Duty rules?

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

DrSpaceman
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:03 am

Duty rules?

Post by DrSpaceman » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:12 am

Anyone know what’s taking so long?
I thought we were waiting for final rules this summer?
---------- ADS -----------
  

rocket81
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:46 am

Re: Duty rules?

Post by rocket81 » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:40 am

Lobbies, politicians, all a bunch of corrupt ^*#}.
---------- ADS -----------
  

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1596
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Duty rules?

Post by goingnowherefast » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:03 pm

We're waiting for Colgan 3407 to happen to a Canadian company. Politicians are too stupid to learn from the mistakes of a crash next to our border. Gotta kill our own citizens first.

I'm secretly hoping the NTSB hangs TC and the rest of Canada over the fatigue issue for the AC SFO incident.
---------- ADS -----------
  

bobcaygeon
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 543
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:03 am

Re: Duty rules?

Post by bobcaygeon » Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:31 am

SFO was a legal duty period under the new regs.
For Colgan a contributing factor was FC not using their time free from duty properly ie commuting vs sleeping. Something the unions in Canada would not touch with a 10' pole even though it clearly unsafe.

The rules need to be updated but the current proposal isn't a great fix either.
---------- ADS -----------
  

FL007
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Duty rules?

Post by FL007 » Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:18 pm

bobcaygeon wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:31 am
SFO was a legal duty period under the new regs.
For Colgan a contributing factor was FC not using their time free from duty properly ie commuting vs sleeping. Something the unions in Canada would not touch with a 10' pole even though it clearly unsafe.

The rules need to be updated but the current proposal isn't a great fix either.
Do you think the new rules should mimic the FAA's?
---------- ADS -----------
  

av8ts
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am

Re: Duty rules?

Post by av8ts » Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:15 am

bobcaygeon wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:31 am
SFO was a legal duty period under the new regs.
For Colgan a contributing factor was FC not using their time free from duty properly ie commuting vs sleeping. Something the unions in Canada would not touch with a 10' pole even though it clearly unsafe.

The rules need to be updated but the current proposal isn't a great fix either.
They probably won’t touch it because it’s very complicated to regulate. If two pilots report at 4pm, one is up at 7am and spends the day doing activities with family and the other spends the day sitting in the back of a plane commuting, who is more rested? There are endless scenarios with No clear answer
---------- ADS -----------
  

Kaykay
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:21 am
Location: Canada...sometimes

Re: Duty rules?

Post by Kaykay » Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:26 am

av8ts wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:15 am
bobcaygeon wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:31 am
SFO was a legal duty period under the new regs.
For Colgan a contributing factor was FC not using their time free from duty properly ie commuting vs sleeping. Something the unions in Canada would not touch with a 10' pole even though it clearly unsafe.

The rules need to be updated but the current proposal isn't a great fix either.
They probably won’t touch it because it’s very complicated to regulate. If two pilots report at 4pm, one is up at 7am and spends the day doing activities with family and the other spends the day sitting in the back of a plane commuting, who is more rested? There are endless scenarios with No clear answer

Exactly, couldn't agree more. I am not contesting that a commuter is tired after commuting; I am sure many are, everyone has a different threshold for being tired. But you can't tell me if I've been up since 6am with kids running around all day then go to work late afternoon that I am somehow more rested than someone who flew to Toronto and snoozed the whole flight right before their report time. What do they plan to do? Monitor your every move prior to report to ensure you were "resting"? Goodness forbid you went to the mall right before you went to work instead of sleeping.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: Duty rules?

Post by Meatservo » Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:23 pm

goingnowherefast wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:03 pm
We're waiting for Colgan 3407 to happen to a Canadian company. Politicians are too stupid to learn from the mistakes of a crash next to our border. Gotta kill our own citizens first.

I'm secretly hoping the NTSB hangs TC and the rest of Canada over the fatigue issue for the AC SFO incident.
You'll recall that the Americans put at least some of the blame for that accident on pilot competency and experience levels too, although fatigue was of primary concern. They tinkered with experience requirements and duty-time rules, but I never saw any changes that addressed the fact that the young woman in the right seat was fatigued due to her long commute specifically because she couldn't AFFORD a place to stay nearby. As for the captain, his basic flying skills were called into question as well as his state of wakefulness.

We're all walking on new ground these days when it comes to the depth and breadth of experience in the front seats of these relatively high-performance and high-capacity regional planes, although I've heard in Canada the two big dash-8 operators offer excellent training. I'm worried that new duty-time regulations are only part of what we need to be thinking about here. That crew did almost everything wrong, and it's kind of hard for me to place the blame entirely on fatigue, or at least fatigue they could have done anything about through more regulation. If you can't afford a place to sleep, it doesn't matter how much time they give you. I think I heard or read that sleeping in the crew room couches was forbidden at Colgan. Forbid sleeping. Great idea.
---------- ADS -----------
  
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1596
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Duty rules?

Post by goingnowherefast » Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:39 pm

Anything is better than the 3rd world crap we currently live with in Canada. Actually, most 3rd world countries have better duty regs than us. While the proposed regs aren't very good either, at least it is an improvement.

Right now the aviation industry is inexperienced AND fatigued. New duty rules will reduce the fatigue, so it will be just inexperienced. Not good, but it's still a gain. The 1500 rule in the states did increase pay in a round-about way. Raising the standard reduced the supply of qualified pilots, thus forcing pay to increase. Simple supply and demand.

We can argue all day about what caused experience levels to fall this low, but this thread is about the duty regs and I don't want it to drift.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: Duty rules?

Post by Meatservo » Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:33 pm

.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Meatservo on Sat Sep 15, 2018 3:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself

Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Duty rules?

Post by Diadem » Wed Sep 12, 2018 10:44 pm

Special-ops companies will have the option of getting a custom fatigue-management program which would grant them exemptions from the new rules. If they can show that their flights are only short hops and that limiting duty days based on legs will negatively impact their operations with no increase in safety, then in theory they should be able to get approval for something else that works for them. This whole argument that "Bush operators will have to hire more pilots to do the same amount of work, and the pilots won't get paid as much!" comes straight from the operators who don't want to have to implement a new program. They're trying to scare their pilots into opposing the regs so they can save money and keep pushing low-timers for fourteen hours per day.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: Duty rules?

Post by Meatservo » Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:34 am

Yeah that's more or less what I was getting at: not that I think it's fair, but that it's something operators are going to try to hold over peoples' heads.
---------- ADS -----------
  
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself

goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1596
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Duty rules?

Post by goingnowherefast » Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:59 pm

I don't think the FRMS is going to go anywhere. No TC inspector wants to be the first to approve one and set the precedence. It's a regulatory and enforcement nightmare. Special duty regs for everyone and their dog who happens to have an AOC.

The day VFR operators do not have a sector count for their operations, just a time of day. So if you're slogging back and forth to the drill site in your Otter, it's Day VFR and you can still do as many legs as possible in 13 hours. There is still a sliding scale based on what time you started your day, but 7am till 8pm works.

Here's the link and search for: MAXIMUM FLIGHT DUTY PERIOD — FLIGHTS CONDUCTED UNDER DAY VFR

I'm not tech savvy enough to link to that specific part of the web page.


I don't mind explaining it to individuals (especially strangers on the internet). The part that pisses me off is the ignorant VFR operators are too lazy to read the whole document and notice that the sector count doesn't apply to them and their float or VFR helicopter operation. Then they lobby their ignorance to the politicians who are also too stupid to point this out. Now we've got the likes of EVAS, Wasaya and PASCO flying the shit out of their pilots to 2:00 am on a 14 hour day after 10 legs, 7 hours in the air, 6 instrument approaches and 2 misses all hand flown. It is causing a real safety hazard because some numb-nut VFR operator can't be bothered to read the whole Gazette proposal. </end rant>
---------- ADS -----------
  

FL007
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Duty rules?

Post by FL007 » Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:41 pm

goingnowherefast wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:59 pm
I don't think the FRMS is going to go anywhere. No TC inspector wants to be the first to approve one and set the precedence. It's a regulatory and enforcement nightmare. Special duty regs for everyone and their dog who happens to have an AOC.

The day VFR operators do not have a sector count for their operations, just a time of day. So if you're slogging back and forth to the drill site in your Otter, it's Day VFR and you can still do as many legs as possible in 13 hours. There is still a sliding scale based on what time you started your day, but 7am till 8pm works.

Here's the link and search for: MAXIMUM FLIGHT DUTY PERIOD — FLIGHTS CONDUCTED UNDER DAY VFR

I'm not tech savvy enough to link to that specific part of the web page.


I don't mind explaining it to individuals (especially strangers on the internet). The part that pisses me off is the ignorant VFR operators are too lazy to read the whole document and notice that the sector count doesn't apply to them and their float or VFR helicopter operation. Then they lobby their ignorance to the politicians who are also too stupid to point this out. Now we've got the likes of EVAS, Wasaya and PASCO flying the shit out of their pilots to 2:00 am on a 14 hour day after 10 legs, 7 hours in the air, 6 instrument approaches and 2 misses all hand flown. It is causing a real safety hazard because some numb-nut VFR operator can't be bothered to read the whole Gazette proposal. </end rant>
This x100, not to mention companies and their fear mongering ads. Those companies should spend resources better managing their workforce instead of working them to the bone.
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2234
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Duty rules?

Post by digits_ » Thu Sep 13, 2018 3:48 pm

Yeah, even flying 18 legs a day in the middle of the night IFR still gives you a duty day of 9 hours. Or 11 hours during the day. Should be enough, no?
---------- ADS -----------
  

bobcaygeon
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 543
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:03 am

Re: Duty rules?

Post by bobcaygeon » Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:01 pm

av8ts wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:15 am
bobcaygeon wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:31 am
SFO was a legal duty period under the new regs.
For Colgan a contributing factor was FC not using their time free from duty properly ie commuting vs sleeping. Something the unions in Canada would not touch with a 10' pole even though it clearly unsafe.

The rules need to be updated but the current proposal isn't a great fix either.
They probably won’t touch it because it’s very complicated to regulate. If two pilots report at 4pm, one is up at 7am and spends the day doing activities with family and the other spends the day sitting in the back of a plane commuting, who is more rested? There are endless scenarios with No clear answer
I was only specifically addressing the commuter on an airline, specifically their own code. It's clear documented data. I can't prove you slept when you're at home but if a commuter and a deadheading pilot are on the same flight how does one count as duty day and one does not, for the purposes of fatigue.

Sorry but I've flown too many times with "that guy" who takes the red eye to work, then is bagged thus putting me on high alert, and tells me about all the crap they did yesterday. A 3.5 hr red-eye isn't adequate rest and if I can live in the big smoke on FO wages then so can he as the skipper.
---------- ADS -----------
  

bobcaygeon
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 543
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:03 am

Re: Duty rules?

Post by bobcaygeon » Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:12 pm

Have you looked at the FRMS document? Even the people at TC who wrote it can't figure it out. Ask them.

TC posted in Gazette 1 that they expected only 2% of 704 operators would/could use it. That is 2 operators (approx 84 total).
That's not an effective alternative even for the oddballs scenarios.

McGill and AC tried to complete a fatigue study recently (not related directly to these regs) and they could not get nearly enough participants from ACPA. No one actually wants to back up the data.....
---------- ADS -----------
  

Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: Duty rules?

Post by Meatservo » Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:17 pm

goingnowherefast wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:59 pm
I don't mind explaining it to individuals (especially strangers on the internet). The part that pisses me off is the ignorant VFR operators are too lazy to read the whole document and notice that the sector count doesn't apply to them and their float or VFR helicopter operation. Then they lobby their ignorance to the politicians who are also too stupid to point this out. Now we've got the likes of EVAS, Wasaya and PASCO flying the shit out of their pilots to 2:00 am on a 14 hour day after 10 legs, 7 hours in the air, 6 instrument approaches and 2 misses all hand flown. It is causing a real safety hazard because some numb-nut VFR operator can't be bothered to read the whole Gazette proposal. </end rant>
That was an awesome rant and I stand corrected. I'm not an operator but I was too lazy, apparently, to read the whole thing.

I've never really had a problem with the duty time regulations, but I won't presume to speak as though I know what it's been like for other people with different jobs. I've got kind of an easy job at the moment, and I will probably lose some income as a result of the new regulations, and possibly have to spend more nights in hotels instead of at home. But I'm philisophical about changes, especially in this case, because I recognize that if safety is improved well of course the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. :)
---------- ADS -----------
  
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself

av8ts
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am

Re: Duty rules?

Post by av8ts » Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:48 am

bobcaygeon wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:01 pm
av8ts wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:15 am
bobcaygeon wrote:
Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:31 am
SFO was a legal duty period under the new regs.
For Colgan a contributing factor was FC not using their time free from duty properly ie commuting vs sleeping. Something the unions in Canada would not touch with a 10' pole even though it clearly unsafe.

The rules need to be updated but the current proposal isn't a great fix either.
They probably won’t touch it because it’s very complicated to regulate. If two pilots report at 4pm, one is up at 7am and spends the day doing activities with family and the other spends the day sitting in the back of a plane commuting, who is more rested? There are endless scenarios with No clear answer
I was only specifically addressing the commuter on an airline, specifically their own code. It's clear documented data. I can't prove you slept when you're at home but if a commuter and a deadheading pilot are on the same flight how does one count as duty day and one does not, for the purposes of fatigue.

Sorry but I've flown too many times with "that guy" who takes the red eye to work, then is bagged thus putting me on high alert, and tells me about all the crap they did yesterday. A 3.5 hr red-eye isn't adequate rest and if I can live in the big smoke on FO wages then so can he as the skipper.
Well the dh counts as duty because your on duty. The commuting pilot who sleeps on the plane is in most cases not as rested as the pilot who is home in bed but more rested than the pilot who is doing activities at home. And believe me money has nothing to due with why most of us commute.
---------- ADS -----------
  

bobcaygeon
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 543
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:03 am

Re: Duty rules?

Post by bobcaygeon » Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:56 am

av8ts wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:48 am
bobcaygeon wrote:
Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:01 pm
av8ts wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:15 am
They probably won’t touch it because it’s very complicated to regulate. If two pilots report at 4pm, one is up at 7am and spends the day doing activities with family and the other spends the day sitting in the back of a plane commuting, who is more rested? There are endless scenarios with No clear answer
I was only specifically addressing the commuter on an airline, specifically their own code. It's clear documented data. I can't prove you slept when you're at home but if a commuter and a deadheading pilot are on the same flight how does one count as duty day and one does not, for the purposes of fatigue.

Sorry but I've flown too many times with "that guy" who takes the red eye to work, then is bagged thus putting me on high alert, and tells me about all the crap they did yesterday. A 3.5 hr red-eye isn't adequate rest and if I can live in the big smoke on FO wages then so can he as the skipper.
Well the dh counts as duty because your on duty. The commuting pilot who sleeps on the plane is in most cases not as rested as the pilot who is home in bed but more rested than the pilot who is doing activities at home. And believe me money has nothing to due with why most of us commute.
The commuter sitting beside the dead header in an airbus when you're both Boeing pilots are getting the exact same amount of rest. I've yet to be deadheading and have to save the day and go help fly the plane that I'm not qualified on.

The problem is the commuter is doing just as much crap prior to the commute as the guy who drives to work. I know because he tells me so. I don't give a crap about his prize horses that he watered and groomed before he caught the red eye.
Sorry but commuting on a YYC to YYZ red eye and going to work is bullshit.

SMSing it does F'all. It kinda reminds me of the days when Captain "x" liked "the sauce" just a little too much and no one would say anything about it even though everyone knew about it.

Again IMHO
---------- ADS -----------
  

fayuyang
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu May 17, 2018 7:41 pm

Re: Duty rules?

Post by fayuyang » Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:03 pm

DrSpaceman wrote:
Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:12 am
Anyone know what’s taking so long?
I thought we were waiting for final rules this summer?
Maybe legalizing weed is a more important than pilots duty rules? :twisted: :twisted:
---------- ADS -----------
  

seven-oh-nooo
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:35 am

Re: Duty rules?

Post by seven-oh-nooo » Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:08 pm

At this point, changing duty regs to what TC wants will more than likely cause a couple accidents.
---------- ADS -----------
  

FL007
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 1:35 pm

Re: Duty rules?

Post by FL007 » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:50 pm

seven-oh-nooo wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:08 pm
At this point, changing duty regs to what TC wants will more than likely cause a couple accidents.
Not a chance.
---------- ADS -----------
  

seven-oh-nooo
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:35 am

Re: Duty rules?

Post by seven-oh-nooo » Sat Oct 13, 2018 3:45 pm

FL007 wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:50 pm
seven-oh-nooo wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:08 pm
At this point, changing duty regs to what TC wants will more than likely cause a couple accidents.
Not a chance.
You don't think it's tempting to lower training standards just a bit more, little by little, just to get those cockpit seats filled cheaply when you have to add a significant number of pilots to your roster?
---------- ADS -----------
  

dogfood
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:39 pm

Re: Duty rules?

Post by dogfood » Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:16 pm

Going have to agree with you on that company's will just lower the bar even more. I'd rather have overworked experienced pilots flying me than inexperienced under qualified pilots up front.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”