Regrettably, some people regard the concept of Crew Duty Time as a challenge to their can-do spirit and manhood. This is an outdated and frankly dangerous attitude and leads to lip service being paid to cumulative fatigue risks. There is bugger-all point in pressing for another trip in support of the lads on the ground if you subsequently pile in on landing...
Hence my view is that someone claiming to have operated for 7 hours in the same epoch that a colleague has claimed to operate for 10 is setting a very dangerous precedent. It isn't clever and no-one gives a stuff how it appears in a personal flying logbook, the issue is whether the 7 is as accurate a representation of cumulative fatigue as the 10. What would be the effect of the 'extra 3'....?
There are two issues at stake here - first is the one I discussed in my first response, that of the logging of hours airbourne vs chock-chock and its affect on the hours available to effective tasking. Anyone using common sense would, I hope, appreciate where we are coming from.
The second issue is that of crew duty as discussed by yourself and Torque Limited.
Crew duty is something like speeding. Hit the kid that runs out 5 yards in front with you 1mph below the limit and you are ok, 1 mph above and speed was a factor, indeed, you were dangerous driving. Spear in after 7hrs58 min and you're safe. 8hrs 05? Outside crew duty and therefore guilty!
The idea that we are all ok to fly for up to 8hrs but not after is clearly drivel. It is certainly based on statistics I am sure however there will always be crews that unfortunatly prang both inside and outside their crew duty. Aside from financial reasons there is no imperative to fly outside of duty for civis. In the Forces there is often good reason to consider it. Note I said 'consider,' that is distinctly different from 'do it.'
This is an outdated and frankly dangerous attitude and leads to lip service being paid to cumulative fatigue risks.
I beg to differ. Whilst there is always the possibility of just ignoring the limits from what I have seen it works somewhat differently. We always aim to stay within crew duty but for various reasons this is not always the case. Why? Tasking changes, cabs break, weather causes delays, cabs spear in, troops are in contact, ammunition runs out... !!!! happens.
So - you say we run out of crew duty and call STOP! Fine. That is safe, it saves us and the a/c. It is entirely correct wrt Flight Safety. How about those in need? Those for whom we exist to serve? Should we not consider their position? We are in HM Forces, we are paid to take risk day to day, we are paid to take difficult and dangerous decisions. We are paid to balance risks.
Adopting the PC moral high ground and quoting the rules is all very well, it is easy, you are surely unassailable? However, it is also intellectualy lazy and reduces our capability. I firmly belive in the concept of crew duty - why? Because its a line in the sand. You cross it only after thought and consideration. Once beyond it you are put mentaly on a higher state of alert than you might otherwise be. It is a hole in your cheese... but only one. It is your cue to review the situation. Are we still fit? Is the task really necessary? Is there another asset / crew better placed? What if the blokes don't get this? How are they and their ops affected? Is the met good / bad / worsening? Harry black or gin-pigs? How is the cab - carrying minor snags or tip-top? What have I and my crew done in the last few days? Are they happy? Are those holes lining up?! At the board of inquiry will they say I was foolish and guilty or that I made a considered and understandable decision in light of the operational circumstances and was just unlucky?
If Human Factors only reared it's tragic head when we went outside of crew duty then we would stick to the duty and all be safe. It doesn't. Thats why we all have Human Factors training, why Flight Safety is drummed into us and why religeously sticking to crew duty and ignoring everything else will not ensure your survival. Military aviation is about risk - considered taking, mitigating and knowing when to stop. There is bugger-all point in pressing for another trip in support of the lads on the ground if you subsequently pile in on landing...
I agree entirely, that is why we do not pay lip service to crew duty, we use our common sense and good judgment and break crew duty only if we consider the balance of risks favorable.