View Single Post
  #8 (permalink)  
Old July 28th, 2011, 11:10 PM
AR AR is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,597

Originally Posted by venice View Post
you can go online to the PBS website and view the excellent Frontline segment that AR is referring to..duty time for a flight crew is calculated once the aircraft door is shut and the jetway pulled and not the waiting time in the terminal thus most flight crews have very long actual days which lends to fatigue

this was a perfect opportunity to be proactive with all the keystakeholders having input..instead we usually only see action (and televised hearings) when there is an incident

Norm..the TEA Party may have started out with those lofty intentions but their agenda has taken on dark clouds and entered into the states rights arena and some very serious racial implications from the many factions of their leadership
Venice--Not to split hairs (OK, I will), but you got your terms wrong. "Flight time" starts when the emergency brake is released and ends when it is reset at the destination. "Duty time" is the work day, and includes the time between flights, etc.

Currently, duty time ends when flight time ends on the last segment of the day. This means that the time it takes for the crew to get off the plane, through the airport, find the van driver, and get to the hotel are all considered part of the "rest" period. One of the changes will be that duty time will not end until arrival at the hotel. This may dissuade airlines from contracting with hotels where they can get rooms five bucks cheaper, but that are a half hour from the airport.

As to the Frontline doc you mentioned, Matt says that while there are some errors and misinterpretations in it, overall it is very good. He said he became emotional when he saw it.

As far as Norm's overall disdain for regulation, this is a common conservative battle cry, not entirely without merit, but often painted with far too broad a brush. I'm glad he sees the merit in the regs we're discussing, especially because they aren't new, but simply replacements for the outrageously outdated rules that are in place now.

It is also worth noting that the partial shutdown of the FAA has nothing to do with anybody's belief that the agency has too many people working there (whether or not that's true). There are two issues: one is about the extravagent funding for construction, maintenance and flight subsidies to put air service into small airports that could never justify it based on traffic volume. Clearly, this amounts to what many consider pork, and others consider fairness. But it has nothing in particular to due with staffing levels at the FAA. The other issue is that conservatives want to make it harder for people in the aviation industry generally to organize; liberals want to make it perfectly OK. Those are the issues that have currently put the FAA out of business.

That said, in my opinion it wouldn't have been too stupid for the FAA to publish the new regs a couple weeks ago in order to clear the decks, since they knew then that all this nonsense could come to pass.
The most dangerous man in society is the man who has nothing left to lose. -- Saul Bellow
Reply With Quote