CAP 371 Amendments - Sold down the line ?
The BALPA Airwaves supplement has a choice article on the progress of FODCOM 12-01 Proposals to amend CAP 371. See <a href="http://www.chirp.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.chirp.co.uk/</a> and go to the 'What's New' banner.
For those new to this topic here is a brief reminder. The DERA (now known as Qinetiq) conducted a fatigue study on a large British airline. This measured the performance of crews operating multi-sectors on short haul duties. An outcome of this study was a recommendation that the law be subtlety changed to prevent a series of five early duties being rostered utilising the one hour time zone change between Britain and Europe.
Affected UK Operators were given a fixed period in which to comment after which the proposals would be used to amend the CAP. It would seem, according to BALPA, that one 'very large UK operator' managed to coerce rival airlines into co-ordinated response along lines of total rejection of the amendment.
To state matters clearly these amendments are solely a safety issue. Working practices in the industry have changed quite a bit over the last decade to reflect the requirements of business travel. Human physiology is struggling to keep up with imposed demands of the rosters these schedules demand. Perfectly reasonable scientific research has indicated a remedy in the interests of public safety.
However, At least one politically astute individual has rallied round the opposition and presented the CAA with a case it is frightened to answer lest it be criticised for compromising the commercial interests of the industry at this difficult time.
To put matters bluntly a really tired crew operating the London TMA, in bad weather and with an operational problem are a public liability.
So what is going on?
At the heart of our industrial society commerce rule over safety. The publics lives are risked at the expense of corporate profits.
If there is a fatigue related accident involving a crew on the fourth sector of their fifth early start then the inky finger of blame could well be directed at the thoughtless individual who rallied round the other UK Operations Directors to divert necessary safety regulation so his bosses balance sheet looked a bit better.