FAA rules on high speeds, naps, stand ups, cdo's..

[enuffalready]

or whatever your airline calls them. anyone read how they effect the 2nd shifters? those of us that like them would hate to see them cut or go away. any of you lawyer types interpret the rules in regards to cdo's?

 

[JoeMerchant]

or whatever your airline calls them. anyone read how they effect the 2nd shifters? those of us that like them would hate to see them cut or go away. any of you lawyer types interpret the rules in regards to cdo's?

The really bad ones with a short RON will still be legal...The really nice ones with about 8 hours on the ground won't be legal for the most part...All in all, this will be bad for Nap folks....

 

[johnsonrod]

The really bad ones with a short RON will still be legal...The really nice ones with about 8 hours on the ground won't be legal for the most part...All in all, this will be bad for Nap folks....

And bad for regionals in general. We are becoming more and more inefficient.

 

[CFI2766]

If you like the naps, good on ya', but should we really embrace a rule system (as is current) that is dangerous for the other 85-90% of the flying that we do?

 

[Freebrd]

crap this gonna suck, been napping for a few years now, likem

 

[enuffalready]

If you like the naps, good on ya', but should we really embrace a rule system (as is current) that is dangerous for the other 85-90% of the flying that we do?

they could of made reference to the naps. Lots of airlines have them. By shortening the 'duty day' to 12 hours... the company will keep the naps... they will just be less rest. Ironic that a law to give people more rest will actually give us less rest. Could of been an easy fix, such as 4 flight hours and under means you can schedule to 13 instead of 12 hours.

also... naps are real senior now... for the most part, nobody gets them that doesnt want them...

 

[JoeMerchant]

If you like the naps, good on ya', but should we really embrace a rule system (as is current) that is dangerous for the other 85-90% of the flying that we do?

1. An exception could be made for naps...As the rule is now, only the really bad naps will be legal...Doesn't make much sense to me.

2. The other 85-90% will still have "rest issues"...This doesn't change it. A 9 hour overnight with a 430 duty in will still result in me being tired...nothing really changes.

3. This will result in fewer 3 day trips and more inefficient 4 day trips..especially on the 50.

4. The current system isn't "dangerous". Statistics prove that. My drive to the ATL airport is statistically more dangerous than the worst trip you can come up with.

 

[JoeMerchant]

they could of made reference to the naps. Lots of airlines have them. By shortening the 'duty day' to 12 hours... the company will keep the naps... they will just be less rest. Ironic that a law to give people more rest will actually give us less rest. Could of been an easy fix, such as 4 flight hours and under means you can schedule to 13 instead of 12 hours.

also... naps are real senior now... for the most part, nobody gets them that doesnt want them...

Exactly...This was very predictable.....

 

[Pasturepilot]

As I understand, the "RULES" are proposals at this point and are open for comment. I'd say it's time we write some letters...

 

[79%N1]

Isn't the rest between duty periods? If you are on Continuous Duty, and stay within the duty hour limit, won't naps be OK?