The new ruling comes as a result of
the Colgan Air Flight 3407 accident on February 12, 2009. About 5 nautical
miles short of buffalo-Niagara airport the pilot lost control of the Bombardier
DHC-8-400 and it crashed killing everyone onboard including one person on the
ground. Not only did the accident put focus on aspects of pilot qualifications
and air carrier training requirements but the amount of hours that pilots were
being encouraged to work were also examined.
The new rules take into consideration
the time of day a pilot’s duty begins and adjusts the requirements accordingly.
Some important changes implemented in the new ruling are that pilots must be
well rested before beginning their duty in addition to stating that they are
fit for duty before beginning flight. If a pilot feels he or she is not fit to
fly the air carrier must be notified. The previous FAR was vague in regard to
pilot fatigue and limitations for pilots and as was seen in the Flying Cheaper
documentary some pilots could be encouraged to fly while being fatigued.
Under the new rule there is a
restriction on a pilot’s flight duty period (FDP) which begins when a pilot is
to report for the day and ends when the aircraft is parked after the last
flight. Minimum rest is 10 hours, two more than the old rules, beginning when
the crew is released in order to ensure that at least 8 hours of sleep is received.
In the past minimum rest was 9 hours reducible to 8 but did not factor in a
sleep opportunity. (ALPA’s FTDT Comparison: New FAR vs. Existing Rules, 2011)
Cargo carrier operators are exempt
from the new rulings simply because of money. The FAA does not require cargo
operations to be held accountable for the new part 117 rules due to the
compliance costs exceeding the societal benefits. Cargo carriers may
voluntarily comply with the new rules but it is not mandatory on the other hand
passenger carrier benefits did outweigh the costs. They carry more people and
the DOT values the cost of a human life to be about $6.2 million. (Compart, 2012) Considering that in fatal
crashes hundreds of people can be killed it is easy to see why the airlines are
held to a higher safety standard.
Personally I do not feel that cargo
carriers should be left out of the provision. Even though cargo pilots are not
carrying people the pilots themselves should be enough reason for compliance.
Not only that but you have many people on the ground that could be injured. It
would be terribly devastating if there was an accident in a congested area like
O’Hare, La Guardia, or Detroit Metro. Even though cargo carriers can
voluntarily adhere to the rules there is no reason to expect them to comply especially
when it saves them time and money. I do like the fact that there are a few
pilots and politicians that support making cargo carriers comply with the new
rules. Recently a lawsuit was filed against the FAA by the Independent Pilot
Association, the union representing UPS pilots, to compel cargo carriers to
comply. “Carving us out is akin to telling bus drivers you have fatigue
requirements, [but] truck drivers, you’re just hauling freight, so it doesn’t
matter,” argues Bill Soer, a Federal Express pilot and chairman of the
president’s committee for cargo at ALPA. About 15% of flights in the U.S. are
operated by cargo carriers, he says, so “if we’re out there flying tired, did
you really make the entire system any safer?”
If cargo carriers would be included
in the new rules they would have many of the same problems as the airlines. The
most troublesome aspect that I can imagine at the moment is dealing with the rearrangement
of pilot schedules. There is also the problem of coming up with a training
program that educates trainees on fatigue, the effects of fatigue on pilots, and
fatigue countermeasures. The good thing is that since the airlines already have
to comply with the new rules there will be examples to build off so hopefully
integrating won’t be too costly in time.
I agree that cargo carriers should adhere to these new rules for the pure fact that it is safer. It is true that cargo carriers aren’t carrying passengers on board but like you said if something were to go wrong at a large airport. It has been proven and it has been old to us many, many times that most accidents happen during takeoff and landing portions of a flight so killing many people at an airport is very possible. A pilot needs to be fully rested and ready for his next flight that day.
ReplyDeleteI think it makes sense what you said about a cargo operator crashing in a congested area. Many of these operators land around major cities and if the pilots are not well rested, not only is this a danger to the pilots, but also the citizens in the area.
ReplyDeleteThis was a good argument and you made some interesting points and I totally agree with the statement about the cargo carriers you stated "Personally I do not feel that cargo carriers should be left out of the provision. Even though cargo pilots are not carrying people the pilots themselves should be enough reason for compliance." I feel the same way bout the cargo carriers I believe no carrier should be singled out or treated differently.
ReplyDelete