4. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TEE PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE (PTF)

US ALPA pointed out to the FAA that it was a step back in view of safety to have abandoned the 80,000 pound rule and for instituting the system of determining the crew complement of an aircraft through evaluation of workloads of test flights.
In regards to the development of the DC-9 Super 80 (DC-9-80), US ALPA tried to impress on the FAA that in order to evaluate the workload of the DC-9-80, it was necessary to conduct a full mission simulation under the same conditions as a line flight. Unfortunately the FAA did not comply.

The following reports were filed during the basic test flights of the DC-9-80:

Still in the high pitch attitude, a post stall gyration was encountered, banking 90 degrees to the left and right with control becoming impossible until anti-spin drag chute(s) were deployed.
During the minimum runway landing test, complete separation of the tail from the body occurred during a hard landing.
In a landing test during a simulated complete hydraulic failure, the landing gear was seriously damaged.
The complez flight guidance system with which the aircraft was equipped, was found to cause considerable increase in the pilots' workload while landing in the high traffic volume East Coast.

The fouowing problems concerning the flight tests were pointed out:

Decent to Minimum Altitudes were not carried out during instrument approaches and missed approaches were not required.
Weather factors were not considered during the test, the flight was made only from the point of departure to the destination with no considerations made for diversion.
In supposition that there would be no inflight problems concerning the passengers, pilots did not leave their seats at any time.
Emergency procedure simulations without aural warnings and warning lights were conducted.

To change the attitude held by the FAA which refused to listen to US ALPA's claims on safety regarding crew complement and to correct the undesirable change in the rule by the head of the FAA at that time, US ALPA presented the FAA with five conditions in March 1981. US ALPA planned to strike on a nation-wide scale if these conditions were not met.

The five conditions were as follows:
1) A third party would participate in the airworthiness certification process to solve human factor problems, such as the number of crewmen required in the next generation aircraft.
2) The FAA was to stop its retrogressive revision that eztended pilots'flight time without consideration for sufficient rest or sleep.
3) The FAA was to promote the development of effective air collision prevention systems (equipment) and improve air traffic control.
4) The utilization of the surplus from the Flight Trust Fund to procure instruments necessary to ensure safety.
5) The FAA was to correct its punitive attitude towards pilots.

In answer to the planned national strike by US ALPA, the US government proposed the establishment of the Presidential Task Force and requested US ALPA not to strike. The Presidential Task Force was to be a committee consisting of three ezperts in the fields of technology and safety appointed by the President. They were to make a study of the Two and Three Man Crew Complement and present their findings to the President within 120 days. US ALPA accepted the proposal and did not effect a strike. Airmen all over the world were astonished by US ALPA's decision to agree to accept the results of the committee, no matter what the outcome, as long as the committee conducted the study in what was recognized to be a fair manner.

Causes for astonishment were:

120 days for study was too short a time to get results on the crew complement problem which has continued for several decades.
Since the three member committee did not include anyone experienced in airline operations, there was no assurance that airline crewmen would be fairly represented.
The committee has no specific positioning.

US ALPA's decision came as a surprise since the problems concerning the PTF had been pointed out beforehand. Particulary in view of the fact that it had been battling with the crew complement problem for many years and that it had planned to strike if the five prevously mentioned conditions were not met.

The grounds behind the US ALPA decision were understood to be as follows:
-The percentage of two man aircraft in service to lower flight cost in the I excessively competitive environment caused by deregulation had increased considerably.
-Due to the increase in its members flying two man airplanes, US ALPA could no longer unite together to fight for the three man crew I complement.
-Lay offs, wage problems and other labor conditions effected by management grew progressively worse due to deregulation and they could not be certain that they could continue fighting on the crew complement problem.
An increasing number of unions wishing to join US ALPA could not do so due to the three man crew complement policy.

Looking at the events that took place up to the establishment of the PTF, the proposed US ALPA strike seems to be the direct cause of the crew complement issue but in actuality, it was an attempt at manuevering for a political answer, in the midst of the oil shock and deregulation, the crew complement controversy that had continued for a long time among the aircraft manufacturer, airlines, airmen and the FAA (that issues the airworthiness certificate).