutual cooperation, including ALPA’s generous offer to provide APA access to ALPA’s extensive capabilities in the area of economic and financial analysis and other related services. It is safe to assert that the relationship between ALPA and APA is the best it’s been in decades. Working together, we can advance the profession far more than acting as competitors." APA ltr

Originally Posted by NuGuy

Heyas,

The pushback from the 1,500 hour issue is that in a couple of years, there will be an actual shortage of bodies in the cockpit.

What we are being told is that what will follow a legitimate shortage will be either the MPL (bad), or opening the doors to foriegn pilots to fly our airplanes (gee, I thought that they had a hard time finding people overseas, too)

I hate to say this, but that is coming anyway. The MPL and cabotage is TOO lucrative a savings for the airlines. If we can't hold fast on the 1,500 hour limit, there is NO way we're going to stop cabotage and the MPL from happening, when there is real money on the line.

You can appease the dragon now, but it will always be back for more.

Nu

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Except it's about the wrong subject. Or does that not matter to you?

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

Another desperate attempt by the ALPA apologists, but at least you used the word "apparently". Read your own post below ace! Below says NOTHING of the sort that you assert above.

Carl

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler

While you're busy defining hissy fits...try to stay on the subject. The subject is the 1500 hour rule. ALPA SUPPORTS the reduction to 500 hours...CAPA does NOT.

Carl

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

1500hrs is one of the few beefs on here Carl. The NPRM has been listed on here probably more than a few hundred times.