Official NPRM - watch out commuters :-(
11-05-2010, 07:21 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,515
Official NPRM - watch out commuters :-(
US FAA on Friday issued its long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on pilot flight time, duty and rest requirements, setting the stage for the likely adoption of new regulations that call for flight deck crew at US airlines to get more rest time and spend fewer hours on duty.
The NPRM explicitly states that Part 121 airlines and pilots will have "joint responsibility…for making sure flight crew members are working a reasonable number of hours, getting sufficient sleep and not reporting for flight duty in an unsafe condition…Today's proposal is drafted in a manner that directly imposes the regulatory obligations on both the certificate holders and the flight crew members." FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said the rule "puts that responsibility with equal weight on the carrier."
Under the proposed rule, pilots would be required to have "9 hours for the opportunity to rest" before reporting for flight duty, and the clock would not start ticking until he or she is "behind closed doors" in a hotel or other designated rest place, Babbitt said at a Washington press conference. Regulations currently require flight crew members to have a minimum of 8 hr. of rest time between flight duty periods. However, the rules do not define rest time, meaning that transit time from an airport to a hotel may count as rest time.
"If it takes 2 hours to get to the hotel, you still get 9 hours," he emphasized last week. The NPRM states, "Accordingly, time spent commuting, either locally or long distance, is not considered rest, and a certificate holder will need to consider the commuting times required by individual flight crew members to ensure they can reach their home base while still receiving the required opportunity for rest."Between rest periods, pilots' maximum duty time would be lowered from 16 hr. currently to 13 hr., "which could slide to 9 hours at night," according to FAA.
Rest requirement distinctions made for international and domestic flying would be eliminated by the proposed rule. The NPRM increases the minimum number of consecutive hours a pilot must be "free from all duty" from 24 per week currently to 30. It also proposes a limit of 100 hr. of flight time in any 28-day period compared to the current limit of 100 hr. per every 30 days. Additionally, the limit of 1,000 hr. of total flight time per year would be extended from domestic flights to all flights.
The proposed rule further mandates that pilots would be able to decline to report for duty owing to fatigue at any time without fear of punitive action. Babbitt noted that while many US airlines' pilot labor contracts include provisions along these lines, he said it was important to protect pilots via federal regulation. "If you're fatigued, you shouldn't fly," Babbitt said.
US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the impetus behind the NPRM was the February 2009 Colgan Air Q400 crash outside Buffalo that killed 50, which he described as his "worst day on the job." He said the "lion's share of the credit for moving" forward with the proposed rule belongs to the crash victims' families. "They have been very strong advocates for what we're proposing here," he explained.
LaHood and Babbitt encouraged feedback during the NPRM's 60-day public comment period. But Babbitt said airlines "weighed in" as the rule was being developed and "most of this was agreed to consensually." FAA pegged the total estimated cost of the proposed rule at $1.25 billion for 2013-2022. The administrator conceded that the 145-page NPRM is "incredibly complicated" and will require airlines to step up their recordkeeping regarding pilot duty time. He said the rule's costs are "what you pay…for a safer environment."
The US Air Transport Assn. said in a statement that it "has long been on record in support of pilot-rest and fatigue-management rules that are science-based, effective and crafted to truly improve safety. We will be evaluating the FAA pilot-fatigue rule against that standard and will be guided accordingly."
Babbitt said the NPRM carefully takes into consideration a raft of data on sleeping and fatigue. "This is a long time coming," he commented. "What this rule is based on is hard science and I think that's what was missing in the past."
FAA must also now develop a new rule to govern Part 121 pilot certification standards
The NPRM explicitly states that Part 121 airlines and pilots will have "joint responsibility…for making sure flight crew members are working a reasonable number of hours, getting sufficient sleep and not reporting for flight duty in an unsafe condition…Today's proposal is drafted in a manner that directly imposes the regulatory obligations on both the certificate holders and the flight crew members." FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said the rule "puts that responsibility with equal weight on the carrier."
Under the proposed rule, pilots would be required to have "9 hours for the opportunity to rest" before reporting for flight duty, and the clock would not start ticking until he or she is "behind closed doors" in a hotel or other designated rest place, Babbitt said at a Washington press conference. Regulations currently require flight crew members to have a minimum of 8 hr. of rest time between flight duty periods. However, the rules do not define rest time, meaning that transit time from an airport to a hotel may count as rest time.
"If it takes 2 hours to get to the hotel, you still get 9 hours," he emphasized last week. The NPRM states, "Accordingly, time spent commuting, either locally or long distance, is not considered rest, and a certificate holder will need to consider the commuting times required by individual flight crew members to ensure they can reach their home base while still receiving the required opportunity for rest."Between rest periods, pilots' maximum duty time would be lowered from 16 hr. currently to 13 hr., "which could slide to 9 hours at night," according to FAA.
Rest requirement distinctions made for international and domestic flying would be eliminated by the proposed rule. The NPRM increases the minimum number of consecutive hours a pilot must be "free from all duty" from 24 per week currently to 30. It also proposes a limit of 100 hr. of flight time in any 28-day period compared to the current limit of 100 hr. per every 30 days. Additionally, the limit of 1,000 hr. of total flight time per year would be extended from domestic flights to all flights.
The proposed rule further mandates that pilots would be able to decline to report for duty owing to fatigue at any time without fear of punitive action. Babbitt noted that while many US airlines' pilot labor contracts include provisions along these lines, he said it was important to protect pilots via federal regulation. "If you're fatigued, you shouldn't fly," Babbitt said.
US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the impetus behind the NPRM was the February 2009 Colgan Air Q400 crash outside Buffalo that killed 50, which he described as his "worst day on the job." He said the "lion's share of the credit for moving" forward with the proposed rule belongs to the crash victims' families. "They have been very strong advocates for what we're proposing here," he explained.
LaHood and Babbitt encouraged feedback during the NPRM's 60-day public comment period. But Babbitt said airlines "weighed in" as the rule was being developed and "most of this was agreed to consensually." FAA pegged the total estimated cost of the proposed rule at $1.25 billion for 2013-2022. The administrator conceded that the 145-page NPRM is "incredibly complicated" and will require airlines to step up their recordkeeping regarding pilot duty time. He said the rule's costs are "what you pay…for a safer environment."
The US Air Transport Assn. said in a statement that it "has long been on record in support of pilot-rest and fatigue-management rules that are science-based, effective and crafted to truly improve safety. We will be evaluating the FAA pilot-fatigue rule against that standard and will be guided accordingly."
Babbitt said the NPRM carefully takes into consideration a raft of data on sleeping and fatigue. "This is a long time coming," he commented. "What this rule is based on is hard science and I think that's what was missing in the past."
FAA must also now develop a new rule to govern Part 121 pilot certification standards
11-05-2010, 07:34 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Capt
Posts: 2,041
, "Accordingly, time spent commuting, either locally or long distance, is not considered rest, [B]and a certificate holder will need to consider the commuting times required by individual flight crew members to ensure they can reach their home base while still receiving the required opportunity for rest."
So someone driving in from 3 hours away to his home base is different from someone flying in from 50 minutes away?????????? Who is more rested? Good luck with that. What about someone who lives in base, got the kids to school, did some errands, mowed the lawn, then does an ORD-LHR vs someone who slept on the commuter flight in for 2 hours? GMAFB.
11-05-2010, 07:52 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,515
Originally Posted by iaflyer
Can you give us a link to this story?
FAA's proposed flight duty time rule 'directly imposes' responsibility on airlines | ATW Online
11-05-2010, 08:01 AM
#8
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Johnso;
Actually if the airlines are required to mandate something then they will be required to negotiate it in a contract, whereas if the government did it, the airlines would not have to do anything but state that it is the law. Putting it on the airlines' lap costs them money where a regulation or a law would not.
Actually if the airlines are required to mandate something then they will be required to negotiate it in a contract, whereas if the government did it, the airlines would not have to do anything but state that it is the law. Putting it on the airlines' lap costs them money where a regulation or a law would not.
11-05-2010, 08:06 AM
#9
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
Johnso;
Actually if the airlines are required to mandate something then they will be required to negotiate it in a contract, whereas if the government did it, the airlines would not have to do anything but state that it is the law. Putting it on the airlines' lap costs them money where a regulation or a law would not.
Actually if the airlines are required to mandate something then they will be required to negotiate it in a contract, whereas if the government did it, the airlines would not have to do anything but state that it is the law. Putting it on the airlines' lap costs them money where a regulation or a law would not.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
