nwa757

Did you know?

Fact Sheet

FAA Actions
1995 Proposal for Pilots

In 1995, the FAA proposed a rule to change flight time and rest limits. The agency received more than 2,000 comments from the aviation community [MANAGEMENT] and the public. Most of those comments did not favor the rule as proposed, and there was no clear consensus on what the final rule should say. Highlights of the 1995 proposal:

Reduce the number of duty hours (the time a flight crewmember is on the job, available to fly) from the current 16 hours to 14 hours for two-pilot crews. It would have allowed up to 10 flight hours in the 14 duty hours. Current rules allow up to 16 hours continuous duty time.
Additional duty hours would be permitted only for unexpected operational problems, such as flight delays. In no event could such delays add more than two hours to the pilot’s duty day.
Airlines could no longer schedule pilots in advance in a manner that exceed the duty time.
To ensure that pilots have an adequate opportunity to rest, off-duty time would be increased from eight hours to 10 hours under the proposal.
Pilots would have to be given at least one 36-hour off-duty period every seven days. Current rules call for a 24-hour period.



Call your reps and tell them this needs to be pushed again.

BoilerUP

Basically that proposal would bring Part 121 duty/rest requirements in line with that of Part 135...and truck drivers.

StrikeTime

Excellent information nwa757. Thank you for posting this..-I never new this was proposed.

Although this is a start, I would support the following much more:

8 Hours flight time.
10 Hour rest.
12 Hours maximum duty day, with the posibility of it being extended by 2 hours to 14 in the event of delays, weather, etc.

This would eliminate the useless sitting around that we do in crew rooms, outstations, etc. I know by the time 12 hours comes around, I am usually up for about 14 hours already, and I am ready to go to sleep, especially if it hasn't been a normal day.

As you mentioned, everyone should call there representatives to discuss this issue and propose change. Here is how:

In order to contact the office of your representative, call the White House switchboard at 202-224-3121 and request that office. Once connected, request to speak to someone in regards to the hearings in congress today on regional airline safety, and that you are a pilot. Make it known, that change must occur.

hslightnin

Ill never forget the hotel in SYR was the same as the CSX train driver guys.
I asked them what there max duty day was and they told me 12, I said thats all and they replied "THATS ALL, WE ARE TRYING TO BRING IT TO 8".
not saying they got a easy job but, they are on rails.

727gm

I always preferred the 121 Supplemental rules, where one was not limited to 30 hrs. per week as in scheduled service. One could conceivably legally fly 48 hours per week, although Crew Sched could never actually run a line of flying that tightly. One can even fly over 8 hours in 24 hour period, if the entire trip was completed in one 24 hour period (with intermediate rest), and followed by 16 hours off. But the 16 hour duty day was inviolate, no such thing as legal-to-start,legal-to-finish.

If a scheduled rules could be adjusted, so an airline could get even 42 hours per week, out of a pilot, in two weeks, you'd be done flying for the month, and have two weeks off per month.

Of course, too many legs is just as wearing as too many hours, so some provisions would have to be made on a hours vs. legs pro rata basis.

I always loved that schedule, and could run two bids back-to-back and get a month off without touching vacation time. May not work so well with hubs and pax always waiting to go someplace, and no weekends off. But under the current 30-hour per week limit, they're using you all month, and it seems it would be hard to string together any comfortable or relaxing time off. Every time you turn around, you have to go to work again. Commuting in and out only once a month is enough for me.

BoilerUP

Lower duty time limits with unlimited flight hours within that lower duty limit would be, IMO, much safer.

Doing a 9 hour transcon in a 12 hour day (part 91) is MUCH less fatiguing to me than any 14+ hour duty day which inevitably involves a few hours of sitting around.

rickair7777

I like 10 flight/14 duty. It doesn't really matter to me how much time I'm in the air...sitting in the terminal, at the gate, on the deice pad, in the lineup, in cruise flight...pretty much all the same. And I can take my tie off in cruise flight.

10/14 would not really enable more legs/days which would be bad...you still need turn around time on the ground between legs.

The 10 flight hours would allow some schedules to be more productive for the crew. Or maybe split the diff and go to 9 flight hours.

Another possibility would be a formula that considers the fact that multiple legs are more fatiguing. Say 14 hours with 10 flight hours, but reduce the flight hours by one for each additional leg...

1 Leg: 10 Flight
2 Legs: 9 Flight (This would allow out-and-backs at about the max range of a CRJ)
3 Legs: 8 Flight (This is common for 700/900 flying right now)
4 legs: 7 Flight
5 Legs: 6 flight
6 Legs: 5 Flight (After this it gets impractical...or maybe a 5 or 6 leg limit)

ToiletDuck

Agreed. It's all about the rest. Of course if you Colgan or doing DAL flying with 12 legs in a day it might be an issue.

ToiletDuck

My only concern is with "legal to start legal to finish". A 10hr day could easily be stretched.

FlyJSH

So... 48 hours of 50 minute legs yields 57 legs in a week!

Thanks, but no thanks.

(I know, it couldn't really work like that)