CHIRPS-Please comment

[idiot not in charge]

I was flicking through the latest cabin crew CHIRP feedback the other day and found this. Im flight deck and to be honest I’m shocked at the last paragraph of the feed back.


Please comment




Long, Legal Duties
Duty Started: 0945 Duty Finished: 0005
It is unacceptable for airlines to be compromising safety by rostering such long duty days.
Today I operated the AAA(UK)-BBB(N Africa)-AAA and was totally exhausted by the end of the flight. I feel that if we had had an emergency and had to evacuate I would not have been able to put in place my SEP because I was just too tired. It was not just me who felt like this, my other crew members felt exhausted too and have completed their own CHIRP forms. If we are rostered duties this long, then we should only work one way or night stop.
CHIRP Comment:CHIRP has received a number of reports from more than one operator relating to this particular route.
All the duties reported have been within the relevant operator's Approved FTL Scheme. In spite of this the cabin crew involved have reported that they felt extremely tired.
The reports have been forwarded to the CAA to permit other factors, such as roster sequencing and extending of duties through the exercising of discretion, to be investigated.


"Turning to the reporter's comment that they would be too tired should an emergency situation arise. Studies have shown that should a tired person be involved in an emergency situation the surge of adrenalin will normally be sufficient for them to act accordingly."

[Bealzebub]

I was flicking through the latest cabin crew CHIRP feedback the other day and found this. Im flight deck and to be honest I’m shocked at the last paragraph of the feed back.

"Turning to the reporter's comment that they would be too tired should an emergency situation arise. Studies have shown that should a tired person be involved in an emergency situation the surge of adrenalin will normally be sufficient for them to act accordingly."


I am not sure why you are shocked ? I appreciate that whatever the merits of the arguement this answer does not address the politics of the cause. However it is biologically correct.

[The Real Slim Shady]

When you are considering the legality and / or the wisdom of scheduling it is normally prudent to clearly differentiate between the two and try, as far as possible, to be quite objective, avoiding, as far as possible, clouding the issue with emotive comment.

Consider the report, as presented here; firstly the heading is Long,Legal duties. The reporter accepts that the duty is within the approved FTL scheme and that the company is, therefore, permitted to roster it. However, the times quoted aren't qualified by whether they were rostered or were the actual times.

Bearing in mind that there is a difference between a Duty Period and Flight Duty Period, the reporter has given Duty Start and End times: the normal maximum Duty period is 15 hours, hence this particular duty, 14 hrs 20mins, is within that by 40 minutes. If the reporter has actually quoted Flight Duty Period, but simply given it the wrong name, the normal maximum for a 2 sector day would be around 13 hrs 15 mins. However, that figure is for pilots, cabin crew can normally do at least an hour more.

There is no indication on the report that the Captain used his discretion due to any unforseen delays. Nor is it clear whether or not the company has a dispensation within its FTL scheme to schedule a long duty, which would normally be outside of the FTL guidelines, subject to certain other caveats: miniumum rest before and after, minimum crew complement enhanced etc. All we can deduce is that, as the reporter states, the duty was legal.
The reporter makes this statement (my emphasis):
I feel that if we had had an emergency and had to evacuate I would not have been able to put in place my SEP because I was just too tired

Tiredness and fatigue are different animals: the reporter could have taken the opportunity to rest in flight, as permitted by the Authority, to avoid becoming tired. There is no mention of the scheduled rest period before or after the duty. The reporter does not mention being fatigued.

Turning to the last paragraph of the reply, the author quite clearly states that (again my emphasis) Studies have shown note that the author simply refers to the outcome of certain studies. There is no subjective comment on the rights or wrongs of the matter.

All in all the report is too vague, as presented here, to comment on the wisdom of of scheduling long duties; all that can be said is that the duty was legal, approved by the Authority and that the Authority are examining the roster sequencing etc.

[Lou Scannon]

The reference to adrenalin has been the standard response for some thirty years.

It has always been assumed that when a crew is faced with an emergency the pilots would not benefit from an injection of the hormone as this might cause overactivity and rushed decisions. The cabin crew however would benefit from as much as they can secrete, when it comes to say an evacuation.

This is the basis for the flight deck's duty hours being more restrictive than the cabin crew's.

[paco]

But the adrenalin only kicks in once you realise there's an emergency. If you are tired you are not alert enough to recognise one. I speak as one who has done over eight hours a day non-stop for 42 days in a row, in Canada, where it is legal (on fires you can do 60 days). I know that's extreme for this situation, but the principle is still true.

Phil