Leo it is quite something to see that when the actual topic at hand does not suit your skewed view of the "real" world, your lineaments that we are well used to at this stage come to the fore. Rather than address the issue of fatigue and how it has been dealt with in this operator you decide to go and attack IALPA and IALPA's president. How does this help the debate except if only to demonstrate that you are a one-trick pony, unable to coherently comment on anything else save that which quite obviously gets on your nerves?
Anyway back to the subject. The IAA audit all the carriers, that is true. The IAA has no equivalent of CAP371, as has been stated previously, each operator submits a scheme suited to their type of operation (
) and this is approved by the operator.
The fatigue case in question poses an interesting issue. Say another pilot in the same position elects to operate the extra sector, and an incident/accident occurs. The report eventually cites that fatigue may have been / was a factor.
Who gets hung out to dry? The pilot, as it is their own responsibility to not operate while fatigued! The operator gets off scott free saying the pilot did not have to accept the duty if he thought he would be fatigued!
Here is the nub of the issue: the IAA have no real intent to regulate the operators, just the individual licence holders. And in the meantime, the FR management are allowed to send out a message to their pilots about how they view fatigue.
Remember Leo, as you fly the line, phone at the ready to run and save the operation,
you will always end up responsible.