UPS pilots mount legal challenge to FAA's pilot fatigue rule

The Independent Pilots Assn. (IPA), representing about 2,700 United Parcel Service (UPS) pilots, petitioned a US federal court in Washington Thursday, challenging cargo carriers' exemption from new pilot flight time, duty and rest regulations finalized by FAA Wednesday (ATW Daily News, Dec. 22).

FAA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on pilot fatigue issued in September 2010 did include airfreight airlines (ATW Daily News, Sept. 13, 2010). But FAA chose to exclude cargo carriers from the final rule, instead giving them the option to opt into the new requirements "Covering cargo operators under the new rule would be too costly compared to the benefits generated in this portion of the industry," FAA stated.

IPA attorney William Trent said the union does not seek to delay implementation of the rule (US airlines must comply with the new regulations by Dec. 21, 2013), but wants cargo airlines included within the scope of the rule. FAA made clear in the that cargo was excluded based on a cost-benefit analysis, saying that cargo "compliance costs significantly exceed the quantified societal benefits."

Implementation of the rule is expected to cost airlines $297 million. FAA contended that including cargo carriers would add another $306 million in costs for the airline industry. In a footnote to the rule, the agency explained why it believes imposing such costs on airfreight operators are not worth it: "The projected benefit of avoiding one fatal all-cargo accident ranges between $20.35 million and $32.55 million, depending on the number of crewmembers on board the aircraft."

Trent said in a statement that FAA's new rule is plagued by "internal inconsistency," adding, "For example, the FAA states that current regulations do not adequately address the risk of fatigue and that the maintenance of the status quo presents an 'unacceptably high aviation accident risk.' Yet two of the very factors that the FAA cites as exacerbating the risk of pilot fatigue—operating at night and crossing multiple time zones—are more present in cargo operations than in passenger operations."

He accused FAA of providing insufficient information on how it conducted the cost-benefit analysis that led to cargo's exemption. "The rule is wholly and utterly opaque when it comes to providing any factual support for the cost-benefit conclusions reached," Trent said.