UPS A300 down

I think the main point is that humans have limits. At my airline, I've seen folks say that because pilots are paid more, they should work brutal schedules. Fatigue should not be an issue because our aircraft have bunks to sleep in.

In modern life, we are trying to do more with less. There's a limit. The major reason why the regulation change came about in aviation is that most union contracts had far more restrictive limits. As the bankruptcy contracts came and the regionals flourished, more and more it was working to the limits of the regulations. The regulations weren't changed because there was no reason to change them.

While it's all fine and great to say you should fly fatigued, pilots do every day. The real question to ask is why they do. Airlines don't like pilots calling in fatigued. Many think they aren't really impaired. The new regulations are a start, but not a complete solution.
 
I don't see a problem having higher standards for flying people vs boxes.

So you advocate having fatigued pilots operating in the NAS? A company operating a passenger B767 or a cargo B767 in the NAS is different how?

And if you insist on the same requirements for freight as paying passengers the next thing will be a cry for applying the same restrictions to GA as part 121.

:rolleyes2:
 
So you advocate having fatigued pilots operating in the NAS? A company operating a passenger B767 or a cargo B767 in the NAS is different how?



:rolleyes2:

Agreed.. If UPS 300 had gone through the roof of a elementary school and killed 300 kids , there would be an entirely different direction in this investigation...:idea:
 
Upon reading about the captains prior testing, problems with promotion , it seems perfectly possible being "sleepy" had nothing to do with it. Hard to imagine nodding off at this point in a flight of this type. Could be more like the buffalo accident where the pilot and co pilot just didn't cut it.
 
Read 14 CFR Part 117, and 14 CFR Part 121, Duty and Rest Requirements for Supplemental, Domestic and Flag operations.
Thank you for the link to the regs. This contrasts to the string regarding purchasing an airplane and flying to California and being hit with taxation. That claim was swiftly proven wrong with similar links to official taxation policy. I just wanted to know if this was just another load of unfounded nonsense...
 
I don't see a problem having higher standards for flying people vs boxes. And if you insist on the same requirements for freight as paying passengers the next thing will be a cry for applying the same restrictions to GA as part 121.

Why should my box not be valued same as your life? My box and its flight pays a higher margin. The standard of liability remains 'strict' whether people or boxes, I don't see why duty of care should be different.:dunno:
 
Don't worry, Amazon will autonomize the air freight industry, there will be no pilots.
 
This contrasts to the string regarding purchasing an airplane and flying to California and being hit with taxation. That claim was swiftly proven wrong with similar links to official taxation policy. I just wanted to know if this was just another load of unfounded nonsense...
That wasn't nonsense. In that thread you have one person (myself) relaying what the tax experts have told me about California going after folks for use tax on a 'guilty until proven innocent' basis and another person claiming that the state of CA isn't going to bother with that. You are free to believe what you want. If you want to bury your head in the sand about the need to end the cut out, be my guest.
 
And if you insist on the same requirements for freight as paying passengers the next thing will be a cry for applying the same restrictions to GA as part 121.
I do believe that rest standards are important for both 135 and 91, but until we get what Dr Rosekind referred to as the 'fatigueilizer' during Thursday's hearing, I acknowledge that it is impossible to enforce in part 91.
 
Back
Top