It seems as if my post has ruffled a feather or two, which was not the intention, but the personal accounts of 2 Whites 2 Reds and bex88 have to some degree, illustrated the point I was trying to make. There is a fine line between collating data following fatigue reporting and being unnecessarily invasive and/or unpleasant in how this is achieved. There has been an FRMS at my outfit for around a decade (maybe longer) and I have personally seen the excellent side of fatigue reporting but I have also heard of some rather unfavourable accounts from colleagues. Given that FRMS seems to be in its early days at BA based on what others have posted, I simply wished to highlight a side to FRMS reporting, that 2 Whites 2 Reds and bex88 have highlighted to some extent.
Wireless
“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)
You raise the interesting point about how the regulator is part of the reporting loop for fatigue reporting and this raises an interesting predicament, since an operator is obliged to preach that they wholeheartedly support an open a fair fatigue reporting system, yet any operator will wish to keep the number of fatigue reports to as few as possible, so that it does not warrant extra attention from the regulator.
MikeAlpha320
Whether a trip is legal or not is irrelevant. Fatigue is personal! Some people find things more/less fatiguing than others.
That is what makes this process one that can be unfairly biased in favour of the operator and not the reporter. It is far more convenient for the operator to try pin the cause of the fatigue on the individual and not on the operator's processes. There is no intent to scaremonger on my part and no one should be scared to report fatigued in any company. I myself will report fatigued, as I have done so in the past but I have seen some colleagues who would rather just call sick rather than call sick due to fatigue and subsequently document their fatigue, as it will remove any potential spotlight being shone on their life outside of the flight deck. The post-fatigue reporting follow up process by the operator, must be relevant but it is imperative that the reporter stands up, should they feel what they are being asked to account for is not relevant. Your colleague has mentioned how their commute of just under 90 minutes had to be accounted for in detail but is all this detail actually relevant given that the long-standing 90 minute time recommendation for traveling to home base, was complied with? I have seen a few colleagues with a higher than average number of sick days being referred for medical tests so that their reported fatigue can be 'investigated' and it is easy for any operator to defend such a practice as not being punitive, as it can be linked to due diligence being performed within the context of their FRMS. On the other hand, one could argue that such an approach is perhaps excessive and could act as a deterrent to others but it's highly subjective depending on if you view this from the perspective of the reporter or the operator. None of us would like our sleeping, eating, exercise and travel history probed into and especially so when one will probably be unsure what will constitute an answer that will draw extra unwanted attention towards our personal life.
4468
A VNC in the BACC?
How many friends did you say you have in BA?
Funnily enough, none of them seem to have expressed their concern about any of the issues that have been discussed here recently. Either it's another case of 'I'm alright Jack' as has been alluded to here or perhaps they are just apathetic.