IT IS "...POTENTIALLY the most expensive rulemaking ever proposed", says one industry association of the US Federal Aviation Administration's plan to revamp the rules governing pilot flight and duty times. "Asinine" is another association's less-guarded assessment of the proposed regulations. "This could be the first $1 billion rule," suggests one US operator faced with the prospect of having to increase its pilot workforce by one-third under the proposed new regulations.
The FAA's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on pilot flight and duty time certainly has the industry stirred up. Representing the airlines, the US Air Transportation Association (ATA) says that the proposed rule threatens to be extremely expensive. Representing the on-demand air-charter operators, the US National Air Transportation Association (NATA) says that the rule promises to be disastrous. Even the pilots, who stand to gain most from the proposed regulations, are not fully supportive of the NPRM, according to their representative, the US Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).
Authors of the NPRM should brace themselves for an overwhelmingly negative response to the FAA's request for public comment on it. The ATA is formulating its response, with member airlines putting together numbers which are expected to show that the proposed rule "...is one of the most expensive we've ever had". NATA is organising "disaster-prevention" meetings across the USA to mobilise opposition to the NPRM, which it claims will cause "complete and irreversible devastation".
The FAA will probably be disappointed by these responses, as its preamble to the NPRM predicts that airlines will benefit significantly from an increase in the daily duty-time limit from 8h to 10h (the bit which ALPA does not like). The ATA describes this prediction as "baloney", arguing that existing contract agreements with the pilots' unions will prevent airlines taking advantage of the longer working day.
Perhaps fatally, the FAA has proposed a single rule covering both scheduled and on-demand operators, while making no attempt to estimate the economic impact that its proposed rule would have on the air-charter industry.
If NATA is to be believed - and its members seem to support the association's stand - the stricter rules on reserve and rest time may well regulate a significant proportion of the industry out of business.
This is emotive, explosive, material. Air-charter operators form that part of the industry which is all too frequently called on at short notice to enable organ transplants. One small operator has lost count of how many lives his Learjets have saved by speeding "harvest" teams to the location of a donor, then rushing the organs to recipients.
NATA's principal argument is that the FAA's proposed single rule - a consequence, perhaps, of its new single level of safety for regional and major airlines - totally ignores the on-demand nature of the air-charter business. Many operators rely on reserve pilots who are on call to fly at short notice. The new rule would severely restrict that flexibility, it says.
The rule is intended to improve safety by reducing pilot fatigue. It is based on NASA research into the causes of pilot fatigue, but is branded by the ATA as "unscientific" and by NATA as "poorly thought out". Both associations doubt that pilot fatigue is, in fact, a major safety concern in their industries and suspect, instead, a "knee-jerk reaction to a few accidents".
An NPRM is released to give the affected industry an opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and to influence its final shape. That process is now under way.
It is to be hoped that the FAA realises the enormous economic impact of the changes it is proposing. It is equally to be hoped that the industry realises that the public does not expect the FAA to compromise on safety.
It is certainly to be hoped that the threat that this rule poses will force both operators and pilots to realise that a good compromise is preferable to a bad regulation.
Source: Flight International
