    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        PILOT FLIGHT AND DUTY TIME RULE

    =======================================================================

                                   (111-135)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                                    AVIATION

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               September 16, 2010

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    58-300                    WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                     JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman

    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia,   JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    Vice Chair                           DON YOUNG, Alaska
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon             THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    Columbia                             VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    JERROLD NADLER, New York             FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida               JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    BOB FILNER, California               GARY G. MILLER, California
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             Carolina
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York          Virginia
    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine            JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            CONNIE MACK, Florida
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania          JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York          VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania  ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               PETE OLSON, Texas
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               TOM GRAVES, Georgia
    LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    PHIL HARE, Illinois
    JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
    MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
    BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
    MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
    THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
    DINA TITUS, Nevada
    HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia

                                      (ii)

    ?

                            Subcommittee on Aviation

                     JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman

    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
    MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York         HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon             JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    Columbia                             FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    BOB FILNER, California               JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    Virginia
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           CONNIE MACK, Florida
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California      MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio               VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
    SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    DINA TITUS, Nevada
    JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
      (Ex Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................    vi

                                   TESTIMONY

    Alterman, Stephen A., President, Cargo Airline Association.......     5
    Belenky, Gregory, M.D., Research Professor and Director, Sleep
      and Performance Research Center, Washington State University...     5
    Brooks, A. Oakley, President, National Air Carrier Association...     5
    Gilligan, Hon. Margaret, Associate Administrator for Aviation
      Safety, Federal Aviation Administration........................     5
    Hendricks, Thomas L., Vice President, Operations and Safety, Air
      Transport Association of America, Inc..........................     5
    Prater, Captain John, President, Air Line Pilots Association,
      International..................................................     5

              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Cohen, Hon. Steve, of Tennessee..................................    68
    Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois.............................    69
    Mitchell, Hon. Harry, of Arizona.................................    74
    Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................    75
    Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California............................    80

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Alterman, Stephen A..............................................    83
    Belenky, Gregory, M.D............................................   113
    Brooks, A. Oakley................................................   153
    Gilligan, Hon. Margaret..........................................   158
    Hendricks, Thomas L..............................................   169
    Prater, Captain John.............................................   172

                           SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

    Boccieri, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Ohio, Air Force crew rest periods and crew duty times.......    19

                            ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

    Allied Pilots Association, Captain David J. Bates, President,
      written testimony..............................................   178
    Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, Captain Paul Onorato,
      President, written testimony...................................   185
    International Brotherhood of Teamsters, David P. Bourne,
      Director, Airline Division, written testimony..................   190
    U.S. Airline Pilots Association, written testimony...............   193
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.007

                        PILOT FLIGHT AND DUTY TIME RULE

                                  ----------

                          Thursday, September 16, 2010

                      House of Representatives,
                              Subcommittee on Aviation,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in
    room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerry F.
    Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
    Chair will ask that all Members, staff and everyone turn
    electronic devices off or on vibrate.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony
    regarding the new pilot flight and duty time rule. The Chair
    will give a brief opening statement, will call on the Ranking
    Member, Mr. Petri, to give his opening statement, and then we
    will go to our witnesses.
        Let me say that timing is everything around here, and we
    anticipate we will have at least one vote about 11:15. So,
    hopefully, we will get through our opening statements and get
    to the witnesses before we have our first vote.
        I welcome everyone to the Aviation Subcommittee hearing on
    the pilot flight and duty time rule. Since the 1940's, there
    have been regulations limiting pilot flight and duty time and
    requiring minimum rest periods.
        In 1989, the NTSB issued three recommendations to the
    Secretary of Transportation calling for research, education and
    revisions to existing regulations. These recommendations were
    added to the NTSB's most wanted list of transportation safety
    improvements in 1990. The FAA tried to revise its regulations
    in 1995.
        Despite fatigue being linked to more than 250 fatalities in
    air carrier accidents, a consensus could not be reached between
    the stakeholders on how the FAA should revise its regulations.
        Last year, the tragic accident of Continental Connection
    flight 3407 revealed that pilot fatigue very likely had an
    effect on pilot performance, and at the time, the airline was
    not addressing fatigue for pilots who commute from other
    cities, as the captain and first officer did in this tragic
    accident. In addition, the accident raised questions regarding
    the adequacy of the FAA's current pilot flight and duty time
    rules.
        I am pleased that after we held a hearing, this
    Subcommittee held a hearing on aviation safety, and a
    roundtable on pilot workforce issues and promised to introduce
    legislation requiring the FAA to act, the Secretary of
    Transportation, Secretary LaHood, and Administrator Babbitt
    identified pilot fatigue as a top priority during the agency's
    call to action to enhance airline safety.
        At the time, I applauded Administrator Babbitt for
    undertaking an expedited review of flight and duty time rules.
    I am pleased he has followed through on his commitment to bring
    the stakeholders together and update the FAA's flight and duty
    time regulations, taking into account fatigue science and other
    factors that can affect pilot alertness, judgment and
    performance.
        While the FAA was working through its process, the House
    passed bipartisan legislation which requires the FAA to update
    and implement new flight and duty time rules for pilots within
    1 year.
        The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration
    Extension Act of 2010 was signed into law on August 1, 2010.
    This is the strongest aviation safety bill in decades. We can
    all be proud of this significant accomplishment, and I want to
    acknowledge the unwavering support of the families of
    Continental Connection flight 3407, some of which are here with
    us today, who continue to engage and be proactive on this
    issue.
        The law we passed in August requires the FAA to update and
    implement new pilot flight and duty time rules within one year,
    taking into account scientific research. Further, it directs
    the FAA to require air carriers within 90 days to create
    fatigue risk management systems to proactively mitigate pilot
    fatigue.
        To address the issue of commuting, we required the FAA to
    contract with the National Academy of Science to study its
    impact on safety so the FAA can utilize the findings in its
    final rulemaking.
        On September 14, the FAA issued a notice of proposed
    rulemaking on flight crew member duty and rest requirements
    consistent with the law. I commend the FAA for taking this
    important first step. I am also encouraged that the proposed
    rule recognizes that the time spent commuting to work is not
    rest, that it is in fact time spent commuting.
        I look forward to hearing the agency's plan for staying on
    track to finalize the rule by August 1, 2011, as Congress
    directed, and receiving testimony from other witnesses as well.
        Before I recognize Mr. Petri for his opening statement, I
    ask unanimous consent to allow 2 weeks for all Members to
    revise and extend their remarks and to permit the submission of
    additional statements and materials by Members and witnesses.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        The Chair at this time recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr.
    Petri.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And before I give my formal opening statement, I just
    thought I would spend a minute or two to mark the end of the
    Costello era on this Committee. It may well be that this could
    be the last Subcommittee hearing of this Congress, if rumors
    floating around are true that we will adjourn October 1st
    rather than the 8th. If there is a Science Committee, each
    Congress has its own situation, you may well be the Chairman of
    that, rather than of this particular Subcommittee.
        I just want to take a minute to say how much I have enjoyed
    working with you over the last several Congresses. And while we
    have obviously come to things with different perspectives, we
    have tried to make that add to the value of our work product
    rather than impede us from getting something done.
        It has been at the Subcommittee a productive period, two
    FAA bills in the 110th and 111th Congress, and they are still
    in process in other places; over 50 hearings and a series of
    roundtable discussions under your Chairmanship; active
    aggressive oversight of the Next-Gen process, which has been
    much needed; a pilot safety bill raising mandatory pilot
    retirement to age 65; and moving the National Transportation
    Safety Board reauthorization through our Committee.
        So you can be proud. You have earned your keep, and it
    certainly has been my pleasure to have the opportunity to serve
    as your Ranking Member.
        Mr. Costello. Let me, if the gentleman would yield, let me
    thank you for your kind words.
        And the accomplishments that we have had in this
    Subcommittee would not have been possible without the
    bipartisan cooperation of you, Mr. Petri. And I have enjoyed
    working with you.
        Let me say that the rumors of my demise are premature. I
    intend to be very active in this Subcommittee, regardless of
    what I may or may not be doing with the Science Committee. But
    I have always enjoyed working with you.
        This Committee has a reputation, as everyone knows, of
    being bipartisan, and I don't think that there are any two
    Members on either side of the aisle that have worked better
    together or more closely together than Mr. Petri and I. I have
    enjoyed working with you, and I am going to continue to work
    with you for hopefully many years in the future.
        Mr. Petri. The feeling is mutual.
        Thank you for calling this important hearing on proposed
    rulemaking on airline pilot flight and duty time regulations.
    As you pointed out in your statement, on February 12th, 2009,
    50 people tragically lost their lives when Colgan Air flight
    3407 doing business as Continental Connect, crashed outside of
    Buffalo, New York.
        Although the National Transportation Safety Board
    investigation report did not attribute the cause of accident to
    pilot fatigue, the investigation uncovered disturbing commuting
    practices, sometimes employed within the industry and reignited
    interest about the impact of fatigue on aviation safety.
        In the aftermath of the accident, this Subcommittee acted
    in a bipartisan fashion to draft legislation to address safety
    issues arising out of the accident of flight 3407. And, of
    course, we and the Senate were assisted in our work by the
    citizens who are the families of Continental flight 3407,
    several of whom are continuing their active participation in
    this process. And we thank them for their accepting and doing
    something about this problem.
        The House and Senate passed the safety legislation. In
    July, it was signed into law. The FAA is now implementing the
    provisions of the bill, including provisions consistent with
    the FAA's ongoing effort to update airline pilot flight and
    duty time regulations.
        It has been far too long since the agency has updated the
    airline flight and duty regulations, and I applaud the agency's
    efforts to address this important issue. The challenge before
    the agency will be to strike the right balance in achieving a
    true safety benefit for a dynamic aviation industry.
        The goal of this rulemaking is to improve safety, and that
    must be achieved by careful consideration of all known factors,
    including the cause of fatigue.
        Before the flight 3407 accident, pilot commuting was a
    practice in the airline industry that went largely unnoticed by
    the public. The vast majority of pilots responsibly managed
    their commuting to work. Clearly, commuting is a part of
    lifestyle choice for airline pilots and for those in many other
    professions. It is a part of two-job families and something
    that all of us are familiar with.
        However, if we agree that irresponsible commuting is a
    causal factor in fatigue, then the practice of commuting
    deserves a look. I am interested to hear from the FAA and the
    other witnesses the extent to which the aviation rulemaking
    committee came to any meaningful recommendations on commuting
    practices within the industry. In addition, I am interested to
    hear from the FAA how the proposed rule specifically addresses
    risks posed by irresponsible commuting.
        While it is far too soon to have a comprehensive analysis
    of the proposed rule--it was published only 2 days ago--I am
    interested in hearing from the witnesses their initial
    reactions to the agency's proposals and would like to hear from
    the witnesses ideas for how to improve the rule and effectively
    address fatigue issues.
        Thank you all for being here today and for participating. I
    look forward to your testimony.
        Mr. Costello. I thank the Ranking Member for his opening
    statement and remarks.
        Now the Chair will recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms.
    Johnson, for an opening statement or remarks that she may have.
        Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And let me say that it certainly has been my pleasure for
    both of you to be the leaders of this Committee. It has been a
    rather delightful experience to have both of you. And I know
    that aviation safety oversight is one of the core
    responsibilities of this Subcommittee, and I commend you for
    your focus on ensuring that the FAA, the airlines, the pilots
    and inspectors all do their part to meet and maintain high
    safety standards.
        Today's hearing focuses on a specific and critical safety
    issue, the flight and duty time for pilots. As we all know,
    this issue has been debated for many years and has been on the
    National Transportation Safety Board's most-wanted list of
    transportation safety improvements since 1990.
        I share concerns with pilots in my district in particular
    that while the preamble of the rulemaking acknowledges that
    time on task is a major factor of fatigue, the rulemaking
    allows for an increase of time on task in a majority of
    scenarios. I look forward to hearing what our witnesses have to
    say on the proposal and any suggestions they might have for us.
        So I thank you, Mr. Chairman and our Ranking Member, and I
    look forward to continuing to work with both of you, especially
    on this critical transportation safety initiative.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentlelady for her kind
    comments and for her service and contribution that she makes to
    this Subcommittee.
        The Chair at this time will recognize our witnesses. I will
    introduce the panel. The honorable Margaret Gilligan, who is
    the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety with the FAA;
    Dr. Gregory Belenky, who is a research professor and director
    of the Sleep and Performance Research Center at Washington
    State University; Captain John Prater is the president of the
    Airlines Pilots Association, International; Mr. Stephen
    Alterman, who is president of the Cargo Airline Association;
    Mr. A. Oakley Brooks, president of the National Air Carrier
    Association; and Mr. Thomas Hendricks, vice president of
    operations and safety, for the Air Transport Association of
    America.

        TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARGARET GILLIGAN, ASSOCIATE
          ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY, FEDERAL AVIATION
     ADMINISTRATION; GREGORY BELENKY, M.D., RESEARCH PROFESSOR AND
      DIRECTOR, SLEEP AND PERFORMANCE RESEARCH CENTER, WASHINGTON
      STATE UNIVERSITY; CAPTAIN JOHN PRATER, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE
        PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; STEPHEN A. ALTERMAN,
        PRESIDENT, CARGO AIRLINE ASSOCIATION; A. OAKLEY BROOKS,
      PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR CARRIER ASSOCIATION; AND THOMAS L.
    HENDRICKS, VICE PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS AND SAFETY, AIR TRANSPORT
                      ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.

        Mr. Costello. I would advise our witnesses, your entire
    statement will be entered into the record. We would ask you to
    summarize your testimony so that we allow enough time for
    questions. As I said, we expect to be interrupted here very
    shortly, but I hope to get to some of the witnesses.
        First, before I call on the honorable Margaret Gilligan,
    the Associate Administrator for the FAA for Aviation Safety,
    let me say that I want to commend you in the job that you are
    doing at the agency and, as I said in my opening statement, the
    Administrator and the Secretary for acting.
        I will note that, and I have said many times in this
    Subcommittee, that oftentimes the FAA acts only after this
    Subcommittee holds hearings, roundtables and brings issues to
    the forefront. And as I mentioned in my opening statement, we
    have held safety hearings. We have held roundtables on the
    issue of fatigue, and the rulemaking has been pending for too
    long. So I commend the agency for acting and look forward to
    hearing your testimony.
        The Chair now recognizes Ms. Gilligan.
        Ms. Gilligan. Thank you, Chairman Costello and Congressman
    Petri and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
    me to appear before you this morning to discuss the FAA's
    efforts to mitigate the impacts of pilot fatigue in order to
    enhance aviation safety.
        Fatigue-related issues have been the highest priority for
    Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt. And with their
    strong support as well as input from the aviation and
    scientific communities, last week FAA published a notice of
    proposed rulemaking that changes the current flight and duty
    regulations. The proposal would establish a single
    scientifically-based regulatory approach for all Part 121
    operators.
        Unlike the existing requirements, which limit flight hours
    and require set rest periods across-the-board, the proposed
    regulations vary the requirements, depending on the nature of
    the operations conducted during the flight and duty periods.
        As this chart illustrates, which we have up on the wall,
    the hours of duty permitted will depend on a number of factors,
    including the number of segments operated and at what time of
    day they are operated. It just makes, sense that a pilot would
    become more fatigued conducting multiple takeoffs and landings.
        Additionally, if the operation crosses multiple time zones,
    the resulting fatigue could be compounded, so that should be a
    limiting factor. Finally, if the operation was conducted at
    night rather than during the day, the duty period should be
    shortened to compensate for increased fatigue.
        We think this varied approach is more tailored than the
    current one-size-fits-all regulation and adjusts appropriately
    based on the scientific factors we know can impact fatigue.
        We also think it is important that pilots and airlines
    better understand those scientific factors, because it may
    often be the case that pilots don't even recognize that they
    are fatigued. The proposal would require that all Part 121
    pilots, as well as individuals who schedule and manage those
    pilots, receive initial training and annual recurrent training
    on fatigue. This training would focus on how to recognize the
    symptoms of fatigue and how to mitigate them.
        The proposal clarifies that fatigue, just like being sick
    or taking certain over-the-counter medications, is related to
    the pilot's fitness for duty, and it establishes that the
    responsibility for determining whether a pilot is fit is a
    shared responsibility.
        First, we propose that pilots be given additional time for
    rest, at least 9 hours after arriving at the rest location, and
    then be able to report fit for duty.
        Before the flight departs, we propose that each flight crew
    member will have to sign the flight release attesting to his or
    her fitness for that flight.
        We propose to make it a company responsibility to know how
    the crew members get to work and consider that in assigning
    schedules.
        And finally, we propose to make it incumbent on individuals
    working with the pilot to inform the airline if they believe
    the pilot is fatigued or otherwise unfit for that flight.
        It is FAA's responsibility to develop and implement a
    regulatory framework that ensures adequate rest for pilots. It
    is the airline's responsibility to schedule its pilots in
    accordance with that framework, and it is the pilot's
    responsibility to report for duty in a fit condition.
        To better ensure that all parties are accepting and
    performing those responsibilities, the proposal contains an
    oversight provision. We propose to require the carrier to
    compare its schedule to actual flight times every two months
    and report those results to the FAA. Based on this data, if we
    see that a pilot is assigned a flight that is scheduled to
    last, for example, for 5 hours, but the flight routinely lasts
    longer, the airline must adjust its assignments to reflect the
    actual flight time for that flight. In this way, pilots cannot
    be working within the regulatory limits on paper but not in
    reality.
        The airline scheduling reliability must be at 95 percent
    overall and 80 percent for specific flight pairings, or
    adjustments will have to be made. We think this feature of the
    propose is a good incentive for all the parties to live up to
    their shared responsibility.
        Aviation would not enjoy the safety record it has if the
    hardworking professionals in both government and industry did
    not take our jobs very seriously. I want to commend everyone
    who helped us shape this proposal. Many are members of this
    panel today, and I appreciate that they did not give up just
    because this was very hard to do.
        I look forward to what I am sure will be robust debate on
    the proposal that we have made, and I am happy to take
    questions at this time.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you and now recognizes Dr.
    Belenky.
        Dr. Belenky. Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri,
    Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify.
        I am reprising the presentation that I gave to the aviation
    rulemaking council (ARC) last summer to set the stage for
    everybody on the ARC having equal knowledge about sleep
    science.
        Sleep sustains performance and well-being. We know that. We
    experience it every day. Sleep is consolidated in the late
    evening hours and the early morning hours, and that
    consolidation is because of the circadian rhythm in body
    temperature, performance, and sleep propensity.
        As body temperature from around midnight falls through six
    in the morning, sleep propensity grows, the ability to fall
    asleep and stay asleep, and performance deteriorates. Around 6
    in the morning, body temperature begins to rise, rises across
    the day, peaks in mid to late evening, and performance rides up
    along with it.
        This is very important in considering hours of service
    regulations, because in the past, these have not considered the
    circadian rhythm in performance, sleep propensity and
    temperature.
        If you want to see what happens to normal people, a normal
    person, when sleep deprived, you can bring them into the
    laboratory and sleep deprive them for long periods of time. In
    this case, it was 85 hours of sleep deprivation, which is a
    long time.
        And you can see with the red line, there is a linear
    decrease in performance over that 72 hours in the ability to do
    useful mental work. But you can also see riding along that
    linear decline is the circadian rhythm, which modulates this
    performance decrement.
        One of the things that is very useful in conducting
    scientific work is operational definitions. ``Fatigue'' we
    define subjectively and objectively. Subjective people report,
    ``I am fatigued; I am tired.'' Or we measure an objective
    decrement in performance. Without an objective decrement in
    performance, we would be hard put to say fatigue was present
    under any circumstance.
        Fatigue is not the result of sleep loss alone. It is a
    combination of multiple factors. It is three factors in
    particular: Sleep-wake history, that is time awake and sleep
    loss; the circadian rhythm, which I just discussed, time of
    day; and, very important, workload, which is time on task, task
    complexity, task intensity, workload. So these three things
    singularly and in combination cause fatigue.
        In the next slide, and my last slide, is experimental data
    showing the interaction of these three fatigue-producing
    factors. This is a study of 50 normal volunteers brought into
    the laboratory and deprived of sleep for 40 hours. You can see
    overall, from day one to day two, there is a downward trend in
    performance. You can also see that during the window circadian
    low, during the minimum of the circadian rhythm, that
    performance degrades even more than it does simply because of
    time awake with some subsequent recovery.
        The test of performance is a 10 minute test, and you can
    actually measure performance each minute, and you can see time-
    on-task effect over 10 minutes even in the well-rested
    condition. And the time on-task effect is amplified by extended
    wakefulness and by being in the circadian low.
        It is this complex interaction between time awake, time of
    day, and workload, that we are trying to manage to reduce
    fatigue risk, to reduce the risk of error, incident and
    accident. And this is the focus of the current NPRM and the
    accompanying advisory circular on fatigue risk management.
        Thank you all very much. I would be happy to entertain any
    comments and questions.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you and now recognizes
    Captain Prater.
        Mr. Prater. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be
    here today to present the views of the Air Line Pilots
    Association, International.
        It is difficult to overstate the importance of combating
    pilot fatigue to ALPA's nearly 53,000 members who fly for 38
    airlines in the United States and Canada.
        Airline pilots owe a debt of gratitude to this Committee,
    to you, Mr. Chairman, and to Chairman Oberstar and the Ranking
    Members Mica and Petri, and to every Member of this
    Subcommittee. You have championed desperately needed
    improvements to our country's outdated and ineffective flight
    and duty time limits and minimum rest requirements.
        Your efforts came to fruition on August 1st when the
    President signed your bill, H.R. 5900, into law. This law
    played an essential law in last week's release of a notice of
    proposed rulemaking.
        In addition, ALPA applaud Secretary of Transportation Ray
    LaHood and FAA Administrator Babbitt. This proposal would not
    exist without their leadership and commitment.
        Our union has long pursued modern, science-based flight and
    duty time and minimum rest regulations that would apply to all
    airline pilots, regardless of the size of the equipment they
    fly or whether they carry cargo or passengers.
        In 2007, we created a blue-ribbon panel on pilot fatigue to
    review the science of fatigue and recommend an action plan for
    the union. In 2009, ALPA adopted a landmark pilot fatigue
    policy. Last year we co-chaired and were represented by seven
    pilots on the FAA's flight and duty time limitations and rest
    requirement arc. ALPA is very pleased that the FAA has released
    a regulatory proposal.
        Guided by ALPA's policy, our union's flight time and duty
    time committee is carefully reviewing the NPRM and advisory
    circulars. The committee includes ALPA pilot safety experts
    from the range of pilots of Part 121 flying, including
    regional, domestic, international and cargo operations.
        While ALPA looks forward to submitting our full comments to
    the FAA, I would like to offer some initial observations about
    this proposal. We are very encouraged by many aspects.
        First, the proposal appears to apply scientific principles
    and recognizes human physiological limitations with increased
    minimum rest periods and more reasonable duty days, and it does
    recognize the effects of circadian rhythms on fatigue. The
    proposal applies to all FAR Part 121 flying, and would
    eliminate carve-outs for supplemental operations.
        It incorporates FAR Part 91 tag-on or ferry flights within
    flight and duty time limitations.
        The proposed rule requires fatigue education and training
    on a recurring basis at all airlines and provides for
    implementation of a fatigue risk management system.
        The NPRM mandates that all flight crew members report
    rested and fit for duty and establishes that fitness for duty
    is a joint responsibility of the flight crew member and the
    airline.
        The proposal requires airlines to accurately record and set
    scheduled flight and duty time periods based on actual
    operations and to make adjustments if unreliable scheduling is
    used. It makes the decision to extend the duty period a joint
    responsibility of the pilot in command and the airline, and it
    further limits the number of times the duty period may be
    extended for a flight crew.
        The proposal also requires positioning of crew members or
    deadheading to be counted as duty. And, finally, the NPRM
    specifically recognizes reserve or standby duty.
        All these factors mark important progress. Our union has,
    however, found several areas in our preliminary analysis in
    which the NPRM does not adequately reflect the ARC's
    recommendations.
        One, the NPRM does not ensure that the length and quality
    of rest after a long-range flight across multiple time zones
    will be sufficient before the next flight and duty period.
        Two, we have concerns that the application of the augmented
    flight and duty period table will not adequately address the
    circadian disruption that the flight crew member may experience
    during certain types of long-range flying.
        And three, the proposal does not assess the effects of
    increasing the amount of flight time in a duty period up to 10
    hours.
        After many attempts and many years and staunch advocacy by
    ALPA and others, the FAA has developed a proposed rule that has
    the potential to make significant improvements in flight and
    duty regulations and to create a safer system for passengers,
    shippers and all who depend on air transportation.
        The law now requires the FAA to publish new pilot flight
    and duty time rules no later than July 31st of next year. We
    know that this Committee will be watching the agency closely to
    ensure that it meets the deadlines, and we guarantee, so will
    we.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Captain Prater, and now
    recognizes Mr. Alterman.
        Mr. Alterman. Thank you, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member
    Petri, Members of the Committee.
        My name is Steve Alterman, and I am the president of the
    Cargo Airline Association. The members of our association are
    the United States All Cargo Carriers, providing both express
    and traditional heavy freight service to shippers around the
    world.
        Both individually and as an association, members of our
    industry agree that pilot fatigue is a legitimate safety issue
    and important safety issue and that the reexamination by the
    FAA is both necessary and appropriate and overdue.
        The notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the FAA and
    published in the Federal Register on September 14th provides
    the vehicle for the ongoing effort to craft a rule that
    increases safety while at the same time ensuring that the
    airline industry can continue to serve its customer base. We
    appreciate the opportunity to address these issues today.
        At first blush, the NPRM appears to raise the relevant
    issues and actively solicits industry input. However, since
    this exceedingly complex rule was only published earlier this
    week, we are not yet prepared to comment in detail on its
    provisions. We will, however, offer some comments on the
    approach to addressing pilot fatigue.
        First, although an integral member of the aviation
    community, our unique segment of the industry is substantially
    different from other participants in the air transportation
    marketplace. Unlike passenger carriers, all cargo carriers
    regularly operate long-haul international flights, traveling
    across multiple time zones during nighttime hours.
        All cargo carriers also operate around the world in all
    directions and don't traditionally run turnaround service to
    international destinations. Service is often provided to
    remote, often hostile destinations, often for mission-critical
    flights on behalf of the military.
        Because of the industry's unique operations, all cargo
    crews have longer and better opportunities for rest during a
    duty period. Indeed, companies have invested millions of
    dollars to provide lie-flat sleeping facilities at domestic
    hubs to provide flight crews sleep and to mitigate fatigue at
    those hubs. Similarly, industry members have substantial
    investments in high-quality rest facilities aboard long-range
    aircraft.
        All cargo flight crew matters, as a matter of fact, make
    fewer annual takeoffs and landings and fly substantially fewer
    hours now than their passenger counterparts.
        Why are these and other distinctions important? Simply
    because they demonstrate that the United States air
    transportation industry is not a unified whole, but rather
    consists of separate segments with different operational needs.
        In turn, while everybody in the industry, both companies
    and employees, strive for the highest level of safety, the
    means for achieving this safety level should be tailored to the
    unique operations of the industry components.
        As FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt has noted at an ALPA
    safety forum, ``In rulemaking, not only does one size not fit
    all, but it is unsafe to think that it can.'' This principle is
    especially important if in the context of pilot fatigue. In
    crafting a new regulatory scheme to address the legitimate
    safety concerns, the FAA should recognize these differences
    inherent in the all-cargo operations and craft a scheme that is
    consistent with those differences.
        I want to comment just briefly on the process thus far, and
    I think it goes to some of the comments made in the opening
    remarks, and that is that the ARC process which the cargo
    airline participated in fully concentrated almost entirely on
    the hour and service issue and very little on the commuting
    issue.
        It seems to us that when you are trying to figure out how
    to craft new rules, the first thing that should be done is find
    out what the cause of the problem is and then craft the rules
    to address those problems. And we felt fairly strongly that
    there was an over-commitment to the flight and duty time aspect
    and not enough time spent on the commuting issue, and we felt
    that that was one of the problems with the ARC as it was
    constituted.
        Finally, I would like to comment just briefly, because our
    industry took this process very seriously. We didn't ignore the
    flight and duty time issue. We actually put in to the ARC, and
    it was submitted to the FAA later, a comprehensive proposal
    dealing with flight and duty time. That proposal recognized the
    differences between international and domestic operations,
    established limits where no limits currently exist, accounted
    for time-of-day operations, addressed the crossing of multiple
    time zones, reduced the flight duty periods for domestic and
    international operations from those in current regulations, and
    increased the required rest periods for domestic and
    international operations.
        I mention that because, in spite of the fact that we felt
    there was too much concentration on the flight and duty time
    and not enough on commuting, we did take our responsibility
    seriously and did put that proposal in. A copy of the summary
    of that proposal is attached to our written testimony.
        Thank you very much. I would be happy to answer any
    questions.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you and announces to
    Members, we have less than 2 minutes to get over to the floor
    for three votes. So the Committee will stand in recess until
    12:15. We would ask that the witnesses be in their chairs at
    12:15.
        The Committee stands in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Costello. The hearing will come back to order. And we
    will recognize Mr. Brooks.
        Mr. Brooks. Good afternoon, Chairman Costello, Ranking
    Member Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee. National Air
    Carrier Association appreciates the opportunity to testify
    before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's
    Subcommittee on Aviation. All NACA members are certificated to
    fly under part 121 of the Federal Regulations.
        Our nonscheduled passenger and all-cargo airlines, which
    are the bulk of NACA members, fly when their customers demand,
    to all points of the globe. Notice that prospective flights is
    usually measured in days or weeks. NACA carriers fly 95 percent
    of all military passengers and 40 percent of all military cargo
    under the Civil Reserve Air Fleet Program administered by the
    Air Force's Air Mobility Command. Notice for these flights to
    Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and other points is usually 3 weeks
    or less.
        NACA has participated in every flight and duty time review
    over the last 20 years. We were a member of the Aviation
    Rulemaking Committee in 2009, and submitted comments and
    recommendations. We believe changes should be made.
        FAA released its notice of proposed rulemaking this past
    Friday. It is too early for a detailed analysis of the NPRM,
    but there is one proposal in the notice we want to highlight
    today.
        Nonscheduled airlines currently operate under Subpart S of
    Part 121, which is specifically referrals to nonscheduled
    operations. Subpart S already has many fatigue mitigation
    principles incorporated to permit often unpredictable flights
    and longer flight duty periods. For example, in the same
    domestic environment as scheduled operations, if nonschedules
    fly a pilot more than 8 hours in a 24-hour period, we must give
    the pilot 16 hours of rest compared to only 11 hours' rest for
    scheduled carriers. These rules were put in place to recognize
    the distinct differences between scheduled and nonscheduled
    airlines and the nonregular services nonscheduled airlines
    provide.
        It is an interesting fact that nonscheduled airlines
    regularly allow for even greater sleep opportunities, both
    before and after flight duty, than required in Subpart S for
    the NPRM. This is to provide an extra layer of safety for their
    crews. And we are offering to adjust future regulations based
    on these facts and formal scientifically supported fatigue
    mitigation programs. But nonscheduled carriers need the
    flexibility in the regulations to allow longer flight-duty
    periods.
        NACA's comments in the rulemaking committee last fall
    recommended continuation of Subpart S or equivalent. The just-
    released NPRM rejected that recommendation, choosing a one-
    size-fits-all rule, despite Administrator's Babbitt's
    insistence to a recent ALPA safety forum that one-size-fits-all
    in a regulatory environment can be unsafe.
        The NPRM justifies eliminating Subpart S by saying
    nonscheduled and scheduled carriers are becoming similar. I
    respectfully disagree. The two types of carriers are not
    becoming similar. Scheduled carriers offer scheduled service,
    and nonscheduled carriers offer nonscheduled service. NACA will
    be making this and other arguments to FAA in its comments. We
    believe it represents safety at its highest level and it is in
    the public interest.
        Thank you for allowing me to testify, and I look forward to
    taking any questions.
        Mr. Costello. We thank you for your testimony.
        And now the Chair recognizes Mr. Hendricks.
        Mr. Hendricks. Good afternoon, Chairman Costello, Ranking
    Member Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Tom
    Hendricks. I recently became the vice president of operations
    and safety at the Air Transport Association of America.
        Pilot duty limit and rest requirements are of the utmost
    importance. As a captain and professional pilot for nearly 23
    years at a major U.S. Airline, I understand the critical
    importance of safe airline operations and the dependencies on
    crew members who are alert and can respond to the demands of
    flying commercial aircraft.
        Pilots, airlines, and the Federal Aviation Administration
    each have indispensable roles in achieving our common objective
    of ensuring adequate rest for crew members. How that objective
    is achieved is also vital. Appropriate duty limit and rest
    requirements must be the product of scientific research and
    operational experience, be effective, and reflect the specific
    operational environment of each carrier. We must smartly
    combine data-driven and evidence-based approaches in devising
    any new regulatory initiatives.
        Because ATA and its members recognize the significance of
    these considerations, we were very active participants in the
    Federal Aviation Administration Flight and Duty Time Aviation
    Rulemaking Committee. The FAA chartered the ARC on July 15,
    2009 to recommend revisions to the agency's flight and duty
    time rule. The ARC met this very compressed September 1, 2009
    deadline. That achievement was the result of the collaboration
    and professionalism of those on the committee.
        While the ARC was active, ATA, the Cargo Airline
    Association, and the Regional Airline Associated submitted
    joint recommendations to the FAA for its consideration in the
    development of the expected Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    These recommendations reflected the diverse operations and
    experience of mainline, all-cargo, and regional airlines. We
    express in those recommendations support for a duty-day
    regulation that appropriately responds to fatigue risks,
    including circadian cycles, time awake, time on task, and
    acclimation to time zones. Consequently, our recommendations
    were generally more restrictive than many duty limit and rest
    regulations around the world. They will mitigate fatigue risk
    by reducing the duty time of pilots and expanding the amount of
    time for scheduled rest opportunities to assure adequate rest.
        Last Friday, the FAA released its Flight and Duty Time
    NPRM. We want to compliment Administrator Babbitt and Associate
    Administrator Gilligan in shepherding the proposed rule. ATA
    and its members have not finished reviewing that lengthy and
    comprehensive document. We will fully respond to the NPRM in
    the comments that we file in the docket.
        In the meantime, however, the concepts that we outlined
    last year in our joint recommendation indicate the principles
    that we believe should be embodied in any change to the FAA
    regulation. In essence, they are as follows:
        The new regulation should require each air carrier to adopt
    an FAA-approved fatigue mitigation program that contains the
    carrier's fatigue mitigation policies and training programs.
    Means of compliance are now outlined in the recently released
    FAA advisory circular 120-123, which offers more detail and
    explanatory background than could be included in the proposed
    regulation. This process will provide flexibility for updating
    and modifying airline fatigue mitigation programs as needed. In
    addition, the regulation should recognize the wide array of air
    carrier operating environments.
        While the goal for all of us is one level of safety, this
    does not mean that it is not accomplished by one form of
    regulation. Any new regulation must account for a wide variety
    of operations, just as it does today. Nothing in fatigue and
    sleep research suggests the need for a one-size-fits-all
    regulation. Indeed, science recognizes that individual
    differences and operational contexts affect performance.
    Science-based guidelines, judiciously blended with decades of
    operational experience, will allow the various air carrier
    models to continue to operate with the highest degree of safety
    for crew members and passengers.
        The regulation should clearly state that the crew member is
    responsible for properly preparing for flight during the
    prescribed opportunity for rest. Expressly stating this
    responsibility will help address pilot commuting issues and
    will establish a framework from which a carrier can develop
    fatigue policies.
        Finally, any new regulation must confine itself to
    demonstrably necessary safety-related requirements and avoid
    issues appropriately left to resolution in the collective
    bargaining process.
        ATA and its member carriers recognize the importance of
    this issue. We look forward to participating in the rule making
    proceeding.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Hendricks.
        Let me begin with a question for all of our witnesses. Does
    anyone on the panel disagree that pilot commuting time should
    not be considered or should be considered? So, in other words,
    do you all agree that it should be considered, the commuting
    time in the rule? Anyone disagree with that? OK.
        Ms. Gilligan, you state that there was consensus on many
    issues, but there were a handful of issues that the ARC did not
    reach a consensus on. I wonder if you might elaborate on the
    issues that there was not a consensus.
        Ms. Gilligan. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Fundamentally, the ARC
    agreed on the set of issues that needed to be addressed. They
    understood, based on Dr. Belenky and other scientists who
    worked in this area, that there were factors to be considered.
    They agreed to the concept of a sliding scale, much like the
    chart that I shared early on, but they didn't reach agreement
    specifically on how many hours of flight time and duty time and
    rest time should actually be proposed. And so that came back to
    the FAA to take into account all the various proposals that you
    have heard many testify about here, and taking that into
    account, given the science, to actually draw up the charts that
    you see in the rule to set specific times for those three
    elements of the rule.
        Mr. Costello. Captain Prater, on page 6 of your testimony,
    you offered it in your oral testimony today, that there were
    three issues in particular that you identified, a few areas in
    which the NPRM does not adequately capture the ARC's
    recommendations. And one is ensuring the length and quality of
    rest. I wonder if you might elaborate on all three points.
        Mr. Prater. Certainly. The first major change is the
    proposal to go from 8 flight hours to 10 flight hours during
    the daytime. So, on its surface, that is something you have to
    look at very closely. Obviously, combined with reducing the
    duty day from 16 to 13 hours certainly mitigates that. But that
    is an area that we believe will warrant further concern. Our
    recommendation had been to go to 9 hours. Then there is some of
    the specific issues on the long-haul or ultra long-haul that we
    believe bear closer scrutiny. How much rest do you require
    after a 16-hour flight that crosses 10 to 12 time zones? And we
    believe that that is an area that will require further work.
        Mr. Costello. You also state that there is no rational
    basis for cargo or charter pilots to have different or more
    liberal fatigue rules than scheduled passenger operations. I
    wonder if you might explain that point.
        Mr. Prater. Yes, sir. I would certainly be more than happy
    to turn to my right here and ask the doctor if there is any
    difference between human beings that get hired by an employer
    that flies cargo with airplanes versus one that flies
    passengers. I have done all. And I can tell you that the human
    beings that are pilots makes no difference to your fatigue
    level on what your mission is, whether you are flying cargo or
    whether you are flying passengers. And the fact that over 40
    years there have been carve-outs because of economic reasons,
    that is what we ask to end today, and we believe that this
    proposal does a good start on that.
        Mr. Costello. Dr. Belenky, would you agree with Captain
    Prater?
        Dr. Belenky. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would.
        Mr. Costello. Very good. The Chair now recognizes the
    Ranking Member for any questions that he might have.
        Mr. Petri. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I maybe would
    ask the associate administrator, Margaret Gilligan, a little
    bit about the implications of the rule or how to kind of think
    about it.
        I understand that the briefings and so on, as people were
    discussing the proposal, the rule would make it longer, take
    longer--when implemented--to accomplish the same number of
    flights. Do you have any estimate as to how many more pilots
    would be required for the industry as a whole under the new
    rule as opposed to currently?
        Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir. In our economic analysis, we do
    address those issues. We believe the flight time will be
    covered in two ways: It is likely that current pilots will end
    up flying more days to fly the same number of flight hours.
    And, as I think you know, their pay is linked to flight time as
    well as to time on duty. So some of it, the schedules will have
    to be moved out a little bit to fit the same number of flights
    for the pilot to fly the same number of flight hours. But right
    now, the estimate is about 2,300 pilots would need to be added
    to cover the current schedules.
        Now, of course, there will be optimization of scheduling
    and those kinds of things that may affect that, but that would
    be a fairly large increase. It is about a 3 percent increase in
    the pilot ranks. But that would happen very early on, right
    after the effective time of the rule, so it is a fairly
    condensed time for that additional cost.
        Mr. Petri. And as part of your analysis, did you make kind
    of a--I don't know if it would be a back-of-the-envelope or
    more sophisticated--some sort of an estimate as to the cost to
    the society of these changes?
        Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir. Again, we have done a detailed
    cost-benefit analysis as is required by the rulemaking process.
    And the cost estimates for what we call present value, which is
    an easier comparable number, is about $800 million in cost.
    And, depending on how economists value the lives that would be
    saved by reducing those risks, the benefits are I believe
    between $400 million and $600 million. So the benefits, we
    believe, justify the cost in this rule, and that is why we have
    gone forward with the proposal.
        Mr. Petri. Now, you can tell from the other people
    testifying on the panel and from the comments that have been
    made about the rule, there is some tension about how the rule
    applies to different segments of the aviation industry,
    scheduled and nonscheduled and charter and so on, human flight
    and packaged flights.
        Did you consider, or what is the reason for having kind of
    an overall framework rather than a differentiated approach,
    depending on the requirements of that industry? And do the
    costs fall disproportionately on different segments of the
    industry?
        Ms. Gilligan. I think, as you have heard Dr. Belenky
    explain so well, the dilemma that we face in developing this
    framework is that, at the end of the day, all pilots are humans
    and all humans react to fatigue the same way. So the fact that
    I might have a job that is an overnight job doesn't change the
    way I physically react to fatigue. And what we have tried to
    balance here is what we know about what it is that contributes
    to fatigue against the hours that someone can be available to
    operate.
        There are two specific elements in the proposal, however, I
    think, to go to some measure to address the concerns of Mr.
    Alterman and Mr. Brooks. We have permitted what we call split
    duty. That is, as Mr. Alterman described, there are many cargo
    operators who run a hub operation; and once the pilots arrive,
    they then provide them very comfortable accommodations to rest
    during the time that the packages are being moved through the
    hub facility, and we have credited that additional rest and
    allowed them then to extend some operational time based on that
    rest.
        We have also specifically exempted, to Mr. Brooks' concern,
    those flights that support critical U.S. missions around the
    world that may have a crew end up in a very unsafe location
    where we would permit them to move to a safe location. Now, we
    want reporting on that, we want to monitor it and make sure it
    is not being abused, but we are very mindful of the concerns as
    that might affect those military missions.
        And, again, it is a proposal. We are looking for comments
    on the elements we have included. We will certainly consider
    other elements that meet the safety and scientific needs, but
    that can help us adjust the proposal.
        Mr. Petri. I realize my time is up. I wonder if I could
    just ask if Mr. Brooks or Mr. Alterman have any comments to
    make on how this rule might possibly be modified to take into
    account the particular nature of the segments of the aviation
    that you are representing.
        Mr. Alterman. Thank you. First of all, I think and I did
    mention earlier, that I think the structure of the rule is the
    way to go. I think the FAA has recognized all the elements. The
    question is how to apply those elements to different segments.
        And I certainly couldn't disagree with the answer to
    Captain Prater's question about whether a pilot cares whether
    he is flying cargo or passengers. That, I would suggest, is not
    the right question, however. The question is, if you are hired
    to fly nighttime rotations for an overnight cargo carrier as
    opposed to flying an occasional overnight segment or a red-eye
    for a passenger carrier, why does the scientific matter? Does
    that do--is there a difference? Can you become acclimated to
    flying basically nighttime schedules all the time? And I am not
    sure that I have seen any scientific studies that deal with
    that issue.
        So what we are urging is, before we jump in and start
    limiting nighttime flying drastically--and we have suggested
    limiting nighttime flying and recognize the validity of
    circadian rhythms--that we get more information on that and
    find out whether, for instance, a FedEx or a UPS pilot can
    acclimate himself because they are flying that one rotation.
        And I do applaud the FAA and Ms. Gilligan's comments that
    they have tried to recognize distinct operations in certain
    areas, and split duty is certainly something that we
    appreciate, because of all of our members provide, when a cargo
    carrier gets to a hub, facilities to get rest while the cargo
    is being sorted and before he goes out again. So I think that
    was a very good provision.
        Mr. Brooks. Mr. Petri, let me make a couple comments to
    start. The nonscheduled carriers, generally the crews operate
    about 50 hours a month, which is far fewer hours than scheduled
    carriers operate. And they also operate on very short notice,
    as I mentioned, to distant parts of the globe, which it is very
    difficult to set up crew bases--almost impossible to set up
    crew bases and other situations such as that that scheduled
    carriers have.
        We also applaud the FAA and the whole process for bringing
    in the additional science, considering circadian low, numbers
    of stops, nighttime flying, and we agree that those are very
    important elements that should and will be introduced into the
    whole process of setting hours.
        I would tell you, and I am repeating what I had in my
    testimony, and it coordinates with the number of hours that our
    pilots fly, that in order to make up for the long flights that
    nonscheduled carriers often have to fly, our airlines regularly
    schedule longer sleep opportunities, both before and after
    flying, than are either required in the regulations or are
    normal for scheduled carriers.
        And our review with Dr. Graeber, who assisted us on this
    analysis, is that if you are able to combine long flying with
    long sleep periods in a responsible way, that provides the rest
    and the sleep necessary for the crews to become ready for duty
    again. And that is a critical element which we emphasize over
    and over again.
        And finally, just to pick up Ms. Gilligan's point about
    flying into unsafe areas, we certainly recognize that and the
    move that the FAA made and the NPRM to address that. What we
    need more discussion about is how it would work in practice.
    Are these going to be one-off trips? There is a reporting
    requirement at the end?
        And so these are the sorts of things that we need to get
    into more. But we do recognize that mitigation opportunity that
    the FAA discussed in the NPRM, and we look forward to getting
    into that more. Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you and thanks the Ranking
    Member, and now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
    Boccieri.
        Mr. Boccieri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first let me
    applaud Mr. Babbitt and the FAA for finally taking this up. I
    know the NTSB has been at the heels for some time to develop a
    program of such. I just have a few quick questions.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record--I
    have copies of the Air Force crew rest periods and crew duty
    times, and we can submit that for the record. It is referenced
    in Air Force Volume 202, Volume 3--11-202, Volume 3. And they
    describe crew rest. When you are done, the propellers stop
    turning, you walk out the door, 45 minutes after that is when
    your crew rest begins. Now, that gives you 12 hours of crew
    rest period where you have time to go get a meal, where you
    have time--there have been delays. I have been on the back end
    of a clock where there are problems with the hotel, the ride
    may not show up on time. So right now the FAA has been
    prescribing that that be raised from 8 to 9 hours.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.047

        So I am saying to you that--what happens in those
    circumstances when the pilots or the air crew have a delay,
    they don't get to the hotel? Does their 8 hours of
    uninterrupted sleep begin when they are actually laying in
    their bed with the remote control on their lap?
        Ms. Gilligan. Actually, sir, we have changed when the rest
    period begins. It is now 9 hours' rest period that begins after
    arriving at the rest facility, whether that is at the hotel or
    at your home, with an eye toward providing an actual 8 hours of
    sleep opportunity within that 9 hours. So that is a fairly
    dramatic change from the current, which is not unlike what you
    described right now: The end of the duty period is after
    leaving the aircraft. So we have made that change.
        Mr. Boccieri. If it is 12 hours for the Air Force, why can
    it not be 12 hours under the FAA's designation?
        Ms. Gilligan. Again, having worked through this issue with
    the rulemaking committee and having looked at the science
    involved, we believe that a reasonable balance that allows for
    sufficient rest will be a 9-hour rest period.
        But I would point out that at the maximum 13 hours and a
    rest period of 9 hours, there is still 2 hours in that 24-hour
    day. So there is more time in that 24-hour period than we have
    assigned to either rest or to duty time.
        Mr. Boccieri. My concern is on the back end of that clock,
    especially on international flights, where you are flying
    through multiple time zones and you are laying in your hotel
    and you are trying to go to sleep, but it is light out and
    there is not sufficient time there.
        Even under the best circumstances, pilots may not realize
    an 8-hour sleep opportunity, given even the scientific studies
    that are being presented here today. And my concern especially
    is on the international flights. How were these best practices
    incorporated into that rule, especially on the international
    flights?
        Ms. Gilligan. When you have an opportunity to review the
    rule, I think you will see we have several charts that describe
    what we call the sliding scale. So depending on the hour of the
    day at which you start work, the flight-duty time period is
    reduced. So if you are flying late night flights, you are
    available to your company for less time for actually being on
    duty. And, again, that will free up hours to be used for rest.
        So it is a balance of trying to acknowledge that there are
    certain hours during the day and certain numbers of segments,
    both of which contribute to fatigue and reduce the amount of
    time the pilot is available to be on duty.
        Mr. Boccieri. I also have a bit of concern about the
    decrease from 30 to 28, the number of days during which a pilot
    may not record more than 100 hours of flying time. Was there
    any thought that that is going to be compressed down? Instead
    of having 30 days to complete 100 hours, they are going to be
    28 days, which means they are going to be flying a lot more
    hours versus of spreading that over 2 more days?
        Ms. Gilligan. Again, we believe that the entire proposal
    provides a sufficient balance among all of the various elements
    that have to be considered, and that is why it really is a
    package that you have to look at as a whole. But these are the
    specific areas where we have asked for comment. We actually
    list in the Preamble comments that we have asked people to
    provide data. Does this change, raise risk or not? Do you have
    data that supports that? So, as we go into the final rule, we
    will be better informed.
        Mr. Boccieri. Thank you. One last question. What does the
    proposed rule for reduction of these rest periods, what would
    occur on extra long days where, for instance, that were caused
    by delays? Was that factored into the decision-making in the
    ARC?
        Ms. Gilligan. Yes. Right now, the proposal would permit the
    extension of the flight-duty period a single time in a 7-day
    period for 1 hour, with agreement by both the crew and the
    company. And, again, that is with the expectation there was
    something completely--that the company could not have
    anticipated. So whether another phenomena that should be
    anticipated in building schedules would not be a basis for
    extending that.
        Mr. Boccieri. In the CRM reports, the Crew Resource
    Management forms that they are supposed to come up with here,
    is there a nonretribution provision in there that says that air
    crew are not going to be penalized if they show up and say, ``I
    just can't perform my duties today, I am tired''?
        Ms. Gilligan. The rule requires that no airman may accept
    an assignment if they are not fit for duty, and the air carrier
    may not use or give an assignment to a crew member who is not
    fit for duty. It would be a regulatory violation to use that
    pilot in that way.
        Mr. Boccieri. Very good.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman. And not only
    thanks the gentleman for his thoughtful questions, but for the
    contributions that he made in helping us craft a safety bill
    that we think is one of the best that has been done in decades.
    So I thank you.
        The Chair at this time now recognizes the distinguished
    Chairman of the Full Committee, Chairman Oberstar.
        Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the
    work that you put into preparing for this hearing, and the
    staff, and also greatly appreciate the participation and
    support from Mr. Petri and staff on the Republican side, and
    the comments of Mr. Boccieri. He has really become our resident
    aviation authority on the Committee, and I greatly appreciate
    the contribution he brings.
        I have just mention for the record, I have said it in other
    venues, but we were walking off the House floor after the
    health care vote, and a gaggle of reporters asked, ``Was that a
    tough vote for you?'' And he said, ``Compared to flying C-130's
    out of Iraq? No.'' So he brings a steady hand to these issues.
        Mr. Brooks, you had a rather sleight-of-hand comment about
    the one-size-fits-all, and that is not a right thing to do. And
    I just excised from your statement that the crews on
    nonscheduled carriers fly longer flight segments and therefore
    have longer sleep opportunities.
        Without saying what those longer segments are, how long are
    the segments?
        Mr. Brooks. Mr. Chairman, I would be reluctant to use an
    actual number. But those segments, in terms of flight days, can
    get out to 16 or 18 hours. Again, depending on what we call
    augmentation on the airplane, sometimes there are one
    additional crew member, sometimes there are two additional crew
    members. And that is covered in the regulations now and, again,
    it is considered in the proposal. So those are some.
        Mr. Oberstar. Eight hours, 10 hours, 12 hours, 16 hours?
        Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. Depending on the augmentation, the
    level of augmentation and the crew.
        Mr. Oberstar. Sixteen hours at controls?
        Mr. Brooks. Well, not one crew member, sir. But with
    augmentation and crews taking over. In other words, crews
    sleeping on the airplane in bunks.
        Mr. Oberstar. In one of the paper mills in my district, the
    management and labor got together on an idea that is going to
    save management some money and might help the workers. They
    have longer weekends. They can do more hunting, fishing,
    snowmobiling in the winter and so on. Four 12-hour days. So I
    went to the plant to see how this is working out, and I talked
    to one of the old-timers. What do you think about it? You have
    worked in that mill for 30 years. He said, ``Jim, I won't stand
    by one of these guys that has put in a 12-hour shift. He might
    turn around and bump me into that vat down there.''
        These guys aren't rested after 12 hours, no more working in
    a paper mill than behind the stick on the flight deck. Have you
    worked shift work yourself?
        Mr. Brooks. No, I have not. Aside from my time on the
    railroad, which I suppose is shift work, that is my experience.
        Mr. Oberstar. I did. I watched my father do it, too, in the
    underground mine for 26 years and in the open pit for another
    14 years. I worked the night shift, 11 to 7, they called it the
    graveyard shift. On one of those, I was sampling ore on an ore
    car. You criss-cross the car with a little scoop in your hand
    and take samples of the ore, put it in a bag, toss it off the
    car, jump to the next car. About two, three in the morning you
    get a little woozy. I was just a kid. I was 19 years old, a lot
    of energy, indefatigable. In the rain one night, a rainstorm, I
    stepped on the edge of that car. There was a lump of ore. I
    didn't see it, a little loose piece of ore. I cut my foot on
    it, flipped right off the car 15 feet down right between two
    railroad tracks, two railroad ties. Three inches either way, I
    wouldn't be here today. That is fatigue.
        I was working the shift on the dumps. You bring the ore
    cars, the gondolas that are bringing rock, overburdened, to
    dump. They had a switch and three tracks, and I had to keep
    track of who was on which of those tracks so I wouldn't send a
    car up and smack into somebody who was already on that track.
    And even when I marked it down, which place and where they
    were, at two or three in the morning, in a rainstorm and under
    adverse conditions, I wasn't sure I had done the right thing.
        Now, all of you, I think, on this panel are aware of the
    work this Committee did 3 years ago on railroad safety. I know
    you are going to wonder, well, what does railroad safety have
    to do with aviation? Well, this is an intermodal Committee, and
    the Rail Safety Act passed in 1907 had been amended once in 100
    years. We were determined to turn that around to update
    railroad safety, and one of the targets was limbo time.
        Limbo time is just like something you were describing here
    and this panel was discussing in response to various questions.
    The 10-hour, 100-mile rule. If you as a locomotive engineer run
    that engine and that train 10 hours, that is the end of your
    shift. If in 8 hours you run 100 miles, that is the end of your
    shift. But not quite. You are still on duty. And they have got
    a little shack at the edge of the track where the railroad had
    built a shack for the crew to rest in. Or, sometimes they would
    put them up in a motel, but you can't leave the motel when you
    are there. You are not on duty, you are not off duty. It is
    limbo time.
        One railroad, I will name them, it was Union Pacific, in
    2006, had 96,000 shifts of limbo time. I say I will name them
    because I named them in that hearing and it was documented in
    our hearing. You are on duty all the time. Not paid for it, but
    you are not off duty because you can't go and do anything you
    want. You are supposed to be resting. And then you can be
    called up for the next shift.
        At the markup in Committee, I think Mr. Costello might
    remember, I said, ``If it is good enough for the Pope to
    eliminate limbo time, it is going to be good enough for this
    Committee.'' All the Catholics in the audience laughed. But we
    did it over a 3-year period.
        Dr. Belenky, I am leading up to you. The Rosekind Study for
    many years was considered the gold standard in fatigue, fatigue
    management, and we have had Dr. Rosekind before this Committee
    several times when I Chaired both the Investigations Oversight
    and the Aviation Subcommittee during the years we were in the
    minority. He has documented time-and-again the effects of
    fatigue on pilots, flight attendants, and air traffic
    controllers.
        There were 27 studies of controller fatigue, Ms. Gilligan,
    when you were just a young attorney at the FAA, 26 of them had
    been rejected by FAA. Every one of them showed fatigue. Too
    many hours at controls, no break in between, too little rest
    time away from controls, fatigue setting in. Finally, the
    Rosekind study was one FAA could not reject, and they began
    dealing seriously with the fatigue. But by then, there was the
    strike. So it started all over again.
        Now, there is ``fatigue'' and ``fatigue.'' If you are
    flying 6 hours, 7, 8 hours in one time zone, north to south,
    south to north, there is one effect on the body's circadian
    rhythm. If you are flying against the clock, there is another
    effect. If you are flying with the clock over multiple time
    zones, there is a third effect. I want you to tell me the
    difference between 16, 12, 10, 8 hours in those modes.
        Dr. Belenky. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I can't do that in
    the sense that you would really have to do some experimental
    work to look at specifics directionality, north, south.
        When you talk about 12, 18 hours at the controls, I think
    obviously those are--that is a very long time. One of the ways
    this becomes feasible is with augmented crews and in-flight
    rest facilities and in-flight sleep. And pilots do get in-
    flight sleep. And from my perspective, it is total sleep in 24
    hours that determines performance. So if they are getting
    decent amounts of sleep--an empirical question--in each 24 hour
    period they should be good to go, taking into account that if
    they are flying through their window of circadian low,
    performance may be degraded even in the situation where they
    are well rested.
        But it is very hard to come up with a specific rule and a
    specific number given start times, different start times,
    different end times, given the effects of early starts,
    extended work hours, and then the issue of resynchronization. I
    mean, if you are exposed to light in different time zones, your
    body will start to resynchronize. But that slow process
    resynchronizes by approximately an hour a day. So if you do a
    rapid turnaround, you may not have all that much change in time
    zones.
        Mr. Oberstar. And that is that one phrase, an hour a day,
    for each hour of time zone change.
        Dr. Belenky. That is a rough estimate.
        Mr. Oberstar. I appreciate that you are being
    scientifically responsible and not wanting to generalize, but
    there is an enormous body of research done on all of these
    factors. And I don't think we need to wait until the last study
    is done, as was done with the air traffic controllers--the
    26th, 27th study was done--and finally something began to
    happen.
        Like applying new technology, I don't think we have to wait
    until a Cerritos, California occurs where two planes crash in
    the air before we put traffic collision avoidance systems,
    TCAS, on aircraft. I don't think we have to wait for another
    fog on an airport runway and aircraft to run into each other on
    the ground before we implement precision runway monitoring.
    That is the way safety has been done. New regulations are
    written in blood. Those who have died scream out for change.
        Twelve hours of sleep, and then say, Well, you can go fly
    for 12 hours. About that 8th or 9th hour--you say there are
    crew rests and you can nap on board. You take a nap, you come
    back, it takes a little while. You are still groggy, your body
    is not functioning properly. I don't think that is a
    substitute. I mean, you go back and look at the R.R. Rosa study
    on napping and alert--napping at home and alertness on the job.
    That is a very compelling argument against short cycles of
    sleep. I will leave it there.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Chairman of the Full
    Committee, and would ask are there other Members who have
    additional questions?
        Mr. Petri. I had one question. I would wonder if the panel
    could quickly respond. I don't think you would have to
    elaborate much. There is a 60-day comment period on this. We
    have had this hearing, and it is something if we are going to
    address it, I think it may worthwhile to do what is necessary
    to get it as right as possible. And so I am just asking whether
    the 60 days do you feel is adequate? I am not looking for a
    delay for the sake of delay, but if that is adequate, or if you
    feel that some different time period for the comments and so on
    would make more sense. Does anyone on the panel?
        Mr. Prater. Certainly. The Airline Pilots Association
    believes that the 60 days is adequate, and we will respond to
    the FAA within that 60 days.
        Mr. Alterman. If I may, it actually creates a problem.
    There is significant modeling to be done, and we are in the
    process of starting that. The whole process has become somewhat
    complicated because of the Safety Act that was passed and
    requires carriers by October 31 to submit a fatigue risk
    management plan to the FAA. And we are in the process of--our
    carriers are in the process of developing those plans.
        The problem we have with a 60-day response period is the
    same people who are working all day trying to put together that
    plan to be submitted by October 31 are the exact same people
    that we need to have that are available to us to respond to
    this. So we are in a little bit of a bind. I think 60 days is
    not going to be sufficient for our purposes. If that is what
    the time is, we will submit something in 60 days, but it really
    isn't sufficient.
        Mr. Costello. What would be?
        Mr. Alterman. Well, I would like to say 120 days. That gets
    us over the Christmas holidays, and I am not sure we will get
    much production over that. I think another 30 days will be
    sufficient just so we can get passed the fatigue risk
    management plan. But we will do whatever is necessary and
    whatever is required.
        Mr. Brooks. Mr. Petri, I put in my written testimony
    comments about 120 days. So that is what we submitted. As you
    may be aware, I think there is some 50, 5-0, areas in which the
    agency has asked for comment in the document, and it is very,
    very full. And our carriers are in some cases very much like
    the cargo carriers in terms of the ability to have resources to
    work on them. We have no interest in delay. We just want to
    make the process as robust as possible and make sure we can put
    in comments to the docket that are responsive. So, I back up
    our written testimony which asks for 120 days.
        Mr. Costello. I thank Mr. Petri for the question. And let
    me say that, frankly, we have no tolerance for any more than 60
    days. This is not an issue that came up overnight. This is an
    issue that has been discussed for 20 years. In fact, Mr.
    Alterman, if your team is doing one thing and then has to move
    over and address this, I suggest that you go out and get some
    outside expertise to help you so that you can comply within the
    60-day period. I would be extremely disappointed and see no
    reason why we should have to go over 60 days. This is an issue
    that everyone at this table and everyone in the industry has
    discussed, thought about, and we know who in fact is attempting
    to address this quickly and we know that there are reasons why
    others do not want it addressed.
        I would just suggest to you that we stick to the 60 days,
    and I believe that that is adequate time. If you calculate how
    many hours there are in a day and take that times 60, I think
    that is adequate time to comment on the 50 items that were made
    reference to.
        Mr. Oberstar. Would you yield, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Costello. I would yield to the Chairman of the
    Committee.
        Mr. Oberstar. Some years ago, quite a few years ago, Mr.
    DeFazio and I introduced a bill, waited for the appropriate
    time, H.R. 14. That was the number of years that flight
    attendants had been waiting for a decision on flight and duty
    time for flight attendants. It was also the number of hours
    that flight attendants, on average, were asked to be on duty
    with flight time included in that period.
        Our Committee staff just pulled out the hearing, 1993, the
    hearing on the legislation to provide for the duty-time
    limitations of flight attendants, 17 years.
        I have no tolerance for ``We need another 30 days or 60
    days, or whatever time. You know what needs to be done. Get
    your people together and do it. Safety of the public is at
    stake. Safety of your pilots is at stake. There is no excuse
    and no tolerance for delay. You have had this on your agenda,
    as Mr. Costello said, for 20 years. Longer than that even.
    Let's get it done.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks Chairman Oberstar, and now
    recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi.
        Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Chairman, I didn't get my full 8 hours
    of sleep last night and my coffee hasn't kicked in, so I have
    asked Mr. Boccieri if he could ask my question.
        Mr. Boccieri. Thank you.
        I just wanted to know, and actually both of us were
    speaking here and we just wanted to know if there was any
    objection from the companies, from the air carriers themselves,
    of raising the crew rest period from between 10 and 12 hours to
    make it consistent with some other aviation, namely, the
    military?
        Mr. Hendricks. Congressman, I will speak to that. We have
    started our analysis of the rule, and we will be happy to
    specifically address that question and respond on the record
    once we complete some of that analysis.
        Mr. Boccieri. I would like a comment for the record. I
    mean, just to quote the Air Force regulation as well. It says:
    A minimum of 12 hours of crew rest period before the flight-
    duty period begins is to ensure that the air crew member is
    adequately rested before performing flight or flight-related
    duties. Crew rest is free time, which includes time for meals,
    transportation, and rest, and must include 8 hours of
    uninterrupted sleep.
        Mr. Hendricks. Thank you. We will be happy to provide a
    response, as I said. And I would also like to add that, as a
    former airline pilot for nearly 23 years, I had many of those
    nights that did not accomplish 12 hours of uninterrupted rest,
    and was able to operate safely and without having perceived
    myself to be fatigued.
        Mr. Boccieri. That is true. And there are times where there
    has been delay, and I think that cushion was put in there so
    that there would be adequate time in those circumstances.
        Captain Prater, if you can tell me, when does a flight duty
    actually end? The minute you walk off the airplane?
        Mr. Prater. Under the current rules, 15 minutes after you
    set the parking brake. That is why we are advocating for the
    proposal that the FAA has laid out there that the rest time
    would start after you got to your rest facility.
        As to your first issue, sir, we would say that while more
    is better in a lot of things like retirement and wages, there
    are unintended consequences that could creep into it. If an
    airman had to spend another 3 or 4 days on the road during
    their schedule, that 12 hours might not look as good. It has to
    be an entire scheme, and I think that is where the FAA has
    gone. Saying that, you know, a shorter time once in a while is
    OK, but it can't be night after night after night. So that is
    why we believe that the 9 hours behind the door is a good place
    to start, because we think--remember, that is the minimum. We
    will try to get the full 11 or 12, and in many cases it will.
        Mr. Boccieri. Does ALPA and the rest of the other unions
    accept the commuting rules?
        Mr. Prater. The issue of commuting that has been raised
    here, I will just say real quickly, first of all, with all due
    respect for all the work that has been done on this issue,
    commuting did not start nor will it end with these hearings. It
    is a fact of the transportation life.
        It is incumbent upon the pilot and his employer to ensure
    that the pilot is rested, regardless of what his transportation
    mode was to get to work. I believe that there has been some
    almost soul-searching, if you will, when you look for the
    reason of the most recent fatal accidents. And we do that each
    and every time. But we have to look at the big, big picture,
    and it is not just commuting.
        But pilot fatigue is caused by too many hours behind the
    stick and too, too few hours in the hotel. We believe that the
    issue of commuting must be addressed and will be addressed
    under the rule in the advisory circular adequately, and I think
    with a tripartite, if you will, between the certificated
    airmen, the company, and the FAA. Thank you.
        Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman. And I thank
    our witnesses for testifying today. Unless there are other
    questions or comments, Chairman Oberstar?
        Mr. Oberstar. Just a retrospective. I held up the Committee
    hearing from 1993 on H.R. 14. I will just quote from my opening
    statement.
        ``The effort to establish flight attendant duty-time
    limitation goes back many years, as far as 1978, when the FAA
    promised to have a regulation out by the end of the year. It is
    a good thing no one was holding their breath. As this hearing
    opens, we are still waiting for the 1978 rule.''
        I go on to talk about the petitions of flight attendants
    filed and the action undertaken. And I would just like to quote
    from Congressman Klinger's comment. He was the Ranking Member,
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        ``Flight attendants deserve duty-time limitation. Without a
    doubt, their job requires more physical exertion than almost
    any other class of employees in the aviation industry that I
    can think of. It is unfortunate that they have been denied the
    protections afforded by reasonable workplace standards, and
    that the traveling public has been denied the assurance that
    flight attendants are alert and prepared to cope with
    emergencies that may arise.''
        I cited 38,000 air carrier passengers over a 14-year period
    involving evacuations, severely ill, need oxygen administered,
    passing blood on board the aircraft. Flight attendants needed
    to address those needs.''
        And then there is a very telling comment by the gentleman
    from Illinois, Mr. Costello.
        ``The legislation calls for duty-time limits on actual time
    served. Other parties have called for duty limitation placed on
    scheduled time. My concern is for the safety of our commercial
    airline system. Under scheduled duty limits, I fear flight
    attendants would be working under greatly fatigued
    circumstances due to unforeseen delays, weather, mechanical
    problems, and would be incapable of adequately responding to an
    emergency.''
        Mr. Chairman thank you for your prescience, for your
    consistency, for sticking to your last--and continuing that
    service. That underscores the need to proceed without delay and
    get this rulemaking accomplished and have a single standard of
    safety in the skies.
        Mr. Costello. I think with that, Ms. Gilligan, in
    particular, that you have a clear message to take back to the
    administrator that there is zero tolerance for any extension of
    this 60 days, as suggested by Mr. Alterman or Mr. Brooks, or
    anyone else. And I can assure everyone, including the families
    of the Colgan flight who are here and who consistently at their
    own expense continue to do what they believe is best and what
    is in the best interest of the flying public when it comes to
    safety.
        We appreciate you being here. We appreciate your vigilance
    and all of your input. And we will continue to monitor this
    issue and to make certain that the law that we just passed and
    was signed into law on August 1 of this year is in fact
    followed. And we look forward to seeing a rule that we believe
    and look forward to making a major difference when it comes to
    safety and fatigue in the industry. So we thank all of the
    witnesses for being here today.
        And, with that, the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:17 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.105

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.119

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.120

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.121

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.122

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.123

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.124

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.125

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.126

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.127

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.128

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.129

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.130

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.131

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.132

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.133

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.134

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.135

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.137

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.138

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.139

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.140

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.141

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.142

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.143

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.144

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.145

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.146

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.147

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.148

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.149

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.150

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.151

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.152

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.153

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.154

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.155

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.156

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.157

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.158

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.159

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.160

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.161

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.162

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.163

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.164

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.165

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.166

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.167

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.168

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.169

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.170

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.171

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.172

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.173

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.174

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.175

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8300.176