Airlines Seek Stay On Pilot Fatigue Rule
Guest
Posts: n/a
Airlines Seek Stay On Pilot Fatigue Rule
By John Crawley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The nation's major airlines will ask an appeals court to halt enforcement of a Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) rule on pilot fatigue, which they say regulators interpret in a way that violates federal law, unless the agency agrees to stop it on its own this week.
The industry's major lobbying group contends the FAA's interpretation of the rule, which seeks to limit the number of consecutive hours pilots work, is leading to flight cancellations and delays among airlines trying to comply, and would over time cost the carriers millions of dollars.
In a letter to FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, lawyers for the group, the Air Transport Association, requested the agency take action by Thursday. ATA said the interpretation of the rule and its subsequent enforcement not only violates the law, but is inconsistent with long-standing policy.
If the FAA refuses the request, the letter said the association would seek a stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In the past, airlines have interpreted the rule limiting pilots to 16 hours a day to mean scheduled duty time -- that is, hours that could be extended if operational problems arose.
But last November, the FAA said the rule applied to actual, not scheduled, flight hours. That meant duty time could not be extended past 16 hours a day if a flight was delayed by a problem known before takeoff, like a mechanical glitch or bad weather.
Although technically enforceable now, the FAA said in May it would give airlines who need time six months to adjust their flight schedules to accommodate the rule interpretation. The agency has said it would "deal stringently'' with violations.
An FAA spokeswoman acknowledged receipt of the letter, but declined to comment on the request. However, sources with knowledge of the issue signaled that it was unlikely the FAA would halt enforcement of the rule.
The industry wants any enforcement halted until a lawsuit it filed earlier this year with the appeals court challenging the FAA's interpretation of the rule is resolved.
PILOTS ANGRY
The association views the FAA interpretation as a wholesale change in policy that failed to follow proper rule-making procedures, while the agency maintains it has had the same stance all along.
The nation's largest airline pilots union, the Air Line Pilots Association (news - web sites), blasted the industry request for a stay by accusing major carriers of trying to "trip up'' the government with administrative red tape.
"Sooner or later, the FAA is going to drop the other shoe and propose some drastically needed amendments to the flight-time rules,'' union president Duane Woerth said.
"The airlines know they can't win in the long run, so they've resorted to throwing every imaginable roadblock into the path of enforcement and reform,'' Woerth said.
But the industry group said the rule is "inflicting irreparable harm'' on those airlines that are trying to comply with the standard.
"Compliance with the (rule) is causing and will continue to cause flight cancellations and delays. These events are unavoidable and unpredictable,'' the association said in its June 12 letter to Garvey.
The industry said the cost of hiring and training new pilots to meet the rule "would reach tens of millions of dollars.'' Adjusting crew-scheduling systems would cost more money.
"The FAA has imposed a major change in management of air travel in the United States without justification and without reasoned consideration of the injury that it will cause,'' the industry letter said.
The association said that if the FAA "truly believes'' there is a problem with pilot fatigue or that the crew-scheduling system should be changed then it should propose a new rule, accept comments and then issue a final decision.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The nation's major airlines will ask an appeals court to halt enforcement of a Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) rule on pilot fatigue, which they say regulators interpret in a way that violates federal law, unless the agency agrees to stop it on its own this week.
The industry's major lobbying group contends the FAA's interpretation of the rule, which seeks to limit the number of consecutive hours pilots work, is leading to flight cancellations and delays among airlines trying to comply, and would over time cost the carriers millions of dollars.
In a letter to FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, lawyers for the group, the Air Transport Association, requested the agency take action by Thursday. ATA said the interpretation of the rule and its subsequent enforcement not only violates the law, but is inconsistent with long-standing policy.
If the FAA refuses the request, the letter said the association would seek a stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In the past, airlines have interpreted the rule limiting pilots to 16 hours a day to mean scheduled duty time -- that is, hours that could be extended if operational problems arose.
But last November, the FAA said the rule applied to actual, not scheduled, flight hours. That meant duty time could not be extended past 16 hours a day if a flight was delayed by a problem known before takeoff, like a mechanical glitch or bad weather.
Although technically enforceable now, the FAA said in May it would give airlines who need time six months to adjust their flight schedules to accommodate the rule interpretation. The agency has said it would "deal stringently'' with violations.
An FAA spokeswoman acknowledged receipt of the letter, but declined to comment on the request. However, sources with knowledge of the issue signaled that it was unlikely the FAA would halt enforcement of the rule.
The industry wants any enforcement halted until a lawsuit it filed earlier this year with the appeals court challenging the FAA's interpretation of the rule is resolved.
PILOTS ANGRY
The association views the FAA interpretation as a wholesale change in policy that failed to follow proper rule-making procedures, while the agency maintains it has had the same stance all along.
The nation's largest airline pilots union, the Air Line Pilots Association (news - web sites), blasted the industry request for a stay by accusing major carriers of trying to "trip up'' the government with administrative red tape.
"Sooner or later, the FAA is going to drop the other shoe and propose some drastically needed amendments to the flight-time rules,'' union president Duane Woerth said.
"The airlines know they can't win in the long run, so they've resorted to throwing every imaginable roadblock into the path of enforcement and reform,'' Woerth said.
But the industry group said the rule is "inflicting irreparable harm'' on those airlines that are trying to comply with the standard.
"Compliance with the (rule) is causing and will continue to cause flight cancellations and delays. These events are unavoidable and unpredictable,'' the association said in its June 12 letter to Garvey.
The industry said the cost of hiring and training new pilots to meet the rule "would reach tens of millions of dollars.'' Adjusting crew-scheduling systems would cost more money.
"The FAA has imposed a major change in management of air travel in the United States without justification and without reasoned consideration of the injury that it will cause,'' the industry letter said.
The association said that if the FAA "truly believes'' there is a problem with pilot fatigue or that the crew-scheduling system should be changed then it should propose a new rule, accept comments and then issue a final decision.
Guest
Posts: n/a
First an introduction:
After lurking off and on for a couple of years this topic has inspired me to finally register and post a message.
The issue of updated flight and duty times is an important one to me. I fly a Metroliner in the state of Alaska where my operation has been forced to convert to 121 rules. That's all well and good, however, solely by virtue of the fact that we operate in Alaska we may (and do) use 135 flight and duty times (10 hours max of hand flying a pitchy, unstable airplane in a 14 hour duty day).
To me this is cruel and unusual. We are chronically fatigued.
After working this job for two years I've noticed the most common symptoms of fatigue being: slurred speech, loss of hand-eye coordination, muddled thinking and slower reaction time.
Sounds a lot like being drunk doesn't it?
All parties involved (airlines, FAA, passengers, other pilots) refuse to tolerate drunks on duty. Why should fatigued pilots be tolerated?
Of course I'm preaching to the choir here. But what I'm suggesting is that we start attatching the same stigma of being drunk on duty to being fatigued on duty.
It's not just a matter of being tired and whiney. It's a lifestyle choice.
After lurking off and on for a couple of years this topic has inspired me to finally register and post a message.
The issue of updated flight and duty times is an important one to me. I fly a Metroliner in the state of Alaska where my operation has been forced to convert to 121 rules. That's all well and good, however, solely by virtue of the fact that we operate in Alaska we may (and do) use 135 flight and duty times (10 hours max of hand flying a pitchy, unstable airplane in a 14 hour duty day).
To me this is cruel and unusual. We are chronically fatigued.
After working this job for two years I've noticed the most common symptoms of fatigue being: slurred speech, loss of hand-eye coordination, muddled thinking and slower reaction time.
Sounds a lot like being drunk doesn't it?
All parties involved (airlines, FAA, passengers, other pilots) refuse to tolerate drunks on duty. Why should fatigued pilots be tolerated?
Of course I'm preaching to the choir here. But what I'm suggesting is that we start attatching the same stigma of being drunk on duty to being fatigued on duty.
It's not just a matter of being tired and whiney. It's a lifestyle choice.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps we should remember that it took a major accident many years ago (long before my time!) to get any form of flight time limitations whatsoever (in the UK, that is).
The thought of aircrew working a 16 hour day even on an occasional basis must fill the travelling public with horror.
How long can this go on before something major happens? Our friends and colleagues across the pond must surely have our full support.
------------------
The thought of aircrew working a 16 hour day even on an occasional basis must fill the travelling public with horror.
How long can this go on before something major happens? Our friends and colleagues across the pond must surely have our full support.
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some of you may have heard of a pilot being fired in the US for this controversial subject.
It is I; I also happen to be the Moderator for the 'new' Pan Am, Portsmouth, NH, Forum.
On January 3, 2001, I was terminated, on the phone, by the PAA DO as per order of the part owner and President of the airline for not wishing to violate the "lookback" provisions of FAR 121.471(b) by continuing into what would have resulted in more than an eighteen hour day.
Pan Am informed me that "they did not abide by the FAA Whitlow Interpretation"; this was a surprise to us all as one month prior they had done so and had actually replaced a Captain in a similar situation.
During the ensuing month of December they found a new religion called "ATA", even though PAA is not a member.
The article posted by AACapt sums up well the present situation of this battle but if you are interested in reading more on mine:
http://www.portsmouthherald.com/news/2_23b.htm
http://www.portsmouthherald.com/news/3_14_e1.htm
http://www.portsmouthherald.com/news/5_17biz.htm
------------------
"Ceiling estimated almost four hundred overcast, visibility maybe one, maybe two, maybe three!"
[This message has been edited by DeeTeeS (edited 19 June 2001).]
It is I; I also happen to be the Moderator for the 'new' Pan Am, Portsmouth, NH, Forum.
On January 3, 2001, I was terminated, on the phone, by the PAA DO as per order of the part owner and President of the airline for not wishing to violate the "lookback" provisions of FAR 121.471(b) by continuing into what would have resulted in more than an eighteen hour day.
Pan Am informed me that "they did not abide by the FAA Whitlow Interpretation"; this was a surprise to us all as one month prior they had done so and had actually replaced a Captain in a similar situation.
During the ensuing month of December they found a new religion called "ATA", even though PAA is not a member.
The article posted by AACapt sums up well the present situation of this battle but if you are interested in reading more on mine:
http://www.portsmouthherald.com/news/2_23b.htm
http://www.portsmouthherald.com/news/3_14_e1.htm
http://www.portsmouthherald.com/news/5_17biz.htm
------------------
"Ceiling estimated almost four hundred overcast, visibility maybe one, maybe two, maybe three!"
[This message has been edited by DeeTeeS (edited 19 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
DeeTeeS -
I hope you sue the living #$* out of those b@#*&$%ds.
Incidents like this demonstrate the cowardice and incompetence of the FAA to do their job and the true colors of exploitive dishonest management that only feins concern about safety.
How about international reserves being on 24 hour call? Say you've been awake for 14 hours, then get called for a long international flight of say 11 hours. The flight has mx and weather delays of 5 hours, but you're still "legal." Now you've been awake for 29 hours when you do the landing at the destination in maybe bad weather at night.
My former company tried to make me do something like that. Wakeup call at 4am followed 1 hour later by a "er, cancel your wakeup call" and a rolling slow-leak delay ALL DAY LONG. Finally at 6pm (14 hours after the company generated wakeup) they wanted us to on the van to the airport for an 11+ hour flight. The engineer and I told the captain to stuff it - we're too fatigued. He didn't like it and the Chief Pilot complained we were "legal." Tough sh%#. Glad I don't work for those bums anymore.
I hope you sue the living #$* out of those b@#*&$%ds.
Incidents like this demonstrate the cowardice and incompetence of the FAA to do their job and the true colors of exploitive dishonest management that only feins concern about safety.
How about international reserves being on 24 hour call? Say you've been awake for 14 hours, then get called for a long international flight of say 11 hours. The flight has mx and weather delays of 5 hours, but you're still "legal." Now you've been awake for 29 hours when you do the landing at the destination in maybe bad weather at night.
My former company tried to make me do something like that. Wakeup call at 4am followed 1 hour later by a "er, cancel your wakeup call" and a rolling slow-leak delay ALL DAY LONG. Finally at 6pm (14 hours after the company generated wakeup) they wanted us to on the van to the airport for an 11+ hour flight. The engineer and I told the captain to stuff it - we're too fatigued. He didn't like it and the Chief Pilot complained we were "legal." Tough sh%#. Glad I don't work for those bums anymore.
Guest
Posts: n/a
AACapt
Request further clarification of some points in your very interesting post above as follows:
1. The ATA apparently bases at least part of its case on an allegation that the FAA’s interpretation of the rule “violates federal law”. Can you tell us exactly what “federal law” is alleged to be violated by the said interpretation?
2. Your post states that “[i]f the FAA refuses the request, the [ATA] ... would seek a stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit” and then goes on to later state that “[the ATA] wants any enforcement halted until a lawsuit it filed earlier this year with the appeals court challenging the FAA's interpretation of the rule is resolved”. These statements are in wide contradiction in that the first suggests the ATA wishes to give the FAA an opportunity to respond to its request, under a mere threat to take legal action, whereas the second implies a legal action already in train on this issue in the very same court. Are you able to resolve this contradiction for us, please?
3. Given that the FAA will “give airlines who need time six months to adjust their flight schedules to accommodate the rule interpretation”, it seems a little strange that it then maintains that “it has had the same stance all along”. Are you apprised as to the logic being applied here? It does seem as if the FAA has in the past failed to enforce a legislative provision and now, in tardily seeking to enforce same, holds that it has always done so. What say you?
Request further clarification of some points in your very interesting post above as follows:
1. The ATA apparently bases at least part of its case on an allegation that the FAA’s interpretation of the rule “violates federal law”. Can you tell us exactly what “federal law” is alleged to be violated by the said interpretation?
2. Your post states that “[i]f the FAA refuses the request, the [ATA] ... would seek a stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit” and then goes on to later state that “[the ATA] wants any enforcement halted until a lawsuit it filed earlier this year with the appeals court challenging the FAA's interpretation of the rule is resolved”. These statements are in wide contradiction in that the first suggests the ATA wishes to give the FAA an opportunity to respond to its request, under a mere threat to take legal action, whereas the second implies a legal action already in train on this issue in the very same court. Are you able to resolve this contradiction for us, please?
3. Given that the FAA will “give airlines who need time six months to adjust their flight schedules to accommodate the rule interpretation”, it seems a little strange that it then maintains that “it has had the same stance all along”. Are you apprised as to the logic being applied here? It does seem as if the FAA has in the past failed to enforce a legislative provision and now, in tardily seeking to enforce same, holds that it has always done so. What say you?
Guest
Posts: n/a
CAP 371 does give some weight to the argument on fatigue
"In essence, the Air Navigation Order requires that a crew member shall not fly, and an operator shall not require him to fly, if either has reason to believe that he is suffering, or is likely to suffer while flying, from such fatigue as may endanger the safety of the aircraft or its occupants."
I wonder, has anyone tried to use this argument with their employer and, more to the point, are they still employed by same employer. Sounds like DeeTees tried and suffered badly as a result.
"In essence, the Air Navigation Order requires that a crew member shall not fly, and an operator shall not require him to fly, if either has reason to believe that he is suffering, or is likely to suffer while flying, from such fatigue as may endanger the safety of the aircraft or its occupants."
I wonder, has anyone tried to use this argument with their employer and, more to the point, are they still employed by same employer. Sounds like DeeTees tried and suffered badly as a result.
Guest
Posts: n/a
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">ALPA Chief Blasts Airlines' Attempt to Evade Pilot Fatigue Rule
WASHINGTON, D.C.---Not content to make airline pilots work 16 hours at a stretch, the airlines' trade group has just petitioned the FAA to revoke a pilot fatigue rule so that they can work 18 hours at a stretch, or 20 hours, or - theoretically -- until they fall asleep at the controls. And the head of the nation's largest pilot union says that he has had enough.
"I have come to the conclusion that these people have no shame, that there are no limits to the distortions and diversions they are willing to create in order to avoid having to comply with a vital safety rule that is backed by solid scientific evidence, not to mention common sense," said Captain Duane Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, International. ALPA represents 66,000 airline pilots at 47 airlines in the U.S. and Canada.
Woerth was blasting a June 12 filing by the Air Transport Association, asking that the FAA stay enforcement of a rule that effectively limits pilot work hours to 16 in any 24-hour period. This allows barely eight hours away from duty, which in most cases only provides a pilot with five or six hours of sleep.
"A 16-hour day is hard enough for anyone, let alone a pilot, who must maintain his mental and physical faculties at top performance levels. A pilot who is on duty 16 hours has been awake at least 17 hours - and we know from scientific study that this produces an impairment in performance equivalent to having a blood alcohol content of 0.05 percent. It is illegal for pilots to fly with a BAC of 0.04 percent, because that produces what the FAA considers to be an unacceptable impairment to performance, yet the airlines are content - no, let's make that adamant - that their pilots be allowed to fly under conditions worse than that," Woerth said.
"I've looked at the ATA petition, and in a quarter-century in the airline business, I've never seen such a blatantly hypocritical collection of distortions and half-truths attempting to camouflage naked greed," he said.
"First, the FAA is not acting unlawfully, as the airlines claim. What is unlawful is the continued flouting of this safety rule by the airlines, even after the FAA put the industry on notice last month with a clear delineation of how the rule is to be interpreted. Second, they have the nerve to hide behind public interest, claiming that enforcement of the rule will cause passenger delays. If passengers are looking for someone to blame, it would be the airlines with their cheeseparing attempts to get by without hiring enough pilots," Woerth said.
"Third - and this really rankles me and every airline pilot - they made a pathetic attempt to divert public concerns about pilot fatigue and safety by concocting a laughable argument that enforcement actually would harm safety! Ironically, they then go on to say that "no party will be harmed by a stay" to the rule. Tell that to the victims, if we have a fatigue-related accident because of these ATA stalling tactics," he said.
"And stalling seems to be their chief tactic now. Sooner or later, the FAA is going to drop the other shoe and propose some drastically needed amendments to the flight time rules. The airlines know they can't win in the long run, so they've resorted to throwing every imaginable roadblock into the path of enforcement and reform. Their Alertness Management Initiative was a stalling tactic under the guise of scientific research. They've already gone to court once over the 16-hour rule, and now they're trying to trip up the FAA with administrative red tape," Woerth said.
"Last month, airline pilot unions issued a joint demand for new rules that would do four things: Establish one flight/duty time standard for all airline pilots, maintain the current 8-hour flight time limit, reduce the maximum scheduled duty time to 12 hours with further restrictions for midnight-to-dawn flights, and give pilots a minimum break of 10 hours off-duty to allow an 8-hour sleep opportunity. If ATA really were interested in promoting safety, they would support their pilots, not oppose them at every step of the way," he said.
"We've had it with their endless protestations that they want reform, that they want pilots to get adequate rest, that they want to do the right thing. Anyone who believes that after reading the ATA petition simply isn't paying attention. It's about money versus safety, pure and simple," Woerth said.</font>
WASHINGTON, D.C.---Not content to make airline pilots work 16 hours at a stretch, the airlines' trade group has just petitioned the FAA to revoke a pilot fatigue rule so that they can work 18 hours at a stretch, or 20 hours, or - theoretically -- until they fall asleep at the controls. And the head of the nation's largest pilot union says that he has had enough.
"I have come to the conclusion that these people have no shame, that there are no limits to the distortions and diversions they are willing to create in order to avoid having to comply with a vital safety rule that is backed by solid scientific evidence, not to mention common sense," said Captain Duane Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, International. ALPA represents 66,000 airline pilots at 47 airlines in the U.S. and Canada.
Woerth was blasting a June 12 filing by the Air Transport Association, asking that the FAA stay enforcement of a rule that effectively limits pilot work hours to 16 in any 24-hour period. This allows barely eight hours away from duty, which in most cases only provides a pilot with five or six hours of sleep.
"A 16-hour day is hard enough for anyone, let alone a pilot, who must maintain his mental and physical faculties at top performance levels. A pilot who is on duty 16 hours has been awake at least 17 hours - and we know from scientific study that this produces an impairment in performance equivalent to having a blood alcohol content of 0.05 percent. It is illegal for pilots to fly with a BAC of 0.04 percent, because that produces what the FAA considers to be an unacceptable impairment to performance, yet the airlines are content - no, let's make that adamant - that their pilots be allowed to fly under conditions worse than that," Woerth said.
"I've looked at the ATA petition, and in a quarter-century in the airline business, I've never seen such a blatantly hypocritical collection of distortions and half-truths attempting to camouflage naked greed," he said.
"First, the FAA is not acting unlawfully, as the airlines claim. What is unlawful is the continued flouting of this safety rule by the airlines, even after the FAA put the industry on notice last month with a clear delineation of how the rule is to be interpreted. Second, they have the nerve to hide behind public interest, claiming that enforcement of the rule will cause passenger delays. If passengers are looking for someone to blame, it would be the airlines with their cheeseparing attempts to get by without hiring enough pilots," Woerth said.
"Third - and this really rankles me and every airline pilot - they made a pathetic attempt to divert public concerns about pilot fatigue and safety by concocting a laughable argument that enforcement actually would harm safety! Ironically, they then go on to say that "no party will be harmed by a stay" to the rule. Tell that to the victims, if we have a fatigue-related accident because of these ATA stalling tactics," he said.
"And stalling seems to be their chief tactic now. Sooner or later, the FAA is going to drop the other shoe and propose some drastically needed amendments to the flight time rules. The airlines know they can't win in the long run, so they've resorted to throwing every imaginable roadblock into the path of enforcement and reform. Their Alertness Management Initiative was a stalling tactic under the guise of scientific research. They've already gone to court once over the 16-hour rule, and now they're trying to trip up the FAA with administrative red tape," Woerth said.
"Last month, airline pilot unions issued a joint demand for new rules that would do four things: Establish one flight/duty time standard for all airline pilots, maintain the current 8-hour flight time limit, reduce the maximum scheduled duty time to 12 hours with further restrictions for midnight-to-dawn flights, and give pilots a minimum break of 10 hours off-duty to allow an 8-hour sleep opportunity. If ATA really were interested in promoting safety, they would support their pilots, not oppose them at every step of the way," he said.
"We've had it with their endless protestations that they want reform, that they want pilots to get adequate rest, that they want to do the right thing. Anyone who believes that after reading the ATA petition simply isn't paying attention. It's about money versus safety, pure and simple," Woerth said.</font>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Danny,
I, of course, also thank you heartily.
I had seen Captain Woerth's statement last week; Captain Frank Williamson, United B747-400 and Chair of the Flight Time/Duty Time Committee, said that in all the years of his ALPA exposure he had never seen a stronger Press Statement from the President.
I don't have quite the number of years as Captain Willamson but I do have quite a bit of exposure from the early '70s and have to agree with him.
(zerozero-my signature file is an actual weather report from the Hooper Bay, AK, station agent circa 1973...;I am sure you been there, done that!!)
------------------
"Ceiling estimated almost four hundred overcast, visibility maybe one, maybe two, maybe three!"
I, of course, also thank you heartily.
I had seen Captain Woerth's statement last week; Captain Frank Williamson, United B747-400 and Chair of the Flight Time/Duty Time Committee, said that in all the years of his ALPA exposure he had never seen a stronger Press Statement from the President.
I don't have quite the number of years as Captain Willamson but I do have quite a bit of exposure from the early '70s and have to agree with him.
(zerozero-my signature file is an actual weather report from the Hooper Bay, AK, station agent circa 1973...;I am sure you been there, done that!!)
------------------
"Ceiling estimated almost four hundred overcast, visibility maybe one, maybe two, maybe three!"
Guest
Posts: n/a
OC41,
More than once I've been "on duty" close to 24 hrs in one go.All legal and all.The contract I work under now says that the time spent on ground transfers doesn't count as duty time,so if the comp sends me by coach to start duty from an apt hours away from my base apt my duty time starts 1 hour before schd takeoff(for the purpose of the limits).
All very nice and legal in Italy.
More than once I've been "on duty" close to 24 hrs in one go.All legal and all.The contract I work under now says that the time spent on ground transfers doesn't count as duty time,so if the comp sends me by coach to start duty from an apt hours away from my base apt my duty time starts 1 hour before schd takeoff(for the purpose of the limits).
All very nice and legal in Italy.
Guest
Posts: n/a
(DeeTeeS--Yes sir, I'm quite familiar with Hooper Bay, but when I was based in Bethel HPB had an ASOS. Still, your story reminds me of a report I got, not too far away, from Chevak.
There was a huge high pressure system over almost the entire state--Clear and cold--everywhere. But I called Chevak anyway to see what their weather was.
Agent answers, I ask for the weather, she replies, "Wait, hold on."
She returns: "It's Zero Zero."
I ask, "Are you sure? Everywhere else is clear and cold, visibility unlimited"
"Wait, hold on."
She returns: "You're right, it's good, there was frost on my window.")
(Sorry a little off topic, just had to bond with my friend from the Alaska Bush. Fly safe)
There was a huge high pressure system over almost the entire state--Clear and cold--everywhere. But I called Chevak anyway to see what their weather was.
Agent answers, I ask for the weather, she replies, "Wait, hold on."
She returns: "It's Zero Zero."
I ask, "Are you sure? Everywhere else is clear and cold, visibility unlimited"
"Wait, hold on."
She returns: "You're right, it's good, there was frost on my window.")
(Sorry a little off topic, just had to bond with my friend from the Alaska Bush. Fly safe)
Guest
Posts: n/a
zerozero,
After a story like that you definitely deserve your handle and it is quite unique, I would think, that it was still available!!
Must have been rightfully yours from the very start!
------------------
"Ceiling estimated almost four hundred overcast, visibility maybe one, maybe two, maybe three!"
After a story like that you definitely deserve your handle and it is quite unique, I would think, that it was still available!!
Must have been rightfully yours from the very start!
------------------
"Ceiling estimated almost four hundred overcast, visibility maybe one, maybe two, maybe three!"
Guest
Posts: n/a
All;
I might be a lowly passenger and all, but working in the computer industry, I know I lose all rational, sane thought after 12 hours of pounding the keyboard straight.
Much like you pilots, and although this is a different area of rsponsibility, I'm responsible for keeping a major utility company in the US up and running and I can speak from experience I don't make the same decisions after 2 hours of work as I do after 12 hours of work.
It comes as no suprise pilots are the same. Personally, and no offense here, I don't want to fly with you after that long a day.
If only the people who made the rules flew over 100+ miles a year, they might have an idea. I depend on you tired old folks to get me from "A" to "B" and when you do I never fail to thank the crew...even if they are asleep....and that's a little bit of an exagerration but very close to the truth .
You guys are great. Thanks for all the safe landings !!
I might be a lowly passenger and all, but working in the computer industry, I know I lose all rational, sane thought after 12 hours of pounding the keyboard straight.
Much like you pilots, and although this is a different area of rsponsibility, I'm responsible for keeping a major utility company in the US up and running and I can speak from experience I don't make the same decisions after 2 hours of work as I do after 12 hours of work.
It comes as no suprise pilots are the same. Personally, and no offense here, I don't want to fly with you after that long a day.
If only the people who made the rules flew over 100+ miles a year, they might have an idea. I depend on you tired old folks to get me from "A" to "B" and when you do I never fail to thank the crew...even if they are asleep....and that's a little bit of an exagerration but very close to the truth .
You guys are great. Thanks for all the safe landings !!