View Full Version : CAO 48.1
New regulations, CAO 48.1 Whats all that about?...
I am actually concerned about the new requirements under 16.1. Although this is an extension to what is already in other parts like, must operate in a safe manner ect ect... It really puts the emphasis on the operating crew.
My concern is the common law implications of any accident that may be accounted to fatigue.
16Flight crew member obligations
16.1It is a condition on each flight crew licence that the licence holder must not operatean aircraft if, considering the circumstances of the flight to be undertaken,he or she has reason to believe that he or she is suffering from, or islikely to suffer from, fatigue which may so impair performance that the safetyof the operation may be affected.
Note1 An FCM employed by an AOC holder should utilise off-duty periods andadaptation periodsto obtain an amount of sleep sufficient to support the appropriate and safedischarge of dutiesduring his or her next rostered FDP or standby.
Note2 An FCM employed by an AOC holder in an augmented crew operation shouldutilise in-flightrest opportunities to adequately manage their alertness for the remainingportion of theFDP.
And the attitude from employers is very clear from the explination of the legislation.
And I quote:
"When option 2 was released for public consultation the major airlines generally opposed the changes to the prescriptive limits, But supported the increase obligations on their employees."
Isn't there a saying about a cake that goes with this.
"We dont like being told how many hours we can work our employees, but when we do make them push the limits we want them to take the responsibility"
http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/emailben.jpg
Toughen Up Princesses! (http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Email.pdf)
What ended up happening to the tough talker?
I would love a fairy tale ending, perhaps a dodgy contract in Siberia for him/her.
Sunfish
3rd May 2013, 05:39
CAO 48.1 completes the encirclement of pilots in a classic double bind. It is bad law, period because any accident to which fatigue is corruptly judged by a complaisant ATSB to be a factor is now automatically evidence of criminal behaviour by the pilot.
To put it another way, all accidents are now the result of criminal behaviour by someone. No learning and sharing can henceforth take place.
Captain Nomad
3rd May 2013, 06:00
Evidence suggests that one of the worst persons for assessing level of fatigue is the person concerned. While in some cases it is clear, often it is not. Surely this is going to push more people to work harder and run on the ragged edge more often. Squeezed by the employer if they are perceived to be calling a fatigue issue and then completely juiced by the system if they don't and proceed to screw up in any way.
Onus needs to be placed on the operator to make sure that they are not rostering/requiring more than what should be reasonably expected. CAO48 was a rough tool but at least it placed clear limits on what some operators could attempt.
Bingo Sunfish. Classic moral hazard. May I make the suggestion that it is a false double bind. There are alternatives (ie employer responsibility), hence the false nature - they are just not allowed by the way the regulation is written.
Capt Kremin
3rd May 2013, 06:51
CASA have stated that they have no regulatory responsibilities for the upholding of WHS laws, yet the WHS requirements remain. CASA has also stated that fatigue is a recognised hazard under Australian WHS laws and hence must be addressed.
One wonders what the point of the CAO actually is.:confused:
Sunfish
3rd May 2013, 06:58
The point is to absolve CASA from any responsibility for fatigue regulation. If an accident involves fatigue, which it will if CASA tells ATSB to report that way, then the pilot is open to prosecution.
The entire thrust of CASA regulation is to enshrine the principle that if an accident has occurred, then someone has broken the law. The only possible exemptions involve acts of God, and God is usually only invoked when officials are liable.
To put that another way, the Norfolk Island ditching could have been written up as an act of God, it CASA was so inclined.
As they say, it is all in the small print.
Top of page 11 of the new 48.1
Note Under regulation 11.077 of CASR 1998, breach of a flight crew licence condition is a strict liability offence.
It would have to be one of the most convoluted piece of "legislation" I have seen.
Back to the future - 1881!
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7638/img1958fz.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/14/img1958fz.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
There's a lot of ifs, buts and maybes to resolve before a solid case could be brought against a defendant:
considering the circumstances of the flight to be undertaken (lots of interpretation required there)
he or she has reason to believe that he or she is suffering from fatigue (how? as someone said, the patient is usually the last to know)
or is likely to suffer from fatigue (mind-reading ability?)
which may so impair performance that the safety of the operation may be affected (more crystal ball stuff)
A big bunch of ineffectual arse protecting ...gone seriously wrong!
thorn bird
3rd May 2013, 08:39
"There's a lot of ifs, buts and maybes to resolve before a solid case could be brought against a defendant:"
No there's not. The if's but's and maybe's are exactly what CAsA see's them to be, any doubt that they wont hold up in a proper court, then the administrative form of justice ie "Not a fit and proper person" can be utilized to achieve the same result, regardless of how much money the victim has to spend on bottom feeders, CAsA has the public purse to spend, and even if they lose you don't win, remember they have no duty of care to anyone, except themselves.
Wow some great responses.
I think we need to hold onto our hats for a second though. There has been some pretty big buzz words and jargon thrown into the thread, which is a little misleading, henceforth (does anyone really say that anymore).
We should wait to see what the federation has to say before giving our legal advice out.
My main questions are:
- What are the changes in terms of liability on the operating crew;
- How will fatigue be measured (say a ramp check); and
- Can the federation have its own expert opinion on fatigue, that can be used as a guide for crew.
Horatio Leafblower
3rd May 2013, 13:22
Hang on a second kids.
1/. If you have been out on the piss all night (cos no young pilot has EVER done that:rolleyes: )
Is it your employers fault you are hungover?
Should you report for duty secretly impaired?
If you do, is it then your employers fault when you spear into a hill with 9 bods behind you?
2/. You have been up all night shagging your boyfriend/girlfriend/blow-up doll (cos no young pilot has ever done that... probably).
Is it your employers fault that you are such an awesome swordsman?
Should you report for duty secretly impaired?
If you do, whose fault is it when you spear in?
Your fitness for work is YOUR responsibility and it doesn't matter by what mechanism you ended up shagged.
If your boss has been flogging you like a racehorse he is required to have systems in place that will limit the flogging you can receive at work. Your employer cannot, however, control or monitor your private life.
If you burn the candle at both ends you are morally obligated to remove yourself from a position in which you could kill other people through inattention.
If your lifestyle is impacting the career you worked so hard to earn, maybe you should ask Daddy to pay for a career in stockbroking instead.
Sunfish
3rd May 2013, 19:02
Hear hear leafblower, that is the way it is supposed to work.
So what happens when you courageously ground yourself a few times?
Does the boss say "we'll done that man!" Or does he say "toughen up princess!"?
I have been in similar situations where the rules say one thing and the culture says another and CASA obviously refuse to recognise this situation and provide an out.
Perhaps if they made a regulation (strict liability, 50 penalty units) that it is an offence to attempt to provoke, procure, harass, victimise or in any way penalise a pilot for even attempting to ground themselves for fatigue, I would sympathise with you.
Horatio Leafblower
4th May 2013, 00:01
I wish we could sit here and pretend that everyone always acts with honour and integrity in their work life, but they don't.
Yes I have seen some bastardry at work from management - one of our pilots lost his Father and they only grudgingly gave him one day off for the funeral yet when the MD's father died shortly thereafter, the MD gave himself nearly 2 weeks. :sad:
On the other hand, I have seen employees pull every excuse in the book to avoid flying or some other obligation.
If you had an employee who grounded himself a few times because he has turned up to work hungover, how long would it take you to sack him?
It's taken me nearly 40 years to understand my own fatigue tell-tales, but only after I have found myself overhead my destination late at night and wondering how the f:mad:k I am supposed to descend into the circuit, struggling to make my brain work... scary.
Creampuff
4th May 2013, 01:09
It's taken me nearly 40 years to understand my own fatigue tell-tales, but only after I have found myself overhead my destination late at night and wondering how the f**k I am supposed to descend into the circuit, struggling to make my brain work... scary.Indeed. :eek:
And on the occasions on which you found yourself in those circumstances, do you consider that you, and you alone, were responsible, and criminally liable? Did the operator have no responsibility because the operator had absolutely no control over the circumstances?
Serious questions, the answers to which passengers are very keen to know.
Horatio Leafblower
4th May 2013, 02:14
And on the occasions on which you found yourself in those circumstances, do you consider that you, and you alone, were responsible, and criminally liable?
Come now. Do the new rules say that the pilot, and the pilot alone, is responsible for that situation?
Or do they share the responsibility with the operator?
Creampuff
4th May 2013, 06:25
I don’t know. You tell me.
We know that it’s a strict liability offence on the part of the pilot.
Under what provision is the responsibility shared by the operator? What are the consequences of the operator breaching that provision?
owen meaney
4th May 2013, 07:01
There is a conference on 48.1 being run by CASA in Perth on the 8th.
Will ask the question about the shared liability.
Popgun
4th May 2013, 07:09
1/. If you have been out on the piss all night (cos no young pilot has EVER done that )
Is it your employers fault you are hungover?
Should you report for duty secretly impaired?
If you do, is it then your employers fault when you spear into a hill with 9 bods behind you?
2/. You have been up all night shagging your boyfriend/girlfriend/blow-up doll (cos no young pilot has ever done that... probably).
Is it your employers fault that you are such an awesome swordsman?
Should you report for duty secretly impaired?
If you do, whose fault is it when you spear in?
In 15 years of jet airline flying, I have never witnessed crew member fatigue (or tiredness) due to either of the above scenarios.
I HAVE, HOWEVER, WITNESSED (and experienced) MUCH CREW MEMBER FATIGUE DUE TO HORRENDOUS , UNRELENTING ROSTER PATTERNS WHERE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE RESTED SUFFICIENTLY PRIOR TO DUTY!!!
The modern low-cost airline model is guilty of over-scheduling their crew. Pilots are fearful of calling fatigued because management are punitive (but "Safety is our Number 1 Priority" LOL!) and the regulator completely unsupportive.
Sick leave is the only realistic defensive weapon for the individual to protect themselves.
But hey, at least we have those all important $39 fares.
PG :D
Horatio,
This is my point exactly. The PIC has always had resposibility for the "Safety of flight" it is now that the legislation is trying to quantify the fatigue element in the argument.
When the explanetory statement says the following it is cause for concern.
"When option 2 was released for public consultation the major airlines generally opposed the changes to the prescriptive limits, But supported the increase obligations on their employees."
"Your fitness for work is YOUR responsibility and it doesn't matter by what mechanism you ended up shagged"
Well actually it is the resposibility of the employer and employee... as much as I may not totally agree with it. This is one of the many reasons (but not limited to) people are either in private enterprise for themselves or work for someone.
P.s I am 8 beers in writting this post