WW
I agree the regulator regulates but this should not be exclusively and without contact with the operators of the policy.
At the end of the day it is the operator that is going to try to prevent the crew member being given the chance to become fatigued. They will employ the policy and their opinion counts. This opinion should be courted by the regulator as should that of all interested parties.
You may remember the third revision which introduced the early/late regulation which was a shockingly poor attempt at producing a balanced 'rule'. At the rostering stage an operator could roster only one night duty if finishing before 2100 and yet an on-the-day an operator could retain the crew member on duty until 0200 and thus allow them to perform 2 more night duties [unplanned]. Put a pilot in your scenario over London TMA on the back of a 2300 LGW-TFS on third [unplanned] night with poor wx and everything else against you.....and someone let that rule be introduced! The example proves the risk involved with any 'minor adjustments'.
Might just be that someone learnt a lesson that just because a doctor and some crews say something is the s**t end of the stick doesn't mean we have to run around with the red safety flag and introduce every recommendation. I want to be safer than is possible but there is every chance 'tweeking' the rules will make the problem a whole lot worse.
Furthermore, we should all remember that CAP371 is a publication aimed at reducing the instances of fatigue in aircrew.....not a labour agreement. Both Operators, Unions and individual crew need to find a more developed method of working with each other to stop the chances of fatigue. The CAA, as the regulator, needs to learn that regulation should be a last resort.
I don't pretend to have all answers but I would love to see an end to this debate in my lifetime...
MM