Originally Posted by
Emma Royds
. If a trip is deemed to be legal and if you raise your head above the parapet and shout fatigued and not fit to operate, then I would suggest that caution may be prudent, since BA may find it convenient to view the reporter as the problem rather than the timings of the trip itself. A number of you commute and some involve air travel in this process. The company could take delight in wading through staff travel records and probing into your travel and rest arrangements prior to your trips, so that a cause for your fatigue can conveniently (for the company!) be established. With the company seeming to wish to take a greater interest in how you all travel to work, then I suspect what may seem to be a rather invasive action, is not beyond the realms of possibility. Such actions could also act as a deterrent to those thinking of whistleblowing as well. If a trip is deemed to be legal in the eyes of the regulator, then it takes a lot of people to create a case for it to be deemed to be not fit for purpose.!
This paragraph. What you say re caution, I know is well meant. Id be very surprised if anyone at BA is unaware of their commuting being looked at before filing such reports. The surveillance of commuting on personal time is very well known and a hot potato. Incidentally I’ll add the current monitoring is not solely triggered by a fatigue report. It’s a wide spread audit that’s seemingly increasing in resources.
Re EASA FTL. There was an important re emphasis from the previous essence of state regulations when EASA FTL was constructed re fatigue reporting.
I appreciate you may not be too aware of EASA FTL not flying under them. But the FRMS system was a hand in glove
condition to fly to EASA FTL rules. EASA FTLs were constructed only such that airlines MUST have an active FRMS. A legal roster or more correctly a roster constructed to FTL limits, does not infer fatigue free under EASA rules, hence the FMRS.
That’s the very essence of the system. It is not a singular side addition as previous state FTLs. As such airlines and the regulator have to respect fatigue reporting. I do agree changing a fatiguing section of work will take somewhat of a trend in reality to stop outliers causing constant disruption to scheduling, but equally they cannot sit on reports in ignorance waiting for an artificial high amount.
That is precisely the system and a culture of treading lightly and discouragement of fatigue reporting goes against EASA FTL. Some U.K. airlines adopt their FRMS responsibility that allows them to fly under EASA FTLS quite well. I gather EasyJet for example have an active, open and well used FRMS. That is exactly the way flying under EASA was meant to be treated. It was acknowledged during construction the rules can not possibly catch all fatigueing combinations. They have great limitations.
“You can fly to these limits, but only, and only if you have an FRMS to catch fatigue”. A feedback loop system. It’s not meant to be a section of railway track that disappears into the buffers with fatigue reports being filed away ne’er to be seen again. Hence fatigue reporting goes to MOR (although when filed through airlines at least BA seem to override the MOR status sometimes)
I have filed a fatigue report with BA and disappointingly did not meet the same positive response as others. I was told “BA fatigue reporting culture is still new and we’re learning”
A somewhat concerning statement of juvenile innocence given fatigue has existed for years, and holding an AOC requires a mature compliance and understanding of state procedures. I hope the comment was just that manager’s attitude and not indicative of a wider culture.
You are right. If someone is abusing their commute they would be wise to visit their lifestyle before blaming a line. However, reporting fatigue is not only a legal requirement it’s meant to be open and encouraged. After all no airline wants knackered crews either.