Delta Pilots Association
10-29-2010, 04:52 PM
#1881
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Not drinking any sort of Kool Aid. I have an opinion on this issue that is not that of a rumored position of ALPA. I have my own opinion. What I am illustrating with the Emirates issues and the Foreign Military Base issues, Cabatoge, and Foreign Ownership issues, the 1500 v 500 hr rule, and the NPRM is that we as pilots like to isolate each issue and take a stand on each issue. Well the ugly truth is that many other entities combine all of it, and it becomes a game of best option for everyone.
Of course 1500 hrs sound great, it is of course the most conservative answer, but is there an underlying threat that if this goes about entities that control certain legislation or Open Skies Agreements threaten something else. Then the answer becomes less clear.
How about the NPRM issue. Of course we want science, science, science. Well science supports a lot of what is in the rule making and a few things that are not. Those are where ALPA is talking an stand on the issues. It may gain crew room popularity to take a hard line and tell the rest to stuff it, but when a case is to be made for something like this the proof needs to be in science not in emotion. As some others have hinted, maybe CAPA is being excluded because of their unwillingness to have a dialogue. That is what ALPA is doing, talking, discussing, not bending over.
In regard to the 1500 hr rule. There is no science to it that I am aware of, and that is the majority of the problem. Just legislation from long ago. If we could have it backed up by studies and science that proved that this magical number made the pilot different, then there may be a case that the ATA, IATA and others could not make this point. In fact most of it is common knowledge and what will probably be used to back up any assertion is LCA data. I would not be pleased with a 500 hr rule as I see that as an area of time that is still in the range of many to purchase. You go to the 800-1000 hr range and it tied with, strict AQP 300 course work, and min standards on a variety of procedures that airline data shows as lacking in addition to minimum work experience you probably have a better safeguard in place. Add to it, having aviators seeking accredited degrees does a lot more for this profession in the long term.
Of course 1500 hrs sound great, it is of course the most conservative answer, but is there an underlying threat that if this goes about entities that control certain legislation or Open Skies Agreements threaten something else. Then the answer becomes less clear.
How about the NPRM issue. Of course we want science, science, science. Well science supports a lot of what is in the rule making and a few things that are not. Those are where ALPA is talking an stand on the issues. It may gain crew room popularity to take a hard line and tell the rest to stuff it, but when a case is to be made for something like this the proof needs to be in science not in emotion. As some others have hinted, maybe CAPA is being excluded because of their unwillingness to have a dialogue. That is what ALPA is doing, talking, discussing, not bending over.
In regard to the 1500 hr rule. There is no science to it that I am aware of, and that is the majority of the problem. Just legislation from long ago. If we could have it backed up by studies and science that proved that this magical number made the pilot different, then there may be a case that the ATA, IATA and others could not make this point. In fact most of it is common knowledge and what will probably be used to back up any assertion is LCA data. I would not be pleased with a 500 hr rule as I see that as an area of time that is still in the range of many to purchase. You go to the 800-1000 hr range and it tied with, strict AQP 300 course work, and min standards on a variety of procedures that airline data shows as lacking in addition to minimum work experience you probably have a better safeguard in place. Add to it, having aviators seeking accredited degrees does a lot more for this profession in the long term.
10-29-2010, 05:01 PM
#1882
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
Please provide any scientific evidence to support that statement.
10-29-2010, 05:35 PM
#1883
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Reroute
Hey Ace, why would the APA come to ALPA for it's considerable support and services?
Kool-Aid drinkers are funny.
Carl
10-29-2010, 05:46 PM
#1885
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
Of course, no one will argue that 9 hrs is less fatiguing than 8. However, ALPA's proposal, taken as a whole, does much to reduce fatigue. I see CAPA taking the APA route -> grandstand, pound their chest, and then when none of their inputs are taken, cry.
ALPA, on the other hand, uses science to craft an overall proposal that, in total, reduces the fatigue significantly. They work quietly behind the scenes to actually have an impact on the final outcome. Pilots are awarded with a much improved, though not perfect, solution to the age old problem of fatigue.
ALPA, on the other hand, uses science to craft an overall proposal that, in total, reduces the fatigue significantly. They work quietly behind the scenes to actually have an impact on the final outcome. Pilots are awarded with a much improved, though not perfect, solution to the age old problem of fatigue.
Carl
10-29-2010, 05:51 PM
#1887
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by tsquare
While much of what you say is true... there is NO compromise on safety. Wasn't that once ALPA's mantra? Whatever happened to that? This kind of bill cannot be viewed "as a whole" But.. in that vein, it might be an OK thing.. except, that flying 9 hours is not safe... Period. Therefore, the entire thing fails. Sorry.. you lose on this. OR rather we lose if it passes.... It is shameful. ALPA is now negotiating safety.
Spot on t. Unfortunate as it is, you're spot on.
Carl
10-29-2010, 05:55 PM
#1888
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
For those of you that are willing to log in to the alpa site here are some links to a few things:
http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pre...esolution8.pdf
ALPA In Focus-the Science Behind ALPA's Proposal
ALPA In Focus-CIVICS 101: How Regulations Are Made
ALPA In Focus-A Short History of Flight-Time/Duty-Time Rulemaking
http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pre...esolution8.pdf
ALPA In Focus-the Science Behind ALPA's Proposal
ALPA In Focus-CIVICS 101: How Regulations Are Made
ALPA In Focus-A Short History of Flight-Time/Duty-Time Rulemaking
10-29-2010, 05:55 PM
#1889
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by 0RAC
Pretty sure the d'bag DPA FO ran for a few ALPA positions and lost. Between his public outing of his disdain for fellow pilots and being a sore loser, I'm sure he couldn't win an election within five miles of a Delta cockpit. I'm not sure about the other two though.
I dont even know the guy, but look in the mirror.
10-29-2010, 05:59 PM
#1890
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
Please provide any scientific evidence to support that statement.
Originally Posted by tsquare
except, that flying 9 hours is not safe...
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
Of course, no one will argue that 9 hrs is less fatiguing than 8.
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
Please provide any scientific evidence to support that statement.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
