Originally Posted by
hillrider
Why wouldn't we extend that line of thinking to other aviation rules, like duty time for pilots? You know, depending on the situation, the pilot could work more than the current hard and fast FAA rule allows. And there will be a pow-wow to decide whether he/she should or not.
First, I think you should go back to the previous thread about AA1348 and look for the comments from LarryJ. Also, go to the NTSB web site and, if you haven't done so before, read the accident report for the AA crash in Oklahoma - I believe it was AA1420 in 1999?
I've said this before, and I think it's worth repeating - the use of the rules here worries me.
If I have it right, the flight deck crew have two limits they have to stay within - a total of 8 hours gate-to-gate and a maximum of a 16 hour working day, though I'm not sure where this is measured from.
Did AA1348 go straight to AUS from SFO, or did it circle for a while? Whatever happened they would have used say 4 hours of their 8 hour day getting to AUS before they sat on the plane for 8:10. If they had clearance at that point, they could have departed for DFW, say another hour by the time they got the aircraft ready to go, taxied out and reached DFW. What would have happened if the weather had deteriorated again enroute? They might have tried to make a landing in lousy conditions at night, or they might have deteriorated a second time. If they got lucky and landed directly they would have been in control of the aircraft for 13 or 14 hours solid, with negligible rest.
Now think about the Oklahoma accident. The NTSB laid part of the blame on a fatigued crew landing in a thunderstorm. Sound familiar? I'm sure they were trying to do their best for the passengers, but would you choose to be flown by any crew after all those hours on duty in a plane in AUS?
In summary there might be FAA rules on working hours, but to me, the layman, the idea that 8+ hours (coincidentally the maximum length of the working day) sitting in a plane on the tarmac somehow doesn't count against the working hours seems to make a mockery of the rules. Maybe someone can show me this is indeed safe, but it doesn't look like it from where I'm sitting.
Is it going to be any better if the FAA now tries to regulate the waiting time for passengers during weather delays? Frankly I think we all ought to be asking serious questions of the FAA and the industry about how this crew were "legal" and why crew hadn't been replaced or the flight cancelled long before on safety grounds.
Coincidentally, a change in the rules for how this waiting time is counted would place a limit on the time passengers can be cooped up in the plane and achieve all of the results you're looking for, while improving safety overall.