U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

58–300 PDF 2010

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 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

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 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

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) 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

(III) 

(V) 

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 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 58300.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 58300.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 58300.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 58300.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 58300.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 58300.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 58300.007
(1) 

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 

2 

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 

3 

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 

4 

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 twojob 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. 

5 

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 commuVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Dec 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58300.0 KAYLA
6 

nities, 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. 

7 

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 hisVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Dec 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58300.0 KAYLA
8 

tory, 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 

9 

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. 

10 

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 

11 

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 ReVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Dec 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58300.0 KAYLA
12 

serve 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-sizefits-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 airVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Dec 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58300.0 KAYLA
13 

line 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 

14 

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 longhaul or ultra long-haul that we believe bear closer scrutiny. How 

15 

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 

16 

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 occaVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Dec 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\58300.0 KAYLA
17 

sional 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 

18 

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:] 

19 


Insert offset folio 8 here 58300.008
20 


Insert offset folio 9 here 58300.009
21 


Insert offset folio 10 here 58300.010
22 


Insert offset folio 11 here 58300.011
23 


Insert offset folio 12 here 58300.012
24 


Insert offset folio 13 here 58300.013
25 


Insert offset folio 14 here 58300.014
26 


Insert offset folio 15 here 58300.015
27 


Insert offset folio 16 here 58300.016
28 


Insert offset folio 17 here 58300.017
29 


Insert offset folio 18 here 58300.018
30 


Insert offset folio 19 here 58300.019
31 


Insert offset folio 20 here 58300.020
32 


Insert offset folio 21 here 58300.021
33 


Insert offset folio 22 here 58300.022
34 


Insert offset folio 23 here 58300.023
35 


Insert offset folio 24 here 58300.024
36 


Insert offset folio 25 here 58300.025
37 


Insert offset folio 26 here 58300.026
38 


Insert offset folio 27 here 58300.027
39 


Insert offset folio 28 here 58300.028
40 


Insert offset folio 29 here 58300.029
41 


Insert offset folio 30 here 58300.030
42 


Insert offset folio 31 here 58300.031
43 


Insert offset folio 32 here 58300.032
44 


Insert offset folio 33 here 58300.033
45 


Insert offset folio 34 here 58300.034
46 


Insert offset folio 35 here 58300.035
47 


Insert offset folio 36 here 58300.036
48 


Insert offset folio 37 here 58300.037
49 


Insert offset folio 38 here 58300.038
50 


Insert offset folio 39 here 58300.039
51 


Insert offset folio 40 here 58300.040
52 


Insert offset folio 41 here 58300.041
53 


Insert offset folio 42 here 58300.042
54 


Insert offset folio 43 here 58300.043
55 


Insert offset folio 44 here 58300.044
56 


Insert offset folio 45 here 58300.045
57 


Insert offset folio 46 here 58300.046
58 


Insert offset folio 47 here 58300.047
59 

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 

60 

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 

61 

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 crisscross 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 deVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Dec 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\58300.0 KAYLA
62 

termined 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 performVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:41 Dec 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\58300.0 KAYLA
63 

ance. 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. 

64 

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, 

65 

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 

66 

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 soulsearching, 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. 

67 

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.] 

68 


Insert offset folio 48 here 58300.048
69 


Insert offset folio 49 here 58300.049
70 


Insert offset folio 50 here 58300.050
71 


Insert offset folio 51 here 58300.051
72 


Insert offset folio 52 here 58300.052
73 


Insert offset folio 53 here 58300.053
74 


Insert offset folio 54 here 58300.054
75 


Insert offset folio 55 here 58300.055
76 


Insert offset folio 56 here 58300.056
77 


Insert offset folio 57 here 58300.057
78 


Insert offset folio 58 here 58300.058
79 


Insert offset folio 59 here 58300.059
80 


Insert offset folio 60 here 58300.060
81 


Insert offset folio 61 here 58300.061
82 


Insert offset folio 62 here 58300.062
83 


Insert offset folio 63 here 58300.063
84 


Insert offset folio 64 here 58300.064
85 


Insert offset folio 65 here 58300.065
86 


Insert offset folio 66 here 58300.066
87 


Insert offset folio 67 here 58300.067
88 


Insert offset folio 68 here 58300.068
89 


Insert offset folio 69 here 58300.069
90 


Insert offset folio 70 here 58300.070
91 


Insert offset folio 71 here 58300.071
92 


Insert offset folio 72 here 58300.072
93 


Insert offset folio 73 here 58300.073
94 


Insert offset folio 74 here 58300.074
95 


Insert offset folio 75 here 58300.075
96 


Insert offset folio 76 here 58300.076
97 


Insert offset folio 77 here 58300.077
98 


Insert offset folio 78 here 58300.078
99 


Insert offset folio 79 here 58300.079
100 


Insert offset folio 80 here 58300.080
101 


Insert offset folio 81 here 58300.081
102 


Insert offset folio 82 here 58300.082
103 


Insert offset folio 83 here 58300.083
104 


Insert offset folio 84 here 58300.084
105 


Insert offset folio 85 here 58300.085
106 


Insert offset folio 86 here 58300.086
107 


Insert offset folio 87 here 58300.087
108 


Insert offset folio 88 here 58300.088
109 


Insert offset folio 89 here 58300.089
110 


Insert offset folio 90 here 58300.090
111 


Insert offset folio 91 here 58300.091
112 


Insert offset folio 92 here 58300.092
113 


Insert offset folio 93 here 58300.093
114 


Insert offset folio 94 here 58300.094
115 


Insert offset folio 95 here 58300.095
116 


Insert offset folio 96 here 58300.096
117 


Insert offset folio 97 here 58300.097
118 


Insert offset folio 98 here 58300.098
119 


Insert offset folio 99 here 58300.099
120 


Insert offset folio 100 here 58300.100
121 


Insert offset folio 101 here 58300.101
122 


Insert offset folio 102 here 58300.102
123 


Insert offset folio 103 here 58300.103
124 


Insert offset folio 104 here 58300.104
125 


Insert offset folio 105 here 58300.105
126 


Insert offset folio 106 here 58300.106
127 


Insert offset folio 107 here 58300.107
128 


Insert offset folio 108 here 58300.108
129 


Insert offset folio 109 here 58300.109
130 


Insert offset folio 110 here 58300.110
131 


Insert offset folio 111 here 58300.111
132 


Insert offset folio 112 here 58300.112
133 


Insert offset folio 113 here 58300.113
134 


Insert offset folio 114 here 58300.114
135 


Insert offset folio 115 here 58300.115
136 


Insert offset folio 116 here 58300.116
137 


Insert offset folio 117 here 58300.117
138 


Insert offset folio 118 here 58300.118
139 


Insert offset folio 119 here 58300.119
140 


Insert offset folio 120 here 58300.120
141 


Insert offset folio 121 here 58300.121
142 


Insert offset folio 122 here 58300.122
143 


Insert offset folio 123 here 58300.123
144 


Insert offset folio 124 here 58300.124
145 


Insert offset folio 125 here 58300.125
146 


Insert offset folio 126 here 58300.126
147 


Insert offset folio 127 here 58300.127
148 


Insert offset folio 128 here 58300.128
149 


Insert offset folio 129 here 58300.129
150 


Insert offset folio 130 here 58300.130
151 


Insert offset folio 131 here 58300.131
152 


Insert offset folio 132 here 58300.132
153 


Insert offset folio 133 here 58300.133
154 


Insert offset folio 134 here 58300.134
155 


Insert offset folio 135 here 58300.135
156 


Insert offset folio 136 here 58300.136
157 


Insert offset folio 137 here 58300.137
158 


Insert offset folio 138 here 58300.138
159 


Insert offset folio 139 here 58300.139
160 


Insert offset folio 140 here 58300.140
161 


Insert offset folio 141 here 58300.141
162 


Insert offset folio 142 here 58300.142
163 


Insert offset folio 143 here 58300.143
164 


Insert offset folio 144 here 58300.144
165 


Insert offset folio 145 here 58300.145
166 


Insert offset folio 146 here 58300.146
167 


Insert offset folio 147 here 58300.147
168 


Insert offset folio 148 here 58300.148
169 


Insert offset folio 149 here 58300.149
170 


Insert offset folio 150 here 58300.150
171 


Insert offset folio 151 here 58300.151
172 


Insert offset folio 152 here 58300.152
173 


Insert offset folio 153 here 58300.153
174 


Insert offset folio 154 here 58300.154
175 


Insert offset folio 155 here 58300.155
176 


Insert offset folio 156 here 58300.156
177 


Insert offset folio 157 here 58300.157
178 


Insert offset folio 158 here 58300.158
179 


Insert offset folio 159 here 58300.159
180 


Insert offset folio 160 here 58300.160
181 


Insert offset folio 161 here 58300.161
182 


Insert offset folio 162 here 58300.162
183 


Insert offset folio 163 here 58300.163
184 


Insert offset folio 164 here 58300.164
185 


Insert offset folio 165 here 58300.165
186 


Insert offset folio 166 here 58300.166
187 


Insert offset folio 167 here 58300.167
188 


Insert offset folio 168 here 58300.168
189 


Insert offset folio 169 here 58300.169
190 


Insert offset folio 170 here 58300.170
191 


Insert offset folio 171 here 58300.171
192 


Insert offset folio 172 here 58300.172
193 


Insert offset folio 173 here 58300.173
194 


Insert offset folio 174 here 58300.174
195 


Insert offset folio 175 here 58300.175
196 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 176 here 58300.176