Airlines Dispute Proposal To Limit Pilot Flight Time.

<FONT SIZE="+3"><B> Airlines Dispute Proposal To Limit Pilot Flight Time</B>

By Barbara Cook

<I>Washington, D.C. </I>- Federal regulators, aviation industry organizations and pilots' unions are engaged in a high-stakes battle over the Federal Aviation Administration's proposal to place stricter limits on pilot flight and duty times.

The issue is safety, according to the FAA, which cites concerns over the operating performance of cockpit crews that may be suffering from fatigue from too many hours on the job. According to the carriers, however, the issue is lack of research to back up the FAA's claims and the rules' harsh economic impact.

The airlines note that not one U.S. jet crash has been caused specifically by pilot error attributed to sleepiness. However, critics say that's because it's only now that safety investigators are starting to look for the fatigue factor as a cause of airplane crashes.

In the latest round of comments filed at the FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board pointed to what it described as many positive aspects of the FAA's plan. The NTSB agreed with provisions that would eliminate the airlines' ability to schedule crews during their rest periods, include standby or deadheading time-pilots flying as passengers to get to work- and all other duties performed for the carrier as duty time, require minimum daily rest periods of at least 10 consecutive hours and set specific standards for approving on-board crew rest areas.

The NTSB said it also would like to see the FAA include provisions that cover the fatiguing aspects of multiple takeoffs and landings, saying that "flightcrew member fatigue poses a threat to aviation safety."

Safety Impact Unknown

The Air Transport Association issued more than 400 pages of comments in response to the proposed flight duty limits, calling for the proposal to be withdrawn "until the FAA can develop a science- and safety-based regulation."

The ATA claimed that the FAA proposal contains broad implications for the industry but has no basis for knowing whether the plan will have a substantial impact on safety. The ATA submitted statements from scientists who have researched sleep and fatigue. One expert described research cited by the FAA and developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as "constructive and well-intentioned," but said, "their direct conversion to FAA regulation is premature and inadvisable."

The airlines claim that by restricting the length of time in which pilots can fly, the FAA regulation would force up labor costs, with the result that the industry would add $5.2 billion to its operating costs over time because of the extra pilots the airlines would have to hire. The FAA places the cost of complying with the regulation at $353.5 million.

Too Expensive?

The National Air Transportation Association, which represents on-demand air charter operators, said that the regulations would spell "certain financial ruin" for this segment of the aviation industry.

The association echoed the ATA's call for a withdrawal of the proposal, saying it is "operationally unworkable" for the industry. The NATA said the rules' cost would approach $1.97 billion, while the personal loss in salary for charter pilots would be $617 million because they would be paid by the hour.

The Air Line Pilots Association told the FAA that while the proposed regulations contain many favorable provisions, they still would allow pilots to fly too much in one day and go beyond established levels of safety. While the proposed rules would curb overall duty times, they also would expand the time that many pilots may actually fly an aircraft from eight to 10 hours in a single day. ALPA opposes allowing pilots to fly more than eight hours in one day. The union submitted with its comments a number of pilot reports citing occasions when they suffered from sleepiness that could have impaired flight safety.