FAA starts 'expedited review' of pilot rest rules
 

FAA starts 'expedited review' of pilot rest rules, plans 'rapidly' to develop new rule
Thursday June 25, 2009

US FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said yesterday that the agency is initiating "an expedited review of flight and rest rules" and "will work rapidly to develop and implement a new flight time and rest rule."

Babbitt said that "pilot fatigue [is now] a high priority" for FAA and called for US airlines and pilot unions "to respond [to FAA] by July 31 with specific commitments to strengthen safety at regional and major airlines." He said carriers must "obtain all available FAA pilot records, among other actions."

In a statement, he said he will establish an Aviation Rulemaking Committee on pilot fatigue by July 15 comprising FAA, labor and industry representatives "that will be charged with developing recommendations for an FAA rule by September 1." Also by July 15, FAA inspectors "will complete a focused review of airline procedures for identifying and tracking pilots who fail evaluations or demonstrate a repetitive need for additional training." Inspectors additionally will review airlines' pilot training and qualification programs to ensure they meet FAA standards.

"Safety remains the airlines' top priority," Air Transport Assn. President and CEO James May said yesterday, adding that Babbitt's statement "reflects our shared commitment to adopt meaningful safety initiatives on an aggressive timeline."

Congress and FAA have become intensely interested in pilot training and rest procedures, particularly at US regional airlines, in the aftermath of February's fatal crash of a Colgan Air Q400 outside Buffalo. Babbitt, formerly president of the Air Line Pilots Assn. and an Eastern Airlines pilot for more than 25 years, signaled last week that the agency this summer would tackle aggressively issues surrounding pilot training and fatigue and rest rules (ATWOnline, July 17).

Babbitt said he told airlines in a letter sent yesterday that they should "immediately adopt a policy to ensure that their pilot applicants release any records held by the FAA to the hiring air carrier while the agency works with Congress to update the current Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996." He added that FAA "expects airlines that have contractual relationships with regional feeder companies to develop specific programs to share safety data and ensure that their partner airlines mirror their most effective safety practices."


by Aaron Karp




ATW Daily News

Good luck fixing that!

That's like trying to fix the US immigration system!!

Hope they don't get caught up in crew duty time and forget to take trainees to the pusher in the sym, at night, in IFR with ice.

Crew rest include commuting across country before you flight.

I seem to remember the ""powers that be" suggesting that down-route layovers should be scheduled to avoid the 18 to 30 hrs off duty rest period.

Every east coast stateside trip (and many others) had the off duty right in the middle of this "avoid" period.

Alas it was only a recommendation.

Perhaps EASA should also take a good look at subpart Q !

Maybe they'll finally dust off the NPRM on rest rules that has been sitting on their shelf for 10+ years. IIRC, that one had ALPA's support (probably why it's on the shelf -- not endorsed by ATA)...

I predict there'll be huge resistance to any moves to include commuting before start of duty. Anyone with two brain cells in his head would surely include it in FTLs, but the same people who always chime in saying they prefer minimum rest periods at layover ports so they can have more time at home will be vocally against the idea.

I've got no problem with people who want to commute home after a long FDP, but those who demand the right to do so immediately before a long FDP totally destroy the credibility of the majority who say that long FDPs, particularly those crossing multiple time zones, are fatiguing.

Standing by for the inevitable "incoming"...

Wiley, agreed 100%.
Lifestyle does not take precedence over safety.

All those BA longhaul trips out of Gatwick (for Heathrow based flight crew) were/are always preceeded by a hotel in the Gatwick area... Sensible

The situation surrounding the Colgan crew and their extended time positioning across the country BEFORE operating their duty is mostly (though not totally) unique to the US. I feel it would be unfair for me to comment as each pilot has the right to live where he/she wants and here in the UK, commutes are by geographical nature much shorter. However, I do feel that it is every pilots duty to look seriously at their actions, including pre flight and ask themselves if what they are doing is sensible. Are they adequately rested etc etc?

My problem is the inadequacy of the present rule set regarding FTL's. Most reasonable states have a clause stating that 18-30 rest periods should be avoided. However most operators use this as a target. And just how the addition of an extra crew member on the flight deck enables an operator to not factorise a LH sector beggars belief (this only applies for those carriers without onboard rest facilities) The system is a sham built up over the years at the behest of companies willing to push crews further and take the risk. Our regulators need to be more independent and grow a set of teeth.

Here in the UK, the whole 18-30 and heavy crew issue was supposed to be investigated by the CAA. But guess what, the companies brought commercial pressures to bear and it has been shelved yet again. It is only a matter of time before something serious happens that is related to these areas.

Fly

Sadly you are right - the CAA have back peddled far too often at the operators behest. You only have to look at each CHIRP document to see that time after time they are apologists for problems they have the power but not the will to sort out.

I have three early starts coming up - alarm clock three in the morning followed immediately by longhaul - legal but hardly condicive to a sharp mind !

Perhaps when they've sorted that out they can get on with the implementation of the second phase of 'Openskies'?

Or is it just a one way street again?

Oh, forgot it's America, land of the free and the restrictive business practices.

:}

Fly
Don't entirely agree with your post. UK carriers have to add a 3rd Pilot to avoid the factorisation issue. In Europe 2 crew just get on with it legally.
The CAA are looking at the 2 man crew issue (bearing in mind what sub part Q offers and the fact Pilots suggest having 3 tired crew is the same as 2 tired crew). A couple of airlines are undertaking 3 man v 2 man fatigue studies to answer your concerns.
The 18-30 hours rest is one where i agree Commercial pressure comes into it. There is however a case for it to be better with night / day transitions perhaps

:\

Mr A

sorry if I wasn't entirely clear. I understand why the third crew member is added in the UK and absolutely agree that all it results in is 3 tired pilots rather than 2. What winds me up, is the principle of adding a 3rd pilot in some way means that we are able as a crew to operate for a longer period of time legally.

Tha CAA have no teeth and refuse to confront many issues surrounding the health and wellbeing of crew, be they FTL or security. You need only look at CHIRP. All in all it is a shambles.

Have they woken up?
 

Isn't it amazing how politics drives. The NTSB have had this flagged as an overlooked issue on their website for years - but what do they know?

Now a public crash & change of political tone & suddenly it's important to try & protect people. Great, I'm glad, but why are safety issues controlled by politics (IE Corporate power) alone?

Croc of ****e. Nothing will happen. Not a thing. The issue will die down when the next news item hits. That'll be something along the lines of ECONOMY TANKING, MAN THE LIFEBOATS. Hey, I'm not joking. This is exactly what'll happen. It's happened before, and will happen again. Nothing new under the sun.

With a heavy heart, I have to agree with 4PW. Nothing will happen, the next bit of news will break and the regulators will heave a sigh of relief and crawl back under their stone. The companies will be happy. Fait Accompli. Nothing has changed with regards to security and the ridiculous uneven standards applied at different airports and nothing WILL change with regard to FTL requirement. Upset the applecart, not likely.

It will once again rely on the professional pilot community to exercise some sense regarding rest etc. Whilst we all want our respective companies to be successful, how anyone can expect someone to remain sharp on a 14-15 hour day, I do not know. But the crash on the motorway after the individual has left work has nothing to do with FTL's, does it?????

CHIRP makes for interesting reading, but is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard in reality. But never mind, Simon Calder and his cronies in the media keep telling us all that pilots only work 25 hours a week and have half a year off. I must remember to tell myself that.:mad::mad:

Yep, a lot of the folks over the years that whine the loudest about fatigue are also the ones that commute in from the coast for a crossing the same day. I've had a fellow crewmember call to tell me he was taking the redeye from LAX to the East Coast to operate a morning departure to Europe. His flight was due 30 minutes before show time and if he wasn't at briefing he'd meet me at the plane.

American pilots traditionally have had very wide latitude on commuting and ready access to the jumpseat on other carriers. As far as I know, the feds have never formally put any limits on this 'transportation not local in character' since it is not required by the airline. However, the Colgan BUF CVR transcript has put long commutes without much rest in the public spotlight. Captain Sully is a coast to coast commuter, he'll probably be called back to Capitol Hill to testify on this subject.

I believe FedEx already has some crew duty time system to track people who ride on their jumpseats to operate longhaul, anyone know for sure?

Be careful what you wish for when you demand that the feds scrutinize pilot fatigue issues...

The FAA is run by worthless, do-nothing idiots owned by the airline executives.

You can expect NOTHING to be done. This crap has been going on for years and they KNOW the problems but have done NOTHING except when ordered by court. Pilots in the cockpit are what keep the aviation industry as safe as it is, in spite of the FAA.

Roadtrip

Spot on, and where the FAA go, the CAA blindly follow. Nothing will change on either side of the pond as it is not in the interests of the companies. The problems are slightly different in the US compared to the UK but in the main, nothing will change.

Bit like the ridiculous state of security screening really. But don't get me started!!!

C'est la vie

Probably a dumb question, but be gentle...

Why are the airlines so opposed to further regulation of duty hours? As it would affect all of them equally, no airline would lose out compared to any other airline, would it? (And if it doesn't affect all equally, why aren't the ones who would benefit from rule changes lobbying for those changes?).

OK, gentle answer forthcoming!!

Lower/ more restrictive duty hours/ practices would mean an increase in the numbers of pilots needed to operate the programme. Therefore there is a cost involved. Therefore it goes against the grain of a commercial operation.

Now I for one like working for my company and want to contribute to it being an efficient operation, HOWEVER certain working practices beggar belief. E.g 3 pilot heavy crew ops without appropriate onboard rest facilities.

So Bryce, whilst I understand your point about all airlines being affected equally, each airline will only ever look at the effect on its' own operation, and any increase in cost is a very big negative.

I hoep that was gentle enough, yet informative! :ok:

While I agree with FITS that spending any money brings forth a visceral reaction from management, there are some differences between airlines. Some operate with only the FAA regulations as limitations while others have contractual limits set within the union contract. Those airlines operating at the FAA limit will see their 'advantage' disappear while management at those with a better union deal will worry that at the next round of contract talks it will get even worse since "we have to be better than the FAA minimums."

The focus will be on the wrong aspect from this crash - crew duty time and red eye flights to work, because that has a personal impact on the pilots. Sure, crew rest might have contributed to being 40 knots low on approach, but the crash occurred due to poor training to stick pusher. Afraid addressing the root of the crash will be lost with everyone hung up on crew rest, and the accident scenario will repeat.

Those stout souls doing the rounds and shaking hands within the beltway report that both Congress and the FAA ( now headed by the ex-chief of ALPA) are falling over themselves in an attempt to preempt regulatory change with reference to duty regs. The Colgan crash has been something of an impetuous. Also in the pipeline is a minimum of 1500 hrs and an A.T.P. requirement to occupy the right seat when operating under FAR 121.

A Republican administration headed by Old Man McCain and Bimbo Palin would most certainly have maintained the less than satisfactory status quo which favored profit over safety (" Well golly" says Sarah. "Gotta protect those share holders even if the passengers do occasionally end up kinda dead. Ya know, I can see Russia from my deck! "). But Republicans are yesterday's news and changes are a coming. There's political capital here, and I both suspect and hope that it's going to be spent.

Thanks for the replies, FITS/Marker. This is more or less what I assumed; but I still find it odd that the airlines who perceive themselves as being undercut by the shadier operators who work only at FAA minimums don't try to increase the burden on those competitors (by lobbying for shorter duty hours). But evidently, they don't, so what the hell do I know. (...blah blah blah game theory blah blah blah prisoner's dilemma blah blah blah...).

CC - To be fair, the review is supposed to be of training as well as fatigue, and the PIC's failure of several (4 or 5, from memory) reviews seems likely to be examined.

I know this probably sounds hopelessly naive, but there's no evidence right now that the new head of the FAA is doing this for anything but the right reasons...

I do love your logic Bryce!

The problem is that the FAA in common with all regulators worldwide is having to look over its shoulder and make sure that any rules they implement will not adversely affect their national airlines in competition with the foreign operators!

Someone, sometime has to take the lead and I don't expect it to be the FAA, but hope to be proven wrong!

I think the main issue is commuter airlines in the US and as far as I am aware they don't have much to fear from foreign operators! :cool:

Time Time Time
 

The issues of traveling into a trip, for our friends across the pond, is due to the less than permanent nature of bases for crew. Relocation is almost never compensated for by your employer. If it is done, it is nowhere near enough to cover actual costs. The regionals will open or close a base just on the whiff of a contract. Using Colgan Air, feeder for US Airways, United and Continental, as an example. The list that follows is example of their numerous pilot bases:


Aircraft Type: S340B:
ALB
ABE
BGM
BHB
BUF
CRW
CHO
IAD
IAH
ITH
LGA
PQI
MHT
TYR
SCE
SYR

Aircraft type: Q400:
EWR
ALB
ORF

This carrier has listed a total of 50 aircraft! The mainline carriers, over the years, have had bases open and close, as well.


There is a dirty little secret about our supplemental carriers. For international operations, there is no duty limitation, per day! The only restriction is for one 24 continuous period free of duty in the past 7 days! Think about how long a heavy freighter crew has been up with one or two stops for freight and fuel and have a total block time of 11:30 for the day. It can be well over the teens and into the twenties. For domestic operations, you are required to have 8 hours off of duty in 24, but there is no requirement that they have to be consecutive. Travel time to the hotel is not duty time and thus, may get taken out of the eight. Legal is not necessarily safe!

As far as the the captain in Buffalo, he may have been a great guy, but with 4-5 busts in his history, someone should have counseled him to do something else. If he had pulled back to fight the stick pusher, he missed the relationship of swapping altitude for airspeed. That is PPL material and should be instinct for any pilot.

The hens have come home to roost, since the deregulation of the US aviation industry many years ago. Scope clauses have become a joke and the mainline carrier management has outsourced safety to the lowest bidder. They in turn, hire the cheapest labor they can get.

Plumber out!

However, what I find I cannot explain to those outside the industry is that, for the crew of the two recent accidents in New York State, in the Colgan case, one came from Florida and one from Washington State, in neither of which I believe Colgan has ever had a base, while for the US Airways ditching, one came from California and one from Wisconsin, where the same is true - or if they do have any base in California, it seems an unusual place to crew East Coast services from.

In the case of living in Washington State and needing to commute ovenight by FedEx via Memphis for an operation based in Newark, you have to wonder what the Colgan HR recruitment people were thinking of. Which I am sure the enquiry will ask them.

Where to live as a flyer.
 

WHBM,

The simple way to explain the situation is to ask non-industry types, Would they live in the parking garage or lot where they work. They commute to work via, foot, personal vehicle or public transportation. If their employer transferred them to another location in the area, would they move? What if their current employer shut down or they were redundant? Would they shoulder the expense to move 30-40 km, just to be at the new company estate? I think not. They would extend their commute. In the US we never had a cadet scheme for airline pilots. You get your primary training and experience elsewhere. As long as you do not miss a flight or training due to your commute, most airlines do not care where you live.

The rule for aircrew in the US is, find a place you want to live and commute. Airlines and bases change, your family hopefully won't. I know people who moved to Atlanta for Delta Airlines. They were assigned Salt Lake City after initial training!

The other issue is airline mergers and acquisitions. American bought TWA. The St. Louis operation was home for TWA. When all of the big jets went away, the crew that survived the redundancies, got sent elsewhere.

I have experienced multiple assigned bases in one year. There were hundreds of miles separating them. I received US$180 for my troubles. I had my home, that never changed, but had rented accommodations at each location. Air crew eat those costs to work. The pay for the regionals have those people paying out of savings to get experience to get their, hopefully better paying, next job.

Some young pilots and flight attendants will actually live with family, due to the lack of pay. Others will live like university students with 4-6 people sharing a one bedroom flat. In the Colgan Air example, the F/O made US$19,152, before taxes and adjustments. So, her net pay may not have broken US$1,250 per month, for her first year. She would have a hard time finding a place to live at any of the bases. Then to have the possibility of a base change or get reduced. Why do it?

When the supply of young pilots willing to take the abuse declines significantly, then and only then will conditions and pay get better.:(

If the government regulates how I spend my free time before I show up at work, or after for that matter, then we might as well burn the Constitution.

Flint4xx. A pretty dumb comment, I feel. What is at issue here is the condition in which you present yourself for work as an airline pilot. If you've been travelling all night, you'll probably be tired. If you've been drinking all night, you'll probably be drunk. If you don't want that to be subject to scrutiny & regulation, go find another job. What you do after work is your own concern.

Max, That's not how we think here. 99% of the folks show up for work rested and ready to go and we are not about to stand by and let the 1% rule. Ever hear of the tail waging the dog....

[UK pax here]
That'll be a doozy to bring in. No sweat. Any corporate can adopt 'meaningful initiatives'.

Nothing will change because, as yet, not enough people have died. It is true that some folks really want to improve things and this first example where fatigue appears to be part of the problem (I have read the whole thread) is a wonderful warning. But, and I apologise for my cynicism, nothing will change - yet.

"Babbitt, formerly president of the Air Line Pilots Assn. and an Eastern Airlines pilot for more than 25 years, signaled last week that the agency this summer would tackle aggressively issues surrounding pilot training and fatigue and rest rules"

You are wrong this time..... Babbitt won't cave!

I started flying military in '69, and was appalled at the flying duty time required for MAC. When I went to my airline in '78, I was ready for 'civilized' flying, with reasonable duty and rest periods. HA! At least the military required a 12-hour dedicated pre-departure rest period. The airline (in my case) cared not a whit...I could be on standby for 24 hours, then be assigned for a 24 hour duty day, and that happened (3-pilot crew). That happened, because the companies want it to happen, and CORPORATIONS RUN THE UNITED STATES (except for those not politically connected). The Dems have their favourite contributors, as well as the Republicans, as far as airlines are concerned. I am 'retired' (no pension, so I must work). But, don't expect any change in duty requirements from the political FAA. Ain't in the cards.

filejw- So you'd be perfectly comfortably commuting on a flight being piloted by two people who fall in that other one percent?

As a passenger, I'd prefer that 100% of pilots for the flights I'm taking show up well rested and ready to go.

fly

In post #11, you assume all commutes by UK based pilots will be within the UK.

This is simply not the case. Many UK based LH live in Europe, and several as far away as Australia, and commute from there on a regular basis.