Anyone heard anything about the new bill?
08-31-2009, 07:55 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by flyboyPH
I thought there was going to be recommendations coming out Sept 1? Or did I hear something wrong?
08-31-2009, 08:00 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: Sr. VP of button pushing
Posts: 2,730
Ah, you heard something wrong. It hasn't even been voted on by the House, then the Senate votes, then the Prez signs it and then there are a bunch of 90 days after and 180 days after and one year after and 24 months after. Maybe Sept 2010.
08-31-2009, 11:17 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 243
Gov't struggles to find answer to pilot fatigue
By JOAN LOWY (AP) – 8 minutes ago
WASHINGTON — Current federal rules for how many hours pilots can be scheduled to work were written in an age of propellor-driven planes. Officials back then defined a reasonable work day for a pilot without a scientific understanding of fatigue and well before the modern airline industry.
Finding ways to prevent pilot fatigue has stymied federal regulators and the airline industry for decades. The National Transportation Safety Board has been recommending since 1990 that rules on how many hours pilots can be scheduled to work be updated to take into account early starting times and frequent takeoffs and landings.
On Tuesday, a committee made up of airline officials and union leaders is expected to deliver recommendations for updating the regulations. Although Federal Aviation Administrator Randy Babbitt has promised to vet those recommendations swiftly and turn them into a formal proposal by the FAA, the process will at a minimum take months to complete.
NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said she doesn't expect the suggestions to be offered Tuesday to address all the issues that are part of the fatigue problem, but she hopes they will supply a foundation. "You have to build all the rest of the house around it," she said.
Some members of Congress, though, don't trust the FAA to finally come to grips with the problem. Besides forcing the agency's hand, a bill proposed by lawmakers would require airlines to use fatigue risk management systems — complex scheduling programs that alert the company to potential fatigue problems.
After the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the bill earlier this month, Chairman James Oberstar ran through a list of the airline crashes in recent decades.
"The common thread running through all of it is fatigue," said Oberstar, D-Minn. "We have many experiences of the flight crew, the cabin crew, who in cases of emergency were just so numb they couldn't respond instantly to a tragedy at hand."
Linda Zimmerman, a retired Ohio teacher whose sister died in a 2004 regional airline crash in Kirksville, Mo., said the government's slow response saddens her.
"So many people have died and they haven't done anything about it," Zimmerman said.
Corporate Airlines Flight 5966 was preparing to land on Oct. 19, 2004, when the twin-engine turboprop slammed into trees. The pilots and 11 passengers were killed. Two injured passengers survived by jumping from the plane moments before it was engulfed in flames.
The NTSB said the pilots failed to notice that their plane had descended too quickly because they failed to follow procedures and engaged in unprofessional cockpit banter. But the board also said the captain and first officer probably were exhausted — they were completing their sixth flight of the day, had been on duty more than 14 hours and had flown three trips the day before.
Studies show exhaustion can impair a flier's judgment in much the same way alcohol does. It's not uncommon for overtired pilots to focus on a conversation or a single chore and miss other things going on around them, including critical flight information. In a few cases, they've just fallen asleep.
Last year, two Mesa Airlines pilots conked out for at least 18 minutes during a midmorning flight from Honolulu to Hilo, Hawaii, as their plane continued to cruise past its destination and out to sea. Air traffic controllers were finally able to raise the pilots, who turned around the plane with its 40 passengers and landed it safely.
NTSB said that even though the pilots had not been working long that day, they were clearly fatigued. They cited the pilots' work schedules — the day of the incident was the third consecutive day that both pilots started duty at 5:40 a.m. — and said the captain had an undiagnosed case of sleep apnea.
FAA rules on how many hours an airline pilot may fly or be on duty before he must rest have been virtually unchanged for nearly a half-century, mainly because if airlines have to allow their crews more rest, they would have to hire more crews.
An FAA effort to tackle the issue in the mid-1990s foundered because airlines wanted concessions from pilots in return for reducing flying hours, and the pilots unions wouldn't go along. The agency proposed a new rule, but it has languished for years without final action.
NTSB's investigation of the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 on Feb. 12 near Buffalo, N.Y., killing 50, has spotlighted the long hours, low pay and long-distance commutes of regional airline pilots.
It's not clear where the captain of Flight 3407 slept the night before the crash, but it appears he may have tried to nap in a busy airport crew room where his company — regional carrier Colgan Air Inc. of Manassas, Va., which operated the flight for Continental — kept bright lights on continuously to discourage extended sleeping. The first officer commuted overnight from her home near Seattle to Newark, N.J., to make the flight to Buffalo.
Current rules say pilots can be scheduled for up to 16 hours on duty and up to eight hours of actual flight time in a day, with a minimum of eight hours off in between. They don't take into account that it is probably more tiring for regional airline pilots to fly five or six short legs in seven hours than it is for a pilot with a major airline to fly eight hours across the Atlantic to Europe with only one takeoff and landing.
One way to compensate would be a "controlled napping" policy, based on NASA research more than two decades ago. It found that pilots were more alert and performed better during landings when they were allowed to take turns napping during the cruise phase of flights. Other countries have adopted the policies, but the FAA has not.
According to Curtis Graeber, who ran NASA's fatigue research program for 10 years, some high-level officials worried that controlled napping would become the butt of jokes by late-night comedians.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Add News to your iGoogle Homepage Add News to your Google Homepage
The Associated Press
By JOAN LOWY (AP) – 8 minutes ago
WASHINGTON — Current federal rules for how many hours pilots can be scheduled to work were written in an age of propellor-driven planes. Officials back then defined a reasonable work day for a pilot without a scientific understanding of fatigue and well before the modern airline industry.
Finding ways to prevent pilot fatigue has stymied federal regulators and the airline industry for decades. The National Transportation Safety Board has been recommending since 1990 that rules on how many hours pilots can be scheduled to work be updated to take into account early starting times and frequent takeoffs and landings.
On Tuesday, a committee made up of airline officials and union leaders is expected to deliver recommendations for updating the regulations. Although Federal Aviation Administrator Randy Babbitt has promised to vet those recommendations swiftly and turn them into a formal proposal by the FAA, the process will at a minimum take months to complete.
NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman said she doesn't expect the suggestions to be offered Tuesday to address all the issues that are part of the fatigue problem, but she hopes they will supply a foundation. "You have to build all the rest of the house around it," she said.
Some members of Congress, though, don't trust the FAA to finally come to grips with the problem. Besides forcing the agency's hand, a bill proposed by lawmakers would require airlines to use fatigue risk management systems — complex scheduling programs that alert the company to potential fatigue problems.
After the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved the bill earlier this month, Chairman James Oberstar ran through a list of the airline crashes in recent decades.
"The common thread running through all of it is fatigue," said Oberstar, D-Minn. "We have many experiences of the flight crew, the cabin crew, who in cases of emergency were just so numb they couldn't respond instantly to a tragedy at hand."
Linda Zimmerman, a retired Ohio teacher whose sister died in a 2004 regional airline crash in Kirksville, Mo., said the government's slow response saddens her.
"So many people have died and they haven't done anything about it," Zimmerman said.
Corporate Airlines Flight 5966 was preparing to land on Oct. 19, 2004, when the twin-engine turboprop slammed into trees. The pilots and 11 passengers were killed. Two injured passengers survived by jumping from the plane moments before it was engulfed in flames.
The NTSB said the pilots failed to notice that their plane had descended too quickly because they failed to follow procedures and engaged in unprofessional cockpit banter. But the board also said the captain and first officer probably were exhausted — they were completing their sixth flight of the day, had been on duty more than 14 hours and had flown three trips the day before.
Studies show exhaustion can impair a flier's judgment in much the same way alcohol does. It's not uncommon for overtired pilots to focus on a conversation or a single chore and miss other things going on around them, including critical flight information. In a few cases, they've just fallen asleep.
Last year, two Mesa Airlines pilots conked out for at least 18 minutes during a midmorning flight from Honolulu to Hilo, Hawaii, as their plane continued to cruise past its destination and out to sea. Air traffic controllers were finally able to raise the pilots, who turned around the plane with its 40 passengers and landed it safely.
NTSB said that even though the pilots had not been working long that day, they were clearly fatigued. They cited the pilots' work schedules — the day of the incident was the third consecutive day that both pilots started duty at 5:40 a.m. — and said the captain had an undiagnosed case of sleep apnea.
FAA rules on how many hours an airline pilot may fly or be on duty before he must rest have been virtually unchanged for nearly a half-century, mainly because if airlines have to allow their crews more rest, they would have to hire more crews.
An FAA effort to tackle the issue in the mid-1990s foundered because airlines wanted concessions from pilots in return for reducing flying hours, and the pilots unions wouldn't go along. The agency proposed a new rule, but it has languished for years without final action.
NTSB's investigation of the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 on Feb. 12 near Buffalo, N.Y., killing 50, has spotlighted the long hours, low pay and long-distance commutes of regional airline pilots.
It's not clear where the captain of Flight 3407 slept the night before the crash, but it appears he may have tried to nap in a busy airport crew room where his company — regional carrier Colgan Air Inc. of Manassas, Va., which operated the flight for Continental — kept bright lights on continuously to discourage extended sleeping. The first officer commuted overnight from her home near Seattle to Newark, N.J., to make the flight to Buffalo.
Current rules say pilots can be scheduled for up to 16 hours on duty and up to eight hours of actual flight time in a day, with a minimum of eight hours off in between. They don't take into account that it is probably more tiring for regional airline pilots to fly five or six short legs in seven hours than it is for a pilot with a major airline to fly eight hours across the Atlantic to Europe with only one takeoff and landing.
One way to compensate would be a "controlled napping" policy, based on NASA research more than two decades ago. It found that pilots were more alert and performed better during landings when they were allowed to take turns napping during the cruise phase of flights. Other countries have adopted the policies, but the FAA has not.
According to Curtis Graeber, who ran NASA's fatigue research program for 10 years, some high-level officials worried that controlled napping would become the butt of jokes by late-night comedians.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Add News to your iGoogle Homepage Add News to your Google Homepage
The Associated Press
09-01-2009, 02:23 PM
#26
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,275
Originally Posted by Twin Wasp
Ah, you heard something wrong. It hasn't even been voted on by the House, then the Senate votes, then the Prez signs it and then there are a bunch of 90 days after and 180 days after and one year after and 24 months after. Maybe Sept 2010.
Congress could do something different if they want, and they could do it whenever they want, either before or after the FAA makes their rules. Congress would override the FAA rules obviously.
09-01-2009, 04:29 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 243
The advisory committee on pilot fatigue was expected to deliver its recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration late Tuesday.
Committee members said the FAA had asked them not to make their recommendations public.
New rules may be coming to fight pilots? fatigue - News- msnbc.com
Committee members said the FAA had asked them not to make their recommendations public.
New rules may be coming to fight pilots? fatigue - News- msnbc.com
09-01-2009, 08:37 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: crj-200 FO
Posts: 479
I do have mixed feelings about congress crossing the line and making FARs. What is the point of the FAA if they are going to do this? BUT at the same time, the FAA has let us down on these issues for many decades because they seem to keep caving to the airlines. If congress turns it into law, I wonder how these new regs will be enforced and modified if needed. This really takes a lot of authority away from the FAA if they ever want to make a revision in the future on these rules. And I can see our perspective airlines sticking it to us with these possible new duty times. (Less days off/Less block time per day) So now we sit 3 12 hr shifts to get 15hrs of block instead of 2 15hr days and get 15hrs of block. Time for unions to get more min days off when they go back to the table for new contracts???
09-02-2009, 01:22 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Capt
Posts: 3,215
Hi!
Congress is not "Crossing The Line". They made the laws creating the FAA, and they pass the laws funding the FAA. The are in control of the FAA and can legally do anything they want, including disbanding the FAA, if they so choose.
I, personally, am glad Congress is involved. The NTSB has been trying for DECADES to get the FAA to pass regulations to make flying safer, but the FAA, because of pressure from the Airline Industry, has decided to keep our flying more dangerous than it has to be.
I realize that safety has a price, but the changes that have been proposed by the NTSB make sense, and are economical in the long term. When the Airline Industry fights safety, they are short-sightedly thinking of near-term profits, instead of the long-term health of the industry.
Shame (and stupidity) on them!
cliff
NBO
Congress is not "Crossing The Line". They made the laws creating the FAA, and they pass the laws funding the FAA. The are in control of the FAA and can legally do anything they want, including disbanding the FAA, if they so choose.
I, personally, am glad Congress is involved. The NTSB has been trying for DECADES to get the FAA to pass regulations to make flying safer, but the FAA, because of pressure from the Airline Industry, has decided to keep our flying more dangerous than it has to be.
I realize that safety has a price, but the changes that have been proposed by the NTSB make sense, and are economical in the long term. When the Airline Industry fights safety, they are short-sightedly thinking of near-term profits, instead of the long-term health of the industry.
Shame (and stupidity) on them!
cliff
NBO
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
