Cargo Flight and Duty Requirements
The Colgan air accident that occurred in 2009 spurred a new
push for changing flight and duty hours. It was believed and revealed that the
flight and duty hours, as well as the safety culture of the regionals at the
time, were huge contributors to the cause of the tragedy. Some of the changes include
clarifying “Fit for duty” to having pilots sign paperwork affirming they are “fit
for duty” and placing more clear-cut methods of solving the issue. Another change
was giving reserve pilots a 10-hour rest period instead of the older method of
1 day every week. A third change is a little smaller but no less important. A
pilot is required to have a “10-hour rest period with at least 8 hours of
uninterrupted sleep” vs “a rest period of 9 hours that can be reduced to 8
hours” (Houston, 2017). These are just some of the changes from the new flight
and duty regulations.
The current flight and duty limitations for cargo carriers
are “during any 24 consecutive hours the total flight time of the assigned
flight when added to any other commercial flying by that flight crew member may
not exceed— 8 hours for a flight crew consisting of one pilot; or 10 hours for
a flight crew consisting of two pilots qualified under this part for the
operation being conducted.” (Sub part F, n.d.). There are ways that the operator
can get around these rules by allowing for the following:
“A flight crew member's flight time
may exceed the flight time limits of paragraph (b) of this section if the
assigned flight time occurs during a regularly assigned duty period of no more
than 14 hours and— If this duty period is immediately preceded by and followed
by a required rest period of at least 10 consecutive hours of rest; If flight
time is assigned during this period, that total flight time when added to any
other commercial flying by the flight crew member may not exceed— 8 hours for a
flight crew consisting of one pilot; or 10 hours for a flight crew consisting
of two pilots; and If the combined duty and rest periods equal 24 hours.”
(Sub part F, n.d.).
The final rule summary states that “permitted all-cargo
operations operating under 14 CFR part 121 to voluntarily opt into the part 117
flight, duty, and rest regulations.” (Clarification of Flight, Duty, and Rest
Requirements, 2013). This could have been made for a number of reasons. There
is a possibility that it could have been expensive for the carrier, but it is
unlikely that this is the case. The more likely truth is that the carriers did
not want to put the money into fixing something that wasn’t broke, meaning that
since they were not carrying passengers, and had a less likely fatality rate,
they were able to escape the requirement to adapt these new flight and duty
hours. Finally, due to the extreme post-accident public push for a change, the
cargo carrying part of the aviation wasn’t directly in the spotlight, and since
most people were only concerned with making sure people flying had well rested
and fit pilots for flight, the cargo carriers most likely were able to avoid
being forced to accept these new regulations.
If the cargo carriers were included into the part 117
regulations for flight and duty hours, it could improve my life significantly,
but could have some negative effects on my ability to earn more money.
Part 117.25 states “A flight crew
member must be given a minimum of 56 consecutive hours rest upon return to home
base if the flight crew member: (1) Travels more than 60° longitude during a
flight duty period or a series of flight duty period, and (2) is away from home
base for more than 168 consecutive hours during this travel. The 56 hours of
rest specified in this section must encompass three physiological nights' rest
based on local time.” (14 CFR 117.25 – Flight time limitation, n.d.).
Since I plan on becoming an international pilot, this could
be significant to me as it would limit me to waiting at least 3 nights of sleep
after a long travel. The positive part of that would be the much-needed rest
after such a long term of flying. Another benefit the would come from adapting
part 117 would be that I would have much safer flight and duty requirements to
keep me operating at top efficiency and in the safest possible manner. This not
only increases company benefit, but also personal gain as well. Finally, this
helps assure the persons and property I fly over and the airports I fly into
that I am well rested and in the best possible condition to deal with the many
possible stressful and complicated situations that can arise from flying long
international routes. This would also mean that the carriers would have to hire
more flight crews to accommodate for the increased rest time of the established
crews, so I could have an easier time acquiring a position at a cargo company.
References:
14 CFR 117.25 - Flight time limitation. (n.d.). Retrieved
from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/117.25
Clarification of Flight, Duty, and Rest Requirements. (2013,
March 05). Retrieved from
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/03/05/2013-05083/clarification-of-flight-duty-an
d-rest-requirements
Houston, S. (2017, November 17). Learn About the FAA's Final
Rule for Pilot Duty and Rest
Requirements. Retrieved from
https://www.thebalance.com/faa-final-rule-pilot
-duty-and-rest-requirements-282927
Subpart F—Crewmember Flight Time and Duty Period Limitations
and Rest Requirements. (n.d.).
Retrieved from
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=2ce4cb4a62a382bd5416
21497603949d&mc=true&node=sp14.3.135.f&rgn=div6
Your commentary was well presented and balanced. It is of my opinion that the ruling should apply to all-cargo operations as well. However, I admit that my opinion is based on a summary understanding of the ruling at best; full comprehension would require a devoted effort of study on my part beyond the surface of which I’ve scratched.
ReplyDeleteI was inspired by your post to research deeper yet into the applicability and potential impacts upon the livelihood of all-cargo pilots themselves. Pilots wouldn't necessarily be directly negatively affected. Without question, if these regulations were applied, cargo industry costs would drive upwards.
Yet, cost rises would be deferred down the market chain to the clients and then ultimately to the customers – in cascading waterfall effect, shipping prices would rise accordingly. The cargo industry wouldn’t however be financially crippled into non-existence; profits would only be reduced from pre-regulation levels.
With zero qualms, it is of my opinion that reasonable safety regulations are costs necessary of doing business – the bottom line, period. An opinion of which so many corporations lobby tooth and nail against in their aim for baseline safety standards to be minimized and their profit potentials maximized – safety is not typically the genuine concern of corporations.
Safety is often promulgated as their number one priority outwardly in creed, motto and mission; yet unsafe profit motive actions have historically resulted in tragedy in times past, ultimately proving contrary, resulting in the regulation of which they’ve opposed. Losses of life due to priority of profits are absolutely reprehensible factors in the equation of business.
Part 135 all-cargo carriers were posited with expectation of mandated compliance by regulators in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). FAA final rule excerpt supports (2014):
The NPRM also stated that “the part 135 community should expect to see an NPRM addressing its operations that looks very similar to, if not exactly like, the final rule the agency anticipates issuing as part of its rulemaking initiative” (FAA, 2014, p.25-26).
Your career goals however shouldn’t be negatively impacted; rather they might only be positively affected. If mandated, the already proven and previously supported augmented Flight Duty Period (FDP) would be adopted. The following FAA final rule excerpts clearly support such stance (2014):
Existing regulations allow higher flight times for augmented flights, and this allows air carriers to conduct longer flights. … Augmentation has three significant impacts on flight safety. … First, flightcrew members on augmented flights work in shifts, and therefore, do not spend as much time engaged in the fatiguing task of piloting an aircraft. … Second, when they are not on the flight deck, flightcrew members on an augmented flight have access to an onboard rest facility, which will allow them to sleep during the flight. … Third, the redundancy created by augmentation allows fatigued flightcrew members to ask for assistance from other flightcrew members. …
UPS suggested that “four person augmented operations with a class one rest facility should provide a 16-hour FDP regardless of report time.” UPS asserted that this type of augmented FDP limit “would allow U.S.-based certificate holders to compete globally without an FRMS” (FAA, 2014, p. 146-149).
To conclude, I believe that an all-cargo industry stance of exclusion from 14 C.F.R. 117 lays primarily with their fiscal interests. The outspoken merit that their long-standing pilot fatigue management and safety methodologies are proven superior to the regulations of other industry counterparts seems to be a stretch at best.
Again, I claim no expertise; it’s my wholly unqualified opinion. What do you think?
– Aviator in Progress
Reference
FAA. (2014). Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements. Federal Aviation Administration. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/01/04/2011-33078/flightcrew-member-duty-and-rest-requirements
I should say that I totally agree with you regarding the aspect that Cargo carriers should be included under part 117 or at least have better regulations regarding their flight and duty time. I say this because although it is true that cargo pilots do not have the responsibility of the paying passengers sitting behind them, they still share the skies with the airlines that do have such responsibility. So, in my opinion, by applying better regulations to the cargo industry and trying to mitigate the fatigue issue among cargo pilots, could potentially translate into making the skies much safer. The same skies in which passengers’ airlines fly in. Said this we should not forget that fatigued pilots can be a potential hazard also to the people and properties that are on the ground, since they have a much higher chance of losing control of the aircraft, causing it to crash.
ReplyDelete-Nenne747-
The problem with these requirements as it relates to Colgan, is that these requirements do nothing to prevent accidents. I'll explain... Just because I'm entitled to a certain number of hours as a rest period, does not mean that I will use them for rest. Yeah, the Colgan pilots were tired due to having commuted or by performing their job related duties that caused fatigue, but these new requirements do not mean pilots have to abide by them. The pilots of the Colgan accident were at fault for flying that aircraft with their fatigue level, not the airline. Yeah, the airline was the one that caused their fatigue for the most part, but they have a duty to report this fatigue (or just call in sick) to their airline and a duty to their passengers to know when they should not be flying. The new rules cannot prevent lack of decision making amongst pilots if they still choose to fly fatigued. I do not blame the airline, but the pilots. They were the last defense in a chain of events that could've prevented that doomed flight from beginning with those two pilots at the controls.
ReplyDeleteThe regulations may prevent an accident or two over the next few decades, but the cost is far too great. While it's good for us pilots in training in the sense that the duty and rest requirements cause the airlines to need more pilots, in addition to the 1500 hour rule, I do not see it as a net benefit.
I like with your arguments, Bam Bam Blackbird, relating to cargo carriers being included in the new regulations. Pilots of both passenger and cargo operations are essentially performing the same job, just with different stuff sitting behind them. Often times, even, the guys flying cargo are usually flying older equipment that takes more attention to fly correctly and safely. A lot of cargo aircraft can be between 30-40 years old. However, I feel as though cargo was not included in the new regulations simply due to the fact that most cargo operators are simply too small to implement these new regulations and see any benefit to them. Some sources I was reading indicated the overall cost to implement these new regulations would cost over $400 million to implement. Operators like USA Jet would not be able to afford these massive costs, especially since things like weather here in Michigan can keep their aircraft on the ground more often than usual.
ReplyDeleteI liked your explanation of the Colgen Air accident, it made it super understandable and easy to follow. As far as your Cargo and Part 117 discussion went, I sort of disagree with your reasoning behind the idea that cargo transporting industries should adopt the PART 117 guidelines. In my own opinion, the idea of transporting 100 plus souls and a couple million dollars of cargo are two completely different levels of stress, responsibility, and pressure in general. A part from that you mentioned that even cargo pilots get sleepy and should have the same amount of rest in between flights, and although I can understand where you're coming from, I disagree. Again, in my opinion, I think that it wouldn't be the worst idea to have a few different pilots on board a cargo aircraft so that the pilots can take shifts sleeping in the back. I understand that this change of command mid air seems sketchy, and almost reckless, but if they were to establish organized and documented shifts in duty, it could work out marvelously and significantly reduce limitations for the transport community.
ReplyDelete