The Cargo Cutout
 

FAA issues rules to prevent tired airline pilots

By JOAN LOWY
The Associated Press

10:11 a.m. Wednesday, December 21, 2011
WASHINGTON — Rules aimed at preventing airline pilots from flying while dangerously fatigued were issued Wednesday by the Federal Aviation Administration, a move safety advocates have been urging for more than two decades.

The rules update current pilot work schedule regulations, which largely date back to the 1960s, to reflect studies on how much time pilots need for rest and an understanding of how travel through time zones and the human body clock's response to light and darkness can affect performance.

Carriers have two years to adapt to the new rules. The FAA estimated the cost to industry at $297 million over 10 years, a fraction of the $2 billion a year that an airline trade association had estimated a draft proposal released by FAA over a year ago would cost.

The new rules come nearly three years after the deadly crash of a regional airliner flown by two exhausted pilots. Family members of the 50 people killed in the accident near Buffalo, N.Y., have lobbied relentlessly for more stringent regulations.

The rules would limit the maximum number of hours a pilot can be scheduled to be on duty — including wait time before flights and administrative duties — to between nine and 14 hours. The total depends upon the time of day pilots begin their first flight and the number of time zones crossed.

The maximum amount of time pilots can be scheduled to fly is limited to eight or nine hours, and pilots would get a minimum of 10 hours to rest between duty periods, a two-hour increase over the old rules. Pilots flying overnight would be allowed fewer hours than pilots flying during the day.

But cargo carriers — who do much of their flying overnight when people naturally crave sleep — are exempted from the new rules. The FAA said forcing cargo carriers to reduce the number of hours their pilots can fly would be too costly compared to the safety benefits.

Imposing the rules on cargo airlines like Federal Express or United Parcel Service would have added another $214 million to the cost, FAA officials said.

The exemption for cargo carriers runs counter to the FAA's goal of "one level of safety" across the aviation industry. It's also certain to provoke complaints from pilot unions, who point out that cargo pilots suffer from fatigue the same as pilots for passenger-carrying airlines. And, while cargo planes aren't carrying passengers, the risk to the public on the ground from an air crash is just as great.

The charter airlines that transport nearly 90 percent of U.S. troops around the world had also lobbied heavily for an exemption to the new rules, saying military missions could be jeopardized. But FAA officials rejected those pleas.

The new rules give "pilots enough time to get the rest they really need to safely get passengers to their destinations," FAA Acting Administrator Michael Huerta said.

The rules will prevent about one and a half accidents a year and an average of six deaths a year, FAA officials said. They will also improve pilots' health, officials said.

Researchers say fatigue, much like alcohol, can impair a pilot's performance by slowing reflexes and eroding judgment. The National Transportation Safety Board has been campaigning for two decades for an overhaul of pilot work schedule rules. An effort by the FAA in the late 1990s to develop new rules stalled when pilot unions and airlines were unable to find common ground.

That effort was revived after the February 2009 crash Continental Connection Flight 3407 near Buffalo. Neither pilot appeared to have slept in a bed the previous night. The flight's captain had logged onto a computer in the middle of the night from an airport crew lounge where sleeping was discouraged. The first officer had commuted overnight from Seattle to Newark, N.J., much of the time sitting in a cockpit jumpseat. They could be heard yawning on the ill-fated flight's cockpit voice recorder.

However, by a 2-1 vote the NTSB decided not to cite fatigue as a contributing factor to the crash. The board agreed that the captain's incorrect responses to a stall warning caused the accident, and that other pilot errors contributed to the crash. But investigators said it wasn't possible to determine whether those errors were the result of fatigue.

But Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and former FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt vowed to put strong fatigue rules in place.

"We made a promise to the traveling public that we would do everything possible to make sure pilots are rested when they get in the cockpit. This new rule raises the safety bar to prevent fatigue," LaHood said in a statement.

The families of victims killed in the crash won congressional passage of a law requiring the FAA to issue new rules by Aug. 1 of this year, but the White House Office of Management and Budget delayed release of the rules.

Safety advocates applauded the new rules.

The changes replace "rules that were dangerously obsolete and completely ineffective," said Bill Voss, president of the Flight Safety Foundation in Alexandria, Va. "The rule applies fatigue science in a way that makes sense."

__

I'm off to bed as I am naturally craving sleep.

Maybe now we can get down to REAL section 6 negotiations.

Did you guys just hear that?? It was the loud cheers and celebrations from ATL and SDF! Should we have expected anything else? Just goes to show you that if you have enough money, you can buy about any regulation you want from DC.

Does this make sense to anyone?

"But cargo carriers — who do much of their flying overnight when people naturally crave sleep — are exempted from the new rules. The FAA said forcing cargo carriers to reduce the number of hours their pilots can fly would be too costly compared to the safety benefits."

So the way I read it is:

We do things even more ****ed up than the pax carriers do therefore it would cost our companies even more to comply, so forget it?

Great minds at work.

Check out this from page 27:

In addition to the concerns expressed by non-scheduled air carriers, the Cargo Airline Association (CAA) and a number of air carriers operating all-cargo flights have also objected to the proposed rule applying to supplemental operations. These industry commenters asserted that, while a passenger-operation accident can result in numerous fatalities, an all-cargo accident would consist primarily of property damage.

Puke.

I am now reduced to being property damage...wonderful.

Clark: [realizes his bonus is a jelly-club membership] If this isn't the biggest bag-over-the-head, punch-in-the-face I ever got, G-D IT!
[kicks widly at the presents under the tree]

Clark: Hey! If any of you are looking for any last-minute gift ideas for me, I have one. I'd like Michael Huerta, FAA Acting Administrator, right here tonight. I want him brought from his happy holiday slumber over there on Melody Lane with all the other rich people and I want him brought right here, with a big ribbon on his head, and I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, d**kless, hopeless, heartless, fat-***, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey ******* he is! Hallelujah! Holy *******! Where's the Tylenol?

So nice to see your life value traded for a few cents of shareholder value.

"It was tough to implement it on cargo because of the cost-benefit to this," LaHood said. RIGHT! It is tough when the hugely profitable cargo carriers offer hundreds of millions in lobby money to exempt Cargo carriers...that operate widebody aircraft from the same airports/space. The pax and cargo carriers spend many times more in a quarter on lobbying than the annual costs Mr. LaHood mentions as a result from this rule change. This bull is sprayed dispite the companies having to report massive Qtly expenditures on their lawyer lobby.
He with the most money wins...their should be some big bonuses handed out for this win.

"The Tenerife airport disaster occurred on March 27, 1977, when two Boeing 747 passenger aircraft collided on the runway of Los Rodeos Airport (now known as Tenerife North Airport) on the Spanish island of Tenerife, one of the Canary Islands. With a total of 583 fatalities, the crash is the deadliest accident in aviation history."

Any cargo guys ever taxi around passenger planes? Let's see, 583/2 = 291.5 (Don't count the cargo crew, obviously:rolleyes:)

Oh well, lost this round. TCAS, EGPWS, FFDO etc. Fight On! :)

Or you could read it this way.

You may now throw up.

Speech to be re-written by new FAA Admin as "Moving Forward With Two Levels of Safety."

Speech – "Moving Forward with One Level of Safety"

It's just another government bueacracy that needs to go away. What a joke.

ALPA Comment
 

"Today's pilot fatigue rule release marks historic progress in what must be an unrelenting commitment to ensuring the highest safety standards throughout the airline industry. The Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l (ALPA), is gratified that the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration have delivered on their pledge, and a Congressional mandate, to issue new flight- and duty-time regulations and minimum rest requirements for airline pilots," said Capt. Lee Moak, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, an independent aviation safety organization.

Not sure why ALPA didn't take the opportunity to make a stance on ONE LEVEL OF SAFETY.

Perhaps this is all that got quoted in the article - but I think they should have been very thorough in ensuring that the concept of one level of safety for all members of ALPA was stressed. From top to bottom.

He was drunk when he wrote that.

We'll probably never know if it would have turned out differently if Capt. RB was still there?

this outcome had nothing to do with the FAA.

it was all the OMB (White House)

Chew on this....


You need to pay me more…..because I work longer hours and fly much more productive and rigorous schedules than those pax pilots…

You need to pay me more….because I work in a much less safe environment than those other pilots and am less insulated from the risks of fatigue and circadian issues… Cargo pilots are working harder than pax pilots at night as we share the same airspace. As we fly over and around each other in the night skies, you can rest comfortably knowing all those UPS pilots and other supplemental operators that are “used to working at night” will be stumbling working on that “second level of safety” that “is not cost effective to fix”. We will have to work even harder to keep our working space safe, and we will. But it will cost you.

You need to provide me better health care, vacation, and benefits…because I will not be as rested, nor will I have the protections afforded our pax brethren, and the toll on my health will be higher at my second level of safety. I am forced to work harder to make sure I am safe, rested and ready, and I will be. That will require a certain amount of time off and the guarantee I can take care of the my health needs—both mental and physical—because it is harder working at this second tier of safety.

You need to provide my family superior insurance and benefits…because I fly cargo that is not always screened (too costly) for security threats, and since we fly lithium batteries and other hazardous cargo routinely that has been proven to be deadly at times to aircraft, we understand that many times in our industry the bottom line trumps safety. It does not, however, trump the requirement to take care of our families. Therefore we require industry leading insurance so we can fly knowing our families will be okay in the event of our demise burning up over the North Pacific or halfway across the Atlantic Ocean.

So—yeah—I agree we are “different” is cargo. We work harder. We make more profit. We have a much more dangerous work environment. Therefore, our compensation going forward has absolutely, positively nothing to do with what else happens on the passenger side of the industry. Their pay, benefits, and concessionary contracts have ZERO to do with us. After all, we are “different”.

And that difference, my friends, makes all of us worth a lot more money…. So, keep your new work rules. But the industry better reach for their wallet, because they just demonstrated to us that this is all about the dollars, not safety. And we speak that language too…

Great post. I hope it swings the 15% or so we need to swing to no votes before the next contract vote in about 4 years.

Curious as to how the "WH" had the final say in this Rule. Did you read the final ruling, it is very enlightening. http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...-FinalRule.pdf

It is spelled out (in 300 some pages) The WH OMB has the responsibility for cost analysis, but the FAA under the DOT has the final decision making authority (what to decide based on the cost analysis..(and industry "comments" i.e. lobbying) of the rulemaking. The report delineates the actions that the opposing lobby presented for the cut-out.

I'm disappointed with the rule, and disagree, but would like to know how the WH "made" the cut out, when the FAA makes the ruling? Read the report.

--maybe we can have a alchohol cut out for cargo pilots, so we can legally drink more & sooner befor we fly?!?

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the
United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49
U.S.C. § 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations and
minimum safety standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for
safety in air commerce and national security. This rulemaking is also promulgated under
the authority described in 49 U.S.C. § 44701(a)(4), which requires the Administrator to
promulgate regulations in the interest of safety for the maximum hours or periods of
service of airmen and other employees of air carriers.

Albief for NC Chair!! Well said, and "those" talking points should be our unequivocal stand.

Very Well stated!!!!

Hhramph! ...

The rule as written was not good for long haul cargo. WHOA...before you shoot me, let me explain. For operators like FedEx, UPS, Atlas, Connie, Omni, Southern and others who go long haul through many (read more than 2-4 time zones), the rule as written would screw us due to the requirements of acclimatization to the local time zone.

What that would mean is that in terms of rest, they would give it to us. They would then, because of the rules and scheduling, screw us in terms of scheduling and lost wages. Further, because of the rules, they could and would keep us out on the road a heck of a lot longer than they already try to. And who among us really believes that scheduling will "work with you?"

What we have now is a window of opportunity for all cargo and supplemental groups to get together and figure out a framework of rules that may not perfectly fit each carrier, but give us a stronger baseline to stand in unity and fight for.

12 hours of flying is not necessarily 12 hours of flying. Add in a few time zones, crossing from Europe to Hong Kong, or Dubai back to the states...and it's even worse. We need better.

Until then, the best rule is, as some have already said, "I am fatigued and going to the hotel for uninterrupted rest. I'll call you."

And then set the brakes.

yessss!!!!

Watch the company try and cherry pick certain portions of the new rules that actually help the bottom line and keep intact the old rules where they see fit. "All in the interest of safety" we need to be on top of this. This isn't over IMO.

Great post!! Thanks for the laugh!!

Yes, this should entitle us to some of that $214 million savings. Unfortunately, most of my fellow comrades (68%) are happy to settle for much less.....say 6%.

Albie and Flaps50 are right on target. This is nauseating. :mad:

WM

Selective editing/quoting as ALPA's statement went on to further state:

"While these new regulations are an improvement over the current flight and duty regulations, ALPA’s leaders are disappointed that cargo operations are being allowed to continue under the old rules, which lack the science-based foundation of the new regulations. ALPA is committed to One Level of Safety and will continue to work to include cargo operations in these new regulations. The new rule does not preclude cargo airlines from voluntarily following and implementing these new regulations, and ALPA calls on ALL airlines to implement and operate to the new, improved standards."

He has my vote...
Albie , any chance we can get you to submit your post to the LEC, MEC, NC et al??

Value of life - yep, they have one.
 

Maybe our company friendly unions will negotiate similar rest requirements in our next contracts, so they can boost of considerable gains. This will be a given of coarse, since the friendly FAA asked the company CEO'S to voluntarily adapt them.

Merry Christmas.

Dear Santa, I would like an early retirement package, a pot of gold, a pot of platinum, Lindsey Lohan as president and peace of earth for all.

Albie,
Thats the funniest post I've ever read!!! I need to have some of what you're smoking....

Because if you think that we have the unity to demand and act accordingly to achieve that, you gotta have some topshelf, non-medicinal herb.

Look at the historical (or should I say hysterical) unity of days gone by:

Approved pos LOA1
Bid 777 without payrate, including MEC
Tripped over eachother to fatten wallets during 4a2b
Approved LOA2 for 3% and gave company blank check

Watch how we go crazy to bid 767 before that whole debacle is decided.

Have no unity, never will, the union and its members are paper tigers...

Of all the cargo pilots that could have only about 4000 (1500 FDX) responded to the call to action .


WE ARE OUR OWN WORST EMEMY

From the FAA's website:

Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to examine the costs and benefits of both proposed and final regulatory actions. DOT administrations promulgate rules to enhance safety and protect the environment, for which the monetary value of preventing injuries and loss of life must be estimated among the benefits. Administrations also undertake investments and administrative actions that must be evaluated in terms of their safety benefits.

The benefit of preventing a fatality is measured by the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL), defined as the value of improvements in safety that result in a reduction by one in the expected number of fatalities


(current life value is $5.8 million.)

I am not bashing the President (I voted for him, in fact). It is simply politics and $$$. If the OMB (white house) says it is too expensive (cost/benefit), then the FAA (under direction/pressure from the President) will change the regulation. That is the way Washington works.

And to think that there are plenty of people (especially pilots) that finds no purpose in OWS.

Well, there goes your credibility...

:)

Of course we see the purpose to OWS. What is funny is that there are plenty of people (especially leftwing pilots) that dont see the irony in demands from protestors (that never worked a day in their lives) that the greedy ba$ards forgive my $100K in student loans

So it's not too expensive for the pax carriers, most of which are in, just coming out of, or floating just above bankruptcy, but it's too expensive for the (relatively) prosperous cargo carriers... interesting logic.

We aren't about to camp out with a bunch of smelly human derelicts braying to the Retailer in Chief about the poor quality and quantity of free hopium to stuff into our collective pipes.

If we decide we need a better Retailer in Chief, we will get one the old fashioned way, we will buy one.:D