The FAA yesterday approved changes to Pilot’s work schedule regulations which was initiated following in the crash of Colgan Air 3407 in Buffalo NY, USA and updated limitations based on outdated fatigue research from the 1960s.

The new rules will mean that pilots must have at least 8 hours sleep per day and get a minimum 10 hours rest between flights. Further changes mean that pilots must have 30 consecutive hours off per week, up from previous rules of 22 hours rest per week.

Regulators and pilot associations alike welcomed the move as an improvement on existing legislation. “The new rules give pilots enough time to get the rest they really need to safely get passengers to their destinations”, said FAA Acting Administrator Michael Huerta.

The President of the Association of Airline Pilots (ALPA) Lee Moak said he was happy with the regulations, “For decades, the [Air Line Pilots Association] has fought for regulations that are based on modern science".

A similar project to change Flight Time Limitations in the EU which will closely match the FAA restrictions is currently underway. However, in contrast to ALPA’s support of the FAA rules, the rule change is being met with rigorous resistance from the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) with their “Tired Pilots Risk Lives” campaign (below).

In contrast to the FAA rules and proposed EU limitations, UK pilots must have 11 hours between flights and have 34 hours off per week.

BALPA are calling for proper scientifically-based flight time limitation rules across Europe saying “Pilots recognise the operator’s need to be commercially viable, but this must not be with the diluting of measures designed to maintain the highest levels of flight safety.”

However, back in 2009 the Association of European Airlines (AEA) argued that existing rules are adequate. The AEA Secretary General Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus responded to an independent report which called for increased rest periods by saying “We have rules, and the airlines abide by them. Those rules were drafted by experts who were satisfied that they were safe, and so they have proved; we find no compelling arguments that they have failed to deliver”.

It seems that whilst the FAA regulations have been welcomed as a huge improvement, some areas believe more can be done.

What is your view?