[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, [email protected].
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