Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
US Senate Proposes 3-hr max tarmac rule. >

US Senate Proposes 3-hr max tarmac rule.

Search

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

US Senate Proposes 3-hr max tarmac rule.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-17-2009, 08:16 AM
  #61  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,998
Default

Originally Posted by FDXLAG
If that rare than the costs to the airlines would be almost nothing. Just curious what is the max time that 49 paxs should be forced to sit on an RJ with one PAC deferred?
So I guess we need a new law dealing with Air Conditioning also? Like I said a little common sense goes a long way.

Scoop
Scoop is offline  
Old 07-17-2009, 08:27 AM
  #62  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Default

Originally Posted by Scoop
So I guess we need a new law dealing with Air Conditioning also? Like I said a little common sense goes a long way.

Scoop
So I will put you down for 3 hours and 22 minutes?

I agree that a little common sense goes a long way. And to me airlines letting the pax know what their guidlines are is only common sense. I think a law is silly but I did sit in an RJ last december for 3 hours after a divert (along with 12 other RJs). If they had let me off I could have driven to work and saved myself $4500.
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 07-17-2009, 08:29 AM
  #63  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: R U Serious?
Posts: 261
Default

A few weeks ago, I was in a very long PHL line, we were stopped for over an hour twice, belts were off, and phones were in use. At about 3hr 30 min we were about ready to go and got a message, required return to gate to get fixed. At which point we offered all the pax to get off the plane, all but one family with sleeping kids did. The aircraft was fixed, and all but 6 people got back on board and we were off. We had another plane that had an issue and MX came out to the plane, because you can't move in that parking lot. So the question is, at 3hrs and 1 minute you are next to go, do you take off or go back to the gate because 1 pax is upset and wants to go back to the gate and never fly again?
powrful1 is offline  
Old 07-17-2009, 11:52 AM
  #64  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: The Beginnings
Posts: 1,317
Default

Originally Posted by HIFLYR
Originally Posted by HIFLYR
And the whole time 3 hr you had the seat belt sign on. I have never understood why you pax guys sit in the penalty box with a engine shut down and keep the seat belt sign on; company regs? While dead heading and seen it where most of the operating crew goes to the head and all the passengers are trying to tie an knot in it or cork it.



I guess your engines start much faster than my A300's "CF6's" and our slow starters PW. I have never flown a jet that you could start the engine, complete checklist and be airborne in 90 secs.
Oh, it's not an engine start problem (about 3 minutes each, given start checklists and 2 minute stabilization times) for the mighty MadDog.

It's having people in the lavs, people in the aisles, cellphones and computers out, overhead bins open, f/a who need to verify all that stuff is put away, and so forth. The phrase "herding cats" comes to mind.

Don't get me wrong . . . I scratch my head at some of the gents who absolutely refuse to ever hit that seatbelt sign. But that's definitely the minority.
deltabound is offline  
Old 07-17-2009, 11:58 AM
  #65  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: The Beginnings
Posts: 1,317
Default

Originally Posted by FDXLAG
If that rare than the costs to the airlines would be almost nothing. Just curious what is the max time that 49 paxs should be forced to sit on an RJ with one PAC deferred?
Zero, if it's hot outside and the PIC has any cojones. It's a safety issue.

Easy to say, I know, but once you get on a recorded line to the dispatcher and let him know that in your professional opinion, the aircraft environment constitutes a safety hazard, no dispatcher or chief pilot in the US 121 world is going to override you.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and no call-backs from anyone. PIC still means something, but you have to act like it.
deltabound is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 10:23 AM
  #66  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Default

Originally Posted by Scoop
So I guess we need a new law dealing with Air Conditioning also? Like I said a little common sense goes a long way.

Scoop

How is this for common sense?

47 trapped on 'nightmare' flight to the Twin Cities
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 08-09-2009, 11:41 AM
  #67  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Flaps50's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B777 FO FDX, C130 ANG
Posts: 538
Thumbs up More Pilots

Sounds like a great law to me; the airlines will need more crews to comply with this. Sounds like more overtime or sooner to the hotel for a crew that times out. I say let the law pass and make it the airlines problem.

Funny story, but I landed in Shanghai once and it was apparently to windy for the contract ground to crew to bring the air-stairs up to the plane so we got on the sat phone to the company after about 45 mins. and they started making arrangements for us to takeoff again and go somewhere else rather than sit in the plane for hours on end. We finally got the communists to bend the air-stair rule a bit and let us off.
Flaps50 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
essw
Regional
7
06-27-2009 12:00 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices