Boredcounter and Beaver Eager
Not wishing to be too pedantic here, but you both seem to be labouring under a commonly held misapprehension as to the 'legality' of the rostering you each describe.
If you read my post above (not a lot to ask, I would have thought), you will see there that Hugmonster's 'catch-all' is in the ANOs and adequately covers both the scenarios you describe. The point is that irrespective of the roster's conformity with either CAP371 or the company's FTL Scheme, in circumstances where it is either known or foreseeable that a crew will be operating in a dangerous state of fatigue, the crew AND the airline are in breach of the ANO and liable to fines, imprisonment or both. The scenarios described are unarguably such circumstances and only a fool would argue otherwise.
Boredcounter, you say you considered challenging the crew. Why did you not? Why did you accept their explanation as to 7on/7off being to their liking? Surely, personal preference is not the issue here. The real issue is fatigue and the dangers present when a crew is flying an aircraft while suffering from fatigue are self-evident, are they not?
Let me put it this way: would you like to have been a passenger on these flights or be living with your wife and family under the flight paths of the aircraft concerned on each of the days in question? I most certainly would not.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 03 July 2001).]