Nigels - Prepared For Fdp?

[Banzai Eagle]

The first time i heard of this a few years ago was a Britannia Nigel who came in for a PMI and was changed to LCA. He said (alledgedly) I cannot do it as i'm not prepared for the longer duty. Then I heard about a Moanarch Captain who came in for a SKG but the aircraft was tech so he was asked to wait around and ferry it to LTN, answer as above.....in reverse maybe
The CAA view is clear - you must be prepared for a Max FDP and potential discretion.

Any other offerings out there, i'm bored and need a larf

:confused: :confused:

[no sig]

I can see many taking issue with the notion of being prepared at the begining of a FDP to extend your allowable FDP using Commanders discretion. Never heard of that one.

[Big Tudor]

Sorry Banzai but you've got it wrong. CAP371 doesn't say you must be rested for Max FDP and it certainly doesn't say you must be rested for discretion. What it actually says is you must be rested for your next DUTY. Therefore, if a crew member believes they are reporting for a PMI then they rest for a PMI. Just because the FDP tables say you can do XX hours if you report at XXXX time doesn't mean that a crew member has to do that. If they pitch in for a rostered PMI flight and feel fatigued on the outbound sector they are perfectly in their rights to refuse to operate the return leg. Oh the joys of CAP371!

[no sig]

Big Tudour

Getting into the 'grey' areas of 371, which we have been living with for years I know but...

There is, I would argue, an 'implict' responsibility to be rested for the next allowable Duty Period. An airline's FTL scheme should recognise the operating environment and the potential for longer actual duties than scheduled. It's stretching it somewhat for a crew member to refuse a duty that falls within the allowable FDP on the basis that he/she isn't rested for that length of duty period. For example, if crews pitched up rested only for the scheduled round trip time to PMI, how would we/they deal with, say an hour or two ATC or tech delay? I've never had the CAA take issue with that notition nor can I think of a crew member ever refusing, unhappy yes, but not refused. There will be exceptions to this of course.

Also, and I know I am being a bit pedantic here BT, but the use of the word fatiqued is often used instead of tiredness, they have two different meanings in this context. Fatique means unable to operate due to exhaustion, tiredness is a normal condition we all experience and doesn't impair our ability to operate. A crew member should never become 'fatiqued in flight' it would likely equal incapacitation in that event.

[fractional]

Prepared for FDP says it all. When you show up unless you are flying to an airport (like Cat C or D) or an area u r not qualified for (ETOPS, Russia other apts than Moscow or St. Petersbourg, icy condition airports/routes for tropical pilots, very high terrain, etc.) a pilot has to fly it. If he does NOT, well, he'll have to do with his fleet mngr.
People are paid to fly up to the weekly, monthly or yearly limits. When they show up is to do the nbr of hrs required. The discretion is also there to cope with LMCs on the last sector ONLY. The same way I play the rules in fvr of the company, I can also see the other side of the stick. We all break our backs to better things around, so it has to be shared by all and not by few. How many times have I had to chg plns. A different story is when we have our days off.
If the pilot is fatigued, he must say so and the necessary steps will be taken.
Remember, the what goes around comes around. Whoever flirts with us over these issues will eventually have his/her day.
Rgds.

[Big Tudor]

no sig

No argument about yr bit on fatigue. I was being a bit on the pedantic side when I put that bit in, although potentially it is a scenario that could occur (probably be here on pprune about 10 mins after). I would argue against you on the point of tiredness impeding our ability to operate though. Falling asleep at the wheel of a car is recognised as being one of the biggest causes of accidents and deaths on our motorway system. Is this tiredness or fatigue?

The old rested for duty / rested for FDP debate isn't new and will still be going on long after I'm pushing up daisies. The problem is the wording 'Rested for duty', which crews take quite literally. A PMI does leave a lot of unused FDP at the end of it which could end up being used (and more) in the event of a good summer weekend of delays. I have used this argument (and many more less convincing ones) when changing crews onto longer flights at report. The strongest argument I've had back concerns the sector lengths. The crew member was accepting of a longer FDP due to a delay on the PMI however he took the point that he had rested according to the length of sectors he was planned to operate, i.e. 2 x 2 1/2 hour sectors to and from PMI. He felt he was insufficiently rested to carry out 2 x 5 1/2 hour sectors to and from LCA.

fractional

You ain't gonna make many friends on this website with comments like "People are paid to fly up to their weekly/monthly/yearly limits"! I think you'll probably invite special attention from the CAA if you have a policy of using legal limits as commercial targets!

[fractional]

CivAirs set the limits and the discretions. Obviously, they'll chk records, and I hope they'll be right. NO CivAir will say you cannot reach the limits. When these are met, the crew stops flying until is legal to so again. How many times has this happen, really?
Again, I remark that if a pilot (or cabin crew) is fatigued he has to say so in time for timely trouble-shooting and not with the intent to screw up things.
Statistics will eventually say that this same pilot (or cabin crew) has the higher nº of "misses". The same applies to any ground staff or anyone else in any biz. The numbers don't lie at the end of the year. They help gauge things. I ain't a cost controller, but I don't need to be a rock scientist to figure it out.
Ref "making friends or not", it depends from what angle u r looking at things. In this aviation biz, we all have to fill our shoes properly. That's what one has accepted to do for that price (contract signing?). Opportunities will eventually occur to go UP. If promises were made and not met, u've got to deal with them yrself (but that's a different topic).
Flying staff have to fly, Despatchers/Flt Followers have to despatch and flt-follow, Crew Schedulers have to schedule crews, Loadmasters have to their job and so on. All have to play the part and within LEGAL BOUNDARIES.
To keep our jobs, we all have to do our best to make the biz profitable. There is a lot of prejudice under the desguise of FDPs, sickness (notes or certificates) and a nº of internal and other regs. Anyway, this is a very subjective issue like many other.
A good performer will always be a good one and the bad one..... UNfortunately nowadays, it is general rule that a good performer usually gets penalised for being pro-active, on the DOT, communicating well and seeing as a trouble stirrer for certain management, while the bad ones get quickly rewarded more often because of "socialising" (spelling wrong?) and being chums. It's proven, this a new phenom and it works... for a while.
When the real truth is found out, it's usually too late and everything has to be restarted.
Rgds.

[no sig]

BT

The driving analogy is of course correct. My point, in the context of CAP371, goes back to the origins of the document and the Bader report distinction made between tiredness and fatigue. If an airline's FTL or rostering scheme results in a crewmember becoming 'fatigued' then something is very wrong and there is a case to be made for an MOR or at least a thorough investigation, basically, it should never happen. Tiredness however, is common, I'm tired after a 12 hours shift, most crews are tired after a night LCA, but few would say there are fatigued. It is an oft mis-used word and it dilutes the important distinction between the two,
I'm sure you get my point.

Fractional

Perhaps a slightly less confrontational stance with the crews would be better. With a safe operation as our first priority, we should, in first instance, be one their side. I know we have commercial pressures, but very simply, the responsibility rests with the crewmember to tell us if they are fit for a duty. True, their management can deal with anyone who's got a problem, but the old what goes around, comes around isn't really where we should be heading. The good relationships most aircrew have with their ops and crewing department needs guarded jealously and it is very easy to loose it.

On discretion, you seem to imply discretion is there for you. Discretion is there for the Commander alone and the most ops or crewing should ever be doing, is 'asking the commander if he/she is ' prepared to consider the use of discretion' so they can plan the next step. We should 'never' ask a crew member to go into discretion that can be seen as commercial pressure and that is not our first priority.

[fractional]

I may sound confrontational but that's not the case. At least it wasn't meant like that. We are all on the same boat. No should be expected to be treated differently.
Discretion is there for the CREWS to use when they feel the mission can be accomplished WITHOUT endangering SAFETY. I never implied the opposite. Too many Discretion Reports will attract CivAirs attention. The crew in question won't be pleased with it and the Company will eventualy be under scrutiny. Thus, how many am I talking about?
We all know that ground (except maverick non-operational staff) staff deals pretty fairly with the crews. It's a give and take as said. What I cannot accept is an individual to say that I cannot do this without being consistent in his/her reason for not doing so, and leaving over 200 paying pax stranded.
Do you think the Despatcher/Scheduler was totally out of his/her mind to ask for it in the first place? Didn't he/she think about it first too?
SAFETY is paramount. What no one can forget is that we (employees) need to get our salaries at the end of the month. So, the employer has to get profitable. This is the bottom line, with SAFETY...
Rgds.

[no sig]

Fractional

Sounds to me like you have a problem that your flight ops management team should be dealing with. If a crew member refuses to operate, even if you, on the day, have 200 passengers stranded, then its surely up to his management team to deal with the issue, if there is one to deal with. If it's a straight refusal to use discretion, not a great deal you can do about it I'm afraid.

Its frustrating I know, been there many times,.

[Pitot Heater]

A crewmember should be rested for their ensuing FDP. It should not be open to any ambiguity - with the FDP being the basis of a person operating in an aircraft as a member of its crew... 'n' all.

Specifically resting for prescribed sector lengths has a great deal of irresponsibility attched to it. I certainly wouldn't expect it from someone who prides themself on good airmanship.

In respect of 'Brit Nigel', I suspect mature, 'urbane' reasoning was clouded by opportunism and selfishness, not uncommon traits! :E

BT! - I wonder if you can recall someone who's the very anthesis of a man working up to his limits?! He could certainly provide you with a different slant on what consitutes 'unforseen' in the use of discression ;)

[Big Tudor]

PH - I can recall too many people who seemed to regard flying, and particularly flying for the company that paid their salaries, as a challenge to be avoided at all costs. One wonders how much time certain individuals have on their hands when they can quote the company manual, CAP371 & the ANO in chapter & verse at any opportunity.
I also recall other individuals (thankfully in the majority) who were courteous, respectful & accommodating to the extreme, for who flying was still the magical experience that it was when they first took to the skies.
The debate here centres around what crew should be rested for prior to reporting for a duty. Unfortunately the wording does state "Rested for duty" and not "Rested for FDP." Until this is changed then the crew room duty change will always have the element of uncertainty. I believe that the Oxford English Dictionary gives CAP371 as a defination of Ambiguity! ;)

[no sig]

Not wishing to split hairs here, but actually CAP371 is not the reference document when dealing with your crews, its your FTL scheme in Part A of your Ops Manaual. Now it is likely to say much the same thing I grant you, but it can also be changed, with CAA Approcal, to refelct the needs of the airline. I would argue that a crewmember should be rested for the next duty allowable FDP.