Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional
FAA to take YEARS for new safety rules >

FAA to take YEARS for new safety rules

Search

Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

FAA to take YEARS for new safety rules

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-23-2009 | 06:04 PM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,846
Likes: 9
Default

Sweet baby-jeeezus...that's out of context a bit and you know it!!
Reply
Old 06-23-2009 | 08:17 PM
  #22  
maveric311's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
From: AE ERJ FO
Default

Originally Posted by Eclipse
"All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?"

Stop Watching Monty Python.

You have no frame of reference here, Donny.
Reply
Old 06-24-2009 | 05:24 PM
  #23  
FlyJSH's Avatar
Day puke
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,865
Likes: 0
From: Out.
Default

Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB
Ha! I have really enjoyed reading the numerous posts y'all have made since the Colgan crash about duty-times...coming out of the safest period of time in Airline history, y'all are trying to say that current regs have airplanes falling out of the sky? DING DING Marvin Renslow was a crappy Pilot and Shaw did nothing to help the matter. They both failed inexcusably, and it had nothing to do with tired nerves. It is terribly clear that neither should have ever been allowed inside a 121 cockpit.

If you take care of yourself, a 16 hour day is nothing. It's fatiguing, if done all the time, but if you can't handle a couple of long days sitting on your butt, then I call you Sallies. That's right.

And to those of you who think tougher government regs and rules are going to increase your QOL, take the blind-folds off!! Jeeeezus tell me when just one restriction the gov't has imposed on you has done you any good.

Might as well turn the U.S. into a semi-socialist state...seems it's the only way some of you will be happy!

If 16 hours isn't so bad, why not make 8 hours normal rest? In fact, why have ANY regulation requiring rest? Heck, let's eliminate all the "semi-socialist" restrictions: No more required training, no more 250 minimum flight time, no more required aircraft mx.

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!
Reply
Old 06-24-2009 | 05:52 PM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB
Sweet baby-jeeezus...that's out of context a bit and you know it!!
No... no it's not really. They are examples of saftey regulations that keep us a live. How is that out of context?

as an aside

Last time through recurrent they told us studies showed 16 hours of being awake (not on duty, just awake) has the same effect on reasoning and response time as a .08 BAC.
Reply
Old 06-24-2009 | 06:08 PM
  #25  
NightIP's Avatar
Tuk er jerbs!
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,342
Likes: 0
From: B747 Left
Default

Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB
If you take care of yourself, a 16 hour day is nothing. It's fatiguing, if done all the time, but if you can't handle a couple of long days sitting on your butt, then I call you Sallies. That's right.
You're not working hard enough if you consider 16 hour days to be easy. Come out here and fly by yourself in hardball IFR, pushing 8 hours of block on a 16 hour duty day, and then tell me it's safe.
Reply
Old 06-24-2009 | 10:22 PM
  #26  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
From: 737 Right
Default

Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB
Ha! I have really enjoyed reading the numerous posts y'all have made since the Colgan crash about duty-times...coming out of the safest period of time in Airline history, y'all are trying to say that current regs have airplanes falling out of the sky? DING DING Marvin Renslow was a crappy Pilot and Shaw did nothing to help the matter. They both failed inexcusably, and it had nothing to do with tired nerves. It is terribly clear that neither should have ever been allowed inside a 121 cockpit.

If you take care of yourself, a 16 hour day is nothing. It's fatiguing, if done all the time, but if you can't handle a couple of long days sitting on your butt, then I call you Sallies. That's right.

And to those of you who think tougher government regs and rules are going to increase your QOL, take the blind-folds off!! Jeeeezus tell me when just one restriction the gov't has imposed on you has done you any good.

Might as well turn the U.S. into a semi-socialist state...seems it's the only way some of you will be happy!

WOW! Your lack of perspective is truly shocking. I hear that there are a few flying jobs in Africa -- should be right up your alley. No rules, no government intervention, no pesky safety systems, etc. Good luck!
Reply
Old 06-24-2009 | 10:36 PM
  #27  
OntheMissed's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
From: Reverse cowgirl
Default

Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB

If you take care of yourself, a 16 hour day is nothing. It's fatiguing, if done all the time, but if you can't handle a couple of long days sitting on your butt, then I call you Sallies. That's right.
I don't know about you guys, but 16 hour days aren't the problem. I do get annoyed, however, when I only earn 6 payed hours after a 16 hour duty day. Lame.
Reply
Old 06-24-2009 | 11:33 PM
  #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
From: 747 FO
Default

Originally Posted by 1900luxuryliner
-Car Speed limit laws: People can't smash into me at 140 miles per
hour.

-Laws against drug possession and use: Helps ensure people don't get high on meth or crack, and smash me in the head with a bottle.

-Laws against drinking and driving: People can't get drunk and smash into me.
In which fantasy world do you live? Yeah, you're generally correct about FAR's. However;

People speed and crash, laws or not. Drunk drivers don't care about laws. Sure, an argument can be made that speed limits and DUI laws prevent an everyday Joe with generally good judgment from speeding and DUI. However, it certainly doesn't "ensure" anything.

As for crack/meth addicts, drug laws don't prevent anything.....zilch, zip, notta. An addict is an addict and their addiction takes priority. For recreational and medicinal users of other banned substances, the laws don't matter either. This is why drugs should be legalized, or at least decriminalized, but that's another thread.
Reply
Old 06-25-2009 | 12:40 AM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
From: Beech 1900D
Default

Originally Posted by Zapata
In which fantasy world do you live? Yeah, you're generally correct about FAR's. However;

People speed and crash, laws or not. Drunk drivers don't care about laws. Sure, an argument can be made that speed limits and DUI laws prevent an everyday Joe with generally good judgment from speeding and DUI. However, it certainly doesn't "ensure" anything.

As for crack/meth addicts, drug laws don't prevent anything.....zilch, zip, notta. An addict is an addict and their addiction takes priority. For recreational and medicinal users of other banned substances, the laws don't matter either. This is why drugs should be legalized, or at least decriminalized, but that's another thread.
Are you advocating anarchy??? Laws are in place to help prevent certain actions. The result of certain "undesirable actions" is jail/ imprisonment/ loss of privileges/ loss of licensing/ community service/ etc. People, generally, obey speed limit laws (within 20 mph). People, generally, don't drink and drive. People, generally, don't do illegal drugs. The way our system is set up, people don't perform these "undesirable actions", for fear of the negative consequences of performing them. If you feel there is a better way, that is you opinion. But, the American justice system is specifically set up to punish people for "undesirable actions", whether or not the punishment helps prevent the "undesirable action". I, personally, feel that the system is such that MOST people don't perform "undesirable actions", even though some, unfortunately, do.
Reply
Old 06-25-2009 | 02:28 AM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 937
Likes: 0
From: 747 FO
Default

Originally Posted by 1900luxuryliner
Are you advocating anarchy??? Laws are in place to help prevent certain actions. The result of certain "undesirable actions" is jail/ imprisonment/ loss of privileges/ loss of licensing/ community service/ etc. People, generally, obey speed limit laws (within 20 mph). People, generally, don't drink and drive. People, generally, don't do illegal drugs. The way our system is set up, people don't perform these "undesirable actions", for fear of the negative consequences of performing them. If you feel there is a better way, that is you opinion. But, the American justice system is specifically set up to punish people for "undesirable actions", whether or not the punishment helps prevent the "undesirable action". I, personally, feel that the system is such that MOST people don't perform "undesirable actions", even though some, unfortunately, do.
Did you even read my post? Apparently not. I acknowledged the role of laws in a society in regard to DUI and speeding and it was far from advocating anarchy (anarchy has its place to a degree but that is another discussion). However, your view of laws pertaining to drugs use is purely academic and disconnected from reality.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vagabond
Major
53
03-19-2019 07:17 PM
forgot to bid
Major
15
11-25-2008 09:21 PM
sandlapper
Military
36
10-14-2008 04:17 PM
Opus
Mergers and Acquisitions
14
10-01-2008 05:39 PM
stoki
Regional
18
08-07-2008 02:24 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices