Summary

1/4/2013--Introduced. Safe Skies Act of 2013 - Directs the Secretary of Transportation (DOT), not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act, to modify a specified Department... Read More

Status

This bill was introduced on Jan 4, 2013, in a previous session of Congress, but was not passed.

Date Introduced
Jan 4, 2013

Bill Text

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Transportation to modify the final rule relating to flightcrew member duty and rest requirements for passenger operations of air carriers to apply to all-cargo operations of air carriers, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Safe Skies Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF FINAL RULE RELATING TO FLIGHTCREW MEMBER DUTY AND REST REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER OPERATIONS TO APPLY TO ALL-CARGO OPERATIONS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall modify the final rule specified in subsection (b) so that the flightcrew member duty and rest requirements under that rule apply to flightcrew members in all-cargo operations conducted by air carriers in the same manner as those requirements apply to flightcrew members in passenger operations conducted by air carriers. (b) Final Rule Specified.--The final rule specified in this subsection is the final rule of the Federal Aviation Administration-- (1) published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 330); and (2) relating to flightcrew member duty and rest requirements. (c) Applicability of Rulemaking Requirements.--The requirements of section 553 of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply to the modification required by subsection (a). <all>

Read Full Text

Sentiment Map

Select:

Nation

774 Supporting
43 Opposing
95% 5%

State: CA

53 Supporting
2 Opposing
96% 4%

District: 1st

1 Supporting
0 Opposing
100% 0%

Popularity Trend

Organizations Supporting

All pilots are human when it comes to fatigue, however the FAA's updated flight- and duty- time regulations apply only to passenger pilots, excluding pilots who fly only cargo. Leaving pilots who fly only cargo out of the new rules is a serious safety concern and affects everyone who relies on safe air transportation.

All pilots are human when it comes to fatigue, however the FAA's updated flight- and duty- time regulations apply only to passenger pilots, excluding pilots who fly only cargo. Leaving pilots who fly only cargo out of the new rules is a serious safety concern and affects everyone who relies on safe air transportation.

Organizations Opposing

No organizations opposing yet.

Users Supporting

I support The Safe Skies Act because it will bring CARGO and PASSENGER airline crews under one level of safety. A tired pilot is a tired pilot whether he or she flying cargo or passengers. I urge you to please support HR 182 to create one level of safety within the aviation.

Share
MI
9
bandit_driver
MI-9
10 months ago

I support The Safe Skies Act because...the US airlines need to have a level playing field. For the last 30 years the airline industry has gone from high to low with respect to job security. The industry is finally on the upswing again and our futures are bright but if foreign carriers are allowed to undercut US airlines we will loos job security fast. Please vote to keep our skies safe and deny foreign carriers rights beyond what is already law.

Share
NJ
7
kjkil
NJ-7
1 year ago

I support The Safe Skies Act because all pilots are affected by fatigue and the cargo pilots have even greater challenges. The risk to the public is still there since they operate in the same airspace and airports as passenger aircraft, and mistakes made do to fatigue could result in accidents with passenger planes as well. Please vote for HR 182 to protect the pilots and traveling public. Best regards,

Share
CO
4
Anonymous3382091
CO-4
1 year ago

I support The Safe Skies Act because... all commercial 121 pilots should have the same level of standards for safety.

Share
WY
0
Anonymous1098012
WY-0
1 year ago

I support The Safe Skies Act because... This is just common sense. I'm surprised to find out this isn't already a law. Every life is precious....whether you are flying the plane or on the ground, your life matters. The same rest rules have to apply in the sky no matter how many people are on the airplane.

Share
PA
6
leaka66
PA-6
1 year ago

I support The Safe Skies Act because...as a cargo pilot for FedEx, I am required to fly many long hours on the backside of the clock resulting in chronic fatigue. I need more breaks. I need longer breaks. Chronic fatigue is unsafe.

Share
NH
2
Anonymous678010
NH-2
1 year ago

Users Opposing

I oppose H.R. 182: Safe Skies Act of 2013 because...take out the PORK..."and for other purposes.".

Share
VA
4
TimothyL.O'Neil
VA-4
2 years ago

I oppose H.R. 182: Safe Skies Act of 2013. While I agree that cargo pilots suffer the same fatigue as passenger pilots, it is not the Federal Governments job to regulate pilots rest time at any level. Its the pilots personal responsibility to regulate his or her own sleep. If the pilot is too fatigued then the pilot needs to let his employer know that he/she is not in proper condition to fly. We as a country need to take personal responsibly for our actions and stop pushing the blame for our misconduct on others. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and though regulation is required for many things our Government has become over bloated with regulations/laws. The Government should stop micromanaging every aspect of every business and the personal lives of its citizens.

Share
WI
1
glenclova
WI-1
2 years ago

I oppose H.R. 182: Safe Skies Act of 2013 because...Unless it is a power given to the Federal government by the Constitution of the United States, the Federal government should not be regulating it.

Share
TX
22
America.First
TX-22
2 years ago

I oppose H.R. 182: Safe Skies Act of 2013 because...If the federal gov't is involved it will get screwed up and obnoxiously expensive and ineffective.

Share
MO
4
mackelby
MO-4
2 years ago

I oppose H.R. 182: Safe Skies Act of 2013 because unless it is a power given to the Federal government by the Constitution of the United States, the Federal government should not be regulating it.

Share
PA
12
sgtsandman
PA-12
2 years ago

I oppose H.R. 182: Safe Skies Act of 2013. I am a pilot and the FAA already has too many rules. I am your constituent and I will be watching your vote.

Share
NC
4
frankrz
NC-4
2 years ago

Bill Summary


1/4/2013--Introduced.
Safe Skies Act of 2013 - Directs the Secretary of Transportation (DOT), not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act, to modify a specified Department of Transportation (DOT) final rule relating to flightcrew member duty and rest requirements so that the requirements under that rule apply to all-cargo flightcrew members to the same extent they apply to air passenger flightcrew members.

H.R. 181 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located... Veterans Dog Training Therapy Act