Pilot fatigue...a victory, of sorts [Archive]

FlightDetent

11th Dec 2016, 08:58

The case which the court solved seems clear. Company was found to had acted illegaly in persecuting the pilot after his fatigued call and refusal of duty.
a) he did operate beyond the normally allowed FDP the day before
b) he genuinely felt unfit (personal remark: the term fatigue is normally associated with a different type of un-fitness)
c) moreover, the court explains that because of B he was not legal to operate anyhow.

Had the verdict been opposite, the whole idea of managing fatigue-associated risks (not the individual implemented systems = companies' procedures, but the concept in general ) would have been shred to pieces. So quite simple in this respect.

The narrative of the first day is what I find interesting. At the duty start, the plan was beyond the max permissible FDP. Are you allowed to commence a duty which requires discretion to complete?

RexBanner

11th Dec 2016, 09:02

Ask a certain Eastern European low cost Airbus operator who regularly rostered duties that were planned to go into discretion. Two such days in a row were not uncommon.

Stan Woolley

11th Dec 2016, 09:04

Right way up.

Mr Angry....care to elaborate?

I too, would be intrigued to hear how Mr Angry's own personal experience has coloured his opinion. :)

Fire and brimstone

11th Dec 2016, 09:41

Magplug

11th Dec 2016, 09:45

It is worth remembering that a Chief Pilot's favourite employee is the pilot he has never heard of. That pilot has never filed a safety report, always takes minimum fuel, always seems to arrive with fuel above minimums, always flies 2/3 hours of discretion without question and does all this without attracting complaints from his co-workers.

If you are someone that draws the line at rule-bending, never sharp-pencils loadsheets or flight plans and always files an MOR when safety is threatened - Then you are deemed to be 'difficult'.

Remember..... a Chief Pilot spends 98% of his working time dealing with 2% of his workforce. If an opportunity is presented to him to dispense with some/all of those 2% then he would obviously look to lighten his workload. It is simply human nature.

Chief Pilots are rather like football managers. 3 defeats and you are looking at the dole queue. If the CP says 'No' to one of his commercial superiors too many times then another ambitious individual is never far away.... waiting in the wings for his job.

FlightDetent

11th Dec 2016, 09:49

Ask a certain Eastern European low cost Airbus operator who regularly rostered duties that were planned to go into discretion. Two such days in a row were not uncommon.Others' wrongdoings do not make mine right. If done on regular basis, the amount of MORs would raise a flag, enabling the scenario to be trapped by the system. Were those within the limit on the PLOGs?

In the case discussed the company's stance at court is that you can commence a duty planned on the use of discretion. Well, not in my EASA based OM-A, but maybe the wording of regulations has changed since.
Many of us, over-the-channel or even AOC-of-convenience operators, do look towards the UK for best practice. Hence my question about UK CAA stance on this, present day.

RexBanner

11th Dec 2016, 09:52

Oh believe me I wasn't suggesting it made it right, quite the opposite. Having worked such punishing rosters - where it was the norm for controlled rest to be carried out on every sector - the neglect from the airline and the regulator in allowing such practices to occur is frightening.

macdo

11th Dec 2016, 09:56

How do we know his union did not give him their full support?

What happened to Tired Pilots Risk Lives?? That was a big campaign. This would have been such good PR for them, and a huge victory and precedent to quote in future.

So sad when individuals have to be sacrificed when there are thousands of pilots standing shoulder to shoulder.

We do stand shoulder to shoulder on fatigue, do we not?

If the guy concerned ever looks at this, hear this: you are a legend, "thank you on behalf of every UK pilot".
As I understand it, the pilot involved approached BALPA for legal assistance. The case was judged by the BALPA lawyers to be below a certain percentage chance of succeeding and so declined to fund the action. On winning the action, BALPA have been funding subsequent action and the remedy claim.

FlightDetent

11th Dec 2016, 10:20

Rex, I did not, for a second. May I suspect, that Wizzair in the way of post-totalitarian mindset (same roots as me, actually) rigged the paperwork to make it look in line with the books?

I read the rest of your sentence as "misconduct by the operator and blind eye from regulator", in which I guess we'd now come the full circle back to the topic of this thread?

Mach62

11th Dec 2016, 12:16

here is a link to download the complete 13 Mb PDF file.
https://1drv.ms/f/s!AnNYZSyyHWmAkn0zBoDnaKbDzQvJ

wiggy

11th Dec 2016, 14:13

F & B

How do we know his union did not give him their full support?

FWIW as I've heard it (through union sources) the sequence of events is pretty much as macdo described : the Union didn't provide support initially...

Bernoulli

11th Dec 2016, 14:41

Magplug's got it right. The individual concerned would almost certainly be seen by (mis)management as being one of the 2%. His peers hold him in high regard and are grateful to him for standing up for common sense.

A shame the management took this stance when they did. It was an error of judgement on their behalf but they'll never admit it or say sorry.

Starbear

11th Dec 2016, 15:59

Starbear,

Try "print to file".
Tay Cough

Thnak you for the suggestion which unfortunately was not successful. Think I have tried everything now and am now trawling through the document online. Its a pity because I think every airline pilot should read and keep this. Thanks again anyway.

Just spotted Mach 62's link: Thank you, worked perfectly.

RAT 5

11th Dec 2016, 16:44

[I fly from London to Australia non-stop
Will take 17 hours to Perth making it the worlds longest non stop route.[/I]

Well that's alright then. They'll lobby the muppets at EASA that there is a strong case to increase FTL's to make this economical. They could use a 'dispatch crew' to reduce check in to 30mins. They could then include a bunk behind the flight deck with a panic button for the 'on watch' pilot. C.A's would keep an eye on the PF to make sure they're awake. PM is napping & then they swap over.
Perhaps 2 hours discretion will be required, but hey, that's the norm, no? To avoid jet lag the crew will decamp into airport hotel, eat, sleep, shower, eat again then after 15hours total rest be on the way home.
Job done. Never say Never. Inspect the rosters from decades ago & now. Money talks, no shouts.

Ancient-Mariner

11th Dec 2016, 18:04

Thanks Mach62 for making the file available.

OMDB30R

11th Dec 2016, 18:52

Interesting reading, well done to that captain concerned, curiously I wonder if those involved in this whole mismanagement such as the named Chief Pilot and DFO will continue to work in that company, surely their deceptive fraudulent behaviour which the tribunal unmasked, really inspire confidence in their pilots, should they be allowed to continue leading? those are serious questions which should be answered, they seem willing to risk public safety in order to simply by that account spite somebody who stood up to them.

Mr Angry from Purley

11th Dec 2016, 18:59

Stan / Right Way

Mr Angry....care to elaborate?

My view is inappropriate use of the word fatigue that's all. I've suffered from fatigue for sure and I might be wrong as the report didn't include the Captains roster leading up to the event.
All too often the F word is used when sleepiness might be more appropriate e.g. the need to sleep.

Heathrow09L

11th Dec 2016, 19:00

It's questionable why BALPA initially didn't get involve, as the chief pilot use to be the company council member, "old boys club"

And the named person as the Director of Ops this guy, VIDEO: Paul Hutchings, Group Director of Flight Operations ? World Travel Awards (http://www.worldtravelawards.com/video/1540)

Well say no more.

4mastacker

11th Dec 2016, 20:14

Did I hear that Director of Ops call the Dreamliner an Airbus A321 (at 00.38)?

foxmoth

11th Dec 2016, 21:04

it is actually the interviewer getting things wrong as TCX do not have the Screamliner! PH merely corrects him without making it too obvious!

Twiglet1

12th Dec 2016, 07:19

My understanding on block times was that the schedule was in place seasonally. If on the day the predicted block time was longer the FDP was based on the scheduled time rather than the actual. This was of course on the assumption that the block time was accurate (which with so much time spent on OTP these days they normally are, apart from Ryanair who seem always to be much longer). The flight however was a one off. There must be data though on the flight to/from as these are standard sectors the bit in-between not.
In the days of CAP371 this was a constant discussion on long haul flights e.g. the old up to 7 and factorisation of ETOPS flights. You'd have thought the Captain would have run into that before and had similar discussions. In this case if the schedule was 8hrs 55hrs but due to headwinds 9hrs 40mins the FDP was based on the schedule times not predicted.
Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

FlightDetent

12th Dec 2016, 07:22

Thank you Twiglet. Seasonal schedule and days when winds blow just the other way, it happens. However this was a round-robin routing, was it not?

Right Way Up

12th Dec 2016, 08:05

Mr Angry

the ICAO definition of crewmember fatigue was given as:
A physiological state of reduced mental or physical performance capability resulting from sleep loss or extended wakefulness, circadian phase, or workload (mental and/or physical activity) that can impair a crew member’s alertness and ability to safely operate an aircraft or perform safety related duties.

His roster of 3 earlies including an extended 3rd day followed by a transition to a late would suggest a fatiguing roster.

I am intrigued to the type of operation you fly in. You speak of the need to sleep rather than it being fatigue however his roster caused that lack of sleep by the earlies that then meant he woke early (5.30 ish) on the day of his late duty. That is fatigue!

RoyHudd

12th Dec 2016, 08:17

This was not a victory of sorts.

This was a big financial blow to the airline concerned, and a kick in the teeth to the malicious management handling the case on behalf of said company. Perhaps sackings will follow.

It will hopefully set a precedent for other pilots to seriously consider legal action against their employers, where disgraceful and illegal behaviour occurs. Especially as regards fatigue, tiredness, exhaustion, and other common side-effects of today's crew planning.

The original story is by no means over yet....

Min Drag

12th Dec 2016, 10:49

Mr Angry

My view is inappropriate use of the word fatigue that's all. I've suffered from fatigue for sure and I might be wrong as the report didn't include the Captains roster leading up to the event.
All too often the F word is used when sleepiness might be more appropriate e.g. the need to sleep.

What you say is very interesting, exactly what roster pattern were you on when you experienced fatigue and for the benefit of all of us how were you able to differentiate between fatigue and sleepiness.

autobrake3

12th Dec 2016, 10:56

It will be interesting to see if certain personnel keep their jobs or not. The CAA have shown their hand of indifference and disregard with respect to issues of fatigue. This leaves the airline management boards to self regulate, the results of which are sadly inevitable in the modern era of super greed. After years of ignoring the strain of fatigue and stress resulting in large numbers of pilots being grounded medically, Easyjet pilots voted overwhelmingly to strike on the basis of fatigue related safety risks(96%). The COO was shown the door in quick time but only after 5 years of tyranny overseen by the rest of the airline management board. Unfortunately, his lieutenants remain in place and BALPA let them off the hook on some vague promises of improvements. These people will only be shown the door if there is a financial penalty for their behaviour. Your health and ability to operate is a minor short term inconvenience to the steam roller of corporate greed. You have to look after yourself because nobody else will.

Uplinker

12th Dec 2016, 12:05

And what sort of supposedly safety conscious industry allows, no, requires pilots to fly when they are sleepy, (since we are only allowed to refuse duty if we are fatigued)?

Would the public accept lorry drivers, coach drivers, bus drivers, train drivers, operating if they were sleepy?

Fatigue forms include such physical indications of fatigue as 'blinking a lot', 'long blinks', 'staring into space', 'impaired situational awareness', etc. Sounds the same as being sleepy to me.

IcePack

12th Dec 2016, 12:58

So once I had a first officer fall asleep on left base to LGW.
Wonder if he was sleepy or fatigued. Whatever he should not have been operating.
Sleepy or fatigued bit academic IMHO.

RAT 5

12th Dec 2016, 15:18

Being a sportsman and a pilot, and having experienced what I would term fatigue & tiredness/sleepiness, I offer the following difference. To me, when I was sleepy it was difficult to think & concentrate and make clear decisions. When I was fatigued the same was true, but I include muscle tiredness and lethargy of movement.
I sure as hell knew I was tired, many times, in the seat. Adrenalin rose on the approach and then dissipated in the car park.
Coach drivers falling a sleep on long trans-Europe trips took years to be exposed. Tacho in the cabs to help combat potential tiredness of lorry drivers. In 80's we had company agreements about positioning taxi rides in the night. MAN - LTN in the middle of the night with a slumbering taxi driver at the end of their shift. All considered unsafe due to sleepiness. Us? No, we are TopGun stuff and big boys don't cry. This one size pits all is pure bollox. There in no buffer. When I was younger & fitter full o'beans I could handle a few night flights, a few earlies, a few jet-lagging long-haulers. In the latter years of my career (and remember we don't retire at 55 or 60 anymore) there is no way I could do more than 1 early and through the nights were a no-no. Every early & late shift you lose 1/2 nights sleep. 5 consecutive shifts is pure madness. On day 5 you are definitely sleep deprived. You get home for a few days off and just as your batteries are back fully charged and you are rested it's off again on the sleepiness merry go round.
I think the word 'fatigue' was introduced as a disincentive to use it. It is an extreme condition, difficult to quantify; very individual. It is where you are at the end of your limits. We are all different, but some muppet has made FRMS program and we are all supposed to fit in the box, neatly. It scares us to use the word, makes us feel inadequate. Well, if I haven't slept due to circumstances outside my control, e.g. hotel vacuum cleaners and slamming doors, neighbours dogs & BBQ's, and not to mention NYPD police sirens 24/7, then I consider I shall be fatigued by the end of the duty. If you phone crewing and say you are tired due lack of sleep it is logged as your fault. You have to use the word fatigued as defence. Even then a black mark goes in the book and you are one of the 2%.

Stan Woolley

12th Dec 2016, 15:38

^^^^^^^

Good post RAT5 :ok:

Cows getting bigger

12th Dec 2016, 15:43

A recent tweet from a chief pilot I know:

Amused that the young crew members (half my age) have only just woken & look shattered despite 12 hrs sleep

:ugh:

Herod

12th Dec 2016, 16:53

Who the :mad: gets twelve hours sleep?

End of a long duty, positioning to base, in uniform. I took the only vacant passenger seat, in the middle of three, between two fare-payers.. I fell asleep before the safety brief, and awoke sometime in the climb, gently drooling all over my uniform. Tired or fatigued?

Cows getting bigger

12th Dec 2016, 17:14

I think my point was the CP's belittling of 'effect' rather than recognising and investigating 'cause'.

Oh, and his interpretation of sleep is on-chocks to off-chocks. :)

DVR4G.DEP

12th Dec 2016, 17:51

name and shame those responsible managers.

tubby linton

12th Dec 2016, 17:57

The surprising thing is that the CP was the former CC chairman and should have received training from the union on matters such as this.

Twinstar2007

12th Dec 2016, 18:13

Well in respect of naming and shaming, one of the mangers has been identified on here on the 2nd page on a video link.

The other can be found here, there id is no secret
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/roger-scadeng-20819447?trk=prof-samename-name

RAT 5

12th Dec 2016, 18:24

Tired or fatigued?

Don't forget 'exhausted.' Been that too.

If I had a £1000 for every time the reply was , "but it's legal." or "but there's nobody else." I would still be knackered and not much better off.

somethingclever

12th Dec 2016, 19:24

Fatigue to me is a legal term. Sleepy isn't. Fatigued means too tired to safely perform as an active duty crew member. We are all different, some have a higher threshold. That's why we have to have the legal framework for self-assessment. No manager or co-worker can tell me wether or not I'm fatigued, that's for me to decide.

And remember, we have to be fit until the last person has disembarked the aircraft that day. Until then anything goes. When you're coming in on your fifth day of getting up 3:45am and you have to go around because of a split flap with crap weather it's going to be tough going reading the QRH. And the authorities won't be there to hold your hand, they will ask you why you didn't divert to a longer field rather than land and go off the end. And the company will present 8 lawyers pointing at all the paragraphs in the company manuals stating why it's all your fault. Maybe you miscalculated the landing distance because your brain felt like regurgitated marshmallows, so what? You still did it.

Fatigue isn't just "am I too tired now?" it's "will I be fit enough to safely deal with the remainder of my day?"

Because you can bet your sweet posterior that IF you get an engine fire, an explosive decompression or a cabin fire that can't be controlled you will get it on day 5, after 3 hrs of sleep labouring with the equivalent IQ of a seagull. It will take you five minutes just to find the right checklist. Any company that pushes rosters that crew can barely sustain even with zero non-normal situations can be called many things but safety-minded isn't one of them. You're basically taking the chance that when something goes wrong it does so to a crew that isn't too tired to deal with it. They'll be tired alright, just hopefully not too tired.

autoflight

13th Dec 2016, 04:30

Q.Once recognised, how to deal with fatigue without upsetting the company with an outright refusal?

A1. Call in sick. Don't give details. Provide medical certificate if required, from own doctor
or
A2. Explain to company that you are OK for a regular duty period, but you are doubtful about continuing into a discretion period due to recent long back of the clock duties etc. You are more than willing to operate the duty, but if unable to complete it due to delays, would they prefer to roster another pilot or provide a heavy crew? Your only interest is completing the mission. If company calls your bluff, at the point where discretion is needed, re-assess situation. Even if you decide you can continue, the company will not want the stress of possible multiple disruptions due to their risky roster.
or
A3. A poor choice, but accept the flight. Call in sick at the point where discretion would have been required to continue
or
A4. Worst choice, accept the flight and use maximum discretion even when you know that this is illegal
and
A5. Be a paid up member of your pilot union.
and
A5. Be sure to have years of respectful co-operation with rostering staff, including offering solutions to "there is nobody else". If you have 998 hours of the yearly 1000 hours already, ask them if a 4 hour delay would be acceptable to depart at 22:00 and tick over to 1000 hours when airborne, right on midnight. Or if there is a 03:00 phone call for an unexpected 03:45 departure, do your best. If your departure is delayed, catch up as much of that time as reasonably possible with reduced flight and ground times to avoid need for discretion decision. Crew will be happy to be with a captain who can get them home on time and rostering will see you as a reliable and valuable asset. A nice tick in the box if you are ever called in for a cup of tea.
and
A6. Always try to have alternative employment, happy working wife, low living expenses and money in the bank.
and
A7. Remember that you are taking your co-pilot and cabin crew along with you on this challenge. Every instance of discretion must include consultation with all of the crew. One time when you sign off from a partially completed mission, they will be more likely to remain in good humour.

The above is exactly how I manage illegal or suspect rostering attempts during my career. If you do none of the above, the discretion refusal challenge is a much more difficult.

Los Endos

13th Dec 2016, 07:46

A8. Leave said company if you cannot call in fatigued due to their poor rostering. The law states that you will not operate fatigued and to hide behind a list of other excuses masks the reality thus allowing the company to perpetuate the situation. If it's modus operandi threatens your position for reasonably upholding the law and upholding safety, then it would appear to be a thoroughly dangerous place to remain in pursuit of your career.

RAT 5

13th Dec 2016, 11:22

Let's get rid of the word Fatigue. It's too emotional, too scary, to 'at the limit', too individual, too open to contest via FRMS, etc.

It would seem to me that the root cause of this event is two fold. The preceding duties were very disruptive to sleep patterns. The longest duties were at the end of a tiring block. Daft. One root cause.
Then the 12.30 duty, which was the catalyst for this debacle, was planned at the limit with no buffer. For the past 35 years I've been hearing this cry from the troops: "why are the limits treated as the normal target?" This cry has been ignored by management & CAA's the world over.
Even the refused duty on the last day was a lengthy one, not a little jaunt around the houses. It was >11.00hr duty finishing after midnight and meaning another late bedtime.
It has been said by the FRMS 'experts' that the only way to counter sleep deprivation is long periods of sleep, not napping. Sleep deprivation is accumulative over a few days and can take more than one sleep period to recover; similar to jet lag. Rostering, being driven by the CFO, look at numbers & limits, not the reality of human/family behaviour. There is no way in reality that 12hrs from off duty - on duty will achieve 8 hours full & deep sleep in a family environment. It would need 15 hrs.
In late 80's I worked for a non UK outfit. Their roster rules were much better than my local (non-UK) ones. We were flying Scandanavia-USA & Africa. We were not tired. The minimum rest time was to be taken at home and there was 2hours allowed to travel to/from home. Each duty had a 'degree of difficulty' factor. This accounted for start time, end time, total duty time and any time changes. The rest time had a recovery factor that had to balance the factor of the previous duty. It was not necessarily the full rest after the duty; that was not always possible, but as the duty factors built up so did the required rest factoring. If there was a reduction in 'company' rest time, using FTL limits, then a credit was rolled over to the next rest period. The idea was to create a balance between work & social. It worked quite well for our limited network operation. It was an enlightened attitude. When I used to have my pre-JAA medical done by a national (non-UK) medical centre that did many more professions than pilots, the doctors said that a real ingredient of health is a good balance between work & social life. All my years in UK, and for a tight fisted small non-UK charter outfit, I never came across that attitude; indeed quite the opposite, no respect for family life at all.
In this day of earlies & lates, i.e. larks & owls, why are pilots not allowed to opt for one or the other. I'm lousy at earlies, certainly 5, especially in winter. Other guys much prefer them; yet in the safety conscious airlines they do not offer a fixed roster of one or the other. Thus some pilots are operating below par, and in winter you need to very sharp. There seems to be an attitude that pilots can not be seen to have any sway over operations and rostering. They will do what they are told and be grateful for it.
Vive la revolution.

autoflight

13th Dec 2016, 11:55

If you leave every company that tries excess rostering, there will be nowhere decent to go. The idea is to definitely not call it the F word, no matter what. It is what you do to avoid fatigue, not what you call it.

FlightDetent

13th Dec 2016, 12:10

Then the 12.30 duty, which was the catalyst for this debacle, was planned at the limit with no bufferNo. It was illegal by today's standards. Even after juggling the numbers the revised plan was still 20 minutes beyond max permissible FDP.

HundredPercentPlease

13th Dec 2016, 13:35

Let's get rid of the word Fatigue. It's too emotional, too scary

Not while the law says this:

176.—(1) A person must not act as a member of the crew of an aircraft to which this article
applies if they know or suspect that they are suffering from or, having regard to the circumstances
of the flight to be undertaken, are likely to suffer from, such fatigue as may endanger the safety of
the aircraft or of its occupants.

Shying away from the word fatigue is shying away from our individual obligations under UK law. There are 4 key words in there "suspect", "likely", "fatigue" and "may".

No officer, you may say I was speeding, but I would like to talk velocity.

RAT 5

13th Dec 2016, 15:14

Flt Det: My comment about the duty was based on the rostering phase. It was rostered at 12.30, the max. No room for hiccups. On the day, actual conditions caused to go over. My comment is: common sense says that rostering should always include a 45-60min buffer, especially on a 3 sector trip, to allow for hiccups. It became illegal at the last minute.

100%: It may be, I do not know, that fatigue is used as it was advised by the medical people. Perhaps it has a technical definition that fits in with legalese. Tiredness, sleepiness, exhausted are subjective. The more knowledgeable will tell us.
I still have a layman's interpretation that fatigued involves an element of muscle weakness. After intense exercise your body is too fatigued to give any more. To rostering, how can you be fatigued when you've been sitting down all day? Hence my wonder at a technical definition.

onlythetruth

13th Dec 2016, 15:37

RAT 5 The only "actual conditions" on the day that could cause a flight plan to be over the maximum FDP before it started, would , I think we can agree, is very strong headwinds. I have it on very good authority that the plans on the day were for a round robin flight. Furthermore, again, on very good authority, the overall average wind component was a tailwind. The judgment makes it clear that the Captain asked, several times, if flying at maximum speed on a 767 could not get the duty within max FDP, what speeds were used at the planning/ roster stage. It is apparent, despite repeated requests his company never replied. I think we can all come to our own conclusions on why. Also in answer to the comments "what is fatigue", the ICAO definition is very clear

"Fatigue is defined as a physiological state of reduced mental or physical performance capability resulting from sleep loss or extended wakefulness, circadian phase, or workload (mental and/or physical activity) that can impair a crew member’s alertness and ability to safely operate an aircraft or perform safety-related duties."

Therefore it's immaterial if your "sleepy" or "feeling drained" or "knackered"...If you are so sleepy or drained or knackered that it impairs your alertness and ability ....AT ANY POINT IN A FLIGHT, to safely operate an aircraft that is "defined" as Fatigue. Cant really see where the confusion is to be honest.

MikeIndia5

13th Dec 2016, 15:43

It wasn't just about the rostering, which was questionable at 12.30 .... look at this just up: https://www.balpa.org/Media-Centre/Press-Releases/Airline-pilot-wins-major-legal-victory-on-fatigue

Stan Woolley

13th Dec 2016, 16:02

Tiredness, sleepiness, exhausted are subjective.

Exactly the same problem applies to fatigue. That's why it's difficult to pin down and the reason that companies prefer to keep it that way.

Tricky stuff! :\

RAT 5

13th Dec 2016, 16:32

Stan: I agree that companies prefer lots of grey areas; but, as it is written in law who was it who chose that word? I doubt it was the companies. Scary if it was: i.e. the airlines could write their own laws. We've suspected that FTL's had much backroom lobbying in dark corridors, but how far & deep could that tactic burrow?

Mr Angry from Purley

13th Dec 2016, 17:31

Twiglet1

13th Dec 2016, 17:43

His roster of 3 earlies including an extended 3rd day followed by a transition to a late would suggest a fatiguing roster.

So the good news under EASA FTL the flight (with dubious schedule and block times) is no longer possible. And EASA allows crews to work more than 3 consecutive early duties so maybe there are some good points to it?? (no need to feed back!)

FlightDetent

13th Dec 2016, 18:21

My comment about the duty was based on the rostering phase. It was rostered at 12.30, the max. No room for hiccups. On the day, actual conditions caused to go over. My comment is: common sense says that rostering should always include a 45-60min buffer, especially on a 3 sector trip, to allow for hiccups. It became illegal at the last minute. Spoken like a company man for the second time? Man up.:* The last sentece is just BS.

It was fradulently rostered with make believe times to add up towards 12:30 which was never achievable, on any given day. For sure it did not become illegal at the moment the skip added the minutes and said hey, these do not align.

The PIC eventually agreed to start based on a promise to get out of the situation. Later, when the chicken did not come in order, he got sweetalked into the last sector and then excercised discretion (which he complained so much against) thus saving company a tremendous headache and heap of money.

On the next day, perhaps with a "I told you so" tone, he called unfit but the Co. tried to shoot him off the emplyee list for that.

By today's standards, the duty should had never commenced and whether or not it was legal to do so on the given day ... ... ... the silence here is deafening. (half-size exclamation here)

Cows getting bigger

13th Dec 2016, 18:45

I've lost count of the number of times ops present an unrealistic schedule. They live in some form of utopia where everything runs on rails, reflecting on a wonderful example that was set some 7 years ago by Capt Bloggs who 'always got the job done'. Tell them it is unachievable and the initial response is "See what you can do", followed by silence and then, ultimately, "There are no options, if you choose to divert that's your decision but just let us know so we can try to arrange coaches/accom/refunds".

Ops are useful, most of the time. However, my experience is that when pushed they slope away from tricky decisions, the phones aren't answer and they start shuffling paper in order to look busy. IMHO that the captain concerned in this case was tired of being faced wth the same-old-same-old and decided to play by the rules but, rather perversely, by pre-warning them out of some remaining sense of loyalty he was Royally Rogered.

I can see exactly the predicament he was faced with.

onlythetruth

13th Dec 2016, 22:07

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/12/14/landmark-uk-fatigue-ruling-affect-australian-airline-pilots/

Interesting its getting coverage in Aus, not seen anything in UK...very odd.

Hussar 54

13th Dec 2016, 23:08

What a mess.

Reading the findings, it seems to me that Cpt Simkins probably won his case more because of TC's vindictive actions and useless arse covering amongst themselves rather than by reason of roster induced fatigue.

Which, I suppose, would say far, far more about TC than it does about current EASA regulations.

Have the CAA got themselves involved yet ? They should be crawling over TC if there's even the slightest suspicion that they were knowingly and regularly producing two crew PLOGs above 12.30 hours....Rarely smoke without fire.

And does anyone know if this poor guy is still flying ?

If not, then his compensation needs to be upwards of millions for having what appears to have been an umblemished career ruined by a bunch of chancers in TC Management.

MikeIndia5

14th Dec 2016, 05:09

Echoed by a comment on Aussie blog "Crikey Plane Talking" - just Google.

"If it is true that Thos Cook’s own fatigue management software showed that the pilot would have been unfit to fly, then Thos Cook, by pursuing the case, went far beyond a mere mistake for which an apology and reinstatement would suffice.

Pusuit of punishment of the pilot in this case, when their own software told them it was wrong, is clearly an indicator of a culture that aggressively seeks to endanger its passengers. Regulators should suspend Cook’s operating licences pending an investigation. This is no different from the aggressive cowboy truckie management that pushes its drivers, and is often accompanied by similar disregard of essential maintenance."

RAT 5

14th Dec 2016, 10:57

Spoken like a company man for the second time? Man up. The last sentece is just BS.

Absolutely not the case; very far from it. I accept my meaning did not come across correctly. I have operated for airlines where rosters were at max, but the Plogs were surprisingly I'm agreement. I have no knowledge of what the sector times were in the roster. Were they realistic or BS. Your comments are made with some inside knowledge, perhaps; mine are not. I am fully in support of this captain, and have done the same thing myself a few times; thankfully with no come-back. My strong comment is that even if the Plogs allow a duty to be completed just on the number it is daft to do so as there is squiggle room.
I once had a early morning 3 sector day that was rostered on the limit. We all thought, ugh, but from experience we expected to shave 10-15mins of the total. However, on checking in me found they had reduced the normal turn-round from 45mins to 30mins at both airfields. This started the blood to boil, but at that time of the morning the only guy on duty was the solo Ops guy. So we went into discretion and the CP got an ear full on return. The thing is he agreed at the BS. Trouble was it was an end of season 1 off trip, but we stamped on it so hard to would never happen again.
What happened to Capt. Simkins is an absolute disgrace. The internal workings of his company were also piss poor. The one common denominator I found in many airlines was the
lack of quality man management and the attitude that crews are ambassadors of the company and need treating with more respect & honesty, and given more support from on high. It was early in my career that I learnt the sad tale that The Chief Pilot is not Chief of the Pilots and someone who will fight your corner. More often they were Headmasters with a big stick. That's the problem; there is no-one to say to rostering; "they are my boys and you look after them. Use them but do not abuse them. If you do then I'll be down here with fire & brimstone."
I only had one CP like that and we all loved him, respected him and trusted him. As a result we did go the extra bit when he asked. Only one, in 35 years and 9 different outfits.

So guys, we are all on the same side.

On a lighter note I'm reminded of an old Chinese gem.

"dog runs in front of car gets tyred: dog runs behind car get exhausted: pilots works to EASA max gets fatigued."

Discorde

14th Dec 2016, 12:07

A succinct definition of fatigue is 'debilitating tiredness'.

Litebulbs

15th Dec 2016, 09:02

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/64383/thomas-cook-issues-apology-after-pilot-wins-employment-tribunal

RAT 5

15th Dec 2016, 09:51

“We have robust processes to ensure all the legal limits on flying time are met and we’d like to be clear that at no point was Captain Simkins expected to fly while fatigued.

Thomas Cook’s own fatigue monitoring software showed that because of the run of duties he had done, if he had flown his rostered flight he would have landed at the end of his duty with a predicted performance loss that would have been similar to being four times over the legal alcohol limit for flying,

I find these 2 statements are contradictory. Note the use of 'legal limits'. It has been said by CAA's, but not enforced, that FTL limits are not expected to be used as the norm on a regular basis. Duh! Nieve.

In mitigation, would crewing put these rosters through the FRMS program on the relevant day, or do they rely that rostering has done that?

Major Cleve Saville

15th Dec 2016, 11:51

I would like to voice my full unequivocal support for TCX in demanding honesty and integrity in its managers and staff.

Having read the reserved judgement and paraphrasing Mr Scadeng, this judgement must surely raise very serious concerns regarding honesty, integrity, and competence of TCX's Managers.

Apart from anything else they seemed so outraged that someone might be seeking to avoid one duty, and that was so totally unacceptable, that they suspended Captain Simkins from all duties for what appears to be a period of several (6?) months. No company can afford to employ managers who seek to waste valuable resources in this way:

With this in mind would the appropriate sanction be dismal (exceptionally reduced to a final written warning) for the following?:

Mr Lamb who took the view that the flight duty had been planned legally, although at the planning stage all the PLOG times i.e the flight PLANS, the PLANNED report time and the PLANNED turnaround times together exceeded the legal FDP. In short he planned a flight outside of the legal FDP. He needs to be educated in the meaning of the words, plan, planning, planned, actual and maximum.

Mr Thorington appears incapable of logical thought and appears to have a mindset that crews are trying to avoid work, not ensure the safety of themselves and the passengers, His actions in accusing Captain Simkins of lying started the process that brought Thomas Cook to court and exposed Thomas Cook as having acted illegally, compromised the safety of their passengers and
possibly acting vindictively to a loyal employee who acted himself within the law to ensure as far as possible the safety of the passengers and crew of Thomas Cook Airlines. By his actions ne has brought TCX into disrepute and no doubt cost the company a considerable sum of money. (Mr Thorington appears to have a lot of influence over the Flight Ops Management).

Jo Smith who accused of Captain Simkins of lying about being fatigued on 7 May even though there was absolutely no way she could have knowledge of his physiological or mental condition on the day. Was she employed as a mind reader, clairvoyant or a Flight Crew Manager?

Jo Burke who allegedly tried to mislead the tribunal by giving the impression that Mr Scadeng was interviewed, rather than responding by e-mail to emailed questions.

Helen or (Karen) Harrigan, HR Consultant who appears to be possibly less than competent in matters of HR,and appears to have tried to conceal Mr Scadeng's involvement in the investigation. If this is true the she would be guilty of dishonesty (or contempt of court?) would she not?

Mr Scadeng who seems a little confused at times e.g. "In relation to the use of discretion, Mr Scadeng clarified that was the claimant's decision, "the company can't force you but equally it's not solely your decision."There are legal reasons". What the heck....it's your decision but not solely your decision?? Then who's decision is it? ''Mr Scadeng wrote in his witness statement that "1extracted a concession from lan White during the disciplinary hearing that the planned duty was legal". We( the tribunal) do not consider that this accurately reflects what Mr White said. We also note the choice of words by Mr Scadeng, which we do not consider reflects the approach of an independent disciplinary officer, approaching the matter without preconceptions." There seems a serious lack of integrity here.

Mr Hutchings who is clearly not competent to perform his duty in hearing a final appeal as he spent a substantial part of the appeal hearing trying to explore relationship issues between the claimant and the others involved in the disciplinary process. Little time was spent on exploring the substance of the allegations themselves. The tribunal found that the appeal hearing could not properly be described as a rehearing. What is TCX paying him a considerable sum of money for if not to carry out his duties correctly.

It also seems to me that should you wish to decline a duty there should be a carefully worded statement along the lines of "I am making a protected disclosure as defined by section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1998 insofar as I have a reasonable belief that if I operate the duty I will be in breach of the Requirements of the Air Navigation Order and in doing so seek the protections of section 44 of the ERA 1996". Get the spotty youth in crewing to right it down and read it back to you.

onlythetruth

15th Dec 2016, 23:16

Having read the Judgement i'm a little confused (yes i know easily done)

EU Ops 2.2 states "An operator shall ensure that for all its flights:
Flights are planned to be completed within the allowable flight duty period taking into account the time necessary for pre-flight duties, the flight and turn-around times."

So if this indeed the case, the "roster" is not the legal document, any old tom dick or harry could make up any times they wanted, it would not be "illegal" as its only the roster i.e. it is not the "plan"
When issued with the "Flight Plan" it says "ATC Plan" so therefore that is, by definition "the plan".

Therefore if "the plan" issued to the crew could not be completed within the maximum FDP then TC could not, as is required by legalisation "ensure" at the planning stage it could be completed. Therefore, correct me if I am wrong (and I have been known to be from time to time), that makes it illegal.

So, what exactly is the TC's managers argument here?

Major Cleve Saville

16th Dec 2016, 08:08

Onlythetruth there is no rational argument. The published schedule is a schedule for passengers and take no account of how the flight is to be crewed, the roster is a document that allocates duties and does not know anymore than is fed into it, the only real plan for a duty day is the report time plus the estimated (realistic) turnaround times plus the computed flight times. Unless these TCX managers are seriously short of brain cells they know/knew this but chose to use to ignore facts and use facetious arguments for punishing someone for not agreeing to their wishes.

As the tribunal said "The limits and flight time and not flying when fatigued are clearly matters related to safety which if breached are potentially harmful to the health and safety of crew". Unfortunately every airline I have worked for looks upon FTLs as an unnecessary inconvenience that is intended, in their minds, to give Airline Pilots an unnecessarily easy lifestyle at the expense of the airline.

Every airline will say 'Safety is our number priority" In my experience this is complete B.S. every airline I have ever come into contact with has staying in business as it number 1 priority. Hull losses are looked upon as a potential commercial disaster not a human tragedy.

Septimus Pyecroft 48

16th Dec 2016, 21:47

Nicely summed up Major Cleve. All those mentioned should really take a long hard look at themselves. Thankfully a judicial/tribunal system picked out the minutiae and questioned on it. It is what they do. There seemed to be a very cavalier attitude to everything when dealing with this poor individual ( Balls of steel!) and to the person reading with half a brain cell, questions would have been asked and conclusions formulated almost all the way through. Subjectivity was a key factor as opposed to what they perceived was objectivity by right. Noone can say how a person feels but the person. Reasonable belief... that was particularly interesting, seems obvious! The arguments put forward by Management were poor, to say the least.In fact at times, and in my humble opinion, I could eat a bowl of alphabetty spaghetti and poop a better argument!

sitbythewing

17th Dec 2016, 07:01

It was on radio 5 Live (BBC) this morning after 7 and 8.

onlythetruth

17th Dec 2016, 08:30

The Times this morning Exhausted captain who refused to fly wins payout | News | The Times & The Sunday Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/exhausted-captain-who-refused-to-fly-wins-payout-q03kvxtl8)

RAT 5

17th Dec 2016, 11:31

And what did happen about the strike?

Biggles78

18th Dec 2016, 18:43

I am a CPL, multi rated and do not fly jets but occasionally do get SJS.

For a long time now I have failed to understand why truck drivers have better FTL (or maybe it's DTL) than pilots. Pilot's have more responsibility than a truck driver and I mean no disrespect to the truck drivers, but when a pilot has 4 or 500 passengers and crew, plus freight plus a couple of hundred million dollars of aircraft that really is a tad more than a truck driver is responsible for. With all that to look after I cannot see the logic behind the beancounters risking it by continually pushing the envelope to extract yet more hours from the guy(s) who have to land the whole package safely in possibly marginal conditions at the end of the flight.

I have read about pilots falling asleep between the OM and the MM on approach. Surely if this was happening many years ago then what is really happening on the flight deck now with the increase of Duty and Flight Times? Do management really think it is cost effective to push the hours and then have to pay out when mistakes are made on landing or landing phase?

If the beancounter gets tired on the way home then he can pull his car over and stop at the side of the road to recover. Can't really do that when your aircraft's wheel are no longer on the ground. Also, why do the Regulators allow these excessive FTL to exist? Guess being fatigued isn't a safety factor for them to be concerned about.

foxmoth

18th Dec 2016, 20:24

So if this indeed the case, the "roster" is not the legal document, any old tom dick or harry could make up any times they wanted, it would not be "illegal" as its only the roster i.e. it is not the "plan"
When issued with the "Flight Plan" it says "ATC Plan" so therefore that is, by definition "the plan".

What a load of twaddle, the roster IS the plan that crew have to work to, flight times are done using a standard aircraft speed and a company set head/tailwind bias, standard turnround times are then used to produce the roster, it is possible to use high speed cruise figures to reduce these times, but to reduce turnround times you would need to have good justification, and a non normal operation will rarely achieve better than standard turnrounds, this is where TCX got it wrong, they cut down on flight times and turnround without justification to fudge the duty.

onlythetruth

18th Dec 2016, 21:37

I say again the "roster" is not a "legal" document. Its nothing more than a "you report then and you go home then" timetable, The "flight plan" which is sent to ATC and is signed by PIC is the "legal" document. It is the "flight plan" that is required to be kept for inspection by the CAA not a roster.

IcePack

18th Dec 2016, 21:53

Once had a schedule given to me for a single sector within ftl just.
(Got changed after I pointed out the 76 couldn't do Mach 2)

framer

18th Dec 2016, 23:26

If that is the case onlythetruth, why then is there a legal requirement for the flight times used to produce the roster ? The flight times used must be achievable 80% of the time. Ie the company has to take account of the prevailing winds. Different XAA's may have different rules regarding the roster but your blanket statement doesn't apply everywhere that is for sure.

framer

19th Dec 2016, 00:08

If the beancounter gets tired on the way home then he can pull his car over and stop at the side of the road to recover.
The bean counter probably hasn't risen at 0345 and done 12 hours continuous work with no break and at an altitude of 7000ft.
Another thing to consider is the rate of processing required in the final 7 seconds of the work day. The bean counter probably doesn't notice if his rate of processing information is low because he never has to process X amount of information in seven seconds....or else.
Pilots know when they are slower at this than normal, most people don't because they just wander off to the kitchen to make a cup of tea if it is all getting a bit much.
I have driven trucks and only rarely was I required to process the quantity of information that I process on every landing. Normally it was when a car pulled out in front of me.
The reality is that if you are not a pilot then you probably don't understand what the job entails. How many pilots are involved in creating duty limitations and rosters?

Uplinker

19th Dec 2016, 07:54

And how many scheduling officers and pilot managers actually know what it is like to do 5 earlies these days? Or work 6 on, 2 off? They might think they know, but management pilots last did regular flying 10 years ago. We see them maybe once a fortnight when they fly on one day only; just 2 short sectors and go home early for a long weekend. The scheduling people work 9-5.

Ditto, how many pilot managers do you see flying at weekends and Christmas?

framer

19th Dec 2016, 08:56

Have a look at what your local truck driver rest requirements are. Have a look at what ATC shifts are, and then compare them to the rules that govern our roles. We by necessity need to be at work longer on many routes, but there needs to be recognition of that through recovery time before heading off and doing it again. At my joint we can do five 12 hour multi sector shifts in a row that see our alarms going off at 03 something ( and getting home at about 7pm) and it is completely legal because the XAA has allowed individual companies to put forward the FRMS and they rubber stamp it. Where is the 8000ft cabin altitude taken into account? Or the inability to wander away from your seat? Where is the half hour break free of duty every five hours the truckies so rightly take?
The whole thing is a shambles. My favourite is when an operations staff member or manager says ' have a nice Christmas break' or ' how was your weekend? ' completely oblivious to the fact that we get one weekend a month which finishes late on the Friday and starts early on the Monday and get Christmas break off about once every five years.
Can you tell I'm jack of it? :)

Uplinker

19th Dec 2016, 10:07

@framer,

Yes, I agree entirely with your sentiments. BUT
How many of us actually put in fatigue reports?
How many of us ring crewing and say we can't come to work today because we are fatigued?
How many of us have refused to go into discretion?
How hard are the Unions fighting fatigue?
How hard are the XAAs fighting fatigue?

A Cabin manager said to me "yes but if we put in a fatigue report it will show that we can't cope" EXACTLY !!

What are the Unions doing about weekend and Christmas working?

onlythetruth

19th Dec 2016, 10:56

Lets face it 99.99% of pilots are spineless on this matter. The union..well what have they done?...dropped this guy at the most import point for all of us...just before the Tribunal date. Thank God he won. But have the union used this to really tackle what we all know is going on?. well have they? Apart from a "bit of noise" in the press and radio, they have done nothing.

It will take a massive loss of life before the "lessons have been learned" rubbish is spouted. The public don't have a clue about the reality of the situation.

We all get the gleaming Jets, the gold braid, the looks from passengers as we walk through the terminal, but lets face it, as a group we are a pathetic bunch, frightened of our own shadows in case "the boss" turns against us for daring to claim we are not fit.

And here is a thought, every time you put in a fatigue report "post duty", you have just admitted you HAVE committed a criminal act.

RAT 5

19th Dec 2016, 11:07

And how many scheduling officers and pilot managers actually know what it is like to do 5 earlies these days?

Over 30 years ago, when things were sometimes bad, before the got worse, I challenged rosterers & managers to work my summer roster in their offices. They would still have their comfy chairs, radios, internet, coffee machines. phones, space, social environment, lunch canteen with out side tables, sea level clean atmosphere and proper toilets, time to take a walk/bike ride and get some fresh air every couple of hours or lunchtime.
There were no takers. No attempt at understanding the question. No recognition there was a problem. It was quite simply a case of whinging pilots who were paid a handsome salary, did little work, got lots of time off and should be grateful that all the other workers busted their guts so the boys could play with their toys.
Then the hard-nosed bean counters took over, the FTL's stretched, the XAA's sided against the pilots and solid medical science, things got worse and money won. The pilots capitulated and here we are. It's a numbers game. Rosters are productivity generators. The CFO demands max value. The rostering dept has to deliver that within legal limits. The human factor might be the weakest link in the accident chain, but they are there to be pushed, and in a vocation it is easy to do.
Perhaps the tide is just starting to turn, slowly.
But I would still challenge, very publicly, various XAA chiefs to work an EASA block roster in their office. I would also challenge a chief medical officer to fly an EASA block roster in the cockpit. After that let's see what their opinions are, and their families.

beardy

19th Dec 2016, 12:26

And here is a thought, every time you put in a fatigue report "post duty", you have just admitted you HAVE committed a criminal act.

That is simply not true under EASA. By stating it you may very well have dissuaded the hesitant from filing a fatigue form.

Uplinker

19th Dec 2016, 12:41

And here is a thought, every time you put in a fatigue report "post duty", you have just admitted you HAVE committed a criminal act.

Wrong. That would only apply if you said you were fatigued before flying but got on and flew anyway. I have filed reports when I became fatigued before TOD, although I felt OK before push-back. The fatigue report (at least ours) includes a section to report how you mitigated in-flight fatigue. Drank coffee, ate food, took controlled rest, etc.

If you feel fatigued during the cruise, on approach or taxiing in, or in the crew bus, you should report it.

But we must put the reports in otherwise our companies will think - and be able to "prove" - that their rostering is not causing any fatigue, or that heavy crews are not necessary, or 6 on 2 off rosters or 900 hours a year are sustainable etc. Pilots have a duty to their fellow pilots to put reports in.

If more than 50% of pilots were reporting fatigue, then something would have to be done.

Twiglet1

19th Dec 2016, 13:35

Not sure what the need for the flight plan has to do with it. Has the schedule the Commander showed up for been published. That's really all that is needed. Any Charter Pilot will then tell us if the block times are kosher (the turn round of 45-60 mins).
I guess the other question is what are the implications now for TC crews in the future. On the same flight next season will a extra crew be sent down to operate the last sector (on the aircraft even?). Will the crew that Pax back on the last leg say "i'd rather operate" than sit down the back with the punters.....

onlythetruth

19th Dec 2016, 15:06

Twigglet

Well I am sure the flights will be on a "schedule" for the season as I doubt they will be "one offs". At least for the first and the last sector. , so if the roster shows flight times the same as the schedule for the season, all is good. If its less then, whoops, I can see knocks on the door.

Twiglet1

20th Dec 2016, 09:33

Only
Yep understood.
There must be a few TC commuters that live just past the 90 minutes (normal for Airlines) re-thinking their standby call out policy.
If a crew member gets called out from standby and is late because they live 2 hours away and claims he/she can normally do it in 90 mins.....

Now Me Lord what about these bent traffic routes and your average speed over 70 mph.

RAT 5

20th Dec 2016, 09:38

One of there perennial problems is when duties are rostered to the max; no buffer. That is using the limits as the norms: daft. CAA paid lip service to their attitude of including a buffer in the rosters. They never insisted on it. Guess what.

onlythetruth

20th Dec 2016, 10:14

According to the Judgment this guy asked his CP in an email

"Upon looking at the initial plogs produced at standard crews and turnaround times it became clear that the duty was actually planned into discretion by approximately twenty minutes. I informed the company that I would not be utilising my Captain’s discretion as per FTL7.18.1. It states “the extension shall be calculated according to what actually happens not on what was planned to happen.” Therefore as it was planned to go into discretion, my Captain’s discretion would not be an option. The company then produced high speed cruise plogs (MACH .82) in an attempt to reduce the planned FDP to below that of 12.30. Even then the duty time showed in excess of the maximum of 12.30.

The claimant asked what figures had been used to come up with the original FDP of exactly 12.30 which was exactly the maximum FDP available."

Then later in the Judgment it states

"The claimant asked on a number of occasions for information on how the flight was planned to come within the maximum FDP. The respondent never provided him with this information and has given no satisfactory explanation as to why they did not do so.

Now....I wonder why that would be "stroking chin"

DVR4G.DEP

21st Dec 2016, 08:07

Some senior managers still remain, maybe that's were the whole problem is, a new change required, surely after this episode, wasting valuable money, money which employees took a pay cut to save the business and not pay expensive legal fees to pursue a personal vendetta.

Journey Man

21st Dec 2016, 08:08

Guys

MS was seen as a vociferous and difficult character and various bull**** excuses were invented to have him gone. There had been past incidents involving go arounds and a diversion to a military airfield that left management a bit fired up already. Management actions cannot be justified over how they falsely targeted him but there's history here that you need to be aware of.

TCX pilots are not overstretched and average hours remain below 700. This was a one off from 2 years ago. Pilot management has been overhauled but senior figures remain. That kind of tells you how much backing they had from the very top to persue MS.

In conclusion it was personal.

Is this supposed to justify the heavy handed manner in which management attempted to end this pilot's career? All this tells me is how inept they were with dealing with issues previously - which you provide no details of and hence the actions of the pilot may well have been justified in each case. Indeed, I would say they were justified if they did not result in any form of restorative or retributive justice.

This action now looks vindictive from a company that places no time limitation for the expiry of a previous penalty. Often those standing up for greater compliance with regulations are branded as awkward and difficult by management.

MikeIndia5

21st Dec 2016, 08:35

This just in from BBC BBC Radio Shropshire - Eric Smith and Clare Ashford, 21/12/2016 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04hngfl) BALPA's Rob Hunter at 2 hours 22 minutes today

MikeIndia5

21st Dec 2016, 09:16

Exactly my thoughts Journey Man, it has always been my experience that those seen as "difficult" by managers are usually the ones with principle and integrity.

Care to elaborate Mr Monarch?..you seem to have the "inside scoop" on this. You make it sound like MS had a disciplinary record as long as your arm. Is that the case? Unless LAS is now classified as a military airfield!? Maybe he just refused to "bend the rules" or was not willing to succumb to management pressure to do the "wrong thing".

Your comment "TCX pilots are not overstretched” indicates that maybe you are not as "plugged in" as you may believe you are.

UAV689

21st Dec 2016, 09:28

No one ever putting fatigue reports, imagine what the rosters will look like in 10,20,30 years....

When these nasa scientists look at the historical rosters and see no fatigue reports, they will have evidence to make ftl more gruelling, as we are not tired, there are no fatigue reports!

I have heard of one famous loco airline not allowing people to use the f word, as it involves reports being submitted to the authorities....

hunnywagon

21st Dec 2016, 10:24

Definitely vindictive behaviour by management but also a warning to other company pilots not to go fatigued. The tribunal has brought the truth out. What does it take to get the board to recognise the huge waste of company resources in this case and take appropriate actions against the accountable managers who have caused this sorry state of affairs?

As a footnote to MonarchorBust; come on; 700 hours is no indication of manning levels! It's all about how those duty hours are rostered. You could be flying 200 and be knackered or 900 and be in a comfortable regular pattern - those who have been there know it. The pilots have no confidence in TCX management to act on their fatigue concerns and don't put in reports as a result. Currently the long haul programme consists of ramming pilots into economy seats backwards and forwards across the pond to save money on hotac and duty time, oh, and pilots...

onlythetruth

21st Dec 2016, 10:40

MonarchOrBust You state "there's history here that you need to be aware of" Pray spill the beans. Sounds like you have the inside gen, and i am sure all those that know these individuals including MS are all ears about the History you have now referred to twice. Come on man, you can't say things like that then bottle it!!

In fact you mentioned something similar in a previous post but for some reason that post appears now to have "evaporated". Another "evaporated" post said that RS hated MS. So what exactly is behind this or, as others have said, is it really just a case of a group of managers ganging together to give a good guy a kicking simply because he places his crews and passengers safety first rather than dance the previously named managers tune who, according to my contacts at TCX were referred to as "bullies" and operated via "intimidation" according to a survey released a couple of months back?

RAT 5

21st Dec 2016, 12:56

700 hours is no indication of manning levels! It's all about how those duty hours are rostered.

In early 80's Britannia had a company limit of 700hrs pa. Since 90% of that was achieved in 7 months it could be quite tiring at times.

Currently the long haul programme consists of ramming pilots into economy seats backwards and forwards across the pond to save money on hotac and duty time, oh, and pilots...

That to me is the fault of the pilots. Where is the self-dignity.
I once had occasion to be planned to go to USA to collect & ferry an a/c home. 2 of us were rostered 3 sectors, economy, to travel 16 hours. They had then planned minimum rest before the return crossing. I discovered that the 'package' included business class travel paid by the supplier, and 3 days hotac on arrival.
Stern words were exchanged with management. In politic speak; frank, open & robust discussions took place. Views were exchanged and a successful outcome was mutually agreed and implemented.
They push; you know your rights & the strength of your arguments and push back. If you have the strength of your convictions, and solid common sense to back you up, then you'll win more than you lose. Somewhere up the chain of command you will find someone who has some nouse & gumption when they know the facts. I gave up arguing with indians years ago. You need to talk to the chiefs to get anything done.

onlythetruth

23rd Dec 2016, 13:09

“However, there was a disagreement between him and his managers about his conduct which led to the tribunal proceedings."

"about his conduct" Well that clearly means, according to the judgment, the named managers at Thomas Cook believe that refusing to fly due to a dangerous level of fatigue and putting the lives of passengers and crew at risk, and actually explaining that directly to the company, is "conduct" not becoming of a Thomas Cook Pilot. " at no point was Captain Simkins expected to fly while fatigued." . So apart from playing the spineless, passing the buck "oh I'm sick" card or, with criminal negligence, agreed to fly what EXACTLY should he have done? lie?

The comment about his "conduct" appears to have spectaculaly backfired.

DVR4G.DEP

24th Dec 2016, 08:33

Seems the company have sunk to an all low by changing the focus to pilots conduct not fatigue, talk about the Middle East, this seems like such an evil company to work for, first the way they handled the death of those children and now this.

BBC Local Live: Shropshire Friday 23 December 2016 - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-shropshire-38348621?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=5857a180e4b055b7d25a95dd%26Ludlow%20'let%20down' %20says%20angry%20councillor%26&ns_fee=0#post_5857a180e4b055b7d25a95dd)

onlythetruth

24th Dec 2016, 09:02

From the BBC
"Thomas Cook is insisting its dispute with the Ellesmere pilot Mike Simkins was about "his conduct" and that "at no point was Captain Simkins expected to fly while fatigued"

Has anybody else seen anything to suggest that MS was anything other than totally professional in his conduct in the Judgement because I've not.

It looks like they are really desperately trying to smear this guy. Must be the same PR company who screwed up their handling of the Corfu Tragedy because I think it's clear everyone is seeing through this.

RAT 5

24th Dec 2016, 13:10

Must be the same PR company who screwed up their handling of the Corfu Tragedy

????????????? must have missed that one.

Chronus

24th Dec 2016, 13:55

Then was there not also the case of Thomas Cook Airlines Services Ltd v Wolstenholme. I wonder what really happened to him.

Full particulars of the judgement may be found at:
Thomas Cook Airline Services Ltd v Wolstenholme UKEAT/0353/12/KN (http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed15701)

beardy

24th Dec 2016, 15:35

Are you insinuating anything in your wondering? If you are, it may be much wiser for you to wonder in the privacy of your own home.

Ancient-Mariner

24th Dec 2016, 16:29

Thomas Cook gas deaths: Firm's contact with family 'often ill-judged' Thomas Cook gas deaths: Firm's contact with family 'often ill-judged' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-34697804)

Quote, "Travel firm Thomas Cook's dealings with the family of two children killed by carbon monoxide were often ill-judged, an independent review has found.
Bobby and Christi Shepherd, aged six and seven, died at the Louis Corcyra Beach Hotel, in Corfu, in October 2006.
The review said the deaths were compounded by Thomas Cook's reaction.
Thomas Cook said the report, which also said parts of the firm protected costs ahead of customer experience, made for "uncomfortable reading in parts".

Ancient-Mariner

24th Dec 2016, 16:30

Travel firm Thomas Cook's dealings with the family of two children killed by carbon monoxide were often ill-judged, an independent review has found.
Bobby and Christi Shepherd, aged six and seven, died at the Louis Corcyra Beach Hotel, in Corfu, in October 2006.
The review said the deaths were compounded by Thomas Cook's reaction.
Thomas Cook said the report, which also said parts of the firm protected costs ahead of customer experience, made for "uncomfortable reading in parts".

Chronus

24th Dec 2016, 20:48

Are you insinuating anything in your wondering? If you are, it may be much wiser for you to wonder in the privacy of your own home.
Had it been my intention I`d have chosen confrontation rather "insinuation". So far as my remark is concerned is no more or less than any casual reader of the judgement would have said. Perhaps better rephrased would have been : "what was that all about ". If of course the mind- police wouldn`t mind that.

Mr Angry from Purley

30th Dec 2016, 16:54

What can we learn from this episode?
1. Don't leave it to the day before / on the day to have such discussions.
2. Don't ring Crewing - ring the Duty Pilot - your Manager.
3. Planned VV actual. The previous CAA advice particularly on ETOPS / 2 crew / CAP371 was FDP calculations were based on "planned" not "actual". Need to check on EASA. This case was a one off schedule however.
4. Plenty of discussion over the years that CAP371 regs on early/lates/nights caused rostering issues when switching from early duties e.g. to afternoons. This incident is the proof perhaps....
There are no winners.

onlythetruth

31st Dec 2016, 14:23

According the Judgement he emailed the Chief Pilot and asked how it had been planned.
Judgement states The claimant asked on a number of occasions for information on how the flight was planned to come within the maximum FDP. The respondent never provided him with this information and has given no satisfactory explanation as to why they did not do so.

The reason the Chief Pilot says he never replied to the direct question was..taken directly from the judgement "When asked by the Judge
why no one went back to the claimant about his question as to how the duty time of12 hours 30 was arrived at, which the claimant again raised in the pack he produced and sent to Mr Scadeng prior to the disciplinary hearing, Mr Scadeng replied that he viewed the email of 7”‘ May as about fatigue and his view about the rest was that it was “intended as entrapment” and that they needed to be cautious"

Also I have heard ( so not seen the plogs to confirm ) but apparently the difference between the Roster times and the Block times on the day was nearly an hour, so if true not talking only a "few mins". Also again from what I have heard, it was a net tailwind for the whole duty.

I wonder why they never got back to him:=

framer

1st Jan 2017, 04:06

Are the any proceedings still.....proceeding?
If this has been wound up without the judge requiring the question to be answered then it is a real shame. The judge should require the details of how the FDP was arrived at and any laws broken during the creation of the plan should have been charged. Those responsible need to be held responsible.

Club World

4th Jan 2017, 08:52

Looking at this article

The Man Who Pays His Way: Let sleeping pilots lie ? You're more at risk on the motorway | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/the-man-who-pays-his-way-let-sleeping-pilots-lie-ndash-youre-more-at-risk-on-the-motorway-5333695.html)

This dates back to 2007 and we are now in 2017, seems the same story everytime and yet nothing is being done to iron out this dangerous situation.

A quote from that article

When a pilot reports for duty, he or she is assumed to be in full control of their faculties. If they are not, then it is their sole responsibility to declare themselves unfit to work. Airlines uniformly say that they would take no action against any pilot saying that they were too tired to work. According to the Balpa survey, one in three said that they would refuse to fly but would fear disciplinary action. A further one in eight said that they would not declare their fatigue out of fear for their job. They say that they are obliged to be more productive than ever, flying up to six sectors a day.

Clearly for reporting fatique you do face disciplinary with initially no support from your union. I hope this case recently restores some form of confidence by holding ALL those to account and not simply brushed aside.

onlythetruth

4th Jan 2017, 12:41

Club World, well I don't think you can get any clearer than the Judgement quoting the CP disciplinary letter.
“You dishonestly stated that the reason for refusing that duty was fatigue” “you were dishonest in asserting that the reason for refusing the duty of 7th May 2014 was the onset of fatigue on 6th. This raises very serious concerns regarding integrity, and the trust and confidence that the Company must have in its Commanders. With this in
mind I find that the appropriate sanction would be dismissal.”

Does anyone know if those concerned have been sacked yet over this?

Club World

4th Jan 2017, 14:56

Well that's just it, it may be early days, but so far there doesn't appear to be any accountability, seems like the old boys club reunite once again.

Alycidon

4th Jan 2017, 19:42

A junior house doctor at the end of a 19-hour-shift, who works in an industry that also deals in matters of life and death, will look enviously at the limit on pilots' hours, which permits only 900 duty hours a year – corresponding to less than two-and-a-half hours a day.

900 duty hours a year, lol

Dan Winterland

5th Jan 2017, 01:35

My company has a Fatigue Risk Management System which has made a few changes as a result of multiple fatigue reports. Despite these successes, we still do not get a clear picture of how much fatigue there is in the company as pilots are still reluctant to report. It's not out of fear - we have a clearly defined just culture and reporters will not be targeted for retribution. It's laziness. I hear the comment "there's no point in reporting as nothing gets done" all the time. Nothing gets changed because people don't report. Our FRMS is a data driven system - it doesn't work on anecdotes. If people don't report, then the company doesn't believe there is a fatigue problem and the rosters will get worse.

RAT 5

5th Jan 2017, 08:01

Nothing gets changed because people don't report. If people don't report, then the company doesn't believe there is a problem.

Amazing; that was cry from my company in early 80's. It didn't matter what the subject was; people had the perception that nothing was done so they didn't report. The company then said there was no problem. It could have been accommodation, crew transport, crew food, rosters, defect clearance etc.
It could be a company's response to a few grumps is to ignore and do nothing in the hope it goes away. Guess what; crews become lazy and the problems go away; or so it seems.
Disappointing that such behaviour still is alive.
Putin is excellent at it. Deny everything and have more stamina than the protestors: then they will find something else to protest about where they sense some success.

darkbarly

5th Jan 2017, 13:11

If people don't report, then the company doesn't believe there is a fatigue problem and the rosters will get worse

True, and a healthy reporting system is an important element in a safety system. However, there are other elements, and the notion that an absence of data (reports) is an endorsement of an organisations policies and practises is unwise. It is not reasonable for say, management, to assume the system performs well from a safety point of view if there are no adverse, reported events.

It is encumbent on the operator to ensure a safe system and manner of operation, and this comes before data is generated, sifted and interpreted and in hand with oversight from the regulator.

The move towards data led safety systems(such as FRMS) DOES NOT REMOVE the responsibility of an operator to think reasonably and it appears there are those that are using the need for reports and data as a convenient delay before taking effective action to mitigate poor EU FTLs.

The fundamental, intrinsic value of safety data is that it allows you to convince the non aviation types populating airline boards that something presents a risk to the business and needs addressing. The need for sound judgement and decision making at Ops management level has not been replaced.

If the stop end lights appear brighter than usual it may not be necessary to anaylse the runway dimensions in detail, other clues are available:ok:

Twiglet1

5th Jan 2017, 17:05

Club World
You have hit the nail on the head - there is more chance of a fatigue related accident driving home.
The risk of one in the air is low, but the consequences high.
The risk of one on the ground is higher, but the consequences low.

The other truth is Pilots are more protected in the UK than in Europe despite the level playing field of EASA FTL so give some credit to the CAA / BALPA and perhaps even those nasty Airlines.

RAT 5

5th Jan 2017, 17:30

There is an understanding of why pilots push the boundaries. It has been discussed in accidents - the 'why did they continue on?' I've been there done that with horrendous rosters; thinking about them afterwards. I was fit, young and enthusiastic. In small companies there was the "let's help the company' attitude. Too late before the many realised they had been shafted, and the few had a 'told you so' look on their faces.
Pilots are mission orientated and in a vocational profession. Admitting you can't complete the mission is not in the DNA of many. It's very sad when that is abused by the top dogs and not appreciated when it happens. As we grew older we realised this and took a step back and said no; not anymore. Then we became an uncooperative trouble maker. Fortunately there were some who had enough backbone, helped by finances, to stand firm. Guess what; a little push back, when on solid ground, worked. Sadly, too few over the decades have done that.
More power to their cause and shame on the managers who expect anything else than true professionalism.

onlythetruth

6th Jan 2017, 09:59

Remember sitting in a taxi once positioning from NCL to LHR. The Capt. (management) was having a real pop the NCL pilots because they were not working days off, (hence we were covering the flights). They were not flying days off because they were basically knackered. How funny therefore when this chap goes apoplectic with the taxi driver for driving over the rumble strips a few times,telling him he shouldn't be driving if he tired. This prat then continues to lay into the NCL guys for not being "company men". That, I think says it all.

RAT 5

6th Jan 2017, 12:30

I once flew for a small charter company, overseas, where the "let's help the company" attitude was prevalent amongst crews. I later discovered it was a flying club for this who could not join the larger local outfits. T's & C's were poor compared to the locals, but there was no leverage from the crews as management knew the score. There was supposed to be a structured roster, but it changed daily due to crew call outs. If you flew a SBY, the next day was changed and the domino effect went through the whole weeks plan.
I later heard the CFO budgeted for minimum crews and absolute minimum SBY's on the basis that he expected crews to work on days off. After 3 years of no pay rise the guys & gals eventually got the picture; just before the company folded. We later discovered the managers had raided the so-called pension fund and waltzed off with full pockets.
So after 3 years of knackered flying and destroyed social life to "help the company" we all realised we'd been shafted.
In the Phoenix that rose from the ashes it was declared up front that working on days off was a no no unless it was absolutely unpressurised & voluntary and with the day off returned PLUS a compensation day of the crew's choosing. At least that saved the company any money cash flow issues. The crews had finally grown a pair.
There are company guys and company guys, and often the real ones are not at the top. The coal face guys need to protect their balance in work/family life because no-one else will. Managers & EASA are more concerned with balance sheets.

OMDB30R

11th Jan 2017, 10:01

Not applicable to some degree to the "forgotten" pilots in this world.

How to nap successfully at work - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38498488)

Fire and brimstone

20th Jan 2017, 17:07

Someone said 99.9% of pilots are spineless in this matter.

That is an opinion.

I suspect the sentiment behind the post is correct.

What bothers me is the abject lack of support for the - hypothetical - 0.01% who do have a spine.

Are they supported?

Do the 99.9% look up to these people who stand up for the industry??

In my experience they are swamped by the industry, management, the total disinterest of the regulator, and the acceptance and fatalistic attitude of MOST trade unions.

There can't be a pilot in the UK who has not been pressured into discretion at some time in his / her career. It is a common issue that should unite any red-blooded group of pilots.

And yet a guy who stands up for himself is hung out to dry.

If you want to know why unions are non-effective in the UK, this is the best example you will find in recent history.

"Shut up and keep your head down".

Company wins every time - unless you are brave and have GUTS.

Club World

20th Jan 2017, 20:24

I would hope that those responsible are held to account, at the least surely they must be suspended pending an internal company investigation and example made of them, I would be shell shocked if these individuals were still continuing in their role after all this, if that is the case then surely all pilots should sign a strong petition to the CEO stating they have no confidence in their leadership and demand they go.

RAT 5

21st Jan 2017, 09:09

all pilots should sign a strong petition to the CEO stating they have no confidence in their leadership and demand they go.

That would require the 0.01% conducting a 'quiet behind the scenes' sounding out of the other 99.9% unreliable sheep. You'd have to have known support before raising head above parapet. If not it risks being shot off at the next check ride.

An indication of the attitude of XAA's & management is this: in short-haul european operations there is now an approved procedure for strategic 'controlled rest' in the cockpit. The procedure is written in Ops manuals and the conditions and methods are specific. Now ask yourself; what is going on in short-haul operations such that is thought necessary to use controlled rest in the work place so that the crew is up to par and awake for the subsequent approach & landing?
Over 25 years ago the EU bought in the workers' directive. This included regulations for workers to take work breaks at regular intervals and other features e.g. meal breaks both from their place of work. Neil Kinnock was the EU transport commissioner and he recognised that public transport vehicles did not offer such opportunities. Trains, buses, coaches, aeroplanes. It was stipulated that until such opportunities were possible the companies had to introduce compensatory measures, otherwise public transport workers would be disadvantaged and treated unfavourably compared to the general workforce.
Guess what: it never happened and aviation FTL's became worse than during that period 25 years ago. And what did the unions do to insist on those compensatory measures? Nothing.
So here we have it; short-haul routes that are 5.30hours in each direction and controlled rest in the seat.
A travesty or what? And just where did the pressure come from not only to ignore the introduction of compensatory measures, but also the lengthening of FTL's? Answers on a postcard to.............

Fire and brimstone

21st Jan 2017, 17:19

If the only recourse is going to court - as it seems you are not permitted to complain, or raise a safety issue - then the risk associated with pilot fatigue is only likely going to increase.

Is this what the industry wants for itself?

Really?

Unless I am mistaken, in the case in question, the gentleman claimed he was / would be fatigued, and was called a liar for making the claim!

The company's own FRMS agreed with him, and yet the regulator still stand and watch as someone gets sacrificed in this way.

Fly while fatigued and you are a criminal / don't fly when potentially fatigued and you get sacked.

Not much wriggle room on this subject, is there??

:rolleyes:

Chronus

21st Jan 2017, 18:42

Does automation induce fatigue.

Can there be any doubt that increasingly more and more functions that would otherwise have been carried out by humans are allocated to machines. Aviation is no exception to this. In fact it is fast becoming one of the top in rankings for automation dependency.

Yes we do know and accept that lack of rest, adequate sleep, build up of sleep debt leads to fatigue. But I would submit, so does inactivity which causes lethargy, boredom and impairs alertness and attentiveness.

Here is a quote : " Hard work never killed a man. Men die of boredom, psychological conflict, and disease. They do not die of hard work". David Ogilvy said it. He had worked in the kitchens of a famous hotel in Paris and was a super door to door salesman selling the sort of posh cookers ( that are now so vogue as pride of place exhibits in pseudo farm cottages) to nuns, drunks and all manner of folk in between.

So maybe too much yawning, belly aching, moaning and whinging may bring forward the day of the one pilot-system monitor before he/she is also replaced with a super duper, all singing dancing computer, with artificial intelligence to boot. Whatever that may be.

framer

22nd Jan 2017, 07:22

Yes we do know and accept that lack of rest, adequate sleep, build up of sleep debt leads to fatigue. But I would submit, so does inactivity which causes lethargy, boredom and impairs alertness and attentiveness.

The current line of thinking is that the act of monitoring ( looking at gauges and screens) is in itself, tiring/ fatiguing due to ' repetitive cognitive effort'.
Makes sense to me. It explains why after a long period of intensely monitoring the automatics in the cruise as weather is negotiated one can feel quite exhausted after the duty. The automatics have done it all, but it is more tiring than a normal flight.

framer

22nd Jan 2017, 08:59

Fly while fatigued and you are a criminal / don't fly when potentially fatigued and you get sacked.

Not much wriggle room on this subject, is there??
That is probably the best summation of the situation I have ever read.

Fire and brimstone

22nd Jan 2017, 12:03

The other thing to consider here is that this is not a case of whinging pilots.

Why?

1) FTL's are laid down by regulation, and are legally binding.

2) In the example of the case in question, we are talking about an operator rostering a duty of over 12 1/2 hours. That could mean 12 1/2 hours with no break.

3) I do not know the circumstances of the duty, but most very long duties either involve getting up at 4 or 5 in the morning in order to get to work; or coming in later and finishing in the wee small hours of the morning. This in itself is fatiguing, even before you consider the length of duty.

4) Before anyone 'complains' there is typically a sequence of several of these duties, with a resultant build-up of fatigue. This was the case here.

5) A good pilot, and certainly a good Captain is employed to avoid or reduce risk to safety. It is what a pilot is ultimately there to do. Whilst there always some risk in doing anything other than parking the aircraft up, we are not trained to be gun-ho. We are trained and learn to look ahead, predict and assess risks, and then do 'something' about it. To not 'do something' about it is potentially criminal.

6) We are required BY LAW to report safety concerns and violations.

7) If you do not report certain safety issues, you are potentially behaving in a criminal manner.

A solution?

Perhaps any systemic safety concern should be duplicated at source, with a copy going to the regulator. If the operator than "shoots the messenger", there is an instant trace, which the regulator would be obliged to stamp out.

E.g. A clear beech of Public Interest Disclosure - and detriment is automatically illegal.

At least this would make operators stop and think before they sanction the very people who make air transport safe: pilots.

HundredPercentPlease

22nd Jan 2017, 12:47

F&B,

All very good, but we have no regulator. The airlines pay vast sums to the regulator, who then in turn work hard to find ways to work round the legislation issued by EASA.

The operators want us to work harder and longer, and the regulator wants a happy operator.

The public are happy, because they believe that the regulator is strict, conservative and powerful.

It leaves us all on our own.

RAT 5

22nd Jan 2017, 15:08

The public are happy, because they believe that the regulator is strict, conservative and powerful.

That is indeed the case, and in many other industries also. The public are then rightly horrified, "how could that be allowed to happen?" after an accident: be it transport or a power station. The public have blind faith in the authorities because they are in ignorance and the authorities blow their own trumpets about how 'on the ball' they are in over sight and regulation. I think events at The Met one the past few years have shown the truth of that naivety. If it can happen there is can certainly happen in the 'old boys club' of other authorities.
During 35 years of operation under 4 different XAA's I've seen just how flexible and blind eyed they can be with the operators: until I forget a signature some flight paperwork or other and then the wroth of almighty descends in a torrent of tut tut!

Fire and brimstone

22nd Jan 2017, 15:36

100%Please

We are not on our own, as you say, although I think your sentiment is spot on.

Go to court, if you have 'done the right thing', and you will win your case, as the law is quite clear.

The difficult bit is the small matter of what happens between making a safety disclosure and winning the court case, which is why most people will keep their mouths shut.

In an ideal world, ones union would make the appropriate legal representations - if necessary, all the way up to parliament. It is fair to comment that they have had the chances to do this and choose not to.

In many cases of common law, at the point a crime is being committed, you can shout "unfair" and something is done at that point. You should not have to wait until you are hung, drawn and quartered before the law is invoked. It seems in aviation, that is what has to happen before you can then invoke the law i.e. when you are potentially sad, alone, without a job, and with rather less funds to fight a legal battle.

What I am suggesting is a system when you have made a safety disclosure, and at the point you are placed on a disciplinary (or otherwise treated unfairly), you can invoke the law at that point.

You can argue this is no different from any of life's unfair situations.

You can also very well argue that so may peoples lives are at potential risk, that to not have such a system is, well, 'criminal' in itself.

We have whistleblowing systems in place - make them damn well work?

onlythetruth

24th Jan 2017, 12:19

It will be interesting to find out if this guy did go to the CAA with the details. Does anyone know? I can't believe the he would not have done. If he did, then, having looked at the judgement I can not see a single reason the CAA would not have Thomas Cook bang to rights. It is clear that BALPA dropped legal support for him at court, have the CAA let him down as well? If they have, I cant see any view other than those charged with protecting the pilots, cabin crew and public have acted totally irresponsibly. The big unanswered question is ......why?

RAT 5

24th Jan 2017, 12:46

It is clear that BALPA dropped legal support for him at court,

There may be more to this than this simple statement. However, many yeas ago in a dispute with my employer, BALPA were hesitant about coming forwards in support. I was an individual member and it was a constructive dismissal claim. BALPA was trying to recruit within the company. What better advertisement than to show their teeth to potential new members. Sadly half those teeth were missing and the remaining were filed blunt. In the end the company paid a small settlement with no admission of anything.

I'm not a member and retired anyway, but how would members raise a vote of no-confidence if it is shown that support of a member was withdrawn in a case where he won. Just what is 1% for? So what is the truth behind the above statement?

Club World

25th Jan 2017, 07:39

Exactly - and what does it say about Thomas Cook if they continue to employ those named in the tribunal such as the Chief Pilot and DFO, surely they must be suspended pending an investigation?

Fire and brimstone

25th Jan 2017, 10:32

If you are able to read the result of the 'remedy hearing' you might get an idea.

E.g. Whether the company actually broke the law / actions the court requires them to take / reprimands, etc, etc.

This may not be in the public domain, although as it is not an out of court settlement, it usually finds its way into the press.

What is important is a precedent is set that can be quoted in subsequent cases of this nature i.e. the ruling becomes case law.

Club World

25th Jan 2017, 11:01

That is true but there are many unanswered questions, one is how and who calculated the planned FDP?

The company 'accepts' the tribunal decision, they said sorry to the pilot concern, they then alledge there was a dispute between him and his manager, the pilot concerned reported he 'is' fatique, his professional judgment was questioned by his manager who accused him of lying.

This has cause the company negative PR, it is no secret that those managers concerned are not trusted within the pilot community, the top senior mangers (CEO) knows that, so the question remains why are they still there?

If they are left there, there is without doubt they will do it again, this becomes a public safety issue.

onlythetruth

25th Jan 2017, 11:13

I understand there was an out of court settlement, with Thomas Cook accepting the findings of the Tribunal. But the details of that will no doubt be confidential. As I read it the 'Tribunal' only deal with the 'employment' aspect of the case, not the 'legality' of if a FDP was legal or not or the ANO breach aspect of it. Although reading through it the Judge thought this guy was right tor he would not have won on both aspects. So the next thing is, if it was illegal, and the details would tend to show it was, has the CAA become involved? because if they haven't then I think that tells us all something we have suspected for years. Would not like to have been anyone involved at the company or the CAA when the inevitable smouldering heap at the end of the runway occurs irrespective of which airline.

MonarchOrBust

25th Jan 2017, 13:07

And we laugh about the XAA of a Banana Republic being in bed with their airlines...

Twiglet1

25th Jan 2017, 18:18

OTR
The CAA (and the Company) will audit the FTL as part of normal compliance process. This is done normally to look for trends e.g. XXX-BBB-XXX flight runs seasonally and discretion was xx %. If its over 25% (might be 33%) then remedial action will need to be put in place, at the very least in time for next season. Airlines don't in general "tweak" the schedules because of On Time Perf and the risk that a bent block/schedule will impact it / slots / EU delay comp rules etc - This is unlike the old days when it was more common practice.
The issue is this schedule was a one off so harder to look for unless the CAA had the Company under closer scrutiny from previous audits. In this case they might have well unearthed it.
From my knowledge of TC their employees including Pilots they are no where in this bracket and it may have been a simple case of someone trying to do their best. Yes the schedule was unrealistic but how many times do you work to the max at TC - not when your going to PMI and back.
It then snowballed into us v them which is a great shame.

Chronus

25th Jan 2017, 19:51

"lt appears likely, from the evidence of the respondent's witnesses, that the decision to suspend the claimant and the formulation of the allegation was made by Jo Smith on advice from HR. " Quote from the ET judgement.
So to my sort of reading and understanding the blame for the monumental cock up is down to HR.
Don`t know much about HR, must be some kind of new invention, like PC`s,tablets and things, not all that common in my days. But from little I know about it, sounds very much like a bunch of busy business things trotting around dishing out gems on how to get rid of non- resource human types. I wonder do they carry stethoscopes round the neck and a mirror with a little lamp on their heads when they are doing their rounds.

Herod

25th Jan 2017, 20:50

I can remember an HR type once saying "we don't consider crews to be an asset, because we can't sell them at a profit". I guess you'd be better off as a slave.

Sorry Dog

25th Jan 2017, 22:15

It's a rather fuzzy memory, but didn't Rolls actually claim part of their workforce as an asset before their bankruptcy/bailout. The issue that was pointed out to them was that the asset can deduct itself from the balance sheet with little or no warning.

RAT 5

26th Jan 2017, 08:45

I can remember an HR type once saying "we don't consider crews to be an asset

That BS would guarantee you a humongous FAIL on any quality management course. If that attitude is in any HR person, or financial person, they should be out the door PDQ.

Sadly, over 35 years of varied experience I am not surprised by such attitudes. It was not uncommon for HR people to be the first to clock off at 17.00 after they had just berated a pilot for: e.g. refusing to use discretion to extend their 13hr day; refusing to come in on their day off at a weekend; been sick too often at inconvenient times etc. etc.
And this from muppets who were young enough to be your kids and had only been in the dept for a few months, while you'd been saving there for years.

Chronus

26th Jan 2017, 19:05

It has been said by many, time and time again. The pilot is the last line of defence against accidents. Only he /she can change the outcome when all else has failed. Captain Simkins` case highlights this. His best efforts to ensure the paramount matter of safety and the very fact that he was acting conscious of his role as such. That in the event of need, a state of fatigue would render him unfit to act as the last line of defence. This, his sole motive led to an accusation of dishonesty and rebelliousness against the unquestionable authority of management. If I recall correctly the HR person was unable to attend the hearing and give evidence, because of illness. Please do correct me if I am wrong.

RAT 5

26th Jan 2017, 19:58

Cronus: Agree. I've said it many times, and Air Crash Investigation has confirmed it, that the pilots are the last insurance policy. When it's called upon to pay out the pax AND company expect it to do so. Sadly the company often tie one arm behind your back. Firstly the current basic training is inadequate to handle 'out of the box' scenarios: and rostering often leaves you semi-incapcatiated to think straight when even the simplest deviation from ideal occurs. If the deviation is more challenging, watch out and hang on.
Combine a scenario where you're tired and not trained for it and the outcome will be tragic. But hey; technology has advanced to make that most unlikely. The same can be said about your house burning down, but people still buy smoke sensors and insurance.
Look at the accidents; and unless the wing or rudder falls off there are many slices of cheese in the flight deck to taste.
Having said that, about engineering & bits falling off, the root cause of the Atlantic Glider A330 began in the hanger and was money related. Now there's a surprise!

Fire and brimstone

1st Feb 2017, 09:33

There still seems to be a major issue with the safety information being disseminated to the people who need to know. (Whether they then do anything with the information is a separate - and also massive issue).

Have you ever tried to get an operator to MOR an event?

I've only done this a few times - WHEN I THINK IT IS IF SIGNIFICANT IMPORTANCE. Each and every time the operator refuses. Assorted reasons are usually given, typically challenging the importance of your report. It is simply a form of controlling safety data. I should not be surprised by this - given the case we have discussed in the previous pages. It still sends a shiver down my spine when a company refuses to forward safety data to the regulator.

Put simply it is extreme and literal example of operators trying to silence the safety concerns of pilots.

The safety reports NOT getting through is the cause of the major accidents and scandals which brought forward whistleblowing statutes in the first place. The NHS, Piper Alpha, etc. Have we not learned the lessons from misery and deaths that have been caused.

Companies and regulators have to listen to the front line staff for a safety system to operate efficiently. Yet they are expending energy actively telling us to 'shut up' and go away. How can a regulator listen to a company manager in preference to receiving a safety report. Do they understand what a 'vested interest' is??

The sad thing is: we all know this is going on. Hundreds have proof, thousands have deep felt reservations and suspect wrong doing. There have been numerous court cases.

Does it take that hull loss to change things?

A big investigation to find peoples safety concerns were crushed and silenced?

RAT 5

1st Feb 2017, 10:19

It still sends a shiver down my spine when a company refuses to forward safety data to the regulator.

Flying for a large UK operator on 80's we received a quarterly flight safety magazine with all company reports and also from other operators of the same type. Many of these came via the UK Flight Safety Association. We enjoyed a lot of information about the what & why of many varied incidents, even those that were similar of others or repeat events.
In my last years the opposite was true. We heard of lots of company incidents in a single sentence on a news website, or by rumour in the bazaars. We never heard the why or how. If a full XAA report was made we would receive that, but it was a few years later, and so it could have been repeated in the meantime due to ignorance.
One suspected the companies were reluctant to promulgate information to crews because it might leak into the public domain. Towards the end of my career I felt very ignorant about operational safety issues that could have made my job safer by learning from other's mistakes. No doubt. I did have 35 years of experience to fall back on, read all data I could find and watched all Air Crash Investigation. We now have an industry where captains are home grown inside a company and can morph from cadet to captain in 4 years. They need all the flight safety information they can get to improve their overall education and improve their proactive professionalism. Instead I'm concerned they are kept too much in the dark.
I wonder how it is in other cultures, e.g. various EU & FAA lands.

It still sends a shiver down my spine when a company refuses to forward safety data to all their crews

Chronus

1st Feb 2017, 18:58

RAT5
"about engineering & bits falling off"

Yes and when they do who stands in the way of a major disaster but just a bloke with real bottle. The June 1993 PA31 accident is a good case in point. One engine gone, the other hanging under the wing, aircraft in a spin 5000-3000 feet agl and they land in veg field, pax dust themselves off, pick up their briefcases and walk off without a bruise or scratch. I`d say the insurance salesman certainly earned his pittance that day.

Here is the link from the dusty old archives.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422f35ae5274a131700047d/6-1994_G-BMGH.pdf

Cole Burner

1st Feb 2017, 19:12

If a reporter considers that an MOR should be forwarded to the 'Authority' then it is dishonest, immoral and possibly illegal for the operator not to forward that report. It is, of course, quite possible for an individual to file an MOR direct to the Authority. This can be done quite simply online. Go to the CAA website and search for 'file an MOR'.

There is also guidance on the CAA webite as to when an MOR must be filed - and it's a long list!

Piltdown Man

1st Feb 2017, 21:59

Chronus - That pilot did a fair chunk of my command line training. A lovely guy. What was really good was on one trip was his gasp of "Oh God" when after avoiding one particularly nasty Cb, an even bigger one was waiting round the corner. He thought he'd let me go in to the little one to teach me a lesson. I was able to teach him one. The escape route was clear to me before we went in - what I didn't do was explain my thinking beforehand. One all, good instruction.

Piltdown Man

1st Feb 2017, 22:26

The real villains are EASA. This bunch of ignorant Euro-buffoons do whatever the are told by vested interests. What is worse is that they use faux science to back up their outrageous FTL regime and at the same time try to make it difficult for those affected to draw attention to their plight. Standard European government corrupt practice.

Aluminium shuffler

2nd Feb 2017, 13:41

To their credit, the IAA treat all ASRs as MORs, preventing any concealment (intentional or otherwise) by company managers. The CAA are less enlightened, as I suspect are most EASA member authorities.

onlythetruth

8th Feb 2017, 10:40

Is it a 'legal' requirement for an Airline to forward on the MOR to the CAA if 'the box is ticked'?

IcePack

8th Feb 2017, 11:52

Only the truth
Most Airlines I worked for ignor that, whatever the law maybe.

autoflight

8th Feb 2017, 12:00

Pilot preparation and readiness to face worst case situations is not recognised by many airline managers. If they knew what we know on PPRuNe, pilots would be more valued and appreciated. Airlines shouldn't want to jeopardise that readiness by aggressive rostering and fatigued crews.

onlythetruth

24th Feb 2017, 07:20

And so they should

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2017-02-20/european-pilots-group-airs-concerns-over-flight-time-rules

flyhigh85

26th Feb 2017, 17:40

I totally agree with the gent who mentioned EASA. They are extremely weak and in the pockets of lobbyists for airline shareholders and politicians who wants cheaper tickets no matter what. They are the ones who could build more robust and conservative rules but they went the opposite way.

Free marked and liberalisation of the aviation sector in Europe has been a disaster for aircrew, just look at salaries and the introduction of Pay2fly schemes and bogus contracts (ryanair etc). It all started in Europe because it were allowed and EASA turned a blind eye! Pilot salaries in Europe are at pair with salaries in Asia, Africa and lower than Middle east even though living cost are much higher in Europe and I have not even mentioned the tax! If someone have a way to turn it around please share it, you have my support.

darkbarly

27th Feb 2017, 10:36

This can be done quite simply online. Go to the CAA website and search for 'file an MOR'.

Must be me. Followed the link can not find it. Started from scratch on the CAA website, still can not find it.

Is there an online MOR report link on the CAA website for individual professionals? I may need to raise one...

HundredPercentPlease

27th Feb 2017, 13:18

ECCAIRS - European Co-ordination centre for Accident and Incident Reporting Systems: selectstate (http://www.aviationreporting.eu/index.php?id=196&occsrc=1)

Journey Man

7th Mar 2017, 01:25

Has anyone had any luck with the UK CAA enquiry email? I've sent three emails without response. Seems there's very little support for licence holders from the regulator.

bluesideoops

9th Mar 2017, 06:20

Good article on LinkedIn given the topic of this thread:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/has-sms-had-its-day-graham-hamilton

RAT 5

9th Mar 2017, 12:57

"There are no SOPs for the unknown unknowns and the 21st Century airline pilot is so heavily drilled in sticking to the SOPs that when something unusual is thrown at him, he doesn’t know what to do, doesn’t have the basic stick and rudder skills to take over and hand-fly or even worse, looks to the automation to save the day."

Doesn't know what to do = lack of in-depth training. No knowledge of all the options in the design of the a/c, the envelop boundaries of the a/c nor themselves.

Looks to automation = having been taught like a trained monkey.

Add: Scared to deviate from SOP's. = finding oneself outside the comfort zone. Thinking that the SOP might not be so appropriate, but scared to try something else for fear of reprisal.

Today's minimum trained pilots do not think first as pilots, they think first as SOP a/c systems operators. What irritated me, after spending various moments of a varied career at various airlines flying the same type, was when I left one with some very good SOP's for some profiles, then had to relearn an inferior method with the following company. They too had some very good SOP's, some better than the previous, but they thought they were the top dog at everything and thus were reluctant to discuss possible improvements/changes to anything. "we've done it like this for years with no bother." They were reactive not proactive. Changes came after events; some that could have been avoided by being more open minded: or a change of C.P. or HOT's. It's human nature, but not the best CRM that is rammed down our throats ad infinitum. Trouble with applying CRM is there has to be a perceived problem first to start the process.

onlythetruth

15th Mar 2017, 07:37

On the BALPA forum it looks like the guy involved in this case has asked the CAA directly the question about FDP. Apparently he wrote to the head of the CAA

"Is the requirement for an Operator to ‘ensure’ the ‘Flight Duty Period’ (FDP) conforms with E.U.Ops 2.2 (ANO)

a) At the ‘Roster Stage?’

Or

b) On production of the ‘flight plan’ (PLOG) that is produced before report time that is ultimately signed as a legal document by the Commander.

E.U. Ops states an operator must ‘ensure’ ‘that for all its flights. Flights are planned to be completed within the allowable flying duty period taking into account the time necessary for pre-flight duties, the flight and turn-around times.’

For all professional pilots we now know exactly the answer and where the CAA stand because the response he had was from the CAA legal division.

The CAA's official response

''We will not offer an interpretation of a matter of academic interest"

I have written to ask. Maybe if enough of us do we might get an answer.

I think the question is does answer is that it confirms what we have all suspected all along re CAA and the airlines.

RAT 5

15th Mar 2017, 11:56

That letter & response should be copied to the Minister of Transport and the MP for both constituencies, the pilot's & CAA's, should be asking questions in the house. Is the CAA not still answerable to the government?

I had this wishy washy experience with the old 100hrs in 28 days. The ANO said quite clearly that the limit was exactly that. However, my roster had me taking off at 95 hours on a 10hour sector and westbound. CAA confirmed I could takeoff even though I landed on day 28 at 105hours. HOW? They would not answer. I then asked them what would happen if I went east and landed on day 29 locally, but day 28 at home base? The silence was deafening. They didn't have an answer because they didn't have a clue about the question.

Regarding the first scenario; I was planned to land in USA at 105/28. Day off, then repeat and land back in Europe at 102/28, the 2 days off and then down south with 3 days off to reduce the rolling 28hrs by enough to seat all over again.
The CAA were clueless how to interpret the law. Astonishing.

framer

16th Mar 2017, 00:11

Dear Sir/Madam,
Your response of 'We will not offer an interpretation of a matter of academic interest" will not suffice. It does not satisfy the responsibilities and accountability incumbent upon you or your department.
As an Airline pilot I am regularly required to answer questions such as " what are your actions in response to a fire warning at V1 -10kts?" . I cannot answer 'I will not offer an interpretation of a matter of academic interest". That is because I hold a position of responsibility and accountability. I suggest that you do too. Duty limitations are of utmost importance to aviation safety and become more so every day, you and your department are charged with providing rules and regulation in order to protect the public. To shy away from this responsibility is unacceptable and indicative of an inability of o shoulder responsibility of this weight.
BALPA legal representatives will be following this to conclusion in order to prevent loss of life being traced back to your desk.
Kind Regards.

Mr Angry from Purley

16th Mar 2017, 18:11

I had this wishy washy experience with the old 100hrs in 28 days. The ANO said quite clearly that the limit was exactly that. However, my roster had me taking off at 95 hours on a 10hour sector and westbound. CAA confirmed I could takeoff even though I landed on day 28 at 105hours. HOW?

RAT5 With the greatest of respect your whining on about things that happened what 20 years ago?. Every Pilot knew that was allowed and the CAA confirmed it through FODCOM. Most sensible airlines didn't roster crews that hard because of the "risk" that a diversion took place thus rendering the aircraft decked. Quiet a few SH Crews took off in my time at a charter airline from TFS on 99hrs. From a fatigue point of view what's the difference of being banjacked on 99hrs or 101hrs.

Mr Angry from Purley

16th Mar 2017, 18:40

Framer

My understanding is that if the scheduled block time is realistic for a season and this can be proved by statistical info on block times then if on the day the FDP becomes illegal (say for example aircraft has a limitation or there are headwinds) the the flight can be made.
Prior to EASA the UK CAA had a group of FTL Industry expects which met on a regular basis to give them advice on such matters. It was advice but in most cases it was taken on-board. The body included CAA, BALPA, Airline Reps and some retired guys who probably flew with RAT5 or Douglas Bader.
Now under EASA I'm not really sure what happens in cases of "interpretation" if it is the responsibility of the National Authority or EASA.
My own opinion is as above but in the case of a single one off FDP which caused so much angst - I'm with the Commander.

framer

16th Mar 2017, 23:31

Yip, I hear you, just having a bit of fun imagining a letter I might write :)
As far as this bit goes Now under EASA I'm not really sure what happens in cases of "interpretation" if it is the responsibility of the National Authority or EASA
Isn't that convenient. The only people really being held accountable for any position or action now days are the Captains, every other desk is too slippery for anything to stick.

onlythetruth

17th Mar 2017, 00:07

According to News | So You Want To Be A Pilot (http://soyouwanttobeapilot.com/news-2) it looks like he has already replied to the CAA.

Dear Ms. Slater,

Thank you for your response.

To remove any doubt or misunderstanding, this is very much not an ‘academic interest’ question it is in fact, very much, a ‘flight safety question’ and I require a definitive answer to my question in order to be able to comply with my legal responsibility as an ATPL holder and Commander.

To put it bluntly, I require the ‘authority’ to answer the question that relates to flight safety.

If you are still in any doubt as to the matter being of a flight safety issue to protect the travelling public, the “Finding of Fact’ from an Independent Tribunal stated ‘The limits on flight time and not flying when fatigued are clearly matters related to safety which, if breached, are potentially harmful to the health and safety of passengers and crew.’

Therefore in order to comply with the law, I need to know what the law is. i.e. I need to know if a duty I am provided with is compliant with the law, the only way I will know that is if the CAA answer my question.

Please inform if you, on behalf of the CAA intend to answer the question. If I have no reply in seven days I will assume the CAA have declined to answer a Flight Safety question and will deal with that failure accordingly.

Aluminium shuffler

17th Mar 2017, 11:19

It's interesting how a BBC journalist has been hanging around in the ME section trying to dig up dirt on fatigue in the ME airlines, but she seems curiously absent from this thread. It's disappointing that the UK media are so disinterested in a major national public interest story and are content to allow the EU authority off the hook, or even act complicitly by offering distractions and accusations at a place with tighter regulation.

MikeIndia5

20th Mar 2017, 08:10

It is indeed disappointing that the media are not investigating matters closer to home, even though I note that someone has pointed her directly to this thread

onlythetruth

2nd May 2017, 14:23

Any news on what the CAA are doing about this?

Start Fore

2nd May 2017, 15:43

Yup - head firmly into sand would be my guess.

Mr Angry from Purley

2nd May 2017, 16:48

AS - probably because it's a storm in a tea cup.
Needs to be something with more beef - how about Pilots and commuting........

onlythetruth

3rd May 2017, 10:24

Yes I suppose two pilots flying when at the equivalent fatigue level of being pis£ed is more a storm in a beer mug than tea cup.

OMDB30R

3rd May 2017, 19:02

Are those people responsible still in the company? What are the pilots doing about it?

onlythetruth

4th May 2017, 08:28

Whats BAPLA doing about it?

Fire and brimstone

4th May 2017, 08:44

I do not wish to appear ignorant, but from experience I would imagine the CAA are either sitting on their hands, pretending it is not happening; or sitting on their hands, in full dialogue WITH THE AIRLINE, and possibly even the managers so involved, trying to mitigate the damage, or sweep it all under the carpet.

The day the CAA take a pilots side against a UK airline will be a cold day in hell.

It's never happened and it will not happen in our lifetimes.

If they start believing what pilots are telling them - and have been telling them for decades - they would have to act. They have no wish to act, and so have a vested interest in believing the defence put up by the airline.

Don't worry though - your unions will sort this out for you.

:hmm:

MikeIndia5

15th May 2017, 08:42

Exactly. Well said. This sort of behaviour needs to be taken to the highest authorities in the land. Oh ....

Linktrained

16th May 2017, 23:21

Hermes G-ALDJ crashed at about midnight at Blackbushe on 5th Nov 1956. Questions were asked in Parliament within a day or two. The Report was published on 7th Mar.1957

No CVR or other Recording was done in those days but the Captain's Voyage report from Captain Terry Connor was found and used.
He and his crew had been without proper rest for 30 hours ( with 10 hours inadequate rest at Tripoli) during an evacuation from Suez.
FTL were improved with crew rest bunks fitted, etc.thereafter.

rottenray

17th May 2017, 05:20

This conversation amazes me.

First, I can't understand how scheduling can be this bad.

I accept that it is, and my heart goes out to all of you. Not a matter of disbelief in what you're posting, disbelief in WHY you have to post it.

Make more YouTube channels, make more Facebook pages, and get the word out one way or another.

PAX are not as stupid or uncaring as you might think.

Think of us as shoppers. And think about how a lot of people shop -- organic produce, meat, eggs, et cetera.

Almost all of us would pony up a tiny bit more for a ticket based on the assurance that the crew was well rested and at least satisfied with their employment.

It's the reason that I try to fly Southwest whenever I can. Everyone I deal with seems to be somewhere between satisfied and enthusiastic about their career.

What I'm saying is don't disregard us passengers. A lot of us make decisions which are not based on price.

onlythetruth

20th May 2017, 04:03

Rotton Ray this guy has... Who Ultimately Decides If A Pilot Is Fit To Fly? | So You Want To Be A Pilot (http://www.soyouwanttobeapilot.com)

Club World

20th May 2017, 11:01

If the same people involved in this are still employed by the company, I guess those higher up must feel they did nothing wrong, be interesting to see if any progress happens but from this, but by the looks of it, they seem to have made this yesterday's news, very sad for our industry.

Twiglet1

21st May 2017, 18:47

Club
So someone comes up with a (bent) schedule and you want them sacked? I suspect the CAA would take a holistic view on in. What are the discretion trends at TC. Do they have regular trips that require discretion . How many times has the Captain used discretion etc etc. Have they taken action against trips tbat have gone over 33% etc.
I've done a lot worse

IcePack

21st May 2017, 20:23

In 1978 shortly after getting my command I was asked to the office. Reason was that I had done several discretion reports for 10 mins or so on the last sector from Rotterdam, which usually ran late. I was told that I was succumbing to pressure from ops & not to extend any duty periods for at least 3 months.
How times have changed. If we pilots had not been so weak & continued upholding the FTLs then the industry would not be in the state it is in. Pilots have only themselves to blame. Nice to hear of someone standing up for what is right.

onlythetruth

22nd May 2017, 04:29

Ice Pack, spot on, pilots have brought this on themselves, totally.

Twiglet, you say the CAA take a 'holistic view' and take action against trips that have gone 33% over. I guess unlike some you have not read the Judgement in total, or fully absorbed it's significance at least. Does 'holistic view' equate to ....."I fancy getting my ar£$ through the door at that place at some point for a juicy, well paid desk job' so I will be 'holistic' with them while im supposed to be policing them, in which case, yes you will probably be right. Then this guy pours sand in the vaseline !!

Lets hope that our loved ones are not injured by a guy who the police had taken a 'holistic' view of him being 4 times over the drink drive limit when they pulled him over 10 mins before.

Fire and brimstone

30th May 2017, 18:47

framer

30th May 2017, 22:09

I think there are more and more pilots willing to 'do the right thing' and call it.
As an industry we are talking about it more than we used to so if a pilot says no to a duty he or she knows they are not the only one.

onlythetruth

14th Jun 2017, 06:42

I take exception to the claim pilots bring this on themselves.

Do you mean some pilots bring this on the industry?

The Captain in question did nothing to bring these events on himself - he made his employer aware of a safety risk, and then did the right thing, under immense pressure from the operator.

He was let down by his fellow pilots at that airline who mainly don't stand up for themselves, and then - to a degree - by his union.

I wonder how many of his fellows phoned up the union to insist they help him?

Dozens? Hundreds? Probably count them on the fingers of one hand.

There are good guys out there who do the right thing, but after events like this, there are probably less of them - not more.

Thats why I said the 'Pilots have brought this on themselves' I bet there was not one who rang BALPA. I bet there were plenty who said 'thats wrong, oh look another day off payment.' Company view, would be be 'ruin his career and no one will 'do the right thing' and therefore we will have compliant pilots who will operate via bending and snapping the rules ...(for rules read law).

As for the regulators, I bet if this case was looked into it would confirm what most of us already know.

Pilots have brought and will continue to bring this on themselves until we all have the willingness to operate 'professionally' at all times and not be bullied into operating illegally and fall for the 'but there is no one else available' sob story.

IcePack

14th Jun 2017, 08:58

Only the Truth: Well said.

Twiglet1

14th Jun 2017, 16:26

Only The Truth
As for the regulators, I bet if this case was looked into it would confirm what most of us already know.
I suspect they have. There was no case to argue for fatigue only sleepiness - if your unsure call your BALPA rep to discuss the difference. It was a "bent" schedule and the Commander took the Company to task - well done to him I guess. But how many times has he used in discretion, how many times has he worked to max duty, max FTL limits - I suspect the TC Scheduling agreement gives him more protection than most. How many times has the Company helped him? I suspect many Pilots can sympathise with both sides - a storm in a tea cup gone horribly wrong.

Nil further

14th Jun 2017, 18:45

I wouldn't be too critical of the regulator on here , you are likely to receive "words of advice"

onlythetruth

14th Jun 2017, 19:03

Really,..look forward to that then, as I understand it WE pay their wages.

Twiglet you say 'There was no case to argue for fatigue only sleepiness - if your unsure call your BALPA rep to discuss the difference.' You sound like you must be close to this case and or be medically trained to make such a statement re 'no case to argue'. Care to share with us all?

RAT 5

14th Jun 2017, 19:20

Fatigue is an emotive word because it is written in the regulations and therefore invokes laws and the breaking thereof. Sleepiness is just being too damn tired to do your job properly. IMHO not employer should cause an employee, by their work schedule, to become sleepy during their work period. It has been commented on that some people can be so sleepy that their performance is reduced similar to alcohol or other medication. It would be illegal for us to arrive for work impaired in that way, but sleepy is OK. Why? because according to the powers that be alcohol, drugs and sleepiness are your own fault. In the first 2 instances I can concur, but in the latter there are circumstances outside your control that can cause sleepiness, and which are not helped by the roster schedule. Airlines squirm out of their responsibilities to pax by claiming 'out of our control, so not our fault.' If it's OK for them then it's OK for us.

Nil further

14th Jun 2017, 21:25

I can only tell you that word was got to me after I posted on the Shoreham thread that they were going to come after me legally if I did not withdraw a post about the relationship between the regulator and those it is tasked with regulating.

Supposing that the pilots for a regulatory authority (not the UKCAA of course)were able to keep their licence current,obtain type ratings and choose some flights to operate with the airlines/ aircraft operators they are tasked with regulating. Is that a system ,that on the balance , would result in effective regulation or is is system where where perhaps, allegedly ,there might potentially be conflicts of interest and circumstances that create less than effective regulation?

You decide

framer

15th Jun 2017, 01:05

There was no case to argue for fatigue only sleepiness - if your unsure call your BALPA rep to discuss the difference
Rubbish. ICAO and all respectable regulators have moved away from " you're not fatigued, you're just tired".
The ICAO definition of fatigue recognises this through definition."Fatigue is defined as a physiological state of reduced mental or physical performance capability resulting from sleep loss or extended wakefulness, circadian phase, or workload (mental and/or physical activity) that can impair a crew member's alertness and ability to safely operate an aircraft or perform safety-related ..."
Ie, if your performance is reduced through lack of sleep, or hours of wakefulness ( being tired) , then you're within the definition of fatigue.

RAT 5

15th Jun 2017, 08:10

Framer: very interesting and thank you for publishing it. As I said, there are often circumstances where sleep deprivation is outside our control. You can do your best & fail through no fault of your own. That is human. I've worked with airlines who trumpeted the CRM philosophy that humans are subject to errors and need help in overcoming them. Those same operators trumpeted that their rosters were fatigue free and if you claimed to be below par it was your fault and was seen as an unprofessional negative against you. How contradictory and arrogant can it be? This culture, especially in the no fly no pay environment, causes great stress to the individual not to report unfit, and therefore might bring unsafe pilots into the flight deck. Imagine both guys being in this predicament, and add in a slight cold as well. There needs to be more sympathy & trust from upstairs.

beardy

15th Jun 2017, 10:51

I understand that one of the periodic contributors to this thread has not disclosed that he is the subject of it.

Fire and brimstone

21st Jun 2017, 15:33

I wouldn't be too critical of the regulator on here , you are likely to receive "words of advice"

How interesting.

From whom?

Nil further

22nd Jun 2017, 07:27

Word will be got to you that the regulator does not like your comments and that they will come after you legally if not withdrawn .

I made a post along the lines of the viewpoint that it could be argued that there were failures of regulation at Shoreham along the lines of my supposed scenario above .

"Supposing that the pilots for a regulatory authority (not the UKCAA of course)were able to keep their licence current,obtain type ratings and choose some flights to operate with the airlines/ aircraft operators they are tasked with regulating. Is that a system ,that on the balance , would result in effective regulation or is is system where where perhaps, allegedly ,there might potentially be conflicts of interest and circumstances that create less than effective regulation?

You decide

Word was got to me by the forum moderators that the CAA were upset by any suggestion that this perhaps symbiotic, alleged relationship could have allegedly played a part in any as yet unproven failure in regulation .

I was basically forced to withdraw as i cannot afford a legal battle with the CAA.

Station_Calling

26th Jun 2017, 20:50

...given the hours we work and the sleep we have.

Hundreds of thousands in the test pool:

What happens when you're sleep deprived? - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-40360653/what-happens-when-you-re-sleep-deprived)

autoflight

27th Jun 2017, 01:52

Allowable discretion is the decision of the pilot. Obviously it is not compulsory or at the direction of the company. Failure to exercise discretion, which all company pilots have routinely done, would reasonably require some sort of pilot explanation. Non-discretion is treated by many companies as an adverse decision. Technically, it is not a decision at all.

akindofmagic

27th Jun 2017, 02:23

Failure to exercise discretion, which all company pilots have routinely done, would reasonably require some sort of pilot explanation.

I don't understand your point at all here. I certainly never explain or justify my decision not to exercise discretion and would consider it beyond unreasonable to be expected to do so. However, exercise of discretion implies an exceptional case, and certainly requires justification and explanation.

autoflight

27th Jun 2017, 04:54

akindofmagic,

I accept your understanding of pilot responsibilities. I never ever had a problem, because I was also sure of my position. Another post by me on this thread indicated my own procedures to ensure I was the decision maker.

It sounds like you are in a good operation, unlike most pilots these days. The point was that if discretion is habitually exercised, airlines start to expect it as a right, which of course it is not. There is a problem if this situation goes on for many years and suddenly one pilot refuses.

Automatic discretion should never have become entrenched, but once it has, it is a bit late to change the trend without explanation. Especially when a pilot is dismissed, UK CAA fails to confirm a pilot decision and a court case is required to clear the air.

If fact, many pilots have come to accept this weird situation, as evidenced by little pilot support from colleagues and unions. Quite a change from when I retired 16 years ago.

RAT 5

27th Jun 2017, 11:41

Many moons ago, at a very reputable UK airline, an unusual scenario helped redefine how captains exercised discretion. The day flight departed Scotland for a long out/back return. After departure a tech problem developed and Ops asked for a tech stop at home base in S.Eng. The a/c was fixed and a new duty time calculated with the delay & extra sector. The planned duty was not possible within FTL's, without discretion. The captain was at home base and said he couldn't depart knowing discretion would be required. The company said the discretion decision was taken at the end of normal FTL and not at the start. i.e. land en-route if you so decide. This was confirmed by CAA. Off they went and discressed back to Scotland.
What are the rules now?
Later in the season, a captain was on the last night of a very sleep disruptive 5 day block: the type where you started on an early and slowly got later and later until the last 2 were 'through the night' flights. Before the last out/back flight, long Canaries, the crew were woken up to be warned of a 2 hour delay for departure. The captain, who was tired, said he was going on duty at the time of the awakening phone call. To complete the duty would require the full discretion from the outset. The crew were tired due to the sleep disturbing roster block in an hotel. On route south the captain radio'd Ops to say they would not use full discretion. but would give them 1 hr: what was Ops request? Ops said continue to Canaries and if they so decided at the end of FTL +1 they could land in FAO on the return. That had been the captain's calculation. The captain radio'd Ops enroute south to confirm the plan; get off in Canaries, or land FAO. FAO was confirmed. The expectation from the captain was a SBY crew would be positioned to FAO in time for crew change and the initial crew could pax back on their own a/c, as there were seats available, and it would be duty not Flight duty. Later Ops radio'd back that the captain might consider getting off in Canaries, take min' rest, then operate back. OK, that they would do.
On arrival at TFS the crew prepared to get off, but the agent starting loading the pax and asking for fuel loads. Ops had not informed the agent and called the crew's bluff. The blood pressure rose in the flight deck and the end result was they informed the agent they would land in FAO and to inform Ops. Ops now had a 3 hour warning to sort it out. So they indeed did land in FAO. I don't know all the fine details of the financial outcome, but after the enquiry, the CP, once he knew all the facts, supported the captain.
Would that happen today? Perhaps in some airlines, but in the non-union cut-throat world some work in, I wonder. It took a senior well respected ex-mil captain to stand firm, and it was applauded by the rest of us. It also brought about a better understanding and relationship between Crews/rostering/Ops & management. Don't take crews for granted all the time. We all did what we could do to help as much as possible, but sometimes real tiredness took over and common sense had to prevail. That needed respect & trust from all sides. That's what needs recovering. Dream on.

IcePack

27th Jun 2017, 14:56

Rat5 that story is very like some others but in similar cases OPS then made crew stay on board with the pax, awaiting the replacement crew. Happened to me but after a spirited argument with the despatcher the pax were persuaded to de-plane to the terminal.

blind pew

28th Jun 2017, 21:21

Rat there was another story with a two crew aircraft towards the end of a very tiring block in atrocious weather where the captain discussed with my mate and they went crew fatigue, got the pax put up in a hotel and operated back after minimum rest the following day.
The manager called my mate into the office and pressurised him to sign an alleged fictious report which he refused.
Subsequently the manager slagged off the captain in front of several union members with the result that he was taken to court for slander where he lost.
He stayed in management further destroying the already poor industrial relations.
We also had a night flight which contravened our duty regulations but management didn't roster it, instead they rostered an extra crew on airport standby and when the crew checked in they were handed the flight. Standby crews had longer duty times.
This flight was only crewed a couple of times as the word got around and several captains went sick at short notice.
This was in the days when Douglas Bader produced new flight time regulations which weren't accepted due to airline pressure.

RAT 5

29th Jun 2017, 09:14

FTL's have for too long been treated like a game, like tax loopholes. The game is to find the loop holes and them exploit them. Why? Profit. Either it is to avoid employing enough crews or to avoid what are seen as non revenue generating night stops. It's a game, but the referee is often awol or turns up late, and instigator of the game owns the ball. What to do? Crews need to apply the rules in the spirit in which they were written. We all know there is no chance of writing a set of FTL's to cover all scenarios. There are many Ops manuals that contain the tongue in cheek phrase, "Airmanship is an SOP". Roster instructions should contain the phrase, "rostering practices are to employ humane common sense". It should not be tongue in cheek, but actual SOP.

OMDB30R

29th Jun 2017, 17:23

Not sure if this is true but rumours within the company says that the Group DFO seems to be causing upset among the board and this may have been his last life chance.

Fire and brimstone

30th Jun 2017, 09:18

What happens to a lorry driver if he exceeds the law?

They have a tacho and it has to be adhered to: he/she has to pull over and stop, by law.

Airline pilots, at the same point, are allowed to do another three hours.

We can argue the toss, but what does this say about our industry?

Superpilot

30th Jun 2017, 10:28

The body that regulates truck driver duty limits is not funded by the haulage industry. The UK CAA collects millions in dues from the airline industry it regulates.

blind pew

30th Jun 2017, 13:07

And employs retired airline management to oversee the operations...needless to say these managers didn't work as normal crews had to and therefore weren't exposed to the fatigue that most of us were plagued with.

icemanalgeria

30th Jun 2017, 13:44

How about crossing the Atlantic two sectors then going down the back in 29inch Economy seats for 2 more sectors before taking crew bus back to where you started. 36 hours door to door

fokker1000

30th Jun 2017, 15:40

When did you last see a management pilot turn up for a Friday night IBZ?
In fact I see the occasional FO or Capt get into the office/auditing side of things pretty damned quick, and what a surprise, they seem to dictate their roster to the company!

Although I have to say, my old Chief Pilot did do his share of the less pleasant night flights, and he was very well respected for doing them too…. A rare breed.
PS. Sorry for thread creep!

Discorde

30th Jun 2017, 18:13

Since the EASA FTLs were introduced there have been no serious incidents in which fatigue was determined to be a causal factor and so there has been no need . . . yet . . . for the standard politicians' response - 'our thoughts are with the families of the victims and we will set up a full and frank inquiry so that lessons can be learned to make sure a tragedy like this never happens again'.

But even if safety has not yet been compromised, there is another factor that should be considered - the long term detrimental effect on pilots' health of the merciless current FTLs. Perhaps pilot unions can fight the airline accountants on these - valid - grounds.

Journey Man

30th Jun 2017, 21:01

Can't see it happening to be honest. There's no incentive for airlines to avoid burning out disposables such as flight crew. Plenty more where they came from. Pilots have also traditionally acted like the proverbial turkeys at Christmas, so I suspect the time when joining the airlines as a full career is over.

fokker1000

1st Jul 2017, 15:47

J M, you're quite right. The younger pilots I regularly fly with say these FTLs are crippling! and can't be sustained for decade after decade without a change of career.
Think it might be better to take that £120K and study the stock markets, then get a Citation rating for fun after you've made some dosh.

Twiglet1

1st Jul 2017, 18:13

Discorde
Since the EASA FTLs were introduced there have been no serious incidents in which fatigue was determined to be a causal factor and so there has been no need . . . yet . . . for the standard politicians' response - 'our thoughts are with the families of the victims and we will set up a full and frank inquiry so that lessons can be learned to make sure a tragedy like this never happens again'.
But even if safety has not yet been compromised, there is another factor that should be considered - the long term detrimental effect on pilots' health of the merciless current FTLs. Perhaps pilot unions can fight the airline accountants on these - valid - grounds.
Discorde is offline Report Post

The problem is most of Europe were operating closely to EASA FTL with Sub Part Q so it was only the moaning Brits that made the "big" leap into the unknown. And many of the UK airlines have industrial agreements that protect aircrew and now also many moving into FRMS much more as it was mandated with EASA (some do it well some are trying and some don't). But then you come up and look at those with sister airlines in Europe and the view from UK AOC is hold on these guys are paying scant attention to FRMS so why.....
Second para - is it merciless or perceived? Cough up some examples please

Club World

1st Dec 2017, 06:00

This thread has gone significantly quiet, are there any updates, lessons learnt within the company, anybody been held accountable?

rotorwills

1st Dec 2017, 09:31

This thread has gone significantly quiet, are there any updates, lessons learnt within the company, anybody been held accountable?

Sorry to say, it would be incorrect to assume that this problem has or wil go away. No doubts that it will continue to be with us forever, whilst many may think this is a pessimistic view in truth it can never be eliminated. Fatigue is a fact of life, all we can do it to try and mitigate it. Yes safety is compromised to an extent but we do live in the real world. To all fellow responsible crew members please take whatever action one can manage to remove the element of fatigue from their time in the cockpit.
I for one do all in my power to ensure that safety is not compromised, but is it enough to put this on pilots individual responsibility, of course not. Management should be held accountable if a fatigue situation is created due to their actions.

Is this likely, not at the moment, just the way things are and will take major events for better recognition of fatigue of aircrew.

Fire and brimstone

18th Dec 2017, 15:48

Recently attended an annual recurrent safety course at my operator.

The training staff raised the subject of 'Commanders' Discretion, which makes a change.

Did any of the pilots think it was being abused within that operator?

Every single pilot had a story about being coerced into discretion by the crewing department ........

MO:-

1) Pilot contacts crewing with concern about FTL.

2) Crewing argue that limits will not be exceeded.

3) Flight departs, then pilots almost immediately receive an ACARS from crewing telling them they will be in discretion, and are they happy to continue (aircraft already in the air).

Been going on for years.

Only option is to get into conflict with the operator, as management ALWAYS take the side of the crewing officer, never the pilot.

Conflict = sanction / threats / loss of job.

CAA simply do not care, which is odd for a safety regulator.

:ugh:

P.S. Only solution is to remove discretion from the rules. While it is available TO CREWING, it will always be liable to this unsafe abuse.

P.P.S. Other solution would be for the crewing officer to be onboard the aircraft, after 13 hours duty. Would they behave in the same way if they had to be in the aircraft with the crew??

P.P.P.S. Contracted taxi drivers now HAVE to stop every two hours for a mandatory rest break with this operator. I assume this is on the grounds of safety. There is no discretion about this - they have to stop. Well overdue IMO.