On August 28,
TNO wrote,
"
I agree that an employer should provide a meal for Tech Crew in flight.."
On August 29,
RTA provided us with the results of some researching he'd done, and wrote,
"
CAO 48 deals with flight crew time, duty, and other limitations.
Para 1.4 goes on to say:
Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly, and an operator shall not require that person to fly if either the flight crew member is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, fatigue or illness which may affect judgement or performance to the extent that safety may be impaired."
Thereby placing the onus on the operator
ie the employer to ensure that the flight crew members are not a threat to the Safety of the flight they are crewing.
In other words, the Safety equipment needed to counter the adverse affects caused by low blood sugar levels during flight, due to lack of nourishment, is the RESPONSIBILITY of the operator.
Quite plainly,
TNO, nourishment of the crew on duty has to be considered a Safety issue
Just as crews are required to undertake simulator a couple of times every year - to ensure their proficiency and SAFE operation - and for the same reason aircraft are required to carry reserves over and above the minimum sector fuel - to ensure flight SAFETY, the SAFE OPERATION of the flight(s) conducted by the duty crew must also be
maximised....not
minimised.....by having the employer provide that training, fuel, and crew nourishment.
Would you also suggest,
TNO, that we should pay for the required sims, and extra reserve fuel carried?
As a passenger, how secure would you feel, if you were advised that the pilots were paying for the fuel on your flight?
Aviation history is strewn with casualties that have resulted from crashes caused by fuel starvation, where the (usually private) pilot has had the personal responsibility of paying for the gas.
Let's stick to the Safety aspect of why meals are REQUIRED for crews on duty - that is the crux of the argument.
