The FAA has recently changed the flight duty regulations for the airlines to ensure that the crew gets the proper amount of rest. There were many changes that are in the links below, but the main change is that the crew is now given a minimum of 10 hours off, ensuring at least 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep. The old rule was 9 hours that could be reduced to 8 hours between flights, not guaranteeing any amount of sleep. They are also limited to how many hours they can fly in one day and the number of night hours they can fly. The FAA decided that cargo pilots do not need as much rest as airline pilots and made them exempt from the new policies.
The FAA said that cargo operations are not included in the new regulations because it would cost the industry to much money. The Cargo Airline Association said that the FAA has overestimated the amount by at least $235 million. For an industry that is supposed to be concerned about safety, the FAA has made it clear that profit takes priority over safety.
I believe that cargo pilots should have the same requirements as the airlines. The fact that the requirements are different tells me that they are only concerned about money. If an airline flight crashes then they have to deal with all the extra publicity and compensation for the passengers and their families. If a cargo flight crashed due to fatigue they only lose the pilots and the cargo so why not push the pilots as much as they can?
I believe that if the regulations for cargo were the same it would be a benefit for pilots. Most cargo flights are at night so it would have a big impact on the hours a pilot could fly in a day. It would also make sure that the pilots are getting proper rest between flight which is a major safety issue. Fatigue has contributes to many aviation accidents. I would mean more jobs for pilots because they would need to hire more people to keep up with the flights since the flight hours would be limited. Overall I don't see any negatives other than money for enforcing the same regulations for everyone, but unfortunately we all know money is what really drives the industry.
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13273
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/13/ups-pilots-urge-more-rest-for-cargo-crews/6402615/
I also think the fact that cargo pilots were excluded comes down to money. I didn't think about the liability and compensation the airlines would have to pay to each passenger also. That definitely adds more evidence to the case that they just did it to save money.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's sad to thing that certain regulations come down to money but that is bound to happen in aviation. I am in agreement with you in that cargo pilots should be held to the same standards as their commercial counterparts
ReplyDeleteI like how you found the amount the FAA estimated cargo would lose. It is the job of the FAA to balance safety and profit however, you went on to say it was over estimated. 235 million is quite high and may support that there is more going on in the industry.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting (and terrible) to know that basically the only reason cargo carriers were exempt is due to money. Seems like the FAA is certainly not doing their job if their main priority is supposed to be safety..
ReplyDeleteIt is a harsh reality, but if a business did not make money, it could not exist. There has to be a line drawn somewhere but maybe the pilots should be the only factor to be looked at.
ReplyDeleteThe FAA is in the "customer service" business and do many things to keep the carriers happy. They do "try" to balance safety and profits but usually profits take priority until there is blood, then safety moves up in priority until the public forgets about it and profits move ahead of safety. It appears to be a fine line between safety and profits, keeping the public and carriers happy is tough and sometimes the carriers or public end up not happy with a decision.
ReplyDeleteThe FAA inspectors become good friends with carriers over time and on occasion "don't see" the problem officially and give their friends some time to work on it. The rule change would cost the cargo carriers money, that is true. However, the loss of life is minimal per accident compared to a passenger aircraft that is the same size (747 cargo aircraft crashes, usually the crew of around 2 dies, a 747 passenger aircraft crashes, usually a few hundred people die and this skews the perception of the public that cargo carriers don't really need to adhere to the same standards as they are not carrying them - the public.
Your statement about money being the only concern is not necessarily untrue...regulations definitely go through a cost/benefit analysis before they are put into place.
ReplyDelete