| Msg ID: 2690260 |
Who is likely to be more at risk of an accident due to +1/-9
|
| Author:acute fatigue?
5/25/2021 5:46:43 PM |
#1 The pilot who comes in for a day shift at 0700 and naps throught the day, then gets called out on a 3 hr flight assignment late in the shift that he plans to complete the last leg past his 14th hour on duty under Part 91? or #2 The pilot who comes in for a night shift at 1900, who was awake most of the day, who had mowed his lawn his lawn, went shopping with the wife, and who called out on a 3 hr flight assignment at 0200, to be completed all within the 14 hour on duty under Part 135? |
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690261 |
Who is likely to be more at risk of an accident due to (NT) +1/-0
|
| Author:HAA is for wankaz
5/25/2021 5:55:41 PM Reply to: 2690260 |
|
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690262 |
The one that is tireder. (NT) +12/-1
|
| Author:easy
5/25/2021 6:10:21 PM Reply to: 2690260 |
|
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690264 |
You're really out here +8/-0
|
| Author:Trying to fly 15 hours
5/25/2021 6:27:47 PM Reply to: 2690260 |
Just turn the flight, amigo. Dang. I really don't understand why so many people are out here trying to stay at work longer. |
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690268 |
Because some aren't a whimpy as you? (NT) +0/-6
|
| Author:Anonymous
5/25/2021 6:50:45 PM Reply to: 2690264 |
|
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690272 |
#2 According to the FAA (NT) +2/-0
|
| Author:Anonymous
5/25/2021 8:31:48 PM Reply to: 2690260 |
|
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690286 |
Who is likely to be more at risk of an accident due to +0/-0
|
| Author:what's the difference between
5/25/2021 11:03:08 PM Reply to: 2690260 |
fatigue and acute fatigue |
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690291 |
I think youbare asking "what's the difference between +0/-0
|
| Author:chronic fatigue vs acute fatigue "?
5/26/2021 12:22:27 AM Reply to: 2690286 |
The cause of the fatigue. It's either chronic or acute. |
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690305 |
thank you mr medic for clearing that up for us +5/-0
|
| Author:now go back to your nap
5/26/2021 7:47:37 AM Reply to: 2690291 |
love to spout medical jibber, but cannot figure out how to position the switches on the intercom! OMG, we have to abort this flight! I can't hear you in the headset! OMG, OMG, OMG we are all gonna die!
|
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690308 |
hmmmm. seemed like a pilot asked the question (NT) +0/-0
|
| Author:was just trying to help them out
5/26/2021 8:32:46 AM Reply to: 2690305 |
|
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690368 |
No "Pilot" asked that question, obvious med crew (NT) +0/-0
|
| Author:troll
5/26/2021 7:23:22 PM Reply to: 2690308 |
|
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690311 |
Who is likely to be more at risk of an accident due to +0/-1
|
| Author::-)
5/26/2021 9:00:27 AM Reply to: 2690260 |
Wow. An actual, mostly civil discussion (with the exception of one guy posting above). Given the limited information given us in this scenario, I'm going with #2. Sleep inertia and being awakened suddenly out of a possibly deep sleep at one of the worst, possible times of day (physiologically speaking) play a larger role here than simply looking at acute vs chronic fatigue.What do said pilots' 72 hour histories look like? |
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690321 |
What make you more tired and fatigued +0/-0
|
| Author:Part 91 or Part 135 leg?
5/26/2021 12:27:39 PM Reply to: 2690260 |
just exceeded your 14 duty period limitation On the same duty period. No previous flights so flight time is not an issue. Are you safer and less fatigued:
1# flying the return to base leg part 91. 1 hour flight or 2# flying the return to base leg part 135. 1 hour flight can only answer 1 or 2....nothing added. Simple answer |
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690332 |
What make you more tired and fatigued +0/-0
|
| Author::-)
5/26/2021 2:29:41 PM Reply to: 2690321 |
Gotcha. I'll opt out on this one. I don't think I an give you an accurate answer based on that info alone. Too many variables. |
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690386 |
The Part 91 doesn't have a 14 hour duty limitation (NT) +0/-0
|
| Author:Anonymous
5/26/2021 10:37:47 PM Reply to: 2690321 |
|
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690415 |
Not for flight time. Duty Period is restricted to 135 rules until released +1/-0
|
| Author:From ALL directive & restraint
5/27/2021 10:56:44 AM Reply to: 2690386 |
So that reposition leg, regardless of how you see it "yourself" is still part of your duty period and counts towards your duty restrictions. Facts over feelings. And here's a hint: Slater doesn't apply to duty period, only flight time, says that right in the summary statement from general counsel. |
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690435 |
Nope! There is no DUTY TIME restrictions, only REST requirements +1/-1
|
| Author:You can be on DUTY forever.
5/27/2021 1:48:16 PM Reply to: 2690415 |
Just can't plan to FLY (for flight time) unless you cam show 10 hours of legal REST in preceeding 24 of planned completion time of FLIGHT assignment (not planned time of DJTY assignment! Suppose pilot gets off and goes to hotel for some rest after aircraft breaks. What's the earliest time the company can use him to fly aircraft back to base? Answer: Whenever they want to under Part 91. Say he got a good solid 5 hrs of rest and came back to fly aircraft home. He is good for Part 91 even though he's it hat his Part 135 REST requirement, because he is not limited to duty 0eriods, but REST requirements. He's even rested and not tired at all. But he cannot look back 24 hours and find 10 hours of REST, so he cannot be used to pilot an aircraft under Part 135. But he can Part 91 all day long. So, you are constantly 100% wrong and purposfully misleading! If you are planning Part 91, you have no DUTY TIME LIMITATIONS |
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690437 |
There you go again trying to use 135.267(c) for (NT) +0/-0
|
| Author:135.267(d) operations
5/27/2021 2:23:05 PM Reply to: 2690415 |
|
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690440 |
There you go again being WRONG (NT) +0/-0
|
| Author:Always Wrong
5/27/2021 3:21:11 PM Reply to: 2690437 |
|
|
|
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2691765 |
See Converse-RedWing (2011) for details (NT) +0/-0
|
| Author:Anonymous
6/7/2021 12:24:45 PM Reply to: 2690440 |
|
 |
Return-To-Index |
| Msg ID: 2690705 |
Who is likely to be more at risk of an accident due to +0/-0
|
| Author:Don’t
5/30/2021 12:28:34 PM Reply to: 2690260 |
recommend either. |
|
|
Return-To-Index |
