You are not a real pilot
11-16-2011, 01:54 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 117
I know this thread took a wrong turn......but hopefully everyone who posted actually sent some correspondence in through your appropriate channels opposing these carve outs. I just completed mine and hope it helps!
One profession.....
~Slim
One profession.....
~Slim
11-16-2011, 04:28 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 777 Capt
Posts: 403
And a few of us would do well to get a sense of humor. It improves lifespan.
As for the issue at hand, we have to start with a good dose of reality. People who are paid to do a job, and who are trained in "the system", are expected to take risks that the general public is not. This is why ferry permits exclude the carriage of passengers. It is why factories have yellow lines that visitors can not cross. It is why your local garage does not let customers into the bays.
So the thought that cargo pilots, or for that matter any flight crew on an airplane that is not carrying the general public, is entitled to the same protections as Joe Schmuck who just bought a ticket off of the Internet is deeply flawed and is not going to work.
However a strong argument can be made with regard to system integrity and that fatigue creates risks outside of the specific airplane. That approach has some legs.
But beware -- we may not like the results. We pilots are pretty good at numbers but really, really bad at understanding how other people are going to approach issues. And in this case the result for us could easily be less pay and more time away from home. Maybe that is right; maybe we do need to make drastic changes in the system. But anyone out there beating this drum thinking that their life is going to be better for it -- time to back off a few steps and think it through from different angles.
As for the issue at hand, we have to start with a good dose of reality. People who are paid to do a job, and who are trained in "the system", are expected to take risks that the general public is not. This is why ferry permits exclude the carriage of passengers. It is why factories have yellow lines that visitors can not cross. It is why your local garage does not let customers into the bays.
So the thought that cargo pilots, or for that matter any flight crew on an airplane that is not carrying the general public, is entitled to the same protections as Joe Schmuck who just bought a ticket off of the Internet is deeply flawed and is not going to work.
However a strong argument can be made with regard to system integrity and that fatigue creates risks outside of the specific airplane. That approach has some legs.
But beware -- we may not like the results. We pilots are pretty good at numbers but really, really bad at understanding how other people are going to approach issues. And in this case the result for us could easily be less pay and more time away from home. Maybe that is right; maybe we do need to make drastic changes in the system. But anyone out there beating this drum thinking that their life is going to be better for it -- time to back off a few steps and think it through from different angles.
I'm sure the FAA, Fred Smith, and the shareholders of Fedex would also expect all of us to put safety above all else. So yes, even as a cargo pilots, we all are entitled to the same level of federal safety regulation protection as our passenger carrying brethren.
While there are risks in any action, we should do everything in our power to minimize those risks, whether there are passengers involved or not. That is why it is extremely critical for us all to voice our concerns over the "Cargo Cutout" to our congressmen.
Sorry, getting off my soapbox now.
11-16-2011, 05:31 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Retired
Posts: 651
Sorry Dash, but I totally disagree with the mindset that cargo pilots are expected to take risks that passenger pilots wouldn't. My days of taking any unnecessary risks while aviating stopped when I hung up my Navy flight suit (not that I didn't try to minimize risks even then).
I'm sure the FAA, Fred Smith, and the shareholders of Fedex would also expect all of us to put safety above all else. So yes, even as a cargo pilots, we all are entitled to the same level of federal safety regulation protection as our passenger carrying brethren.
While there are risks in any action, we should do everything in our power to minimize those risks, whether there are passengers involved or not. That is why it is extremely critical for us all to voice our concerns over the "Cargo Cutout" to our congressmen.
Sorry, getting off my soapbox now.
I'm sure the FAA, Fred Smith, and the shareholders of Fedex would also expect all of us to put safety above all else. So yes, even as a cargo pilots, we all are entitled to the same level of federal safety regulation protection as our passenger carrying brethren.
While there are risks in any action, we should do everything in our power to minimize those risks, whether there are passengers involved or not. That is why it is extremely critical for us all to voice our concerns over the "Cargo Cutout" to our congressmen.
Sorry, getting off my soapbox now.
And it is not simply "cargo pilots". The United crew that moves an airplane under a ferry permit, the Falcon flying under Part 91 and even basic flight training -- a lot of flying is done to a lower regulatory standard than that applied to commercial passenger operations.
I am not arguing that anything goes; I am old enough to appreciate that life is finite and I am in hurry to reach the end of mine. It is a matter of degrees, not big jumps. However to argue that there should only be "one standard" is not going to carry the day. There are in fact many standards, and there will continue to be so.
Which leads to my soap box, which is the use of the word "safety" as if it is a black and white condition. In fact we deal with risk management in a complex environment, and recognizing that is the first step in doing it well.
11-16-2011, 06:55 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
However to argue that there should only be "one standard" is not going to carry the day. There are in fact many standards, and there will continue to be so.
In fact we deal with risk management in a complex environment, and recognizing that is the first step in doing it well.
In fact we deal with risk management in a complex environment, and recognizing that is the first step in doing it well.
What I don't think YOU understand is rules that cover cargo operations on the same routes to the same airports/runways at the same time of day as passenger airlines are not complicated at all.
Would you give truck drivers different rules than bus drivers with a tour group on board?
Are you assuming all major accidents are single airplane events? What about the threat to people on the ground? Don't they count? Major airports are usually in heavily populated areas.
In this day and age we can't count on the big sky theory anymore.
Last edited by Gunter; 11-17-2011 at 09:31 AM.
11-17-2011, 01:25 AM
#37
Nice lookin' tree, there!
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Tool-Box, old man
Posts: 2,204
fbh
P.S I've e-mailed my Senators, Congressman and President on this!
11-17-2011, 11:04 AM
#40
Indian Takeout Driver
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FAR part 347 (91+121+135)
Posts: 1,566
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
