Cargo Carriers and Exemption from Part 117

On January 14, 2014 the FAA’s final rule became effective to amend “the FAA’s existing flight, duty and rest regulations applicable to certificate holders and their flightcrew members operating under the domestic, flag, and supplemental operations rules” (2012). The rule changes were created with the intention of combating of fatigue. As the FAA states in their summary of the final rule, fatigue “threatens aviation safety because it increases the risk of pilot error that could lead to an accident” (2012). I’ve learned over the years of studying aviation at Eastern Michigan University that fatigue has been a contributing factor in a score of commercial and general aviation accidents. In the current era of approaching aviation safety proactively, it is good practice for the FAA to minimize the risk of fatigue among airline pilots.

The new airline pilot flight and duty regulations for 121 certificate holders conducting passenger operations can be found in 14 CFR 117. As found in the article “FAA’s Final Rule for Pilot Duty and Rest Requirements” by Sarina Houston of The Balance, different rest requirements previously existed based on domestic, international and unscheduled flights. Under the new rules, there is no difference between types of 121 operations. The definition of “fit for duty” was unclear under the old rules, but the new regulations specify fitness for duty and that pilots are required to affirm their status of fitness, otherwise, it is the airline’s obligation to remove fatigued pilots from duty. A rest period of at least 9 hours, which could be reduced to 8 hours, is now a minimum of 10 hours, and the rest period must provide the opportunity for 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep (2017). Houston adds to the article,

            The maximum flight time during the day is now nine hours, and eight hours at night.

Flight Duty Period limits under the new rules range from nine to 14 hours, depending on how many segments are flown and the start time of the pilot's duty day.

In the final ruling for pilot rest time and duty limits, the FAA acknowledges that these new     rules alone will not solve the fatigue problem. A system safety approach in which the operator and pilots both assume responsibility for fatigue management is the only solution (2017).

Cargo operators are only encouraged to adopt the new flight and duty regulations, but the rules are not mandatory. In the overview of the final rule, the FAA states that

Based on the cost-benefit analysis of this rule and its past precedent, the FAA has amended this rule to make compliance with part 117 voluntary for all-cargo operations and to allow those operations to continue operating under the existing part 121 flight, duty, and rest regulations if they choose to do so (2012).

The FAA makes it clear that the cargo carriers were excluded because of the cost in comparison to societal benefit. The FAA discussed the public comments submitted from non-passenger operators,

The National Air Carrier Association (NACA) and a number of air carriers operating non-scheduled flights objected to the proposed rule applying to supplemental operations. These industry commenters stated that non-scheduled operations require additional scheduling flexibility because they are fundamentally different from scheduled operations. The industry commenters stated that, unlike scheduled operations, non-scheduled operations provide on-demand operations on behalf of private and government consumers on a timetable that is determined by the consumer. According to the industry commenters, non-scheduled carriers do not have regularly-set schedules that they know months in advance, but are instead called to fly with little advance notice, making it more difficult to plan flightcrew member flight times and rest periods. The industry commenters emphasized that this difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that non-scheduled operations' flight times (especially departure times) are controlled largely by the consumer and not the air carrier.

The non-scheduled industry commenters also asserted that non-scheduled carriers serve remote, sometimes hostile locations, with no established crew bases. Thus, they do not have the same extensive infrastructure that scheduled operations have access to and must deadhead flightcrew members into remote locations in order to be able to swap out flightcrew members during an operation. These commenters emphasized that the certificate holders running non-scheduled operations are largely small businesses that will have difficulty adjusting to the burdens imposed by this rule.

Based on the differences between non-scheduled and scheduled operations, the industry commenters stated that a “one-size-fits-all” approach does not work for non-scheduled operations. The industry commenters stated that the existing regulations governing supplemental operations have existed for over 60 years, and that changing these regulations will adversely affect air security and national defense missions conducted through the use of non-scheduled operations. The commenters emphasized that the existing supplemental flight, duty, and rest regulations ensure aviation safety by containing additional rest requirements that are not a part of this rule. In conclusion, the industry commenters suggested that the FAA either: (1) Retain the existing flight, duty, and rest regulations governing supplemental operations, and/or (2) adopt the alternative proposal put forward by the industry commenters.

In addition to the concerns expressed by non-scheduled air carriers, the Cargo Airline Association (CAA) and a number of air carriers operating all-cargo flights have also objected to the proposed rule applying to supplemental operations. These industry commenters asserted that, while a passenger-operation accident can result in numerous fatalities, an all-cargo accident would consist primarily of property damage.

The commenters also stated that the cargo industry is composed of both scheduled and on-demand operators, and that it specializes in express delivery services. To effectuate these express delivery services, some all-cargo carriers do not maintain U.S. domicile bases and regularly operate long-haul flights and point-to-point operations outside the United States, traveling across multiple time zones at all hours of the day and night. The industry commenters also stated that all-cargo carriers regularly operate around the world in all directions with extended overseas routings, not with quick overnight turns at foreign destinations. This results in a lower aircraft utilization rate than domestic passenger operations. According to the industry commenters, these types of nighttime and around-the-world operations are the norm for all-cargo carriers.

The all-cargo industry commenters added that, similar to non-scheduled operations, some all-cargo operations also fly to remote, undeveloped, and sometimes hostile locations. According to the industry commenters, these types of operations are driven by the same considerations as similar non-scheduled operations: (1) The schedule is determined primarily by the customer, and (2) there is a lack of infrastructure, which necessitates deadheading in flightcrew members. The industry commenters emphasized that many all-cargo carriers currently provide their flightcrew members with split duty rest while cargo is being sorted at sorting facilities, and that the carriers have invested millions of dollars in high-quality rest facilities. The industry commenters also stated that flightcrew members working in all-cargo operations fly fewer total hours than their passenger-transporting counterparts. The industry commenters concluded by asking the FAA to either: (1) Retain the existing flight, duty, and rest regulations that govern supplemental operations, or (2) adopt the alternative proposal that they have included in their comments (2012).

Many cargo carriers provided comments to the proposed rule, and many strong arguments were made for cargo to not be included in the part 117 regulations. First, cargo carriers argued that their flights are not scheduled months in advance like a passenger airline. A cargo carrier’s flight schedule is based on the consumer. Private and government customers determine the time table for cargo operations, so it is more difficult to plan pilot flight and rest periods. Second, the destinations that cargo carriers fly to can often be remote places with little infrastructure. These destinations are less hospitable for accommodating pilots than the hubs that passenger airlines fly between. The environment of cargo destinations requires that pilots regularly deadhead. It would be more expensive for cargo carriers to have to comply with part 117.

From a worst-case scenario perspective, cargo carriers made the assessment that an accident in the passenger-carrying sphere can result in numerous fatalities and public outcry. In contrast, an accident of a cargo-carrying aircraft would largely be property loss, which would undoubtedly have less backlash.

To accurately assess the difference in operating environment between cargo and passengers, one must understand that airline routes typically have many legs and points where passengers enplane and deplane. Cargo operations are a stark contrast to this, as they “regularly operate long-haul flights and point-to-point operations outside the United States, traveling across multiple time zones at all hours of the day and night” (2012). Cargo carriers argued that their pilots typically fly less overall than their passenger carrying counterparts. And finally, cargo carriers have already invested millions of dollars in rest facilities for pilots to sleep while cargo is loaded, unloaded, and sorted at their sorting facilities.

After all this, I conclude that the cargo carriers are justified in being excluded from part 117. Cargo has been operating under their regulations for a long time and have given little reason for the FAA to be concerned about the safety of their operations from a fatigue perspective.

If cargo were to be required to comply with part 117, or their own more restrictive flight and duty rules, operators would be required to hire more pilots to meet the demand of their schedule. As a future pilot, the addition of pilot jobs could be a positive, but the other side of that coin would be a potential decrease in pay for cargo pilots because a company would need to afford more of them. If it were up to me, I would choose for the higher pay to remain.

Authors note: I apologize for the huge block quote contained in this week’s post, but it contained a lot of very relevant information to support the argument for cargo exemption from Part 117. More information can be found in the final rule published by the FAA.

Sources:

Federal Aviation Administration. (January 4, 2012). Flight crewmember duty and rest

requirements. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/20 12/01/04/2011-33078/flightcrew-member-duty-and-rest-requirements

Houston, S. (November 17, 2017). FAA’s final rule for pilot duty and rest requirements. The

Balance. Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/faa-final-rule-pilot-duty-and-rest-requirements-282927