Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Safety Recommendation Details

Safety Recommendation A-95-113
Details
Synopsis: On Thursday, 2/16/95, at 2027 central standard time, a Douglas DC-8-63 N782AL, operated by Air Transport International (ATI), was destroyed by ground impact & fire during an attempted takeoff at the Kansas City International Airport, Kansas City, Missouri. The three flight crewmembers were fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, & an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. The flight was being conducted as a ferry flight under title 14 code of federal regulations (CFR) part 91.
Recommendation: TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION: Finalize the review of current flight and duty time regulations and revise the regulations, as necessary, within 1 year to ensure that flight and duty time limitations take into consideration research findings in fatigue and sleep issues. The new regulations should prohibit air carriers from assigning flightcrews to flights conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91 unless the flightcrews meet the flight and duty time limitations of 14 CFR Part 121 or other appropriate regulations.
Original recommendation transmittal letter: PDF
Overall Status: Open - Acceptable Response
Mode: Aviation
Location: KANSAS CITY, MO, United States
Is Reiterated: Yes
Is Hazmat: No
Is NPRM: No
Accident #: DCA95MA020
Accident Reports: Uncontrolled Collision with Terrain Air Transport International Douglas DC-8-63, N782AL
Report #: AAR-95-06
Accident Date: 2/16/1995
Issue Date: 11/14/1995
Date Closed:
Addressee(s) and Addressee Status: FAA (Open - Acceptable Response)
Keyword(s): Fatigue

Safety Recommendation History
From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 2/21/2018
Response: We note that you continue to develop the rulemaking project, “Applying the Flight, Duty, and Rest Requirements to Ferry Flights that Follow Domestic, Flag, or Supplemental All-Cargo Operations,” which, among other things, would require a flight crewmember who accepts an additional assignment for flying under Part 91 from the air carrier, or from any other carrier conducting operations under Part 121, to apply the period of the additional assignment toward any limitation applicable to the flight crewmember relating to duty periods or flight times. Although we remain concerned with the age of this recommendation, we believe that this rulemaking project is responsive. Pending timely issuance of a final rule, Safety Recommendation A-95-113 remains classified OPEN--ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 11/16/2017
Response: -From Michael P. Huerta, Administrator: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) understands the importance of making part 121 flight. duty. and rest limits applicable to tail-end ferries that follow an all-cargo flight. Accordingly. we are continuing our rulemaking project titled, Applying the Flight, Duty, and Rest requirements to Ferry Flights that Follow Domestic, Flag. or Supplemental All-Cargo Operations (Reauthorization), to address part 91 ferry night operations. This rulemaking proposes to apply the flight. duty, and rest requirements of part 121 to ferry flights that follow a part 121 all-cargo operation. This rulemaking would also require a flightcrew member who accepts an additional assignment for flying under part 91 from the air carrier, or from any other carrier conducting operations under part 12 I, to apply the period of the additional assignment toward any limitation applicable to the tlightcrew member relating to duty periods or flight times. Under this proposal, a ferry flight that is not subject to part 117 and that follows a part 121 all-cargo operation would be subject to the same night, duty, and rest rules as that part 121 all-cargo operation. The FAA understands the importance and intent of this recommendation and believes that this rulemaking project is responsive. We are also encouraged that in the Board's comments to the proposed rule, it stated that these efforts would likely meet the intent of this recommendation. We anticipated publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking by June 2017. This rulemaking project is currently in executive review; however, in order to account for review and re-prioritization, rulemaking schedules are subject to revisions and are being evaluated in accordance with Executive Order 13771 , Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (82 FR 9339), and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda (82 FR 12285). As a result, the schedules for many ongoing rulemakings are still being determined, but the status of this rule can be tracked at the following Web site: https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/report-on-significant-rulemakings. I will keep the Board informed of the FAA's progress on this safety recommendation and provide an update by September 2018.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 7/29/2013
Response: The January 2012 final rule fully addressed this recommendation except that, as described above, it excluded cargo operations. However, we were pleased to learn from the FAA’s letter that the agency is currently engaged in a rulemaking project to apply the new flight, duty, and rest requirements of Part 121 to ferry flights that follow a Part 121 all-cargo operation. Although we are concerned with the age of this recommendation (now more than 17 1/2 years old), Safety Recommendation A-95-113 is classified OPEN—ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE pending timely issuance of a final rule.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 5/9/2013
Response: -From Michael P. Huerta, Administrator: On January 4, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published the Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements Final Rule (FAA Docket No. F AA-2009-1093). The new requirements eliminate the current distinctions between domestic, flag, and supplemental passenger operations. The requirements prescribe flight and duty limitation and rest requirements for all flightcrew members and certificate holders conducting passenger operations under part 121. Additionally, the final rule applies to part 121 certificate holders and flightcrew members while conducting flights under part 91. Therefore, each holder of a part 121 certificate and flightcrew member conducting passenger operations would be required to comply with the limitations prescribed in part 117 while conducting all operations under part 91 . Title 14 CFR section 117.1 of the final rule states that part 117 applies to all operations directed by part 121 certificate holders even if the flights are flown under part 91. Sections 117.1 (b) and (c), which specifically address these operations, are below: (b) This part applies to all operations directed by part 121 certificate holders under part 91 , other than subpart K. of this chapter if any segment is conducted as a domestic passenger, flag passenger, or supplemental passenger operation. (c) This part applies to all flightcrew members when participating in an operation under part 91, other than subpart K of this chapter, on behalf of the part 121 certificate holder if any flight segment is conducted as a domestic passenger, flag passenger, or supplemental passenger operation. Additionally, 14 CFR section 117.3 defines "Hight duty period" to include positioning and ferry flights as part of the flight duty period for the purposes of this part. Positioning and ferry flights are common operations conducted under part 91 by 121 certificate holders. Under the rule, these flights would count as part of the flight duty period for the purposes of total flight duty time and rest requirements. Currently, the FAA is engaged in a rulemaking project to address part 91 ferry flight operations conducted by part 121 certificate holders. Specifically, this rulemaking proposes to apply the flight, duty, and rest requirements of part 121 to ferry flights that follow a part 121 all-cargo operation. Under this proposal, a ferry flight that is not subject to part 11 7 and that follows a part 121 all-cargo operation would be subject to the same flight, duty, and rest rules as that part 121 all-cargo operation. The FAA notes that in the Board's comments to the proposed rule, dated November 15, 2010, it stated that the proposed rule would likely meet the intent of this recommendation. I will update the Board as soon as the final rule goes into effect.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 11/15/2010
Response: Notation 8257: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has reviewed the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled "14 CFR Parts 117 and 121: Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements," which was published at 75 Federal Register 55852 on September 14, 2010. The notice proposes to amend 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121 and establish 14 CFR Part 117 to create a single set of flight time limitations, duty period limits, and rest requirements for pilots in Part 121 operations. According to the NPRM, the rulemaking recognizes the similarities between the types of operations conducted under Part 121 and the universality of factors that lead to human fatigue. In addition, the rulemaking acknowledges the need to consider fatigue-inducing factors such as time of day, length of duty day, workload, whether an individual is acclimated to a new time zone, and the likelihood of being able to sleep under different circumstances. The rulemaking aims to ensure that pilots have an opportunity to obtain sufficient rest to perform their duties, with an objective of improving aviation safety. The NPRM acknowledges that the FAA is proposing to limit this rulemaking to Part 121 certificate holders and flight crew members who work for them and address fatigue on an incremental basis. Further, the NPRM explicitly identifies two specific NTSB recommendations regarding pilot fatigue in its background statement, Safety Recommendations A-06-10 and A-95-113. The NTSB strongly supports most aspects of the proposed rule while also acknowledging a variety of important issues that remain to be addressed. Since 1990, the safety issue of reducing accidents caused by human fatigue has been on the NTSB's Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements. Over the last 20 years, the NTSB has investigated many air carrier accidents involving fatigued flight crews, including the American International Airways flight 808 accident in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; the American Airlines flight 1420 accident in Little Rock, Arkansas; the Corporate Airlines flight 5966 accident in Kirksville, Missouri; and, most recently, the Colgan Air flight 3407 accident in Buffalo, New York. NTSB recommendations issued over the same period of time in an effort to counteract the threat of human fatigue to passenger and crew safety promote, among other measures, scientifically based hours of service, eliminating tail-end Part 91 (for example, training or ferry) flights, developing guidance on fatigue risk management systems (FRMS), and addressing the challenges of obtaining adequate rest when associated with pilot commuting. The proposed revisions to Part 121 and creation of Part 117 address many of these areas. As noted in the NPRM, the FAA drew from available data on sleep and fatigue science to provide a foundation for the proposed rule. In addition, the FAA reviewed international standards and drew from the experienced guidance of industry, including representatives from operators and labor who comprised the aviation rulemaking committee (ARC), as well as scientific advisors for this NPRM. The NTSB commends the FAA for its efforts to develop this critically important rule using a broadly inclusive, scientifically based approach. We expect that these efforts will yield the expedited adoption of a final rule that meets the needs of both the individual pilot and the industry in effectively mitigating fatigue hazards to improve safety. Implementation of the proposed revisions will represent a significant improvement in the regulations to prevent flight crew fatigue in Part 121 operations. The NTSB's specific comments on several areas of the NPRM follow. Consideration of Factors Affecting Alertness and Consolidation of Part 121 The NPRM takes into consideration length of duty day, starting time, workload, and time-zone changes. These factors have been shown by sleep and fatigue research to affect alertness, both alone and in combination with other factors. As a result, the proposal is a significant improvement over current regulations, which do not address the criticality of these factors as they relate to the development of fatigue. If adopted, the proposed rule would likely meet the intent of Safety Recommendation A-06-l0, which is currently on the NTSB's Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements. The rule does not specifically address NTSB Safety Recommendation A-09-64, which calls for the need to address unique issues affecting the development of fatigue in short-haul operations through specific research into this area.2 Based on the ARC input, the proposed rule does shorten flight duty periods and maximum flight time based on the number of flight segments that exceed four in I day, which should help to mitigate fatigue in these operations. However, as acknowledged in the NPRM, there is little data directly addressing short-haul operations, and, as recommended in Safety Recommendation A-09-64, research into factors affecting the development of fatigue in these operations (especially in the context of the proposed rule) would be beneficial. By removing the former distinctions under Part 121 between domestic, flag carriers, supplemental, and operations conducted under Part 91 (including tail-end ferry flights), the NPRM acknowledges that the human fatigue factors are the same across these operations and science cannot support the notion of allowing longer duty hours for certain subgroups. Additionally, the proposed rule addresses the NTSB's longstanding concern of eliminating tail-end ferry flights in Part 121 operations. Adoption of this element of the proposed rule would likely meet the intent of Safety Recommendation A-95-113, which is currently on the NTSB's Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements. Maximum Flight Time and Rest Period Expansion The NPRM proposes to increase the maximum flight time from 8 to 10 hours and acknowledges that research in this area does not provide a definitive conclusion about the effect this would have on fatigue.3 The NTSB considers it important that the 10-hour flight times are only allowed for flight duty period start times between 0700-1259, which should ensure that flight crews do not accumulate this extended flight time during the circadian low. In addition, the reduction of the flight duty period as the number of flight segments exceeds four should help to mitigate risk associated with the increased workload that this part of the NPRM proposes. However, the NTSB urges the FAA to proceed cautiously on the expansion of flight time to 10 hours and collect data on this proposed change so that any adverse consequences are identified and mitigated. In addition, the NTSB suggests that the FAA look to other modal administrations in the Department of Transportation to help assess the effect of this change on safety. The NTSB is encouraged that, as defined in the proposed rule, a rest period begins once the flight crew arrives at the actual location of the rest facility (such as a hotel). This should help to ensure that crewmembers can allocate additional time to actual sleep during the defined rest period. Although the NPRM did not clearly define when the rest period would end, the FAA provided clarifying guidance to the rulemaking docket stating that the "rest opportunity commences when the flightcrew member reaches the hotel or suitable accommodation and ends when he or she checks out. The NPRM also states that the required rest period would be extended to 9 hours, and the clarifying guidance states that the 9-hour rest opportunity should allow for an actual 8-hour sleep opportunity. However, the associated draft advisory circular (AC) on fitness for duty states that, "it is unrealistic to assume that a 9-hour rest period will yield 9 or even 8 hours of sleep when you take into consideration time lost in checking in at a hotel, eating, and preparing to resume duty at the conclusion of the sleep opportunity." The NTSB concurs with this observation6 and notes that the final rule should be consistent with the guidance contained in the draft AC. Therefore, the NTSB strongly encourages an increase in the duration of the required rest period to accommodate an opportunity for 8 hours of sleep. Joint Responsibility for Fatigue Mitigation and Fatigue Education The NPRM states clearly that effective fatigue mitigation in aviation requires individual responsibility at the pilot level and corporate responsibility at the air carrier level. The NTSB agrees and, based on findings from accident investigations and the reality of the aviation system, recognizes that effective actions and coordination among pilots, airlines, and regulators must occur to effectively address fatigue issues. Furthermore, the NPRM would enable a flight crewmember to self-report as too fatigued to continue working an assigned flight duty period and prohibit the certificate holder from allowing the flight crewmember to continue. The NTSB supports this element of the proposed rule, which, if adopted, would likely satisfy the intent of Safety Recommendations A-08-19 and A-08-20 for Part 121 operations. The NPRM addresses commuting as a fitness for duty issue, and the associated guidance material contains information about responsible commuting. Although the NTSB agrees in part with this perspective and believes that education and training can help, it also is steadfast in its belief that the concept of joint responsibility applies equally to commuting. If implemented, the NPRM's treatment of commuting-related fatigue risks would not meet the intent of Safety Recommendation A-10-16, because this recommendation advocates going beyond guidance to helping an individual commuting pilot obtain adequate rest; Safety Recommendation A-10-16 also addresses the need for operators to identify pilots who commute, use scheduling practices to minimize fatigue in commuting pilots, and develop or identify rest facilities for commuting pilots. While the NTSB acknowledges the difficulty in identifying a regulatory solution for commuting hazards at the individual level, steps can be taken at the company level without undue regulatory burden and that would be consistent with the level of company action called for in other areas of the NPRM. The NTSB strongly encourages the FAA to ensure that the final rule's treatment of commuting incorporates company level responsibilities reflected in Safety Recommendation A-10-16, including the identification of pilots with challenging commutes and provision of mitigating measures. The NPRM also proposes requiring a fatigue education and training program for all flight crewmembers, employees involved in the operational control and scheduling of flight crewmembers, and personnel having management oversight of these areas. The NTSB strongly supports this concept and believes it to be consistent with earlier NTSB recommendations advocating the need for fatigue education among flight crewmembers.9 In addition, this concept is among the foundational elements of an effective FRMS. The NTSB notes that the required course content addresses a broad range of fatigue causation factors, countermeasures, and mitigation strategies and is encouraged that the draft AC on fatigue training supporting this NPRM contains a discussion about medically based sleep disorders, such as obstructive sleep apnea, that can affect a crewmember's ability to receive adequate sleep. However, the NPRM does not sufficiently address identifying and treating medically based sleep disorders such as obstructive sleep apnea, and the NTSB encourages the FAA to consider Safety Recommendations A-09-61 through -63 in the guidance associated with this NPRM. Additionally, the NTSB believes that training conducted under this proposed rule should also consider personal strategies that have been scientifically demonstrated to be effective for maintaining alertness and performance on the flight deck (for example, strategic napping) and that the draft AC supporting this training should also be modified to address specific methods that crews can use to maintain alertness on the flight deck. Fatigue Risk Management Systems and Data Collection The NTSB is encouraged by the proposed rule's recognition of FRMS as a way for both operators and the FAA to make informed decisions about operator-specific exemptions to the rule to address unique operational challenges. NTSB safety recommendations on FRMS, which are on the NTSB's Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements, have asked for the development of FRMS guidance for operators, as well as a methodology for the FAA to evaluate the effectiveness of these systems. The NPRM references the development of AC 120-103, "Fatigue Risk Management Systems for Aviation Safety," which is intended to help operators develop and implement FRMS and is largely consistent with the intent of Safety Recommendation A-08-44. However, because the NPRM states that operators would only be required to implement an FRMS when they are seeking exemptions to the rules, the NTSB is concerned that the FAA's proposed implementation of FRMS is too narrow. Operators not seeking exemptions could benefit from the synergistic advantages of fatigue risk mitigation provided by an FRMS closely coupled with effective flight and duty time regulations, and, as noted in AC 120-103, there may also be economic benefits to implementing these systems. As recommended in Safety Recommendation A-08-45, the FAA should continue to pursue the development and use of a methodology to continually assess the effectiveness of FRMS. Independent of the concept of FRMS, the proposed rule requires operators to provide regular submissions of schedule data and maintain data on fitness-for-duty reporting. The NTSB notes that collection and analysis of these data will be critical to ensuring that the proposed rule has the intended effect and will allow both the industry and the FAA to identify the need for adjustments. Moreover, the continual assessment of system operation in this manner is an integral component of current data-driven feedback approaches to safety management, such as safety management systems (SMS) and FRMS. If the proposed rule becomes final, both the industry and the FAA must commit to more than rote data collection and ensure that these data are thoroughly evaluated to ensure that any unforeseen fatigue hazards are identified, understood, and corrected. Summary Observations The NTSB's review of the NPRM suggests that, if adopted, the proposed rule will provide substantial benefits towards reducing the hazards associated with flight crew fatigue in Part 121 operations. As noted previously, the FAA chose to limit the scope of the NPRM, and therefore it does not specifically address Part 135 and Part 91 subpart K (fractional ownership) operations, which the NTSB has cited in related safety recommendations, or other safety critical personnel involved in air carrier operations. However, the NPRM does state that a proposal to address Part 135 operations may be forthcoming after the final rule for Part 121 is adopted. Although these areas are outside the scope of the current NPRM, the methodology the FAA used to develop the current NPRM should serve as a strong foundation for swiftly initiating regulatory efforts to address these other areas of concern, including NTSB recommendations pertaining to other safety critical personnel. The NTSB believes that time is of the essence to finalize the rule for Part 121 operations based on this NPRM. The record of accidents clearly shows that fatigue has caused, contributed to, or been identified as a safety issue in multiple accidents involving Part 121 operators. Many of these accidents have occurred since the FAA's last attempt in 1995 to enact rulemaking that would have addressed flight time and duty time issues-an effort that was eventually terminated with no change to the regulations. We are hopeful that, with stakeholder support, the legacy of the current inclusive and scientifically based rulemaking effort will be far more positive and sustained, as the traveling public, crewmembers, and air carriers must not continue to endure the significant human loss of life and financial costs resulting from continued accidents involving fatigue. The NTSB appreciates the opportunity to comment on this NPRM.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 12/29/2009
Response: The FAA described a number of its current activities and initiatives related to flight crew fatigue. Of particular relevance to these recommendations, on July 15, 2009, the FAA established the Flight and Duty Time Limitations and Rest Requirements Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). The ARC developed recommended rulemaking on flight time limitations, duty period limits, and rest requirements for pilots operating under Parts 121 and 135. On September 1, 2009, the ARC submitted its recommendations, which the FAA is currently evaluating and intends to publish as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in early 2010. After many years of inaction, the FAA now appears to be on the verge of taking the actions recommended. If the NPRM addresses the issues raised in Safety Recommendations A-94-194, A-95-113, and A-06-10, it will represent considerable progress The NTSB notes the aggressive schedule the FAA has proposed for publishing the NPRM, but we have not been informed of specific revisions that the NPRM will include, so we are unable to determine as yet whether these proposed revisions would fully satisfy Safety Recommendations A-94-194, A-95-113, and A-06-10. Accordingly, pending publication of an NPRM proposing to mandate the actions recommended, Safety Recommendations A 94 194, A 95 113, and A 06 10 remain classified OPEN -- UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 9/15/2009
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 9/15/2009 4:02:14 PM MC# 2090585: - From J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator: Over the past year the Federal Aviation Administration has worked with three major airlines, employee groups, and other industry organizations to develop an operations specification that requires a fatigue risk management approach to mitigating fatigue for flights that exceed 16 hours. The work done by these groups highlighted not only the need for using fatigue risk management principles in ultra long range flights, but other commercial flight operations. The FAA also held a 3-day fatigue symposium that presented the most current scientific knowledge of fatigue in aviation. The symposium was attended by over 300 industry personnel who are involved in managing fatigue in commercial flight operations. The information contained in the symposium is the cornerstone for the FAA's efforts to apply the latest science to aviation fatigue and alertness. The FAA has developed a plan that includes: Publishing the fatigue symposium proceedings; Developing an Advisory Circular (AC), Fatigue in Aviation Operations; Collecting and analyzing crewmember fatigue data during actual flight operations; Providing guidance for determining adequate rest periods; Developing an AC that provides guidance for including a Fatigue Risk Management System within air carriers' Safety Management Systems; and Developing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on flight time limitations, duty period limits and rest requirements for pilots in operations under parts 121 and 135. The FAA recognizes that the effects of fatigue are universal, and the profiles of operations occurring under parts 121 and 135 are similar enough that the same fatigue mitigations should be applied across operations for flightcrew members. On July 15, 2009, the FAA established the Flight and Duty Time Limitations and Rest Requirements Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). The ARC developed recommendations regarding rulemaking on flight time limitations, duty period limits and rest requirements for pilots in operations under parts 121 and 135 to: Consolidate and replace existing regulations for parts 121 and 135; Apply current fatigue science and information on fatigue; Address the development of fatigue risk management systems; and Harmonize with international fatigue mitigation initiatives. The ARC submitted its recommendations, in the form of a draft NPRM, which we are currently evaluating. We plan to publish the NPRM in December 2009.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 3/1/2006
Response: In its 3/1/2006 annual report to Congress, Regulatory Status of the National Transportation Safety Board's "Most Wanted" Recommendations to the Department of Transportation, the DOT wrote: The FAA issued an NPRM in 1995 proposing to amend existing regulations to establish one set of duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and rest requirements for flight crewmembers engaged in air transportation. The FAA encountered a number of technical and operational issues as a result of the NPRM and is presently looking at alternatives.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 2/1/2005
Response: In its 2/1/2005 annual report to Congress, Regulatory Status of the National Transportation Safety Board's "Most Wanted" Recommendations to the Department of Transportation, the DOT wrote: The FAA issued an NPRM proposing to amend existing regulations to establish one set of duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and rest requirements for flight crewmembers engaged in air transportation. The FAA encountered a number of technical and operational issues as a result of the NPRM and is presently looking at alternatives.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 4/26/2001
Response: The Safety Board has for many years documented the safety problem caused by operator fatigue in aviation and is frustrated by the FAA's lack of progress concerning this safety issue. The issue of human fatigue, specifically Safety Recommendations A-94-194, A-95-113, and A-99-45, is on the Board's list of Most Wanted Transportation Safety Improvements. The FAA's December 1995 NPRM addressed many, but not all, of the issues on this subject that concerned the Board. The Board notes that the FAA indicates that the SNPRM will address fatigue issues that the December 1995 NPRM did not address. The FAA indicates that the SNPRM will address circadian rhythm disruption, which was not addressed in the NPRM, as well as extended duty time, another important issue. The Board recognizes the large number of comments that have been submitted concerning these regulations and the contentious nature of the associated discussion. The Board is pleased that the FAA is taking action to develop and implement these regulations and urges the FAA to move expeditiously to complete this action. However, in the 5 years since the NPRM was issued and the 1 1/2 years since the FAA indicated to the Board that an SNPRM was needed, the FAA has not taken action. Pending issuance of the SNPRM and expeditious action to implement a final rule addressing the issues in these recommendations, Safety Recommendations A-94-194, A-95-113 and -125, and A-99-45 remain classified OPEN -- UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 12/5/2000
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 12/08/2000 5:00:13 PM MC# 2001766 - From Jane F. Garvey, Administrator: In December 1995, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 95-18, Flight Crewmember Duty Period Limitations, Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements. The NPRM proposes to amend existing regulations to establish one set of duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and rest requirements for flight crewmembers engaged in air transportation. The FAA encountered a number of technical and operational issues as a result of the NPRM and tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to review reserve issues related to the NPRM. Although the ARAC was unable to reach consensus on a recommendation, it did provide the FAA with a better understanding of the issues affecting industry. Consequently, the FAA plans to issue a Supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) that takes into consideration the technical and operational concerns that were raised during the NPRM comment period. The SNPRM prescribes a maximum duty period linked to a maximum flight time restriction that is associated with a minimum rest period based on the number of pilots. The FAA anticipates issuing the SNPRM by spring 2001. The Board asked for an explanation as to why the FAA believed it was necessary to issue an SNPRM as opposed to a final rule. In view of the numerous comments received as a result of the 1995 NPRM, the FAA has reevaluated its proposal and intends to issue a new proposal that best addresses the fatigue issue concretely, while at the same time gives the airlines the flexibility they need to operate. I have been advised by counsel that, because the FAA has some new proposals and because the FAA must solicit the views of the public on the new proposals, the agency must issue another proposal for comment. I will provide the Board with a copy of the SNPRM as soon as it is issued.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 2/17/2000
Response: The Safety Board would appreciate periodic updates of the FAA's activities to enforce these existing regulations. In May 1999, the Safety Board issued a safety report, evaluation of United States Department of Transportation efforts in the 1990's to address operator fatigue, that provided an update on the activities and efforts by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the modal administrations to address operator fatigue and, consequently, the progress that had been made in the past 10 years to implement actions called for in recommendations related to operator fatigue, including recommendations to revise the hours-of-service regulations in all modes of transportation. In the safety report, the Safety Board expressed extreme disappointment in the lack of rulemaking by the DOT and the modal administrations to change the current hours-of-service regulations, despite their efforts to conduct extensive research on fatigue and to develop educational materials on the detrimental effects of fatigue in the transportation environment. The Safety Board recommended that the DOT require the modal administrations to modify the appropriate CFR to establish scientifically based hours-of-service regulations that set limits on hours of service, provide predictable work and rest schedules, and consider circadian rhythms and human sleep and rest requirements (A-99-45). Further, because the FAA's efforts had not resulted in any changes to the flight and duty time regulations, the Safety Board reclassified A-95-113 and A-95-125 OPEN – UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE. These recommendations were also reiterated in the Board's safety report. The FAA's July response has provided no new evidence to indicate that the intent of these recommendations is being acted upon. Consequently, the status of A-95-113 and A-95-125 remains OPEN – UNACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 7/30/1999
Response: Letter Mail Controlled 8/4/99 12:19:58 PM MC# 990843 - From Jane F. Garvey, Administrator: On 12/11/95, the FAA issued NPRM 95-18, Flight Crewmember Duty Period Limitations, Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements. The NPRM proposes to amend existing regulations to establish one set of duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and rest requirements for flight crewmembers engaged in air transportation. The NPRM also takes into consideration scientific data contained in studies conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to flight crewmember duty periods, flight times, and rest. The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee was tasked to review reserve issues related to the NPRM, but was unable to reach consensus on a recommendation. The FAA is presently conducting a risk assessment to determine the probability of preventing future incidents related to fatigue. In the meantime, the FAA published a Notice of intent in the Federal Register on 6/15/99, announcing the FAA's intent to enforce the regulations concerning flight time limitations and rest requirements. This Notice informs affected certificate holders and flight crewmembers of the FAA's intent to enforce its rules and provides them with the opportunity to review their practices and, if necessary, come into full regulatory compliance. I have enclosed a copy of the Notice of intent for the Board's information. I will provide the board with a copy of the supplemental NPRM as soon as it is issued.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 6/1/1999
Response: From the study Evaluation of U.S. Department of Transportation Efforts in the 1990s to Address Operator Fatigue (issued 6/1/1999): Scientific research has shown that certain sleep factors can affect fatigue and performance: insufficient sleep, irregular and unpredictable schedules, working during low points in the circadian rhythm. The current hours-of-service regulations do not accommodate these concerns. The Safety Board believes these factors should be considered when revising the hours-of-service regulations. Therefore, the Safety Board recommends that the DOT require the modal administrations to modify the appropriate Codes of Federal Regulations to establish scientifically based hours-of-service regulations that set limits on hours of service, provide predictable work and rest schedules, and consider circadian rhythms and human sleep and rest requirements. The Safety Board also recommends that the DOT seek Congressional authority, if necessary, for the modal administrations to establish these regulations. Based on the issuance of this new recommendation, Safety Recommendation I-89-3 is being classified “Closed Unacceptable Action/Superseded.” The Safety Board is also recommending separately that each modal administration—the FAA, FHWA, FRA, USCG, and RSPA—establish, within 2 years, scientifically based hours-of-service regulations that set limits on hours of service, provide predictable work and rest schedules, and consider circadian rhythms and human sleep and rest requirements. Further, because the FAA’s efforts have not resulted in any changes to the flight and duty time regulations, the Safety Board has reclassified Safety Recommendations A-95-113 and A-95-125 “Open—Unacceptable Response.” These recommendations are being reiterated in conjunction with this report. For the FHWA, the revised regulations, at a minimum and as recommended by the Safety Board in 1995, should also (a) require sufficient rest provisions to enable drivers to obtain at least 8 continuous hours of sleep after driving for 10 hours or being on duty for 15 hours, and (b) eliminate 49 CFR 395.1 paragraph (h), which allows drivers with sleeper berth equipment to cumulate the 8 hours of off-duty time in two separate periods. As a result of this new recommendation to the FHWA, Safety Recommendations H-95-1 and -2 are being classified “Closed— Unacceptable Action/Superseded.”

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date: 7/5/1996
Response: The Board notes that the FAA issued Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 95-18, "Flight Crewmember Duty Period Limitations, Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements," on 12/11/95, which, when finalized, will fulfill the intent of the recommendation. Therefore, pending issuance of the final rule, the Board classifies A-95-113 OPEN – ACCEPTABLE RESPONSE.

From: FAA
To: NTSB
Date: 2/12/1996
Response: MC# 960153: - From David R. Hinson, Administrator: On 12/11/95, the FAA issued Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM ) 95-18, flight crewmember duty period limitations, flight time limitations and rest requirements. This NPRM proposes to amend existing regulations to establish one set of duty period limitation, flight time limitations, and rest requirements for flight crewmembers engaged in air transportation. The NPRM takes into consideration scientific data contained in recent National Aeronautics and Space Administration studies relating to flight crewmember duty periods, flight times, and rest.

From: NTSB
To: FAA
Date:
Response: At the 1990 Board meeting addressing the NTSB’s Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements (MWL), the Board voted to place Safety Recommendations I-89-1 through I-89-3 and R-89-19 on the MWL under the issue category “Cross Modal Human Fatigue/ Hours-of-Work Policy.” Safety Recommendations H-95-1, A-94-194, A-95-113, A-97-71, A-99-45, I-99-1, H-99-19, R-91-45, R-91-47, R-91-48, R-96-20 through R-96-22, R-96-56, R-99-2, P-98-30, P-99-12, M-99-1, A-06-10, A-07-30, A-07-32, and A-08-44 were added to this category at later dates.