Travel News - FAA Announces New Pilot Fatigue Rules

The FAA announced new pilot fatigue rules a bit over an hour back.
http://aeroblogger.com/2011/12/21/faa-issues-new-pilot-fatigue-rules/
The FAA issued a new set of pilot fatigue rules just now.

The new rules come in the aftermath of the Colgan Air crash in February 2009. The investigation into that crash, which killed 50 people, found that one of the causes of the crash was that both pilots were dangerously fatigued. Since then, the FAA has been working on new pilot fatigue rules to replace the existing rules. Dating back to the 1960s, the existing rules were full of loopholes, such as the fact that carriers could extend work days if a pilot is flying a repositioning flight, often called “ferry” flights.

The new rules take into account recent studies on fatigue
...

Please follow this thread in the FT Travel News Forum.
Thanks...
Obscure2k
TravelBuzz Moderator

Thanks for the link! For s:rolleyes:me reason, cargo companies are exempt from the new rules, but can choose to opt-in if they wish to. I think that's absurd.

I heard about this on the radio earlier today. Thanks for posting the article!
I also do not get why cargo is exempt from this new law.

I heard about this on the radio earlier today. Thanks for posting the article!
I also do not get why cargo is exempt from this new law.

Cargo is exempt from the law because they (cargo industry lobby) convinced the OMB that the cost was more than the potential benefit.

They also said that a cargo accident would likely only cause property damage.

The exact numbers are in the FAA documents, but they say a passenger accident would cost $200 million or so, and a cargo accident $30 million or so. Also the cargo airlines would have to hire more pilots (as a percentage of current total pilots) because they do most of their flying at night, which the new regulations affect the most.

I guess it did not occur to them that a fatigued Fed-Ex 777 crew could mistakenly taxi in front of a United 747 on takeoff roll.

Our government is the best that money can buy.

Our government is the best that money can buy.

Exactly. Once one recognizes that the FAA is little more than a subsidiary of the ATA, then things begin to make sense.

The new rules are perhaps more convoluted than they need to be. .We should have expected that as any part of a package that would be acceptable to pilots, regulators, and the airline industry together.. It was going to be a compromise. .

But on the whole I'm impressed.
.
Perhaps the most important and welcome change is the one stipulating that pilots must now receive a minimum 10-hour rest period between assignments (i.e. workdays), with an opportunity for at least eight hours of uninterrupted sleep.
.
Until now, not only have rest periods been reduceable to as little as eight hours, but the very definition of “rest” itself has failed to account for things like travel time to and from hotels, the need for meals, and so on.. A pilot is considered off-duty and resting shortly after his final flight of the day shuts down at the gate.. With paperwork and other duties to attend to, the rest clock is often ticking while he is still at the airport -- sometimes still on the plane.. And it stops ticking not when he checks out of the room, but when he arrives again at the airport.
.
For instance, if a crew signs off in Chicago at 9 p.m. and is scheduled to sign on again at 5 a.m., that constitutes an eight-hour rest period.. But then you start subtracting the time spent waiting for the hotel van, driving to and from the airport, scrounging for food and so on.. What existed on paper as an eight hour layover was in reality only six or seven hours at the hotel, and four or five hours of actual sleep.
.
Finally this will change.. Rest is actual rest, and not merely time away from the airplane. .

This provision was long overdue, but nonetheless is one of the smartest things the FAA has ever done.
.
This will be particularly beneficial for regional airline pilots. .Collective bargaining agreements at most of the majors already include such provisions.. But now it’s the law and * all * commercial passenger carriers must follow it.
.
Meanwhile, in my opinion, too of the FAA's focus has been on long-haul flying.. The circadian-scrambling effects of a 12 or 14-hour nonstop are indeed of concern.. But it's also true that long-haul fatigue is comparatively easy to manage.. These flights carry augmented crews with comfortable on-board rest facilities.. Layovers are a minimum 12-hours long at luxurious hotels.. The more serious problem is at the other end of the spectrum: short-haul regional flying.. Regional pilots fly punishing schedules, operating multiple legs in an out of busy airports, often in the worst weather, with short layovers at dodgy motels. . I have flown regional routes, back-of-the-clock cargo, ordinary domestic, and, more recently, long-haul international.. In terms of fatigue, that list is in descending order.. The latter two are by far the easiest and most civilized.. Sure it messes up your circadian cycles, but I'll take a 12-hour red-eye ocean crossing followed by 72 hours at the Marriott any day over having to wake up at 4 a.m., fly six legs in a turboprop, with eight hours of supposed rest at the Holiday Inn Express before having to do it all over again.
.
And it isn’t cockpit time per se that presents the toughest challenges.. The real menaces have been the aforementioned rest period loopholes together with long stretches of duty time.. On a given workday a pilot might log only two hours on the flight deck.. Sounds like an easy assignment, except when those two hours come at either end of a 14-hour duty stretch that began at 5 a.m., most of which was spent waiting out weather delays and killing time in the terminal.. Or, a pilot may have packed eight full hours of flying, making numerous takeoffs and landings, into that same span. .


Patrick Smith
www.askthepilot.com

The new rules are perhaps more convoluted than they need to be. .We should have expected that as any part of a package that would be acceptable to pilots, regulators, and the airline industry together.. It was going to be a compromise. .

But on the whole I'm impressed.
.
Perhaps the most important and welcome change is the one stipulating that pilots must now receive a minimum 10-hour rest period between assignments (i.e. workdays), with an opportunity for at least eight hours of uninterrupted sleep.
.
Until now, not only have rest periods been reduceable to as little as eight hours, but the very definition of “rest” itself has failed to account for things like travel time to and from hotels, the need for meals, and so on.. A pilot is considered off-duty and resting shortly after his final flight of the day shuts down at the gate.. With paperwork and other duties to attend to, the rest clock is often ticking while he is still at the airport -- sometimes still on the plane.. And it stops ticking not when he checks out of the room, but when he arrives again at the airport.
.
For instance, if a crew signs off in Chicago at 9 p.m. and is scheduled to sign on again at 5 a.m., that constitutes an eight-hour rest period.. But then you start subtracting the time spent waiting for the hotel van, driving to and from the airport, scrounging for food and so on.. What existed on paper as an eight hour layover was in reality only six or seven hours at the hotel, and four or five hours of actual sleep.
.
Finally this will change.. Rest is actual rest, and not merely time away from the airplane. .

This provision was long overdue, but nonetheless is one of the smartest things the FAA has ever done.
.
This will be particularly beneficial for regional airline pilots. .Collective bargaining agreements at most of the majors already include such provisions.. But now it’s the law and * all * commercial passenger carriers must follow it.
.
Meanwhile, in my opinion, too of the FAA's focus has been on long-haul flying.. The circadian-scrambling effects of a 12 or 14-hour nonstop are indeed of concern.. But it's also true that long-haul fatigue is comparatively easy to manage.. These flights carry augmented crews with comfortable on-board rest facilities.. Layovers are a minimum 12-hours long at luxurious hotels.. The more serious problem is at the other end of the spectrum: short-haul regional flying.. Regional pilots fly punishing schedules, operating multiple legs in an out of busy airports, often in the worst weather, with short layovers at dodgy motels. . I have flown regional routes, back-of-the-clock cargo, ordinary domestic, and, more recently, long-haul international.. In terms of fatigue, that list is in descending order.. The latter two are by far the easiest and most civilized.. Sure it messes up your circadian cycles, but I'll take a 12-hour red-eye ocean crossing followed by 72 hours at the Marriott any day over having to wake up at 4 a.m., fly six legs in a turboprop, with eight hours of supposed rest at the Holiday Inn Express before having to do it all over again.
.
And it isn’t cockpit time per se that presents the toughest challenges.. The real menaces have been the aforementioned rest period loopholes together with long stretches of duty time.. On a given workday a pilot might log only two hours on the flight deck.. Sounds like an easy assignment, except when those two hours come at either end of a 14-hour duty stretch that began at 5 a.m., most of which was spent waiting out weather delays and killing time in the terminal.. Or, a pilot may have packed eight full hours of flying, making numerous takeoffs and landings, into that same span. .


Patrick Smith
www.askthepilot.com

I was thinking that what you wrote was really familiar..
Just realized that it is the exact same thing as what you wrote on A.net...

All makes sense now :)

For instance, if a crew signs off in Chicago at 9 p.m. and is scheduled to sign on again at 5 a.m., that constitutes an eight-hour rest period.. But then you start subtracting the time spent waiting for the hotel van, driving to and from the airport, scrounging for food and so on.. What existed on paper as an eight hour layover was in reality only six or seven hours at the hotel, and four or five hours of actual sleep.
.
Finally this will change.. Rest is actual rest, and not merely time away from the airplane. .

Patrick Smith
www.askthepilot.com

I say this rule missed the obvious. Like you said, above, crews are not resting while passengers are deplaning, we're waiting on the hotel van or caught in traffic going to the hotel.

RULE should of been: HOTEL KEY IN HAND.

One of the problems identified after the Colgan crash was that the airline did not provide a crew base and the pilots were staying overnight in the lounge. I don't see how the new rules change that. But at least now they must count deadhead travel as duty time which addresses another of the Colgan issues.

Note that the new rules don't take effect for two years.

One of the problems identified after the Colgan crash was that the airline did not provide a crew base and the pilots were staying overnight in the lounge. I don't see how the new rules change that. But at least now they must count deadhead travel as duty time which addresses another of the Colgan issues.

The Colgan crew did not deadhead to EWR, they commuted. Deadheading has already been included in the pilot's duty time, commuting is not. That will not change with these new rules.

Both crewmembers had plenty of time to rest once they reached EWR but they chose not to because that would have required buying a hotel room or maintaining a crashpad. Neither wanted to spend the money.

Thank you. I had the words confused.

Cargo is exempt from the law because they (cargo industry lobby) convinced the OMB that the cost was more than the potential benefit.

They also said that a cargo accident would likely only cause property damage.

The exact numbers are in the FAA documents, but they say a passenger accident would cost $200 million or so, and a cargo accident $30 million or so. Also the cargo airlines would have to hire more pilots (as a percentage of current total pilots) because they do most of their flying at night, which the new regulations affect the most.

I guess it did not occur to them that a fatigued Fed-Ex 777 crew could mistakenly taxi in front of a United 747 on takeoff roll.

Our government is the best that money can buy.

Seems like ridiculous rules and waivers usually have to do with lobbying and other BS. What's to stop the cargo plane from crashing into a populated area and possibly killing lots of people on the ground!