New Rest Rules?
05-14-2010, 07:03 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: CRJ200 Capt.
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by TedStryker
The latest information (about a week old) that has come out is that proposed regulations are being held up at the Office of Management and Budget over concerns that the proposed regulations would prove too costly when compared to the potential benefits. Upon hearing this the Colgan 3407 families (among others) got very riled up about not compromising safety for costs. Who knows if it did any good.
Both crew members in the Colgan 3407 crash had far more than the minimum "rest" required by law. Even all of the proposals would be less than what these two had. When are we going to acknowledge that this was pilot error? When are we going to acknowledge that we have been giving dual instruction in 121 cockpits? This wasn't a crew rest issue.
05-14-2010, 07:14 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: MD80
Posts: 1,111
Originally Posted by JoeMerchant
Both crew members in the Colgan 3407 crash had far more than the minimum "rest" required by law. Even all of the proposals would be less than what these two had. When are we going to acknowledge that this was pilot error? When are we going to acknowledge that we have been giving dual instruction in 121 cockpits? This wasn't a crew rest issue.
05-14-2010, 07:27 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: CRJ200 Capt.
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by AirWillie
Do you have any idea how ridiculous this post is? This accident brought about the need for change. The FAA, the most worthless regulator of them all, is on the brink of actually changing an archaic regulation of 16 HOUR! duty days and you're talking about crew rest is not an issue. It's like someone giving you 50bucks and you turn it down because you don't need it. There are many many things that are wrong with this industry and the FAA certainly won't fix them all but they can start by changing duty regs.
05-14-2010, 07:42 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: Furloughed
Posts: 281
Colgan isn't the reason why we need rest rule changes.
The current rest rules are the reason why we need changes.
All Colgan did was once again, for the hundredth time, bring attention to it. Maybe, hopefully, it was the straw that broke the camel's back and we'll actually get some change that we've needed for years... but its looking less and less promising.
The current rest rules are the reason why we need changes.
All Colgan did was once again, for the hundredth time, bring attention to it. Maybe, hopefully, it was the straw that broke the camel's back and we'll actually get some change that we've needed for years... but its looking less and less promising.
05-15-2010, 04:29 AM
#15
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: Aluminum tubing operator
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by JoeMerchant
Take a deep breath, and go do some research. How long was the Colgan crew on duty? How much "rest" did they have the night before? How would any of the proposals actually have changed what happened that night? When you can answer those questions objectively, then we can continue.
Yes, the accident was largely due to pilot error and not simply due to lack of rest, but that's no excuse for failing to use it as an example of how the system is broken. Get on board with fixing it, pal.
05-15-2010, 04:52 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by JoeMerchant
Both crew members in the Colgan 3407 crash had far more than the minimum "rest" required by law. Even all of the proposals would be less than what these two had. When are we going to acknowledge that this was pilot error? When are we going to acknowledge that we have been giving dual instruction in 121 cockpits? This wasn't a crew rest issue.
Having been in a 121 cockpit for a few years I know that what goes on in there isn't safe in regards to fatigue.
05-15-2010, 05:04 AM
#17
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,500
Originally Posted by JoeMerchant
When are we going to acknowledge that we have been giving dual instruction in 121 cockpits? This wasn't a crew rest issue.
05-15-2010, 08:03 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: CRJ200 Capt.
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by TedStryker
You have got to be out of your mind if you consider what the 3407 pilots got as "rest."
Yes, the accident was largely due to pilot error and not simply due to lack of rest, but that's no excuse for failing to use it as an example of how the system is broken. Get on board with fixing it, pal.
Yes, the accident was largely due to pilot error and not simply due to lack of rest, but that's no excuse for failing to use it as an example of how the system is broken. Get on board with fixing it, pal.
05-15-2010, 08:07 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: CRJ200 Capt.
Posts: 822
Originally Posted by FNFAL
Thanks Joe, I left aviation a few years back and am working a 9-5. Currently living the American dream of taking a bunch of vacations per year due to cheap ticket prices. I appreciate you losing sleep and aging in dog years so i can take that third vacation this year. You need to use your brain and realize that 16 hours is a joke. You are subsidizing the lifestyle of people that work way less hard than you do.
Having been in a 121 cockpit for a few years I know that what goes on in there isn't safe in regards to fatigue.
Having been in a 121 cockpit for a few years I know that what goes on in there isn't safe in regards to fatigue.
I'm glad you prefer the 9-5 routine. I prefer working 3 on 4 off. I enjoy my 4 weeks of vacation that I turn into 12 weeks because of said 3on/4off schedules. I doubt many people work less than I do. Thanks for your concern about my health, but it is fine and I get plenty of rest.
05-15-2010, 08:20 AM
#20
On Reserve
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 19
It wasn't about how much rest the crew got before the flight. It was that they were so used to flying sick and fatigued at Colgan that they didn't realize it. They're on merit based upgrade, so calling in sick or fatigued as an FO means you might never make more than 20K a year. That's why you need the regs to change, to protect passengers from pilots flying when they shouldn't.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
