Delta Pilots Association
10-20-2010, 09:12 AM
#1491
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
I think Carl has a valid point. You say JFK-LAX to support your argument, when that is in the minority since it goes over 10 hours. The majority of east-west trips could be done as a turn with the new NPRM and you know these are the trips Carl is referring too. You are right in the fact that the top 10 percent would do these trips. Look no further than our FAs. Who is more succeptable to the effects of a 10 hour flight day...the old pilots who will be bidding them. But wait, wasn't this all about improving safety?
Where is your scientific evidence that flying 10 flight hours extendable to a 15 hour duty day is more safe than flying 8 in 15 or say 8 in 16 for whitlow? This is nothing more than a horse trade and our union is smack right in the middle of it. ALPA is part of the problem.
Where is your scientific evidence that flying 10 flight hours extendable to a 15 hour duty day is more safe than flying 8 in 15 or say 8 in 16 for whitlow? This is nothing more than a horse trade and our union is smack right in the middle of it. ALPA is part of the problem.
10-20-2010, 02:00 PM
#1492
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: No to large RJs
Posts: 369
Out of JFK, there will not be a west coast turn. There may be some other long turns. You may be right about JFK. Atlanta these go very senior. I would bet across the board they go much more senior than junior. Flight attendants are a perfect example.
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Flying day turns in my body cycle was the most rested I have ever been as a airline pilot. Slept in my own bed every night. No disruptions, all nighters ect... Trying to run the safety flag up on the turns is not going to work. You will never have a more rested crew then one that is flying 2 turns a week compared to the standard 3 to 5 day trips. Lets not even through international into the mix.
Flying day turns in my body cycle was the most rested I have ever been as a airline pilot. Slept in my own bed every night. No disruptions, all nighters ect... Trying to run the safety flag up on the turns is not going to work. You will never have a more rested crew then one that is flying 2 turns a week compared to the standard 3 to 5 day trips. Lets not even through international into the mix.
Also we are talking about just two legs. It can be up to and including 4 legs and the duty day can be extended to 15 hours with a 0700-1259 sign in. So on that third 10 flight hour day, with four legs, with weather and an extended duty day taking you all the way up to 15 hours, with a 64 year old at the helm......safety???, Don't think so. I think 8 hours of flight time is safer, no doubt in my mind. So if you sign in at 1259, that means you could legally be on duty until 0359, after flying 10 hard hours with 4 legs. ALPA still hasn't given an official response, other than blah blah blah...amazing. The only flag that needs to be raised is one that says BS.
10-20-2010, 05:09 PM
#1493
No longer cares
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 767er Captain
Posts: 12,109
Out of JFK, there will not be a west coast turn. There may be some other long turns. You may be right about JFK. Atlanta these go very senior. I would bet across the board they go much more senior than junior. Flight attendants are a perfect example.
Doing these turns back to back to back with early shows, dealing with traffic and late drives home, only to do it again doesn't sound restful to me (30 hours in 3 days).....personally I'd rather have a good 3 day. It will be less time but I know I will be more rested.
Also we are talking about just two legs. It can be up to and including 4 legs and the duty day can be extended to 15 hours with a 0700-1259 sign in. So on that third 10 flight hour day, with four legs, with weather and an extended duty day taking you all the way up to 15 hours, with a 64 year old at the helm......safety???, Don't think so. I think 8 hours of flight time is safer, no doubt in my mind. So if you sign in at 1259, that means you could legally be on duty until 0359, after flying 10 hard hours with 4 legs. ALPA still hasn't given an official response, other than blah blah blah...amazing. The only flag that needs to be raised is one that says BS.
Doing these turns back to back to back with early shows, dealing with traffic and late drives home, only to do it again doesn't sound restful to me (30 hours in 3 days).....personally I'd rather have a good 3 day. It will be less time but I know I will be more rested.
Also we are talking about just two legs. It can be up to and including 4 legs and the duty day can be extended to 15 hours with a 0700-1259 sign in. So on that third 10 flight hour day, with four legs, with weather and an extended duty day taking you all the way up to 15 hours, with a 64 year old at the helm......safety???, Don't think so. I think 8 hours of flight time is safer, no doubt in my mind. So if you sign in at 1259, that means you could legally be on duty until 0359, after flying 10 hard hours with 4 legs. ALPA still hasn't given an official response, other than blah blah blah...amazing. The only flag that needs to be raised is one that says BS.
sailingfun notwithstanding, I think this additional hour is a really really bad idea. The only way I would think about buying off on it is if the FAA ever gains a brain somehow and sanctions sleeping in the cockpit. Other than that... stupid is as stupid does...
10-20-2010, 05:31 PM
#1494
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Flying day turns in my body cycle was the most rested I have ever been as a airline pilot. Slept in my own bed every night. No disruptions, all nighters ect... Trying to run the safety flag up on the turns is not going to work. You will never have a more rested crew then one that is flying 2 turns a week compared to the standard 3 to 5 day trips. Lets not even through international into the mix.
Carl
10-20-2010, 05:37 PM
#1495
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Carl
10-20-2010, 05:42 PM
#1496
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Also we are talking about just two legs. It can be up to and including 4 legs and the duty day can be extended to 15 hours with a 0700-1259 sign in. So on that third 10 flight hour day, with four legs, with weather and an extended duty day taking you all the way up to 15 hours, with a 64 year old at the helm......safety???, Don't think so. I think 8 hours of flight time is safer, no doubt in my mind. So if you sign in at 1259, that means you could legally be on duty until 0359, after flying 10 hard hours with 4 legs. ALPA still hasn't given an official response, other than blah blah blah...amazing. The only flag that needs to be raised is one that says BS.
Carl
10-20-2010, 10:37 PM
#1498
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,991
It depends. We had a 7+55 hour turn from LAX to MSY on the 800 out of LAX and a lot of very senior commuters would bid them 2 or three in a row and get Hotel rooms.
Now if the JFK turns get in too late to do one the next day this is not an option, but guys can get pretty creative with PBS and put them in front of and behind other trips.
Scoop
10-21-2010, 03:59 AM
#1499
done, gone skiing
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Rocking chair
Posts: 1,602
You have no idea what you're talking about from a scientific point of view. You've stated your opinion and are trying to pass it off as fact. Here's some science for you ace: Working longer never improves fatigue. All the studies show a clear linear relationship between the time spent at any task, and the fatigue associated therein. Even without any studies, your common sense should tell you that. Oh wait...
Carl
Carl
One guy knock anothers "facts" with his own "facts".
Look Carl, your right, flying more than 8 hours in a day in more fatiguing than less. So with that logic in mind, flying only 6 hours or 3 hours is even safer, as regarding fatigue. Take this to the logical extreme; the safest duty day is a day at home, on the front porch, falling a sleep (as needed) with a beer in hand.
While the FAA and every other organization with a "vested interest" in the NPRM will weigh in on fatigue, you can bet that pilots views, while uniquely situated to provide the best (in our humble opinion) view of fatigue, will only have a partial input into the rule. Just like negotiating a raise, buying a car, or deciding a vacation with your wife, compromise will ultimately be required to move the stats quo from where we are to where we want to be.
This may disturb purists that believe that science and our unique prospective should be the only views taking into consideration when changing flight and duty time regulations, it will not be.
This is a political flight, in which we are only one voice among many. By virtue of our position at the pointy end of the spear, we are the most qualified to render an opinion, but certainly not the only one with influence to do so.
If you want to argue that no increase is flight time under any circumstances is permissible we will play right into the hands of the ATA, CAA, and and every other group who see pilots as a cost, safety as an expense, accidents as , "the cost of doing business".
ALPA, CALPA, APA, all and any groups representing pilots needs to make meaningful input into what can be changed in out flight and duty limitations.
Can a pilot departing in the AM, rested either from his home or a hotel, fly a duty day that, with certain restrictions (number of legs flown), exceeds 8 block hours? From my limited experience in "day" domestic flying, I would say yes. We should work to control how much and under what circumstances it does exceed 8 hours. If we throw a road bock in the way of any change to 8 in 24, we will give our opponents the fodder to kill any changes, just as they did in 1995 when the FAA last proposed changes.
Don't let stubbornness to compromise allow this important effort to be undermined. There will be some give if we are to get an improved deal overall.
10-21-2010, 04:49 AM
#1500
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Aren't open forums great! One guy knock anothers "facts" with his own "facts".
Look Carl, your right, flying more than 8 hours in a day in more fatiguing than less. So with that logic in mind, flying only 6 hours or 3 hours is even safer, as regarding fatigue. Take this to the logical extreme; the safest duty day is a day at home, on the front porch, falling a sleep (as needed) with a beer in hand.
While the FAA and every other organization with a "vested interest" in the NPRM will weigh in on fatigue, you can bet that pilots views, while uniquely situated to provide the best (in our humble opinion) view of fatigue, will only have a partial input into the rule. Just like negotiating a raise, buying a car, or deciding a vacation with your wife, compromise will ultimately be required to move the stats quo from where we are to where we want to be.
This may disturb purists that believe that science and our unique prospective should be the only views taking into consideration when changing flight and duty time regulations, it will not be.
This is a political flight, in which we are only one voice among many. By virtue of our position at the pointy end of the spear, we are the most qualified to render an opinion, but certainly not the only one with influence to do so.
If you want to argue that no increase is flight time under any circumstances is permissible we will play right into the hands of the ATA, CAA, and and every other group who see pilots as a cost, safety as an expense, accidents as , "the cost of doing business".
ALPA, CALPA, APA, all and any groups representing pilots needs to make meaningful input into what can be changed in out flight and duty limitations.
Can a pilot departing in the AM, rested either from his home or a hotel, fly a duty day that, with certain restrictions (number of legs flown), exceeds 8 block hours? From my limited experience in "day" domestic flying, I would say yes. We should work to control how much and under what circumstances it does exceed 8 hours. If we throw a road bock in the way of any change to 8 in 24, we will give our opponents the fodder to kill any changes, just as they did in 1995 when the FAA last proposed changes.
Don't let stubbornness to compromise allow this important effort to be undermined. There will be some give if we are to get an improved deal overall.
One guy knock anothers "facts" with his own "facts". Look Carl, your right, flying more than 8 hours in a day in more fatiguing than less. So with that logic in mind, flying only 6 hours or 3 hours is even safer, as regarding fatigue. Take this to the logical extreme; the safest duty day is a day at home, on the front porch, falling a sleep (as needed) with a beer in hand.
While the FAA and every other organization with a "vested interest" in the NPRM will weigh in on fatigue, you can bet that pilots views, while uniquely situated to provide the best (in our humble opinion) view of fatigue, will only have a partial input into the rule. Just like negotiating a raise, buying a car, or deciding a vacation with your wife, compromise will ultimately be required to move the stats quo from where we are to where we want to be.
This may disturb purists that believe that science and our unique prospective should be the only views taking into consideration when changing flight and duty time regulations, it will not be.
This is a political flight, in which we are only one voice among many. By virtue of our position at the pointy end of the spear, we are the most qualified to render an opinion, but certainly not the only one with influence to do so.
If you want to argue that no increase is flight time under any circumstances is permissible we will play right into the hands of the ATA, CAA, and and every other group who see pilots as a cost, safety as an expense, accidents as , "the cost of doing business".
ALPA, CALPA, APA, all and any groups representing pilots needs to make meaningful input into what can be changed in out flight and duty limitations.
Can a pilot departing in the AM, rested either from his home or a hotel, fly a duty day that, with certain restrictions (number of legs flown), exceeds 8 block hours? From my limited experience in "day" domestic flying, I would say yes. We should work to control how much and under what circumstances it does exceed 8 hours. If we throw a road bock in the way of any change to 8 in 24, we will give our opponents the fodder to kill any changes, just as they did in 1995 when the FAA last proposed changes.
Don't let stubbornness to compromise allow this important effort to be undermined. There will be some give if we are to get an improved deal overall.
But it will be lambasted here in forumworld, where pilots could get anything we wanted if we just demanded it, and were willing to send our leader to jail (while we sit safely at home).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
