Commuting Qantas 787 and other types

[knobbycobby]

When the new FRMS gets implemented I had heard that pilots will need to be in port of departure a minimum 24 hours prior. This is based on ICAO or FAA recommended procedures. Airlines will adopt this policy for liability reasons.
Hence no commuting on staff travel on day of operation for any LH fleets, A380,747,787,A330.

When does the new FRMS come into effect? Not the end of the world but you'll need to plan to be in port the night before departure always now If your planning on using staff travel.

[Lookleft]

CASA will just defer the FRMS rules again in October because the RAA will say they haven't had enough time to implement it, it will cost them too much money, a friend just came in from out of town, a terrible earthquake hit....(insert excuse here).

[Keg]

To me that question falls into the category of 'don't ask the question if you're not going to like the answer'.

I don't know whether the FRMS will make a 24 hour rule or not. It would seem a little pointless to me given the distances that some people drive to the airport prior to sign on or what they choose to do before work. So unless the FRMS wanted to make rules on renovating your house prior to sign on, or big gym workouts prior to sign on, or how much the young kids slept the night before sign on, etc, it seems silly to be prescriptive in the one area of 'commuting' to work.

So I hope common sense prevails for this one.

[No Idea Either]

Heard this a while back, regarding the commuting rules. If it is implemented by CASA it will hurt The VA guys and girls as well pretty badly. I wonder how VA will handle the domicile travel arrangements they have with the wide body crew???? But as Lookleft says, it will probably be indefinitely postponed.

[CurtainTwitcher]

The problem is that the 787 IS coming, and IS going to be doing up to ULH, and an FRMS is going to be required because it can't just be grandfathered into existing rules given the possible flight times on a routine basis.

This was recently put out by AIPA
B787 Perth to London Operations
With B787 crew rest arrangements in place, we also reached agreement on the PER-LHR sector.

EBA9 clause RM20.3 covers operations to a maximum of 16:30 hours flight time or an 18:00 hour duty period. As the PER-LHR sector is planned at 17:20 and 18:50 respectively, this requires a specific agreement.

Such agreements are made on a city pair basis so it also covers LHR-PER, even though it has a planned flight time of less than 16:30 hours. This follows the same process that led to agreements in the past for DFW operations on the B744 and A380.

The agreement provides for:
PER-LHR max flight time 18:20 hours
LHR-PER max flight time 17:40 hours


Avoiding an FRMS is going be a tricky job given the proposed maximum flight time. Will CASA simply promulgate a city pair specific FRMS, but say to everyone else "business as usual" non-FRMS arrangement? That's going to be a very difficult fence to sit on for CASA. How will it explain it?

I see it as a binary choice. You justify an FRMS as "evidence based" rules system, yet that shouldn't apply to the rest of your Flight & Duty rules where it may actually cost money.

[BPA]

As Keg touched on, unless rules are put in place around want you can't do before a duty (which would be impossible to do) then the whole issue about commuting and it's affect on fatigue is a dead argument.

Let's say we have a pilot is based in Sydney and lives on the Gold Coast and only a 10min easy drive to the airport. Allowing for their drive to the airport, check in time and flight time to Sydney their commute time would be around 2 hours. 1 hour of this commute time would be spent relaxing/sleeping on the flight down.
Now what if we have another pilot also based in Sydney and they live in Newcastle (or the southern highlands). Their drive to work on the best of days will be 2-3 hours, plus they have to put up with parking issues at the Blue Emu.
The pilot who has to drive 2-3 hours doesn't get the chance to relax/sleep like the pilot living on the Gold Coast does.
So which one is going to feel less tired (fatigued) at the start of their duty and after at the end of their duty?

[maggot]

So which one is going to feel less tired (fatigued) at the start of their duty and after at the end of their duty?

The one without screaming kids

[dragon man]

FRMS is the real unknown, an increase in hours per year is coming I'm sure. Longer term I think the pilot group in Qantas will see an increase in health issues due to sector lengths and total hours flown.

[keepitrealok]

I had heard that pilots will need to be in port of departure a minimum 24 hours prior

Port of Departure or Time zone........?

FRMS is based on Time Zones, so I would suspect the latter. So a very big difference. Commuting from anywhere within the East Coast Time Zone to BNE/SYD/MEL should be unchanged, and I would add the SA/NT Time Zone into that as well. East Coast to Perth however I suspect will provide problems.

It sounds like some moron in his haste to escape the Middle East has landed a job in CASA and is trying advance himself by promoting the rules used in the M.E. The only problem is, those rules have no grounding in safety, and are completely illogical - they are there purely to keep a pilot spending his money in country, and not elsewhere. :ugh:

[C441]

Many overseas airlines already have commuting 'guidelines' in place based on travel time to commence a duty, whether that travel is in your car, in a middle economy seat in the back row, or 1A. In most cases these guidelines are non-specific in terms of proposed duties and include minimum pre-duty rest periods (a lot less than 24 hours) in suitable accommodation - that is, not a crew room couch or a terminal seat.

As is currently the case, any decision on a person's individual fatigue can only be made by that person. This will not change even if guidelines, rules or CAO's do stipulate requirements. The only difference will be that a person - pilot in this case - will have to justify a breach of the guidelines/rules/CAO's in the event of an incident or any event which impacts on the regulatory or commercial viability of the operation.

[Jetsbest]

... at any point during an ULH flight, two of the four flight crew;
- still have to go on the first break,
- still have to plan to be fresh for the landing,
- must be alert enough to soundly manage enroute contingencies,
- still have to plan ahead for eating/hydrating throughout the journey, and
- all must deal with the vagaries of different abilities to 'sleep' in a M0.86 tube in the sky!

Keg is correct. In my experience it will not make sense to mandate any such 'narrow' pre-flight criteria. Pilots know their own limits & responsibility for 'rest preparedness' to fly. They also know the CAOs.

I hope it's left at that unless EVIDENCE proves that systemic abuse of those responsibilities is occurring.👌

[Hogger60]

M0.86????? OMG as if... who pays your fuel bills!!!

Cruise in the 787 is typically between .845 to .86 depending upon weight/altitude and cost index. The avg fuel burn is about 2.3-2.4/eng/hr at moderate weights. Lighter weight (160 tonnes) at .855, at FL400, it is about 2.0.

[Vorsicht]

The other aspect that makes a farce of the whole thing is that FRMS largely is used in LH/ULR operations with augmented crews. In those operations it is necessary for one or two crew members to go on a rest break about 30min after pushback.

If all crew are properly rested when they arrive for duty, how are they expected to get some sleep in the first half of the flight. It's all just bureaucratic bull**** to tinplate some shiny bum.

As far as poking **** at the ME rules, at least they have two proper crews (Capt/FO) and they have a published rest plan so that the "B" crew can arrive at work reasonably rooted and go straight to sleep for the first half of the flight. Unlike the bull**** used in Australia at both QF and VA where there is a pseudo heavy crew with one Capt, one FO and two SO's. Virtually guaranteeing one of the operating crew will be totally f@cked for the approach and landing.

There is nothing about the Australian model that stands up to proper scrutiny, from the ridiculous "commuting" rules to the actual crewing of the flights. All just there so some manager can blame a pilot for the next screw up.

[Keg]

I can understand if an FRMS prescribed what types of 'duties' can be undertaken prior to an ULH flight. I can understand the requirement for 24 hours off between duties. IE pax to SYD for EPs in Sydney on Tuesday, do them Wednesday, pax back to PER that Wednesday evening and then sign on for LHR on Thursday evening. That looks a little nuts to me and a restriction makes sense for that sort of case.

How I choose get to work though is realistically none of the FRMS' business unless it's going to put that sort of restriction on all crew- and I just can't see that happening. I recall one of our very, very fit 767 F/Os often running to work from the Northern beaches even for an 0500 sign on. He's a sharp operator and I never found him even a little tired for the tour of duty- though it was unusual to get him to come out to dinner beyond about 2000- but I wonder how the FRMS would view his 0200 wake up and 25km run for that?

[fearcampaign]

All very good points.

ICAO recommend analysis of culmulative fatigue after flying multiple bid periods of ULH patterns. They also only consider a crew of 2 CPTs and 2 FOs.
QF flying ULH make it hard to do what EK does as mentioned above, as QF only have 1 CPT and 1 FO.
Someone else also made the valid point that getting a break is great so long as you can sleep!

Very few Airlines exclusively fly nothing but 18.5 hour Flight times or nearly 20 hour Duties. Remember Singapore Airlines had to do an awful lot of fatigue based data collection on their flights and it had SIX flight crew.

Regardless of night credits, will there be any scientific or data gathering on the effects of that extra 35 hours or more of Ultra Long Haul flying every bid period for years on end?
I don't know of any 787 operators that Only fly ULH exclusively. It's more an issue for PER base as it's flying the longest. MEL, BNE would be similar to other types currently flying.

I know you may do 24 days work per BP however your still in a tube for a very long time, mostly at night, crossing a LOT of time zones in one go.

Commercially and industrially I can see it's fantastic.
Can't see any Proper scientific analysis, evidenced based data or FRMS principles either. QF crew rest sounds different from SIA requirements.

Below from a flightglobal paper "Pushing the limits"

"Based on the CASC conclusions, SIA recommends its flightcrew have either one or two substantial rest breaks on their ULR sectors, with one allowing for a sleep of about 4h in specially designed crew accommodation.The accommodation includes a comfortable chair, entertainment system and proper bunk.
SIA, meanwhile, is continuing a detailed study of crew fatigue and alertness on its ULR flights in conjunction with the European Committee for Aircrew Scheduling and Safety and New Zealand’s Massey University. The latter was previously involved in a Boeing study into fatigue on 777 ferry flights with SIA pilots.

[TineeTim]

So often pilots are their own worst enemy. The Company has years of experience watching what commuters do. Not what commuters say they do. They KNOW a very likely scenario is going to be a guy based in Sydney, who lives an hour from the airport, leaving home around 1200 for the 1500 flt, arriving in Perth about 1800 for a 2100 departure to lhr. Of course that guy is buggered so 'I'll have the first break if that's OK, mate.' Except the other guy did the same...
PS. I haven't looked at the flight times to verify those times, I just made them up, but the scenario remains the same.

[Jetsbest]

Why is that guy 'buggered'? He may have napped quite well on the flight across to Perth.

What about the Perth-resident pilot who was working on renovations since 6am after a night of disturbed sleep due to a young family. He tried a late afternoon nap before sign-on but the kids got home from school & he got no more rest so he quickly mowed the lawn before heading to the airport after dinner. Any risks there?

And can you attribute any safety 'events' to the pilots you've inferred are being irresponsible?

Pilots I work with take their responsibilities & obligations seriously. Unless there is evidence that the status quo really causes problems I think that 'well enough' should be left alone.😉

[unobtanium]

Why is that guy 'buggered'? He may have napped quite well on the flight across to Perth.

😉

Wouldn't he 'nap' even better in the crew rest on the ULH flight? Stop whinging about not getting paid night credits then. Modern aircraft are much easier to fly nowadays, if you're not happy leave, there is a long line of keen pilots waiting to take your job for less. I heard China pays very well.

[Keg]

WTF? Not even close to the point Jetsbest was making.

[TineeTim]

Maybe the 'unobtanium' has driven you insane? Or unable to follow a discussion?

Anyway, I agree with your point Jets. But the difference is that the (hypothetical) Sydney guy spent five hours in an aluminium/plastic tube and the company can track it. Guys b*tch constantly about crew rest, hotels, etc and then do stuff like that. Not everyone by any stretch, but a lot do. Ask any manager about the stuff commuters get into trouble for. Regularly.

[JamieMaree]

The other aspect that makes a farce of the whole thing is that FRMS largely is used in LH/ULR operations with augmented crews. In those operations it is necessary for one or two crew members to go on a rest break about 30min after pushback.

If all crew are properly rested when they arrive for duty, how are they expected to get some sleep in the first half of the flight. It's all just bureaucratic bull**** to tinplate some shiny bum.

As far as poking **** at the ME rules, at least they have two proper crews (Capt/FO) and they have a published rest plan so that the "B" crew can arrive at work reasonably rooted and go straight to sleep for the first half of the flight. Unlike the bull**** used in Australia at both QF and VA where there is a pseudo heavy crew with one Capt, one FO and two SO's. Virtually guaranteeing one of the operating crew will be totally f@cked for the approach and landing.

There is nothing about the Australian model that stands up to proper scrutiny, from the ridiculous "commuting" rules to the actual crewing of the flights. All just there so some manager can blame a pilot for the next screw up.



Vorsitch,
You wouldn't have any idea what you are talking about!
Have you ever operated under these circumstances?
Just about every point of your post is absolute rubbish.
There are no commuting rules for starters.
How about a system that allows a pilot who is tired to sleep and a pilot who is not to work?

[C441]

leaving home around 1200 for the 1500 flt, arriving in Perth about 1800 for a 2100 departure to lhr. Of course that guy is buggered so 'I'll have the first break if that's OK, mate.' Except the other guy did the same...
It's happening now. I recently spent the first three or four hours up the front with another pilot late at night, who couldn't stay awake, at one point falling asleep mid-sentence as he spoke. He'd been "busy at home all day" before getting the last flight to Melbourne. Unfortunately his offsider who was in the bunk was equally knackered.

Was he taking his responsibilities seriously?

And can you attribute any safety 'events' to the pilots you've inferred are being irresponsible?
Yeah, fair point…..:zzz:

I say let any car driver who's completely sh1tfaced drive too, especially if he hasn't had an 'event' before. :rolleyes:

The alcohol/fatigue analogy is been done to death but remains relevant. Would you turn up to work after a few beers?

[Gamechanger]

Good point Keg!

I think 99% of crews do the right thing and rest as much as possible prior to operating. Yes life can get in the way like any job however the consequences in aviation are dire. You can't kill anyone behind a desk.
As Keg said the greater majority do the right thing.

It's not logical to pretend that a one in a hundred or a bar story is the norm, nor the idiot saying it's all automated and you just go off to sleep in the bunk at a time of your choosing.

Bit of poor trolling from someone who isn't flying in Oz, with a good chip on both shoulders.

[Jetsbest]

Wha'? What a Keg said!

I've not seen what you describe & I don't condone it but I believe it is an exception rather than the rule. I just don't think another rule is needed when 'a' pilot is less than sensible about their own preparations for duty; surely every company has mechanisms (from counselling to sanctions) to deal with ill-considered or inappropriate behaviours.

I don't see the relevance of your 'alcohol/fatigue analogy' either; we're arguing the same thing but you seem to be implying that you knew someone was unfit to operate but you let it slide anyway?! Alternatively, given that humans are often not great at assessing their own levels of fatigue, perhaps they started work in a fit state (even you were not alarmed?) but, as circadian disrhythmia can, your off-sider became very tired soon after departure. Predictable? Maybe. Desirable? Of course not! Insurmountable? I doubt it.😉

But given what you've described, I must have missed the Aviation Herald report about your experience.🤔... or was it actually managed adequately in the circumstances?👍

[Ida down]

As Keg touched on, unless rules are put in place around want you can't do before a duty (which would be impossible to do) then the whole issue about commuting and it's affect on fatigue is a dead argument.

Let's say we have a pilot is based in Sydney and lives on the Gold Coast and only a 10min easy drive to the airport. Allowing for their drive to the airport, check in time and flight time to Sydney their commute time would be around 2 hours. 1 hour of this commute time would be spent relaxing/sleeping on the flight down.
Now what if we have another pilot also based in Sydney and they live in Newcastle (or the southern highlands). Their drive to work on the best of days will be 2-3 hours, plus they have to put up with parking issues at the Blue Emu.
The pilot who has to drive 2-3 hours doesn't get the chance to relax/sleep like the pilot living on the Gold Coast does.
So which one is going to feel less tired (fatigued) at the start of their duty and after at the end of their duty?Absolutely. When flying I lived at Mount Macedon and on a 0530 sign on, (after a night with a screaming, teething two year old, and a four year old who wanted endless glasses of water, to the point of me considering bringing a slow dripping hose into her bed) I was already stuffed. Early sign on made me shell out for a cheap motel near the airport, so I was at least not comotose, on sign on. It was worth every cent.

[Vorsicht]

Vorsitch,
You wouldn't have any idea what you are talking about!
Have you ever operated under these circumstances?
Just about every point of your post is absolute rubbish.
There are no commuting rules for starters.
How about a system that allows a pilot who is tired to sleep and a pilot who is not to work?

Sorry to burst your bubble. Flown LH for 30 years. 10 of them for EK. I've got a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about, but feel free to counter my points with some fact rather than rhetoric.

[Troo believer]

Then why,if you're with EK, are involved in a discussion about Qantas commuters to Perth?

[Rabbitwear]

With the house prices in Sydney a commute would be mandatory for new joiners based there .

[keepitrealok]

Vorsicht
As far as poking **** at the ME rules, at least they have two proper crews (Capt/FO) and they have a published rest plan so that the "B" crew can arrive at work reasonably rooted and go straight to sleep for the first half of the flight.


The 'published rest plans' are box ticking by the company, pretending they are providing method for crews to be properly rested for the flight. They are complete and utter rubbish - flights of fancy written by people who have never operated as pilots under Long Haul flying. Written, incorporated and filed to pretend they are looking after fatigue, but in reality only there so that when an incident or accident occurs they can blame the pilots for not 'following our rest plan.'

There is nothing about the Australian model that stands up to proper scrutiny, from the ridiculous "commuting" rules to the actual crewing of the flights.

Hahaa. Too funny. I got a great laugh out of this one! The rules in the Middle East stand up to scrutiny?? The ULR 'rules' are written in stone.........right up until there is a crewing crisis and suddenly pilots are being called out to operate flights that under bidding rules, and previously 'set in stone' local nights policies, they couldn't operate - but now fall under the "you are legal to operate Captain because you now only need 18hrs rest blah blah blah (We are breaking the rules because we can't crew the flight and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it)."

All just there so some manager can blame a pilot for the next screw up.

But this took the cake!! :ok: :D As opposed to the Middle East where they are 'all just there so some manager can fire a pilot for the next [Management-induced] screw up.'

Wanna talk about how the Middle East model is holding up with pilots operating rested and not suffering fatigue?

Be my guest.........:E

[Keg]

It's happening now. I recently spent the first three or four hours up the front with another pilot late at night, who couldn't stay awake, at one point falling asleep mid-sentence as he spoke. He'd been "busy at home all day" before getting the last flight to Melbourne. Unfortunately his offsider who was in the bunk was equally knackered.


So is that an issue that is specific to commuting, or is it more a pilot issue and that pilot happened to be a commuter? I've not had someone nod off mid sentence but I've flown with people who weren't commuters who have struggled to stay awake for the same reasons. It happens irrespective of commuting status.

Most people I fly with take their rest requirements seriously. Of course that doesn't mean you'll actually get the rest you want to. I'm a night owl so staying up to 0300-0400 for me is a doddle. Getting me to try and sleep in the arvo before a night flight? :eek: := :O

[JamieMaree]

Sorry to burst your bubble. Flown LH for 30 years. 10 of them for EK. I've got a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about, but feel free to counter my points with some fact rather than rhetoric.

You may have 30 yrs in long haul, I pip you there, I have 45.
You may have 10 yrs with EK , you pip me there ,I have zero.
From what you say, you have no experience of QF so I repeat, what do you know about that operation?
I have no experience of EK so I can't comment on how they do it in EK.
I stand by original comments, with respect to any comments you make re QF , you don't know what you are talking about.

[Qanchor]

House renovations, gym workouts, young children, running to work, driving long distances to work, well rested by virtue of paxing for the last 4 hours.
Sounds like there's people here who are either currently commuting from the east coast now and trying to justify it or want a gig on the new toy but don't want to move to Perth.
A formal FRMS system will in all likelihood be introduced and the company may very well include commuting restrictions. It will, however, merely exist as an insurance policy.
CASA are too impotent to enforce it and management simply needs a fallback position in case you're late for work or (heaven forbid) have a whoopsie.
So you boys can relax and keep commuting from the east coast, hang around the terminal for 1, 2, 3, 4 hours and then operate, quite possibly back of the clock, to wherever.

[Keg]

Sounds like there's people here who are either currently commuting from the east coast now and trying to justify it or want a gig on the new toy but don't want to move to Perth..

Lol. Justify it? No commuter has a need to justify their decision to commute to anyone else- except perhaps to their wife/ husband/ boyfriend/ girlfriend/ concubine(s), etc. Their only responsibility is to manage their fatigue to ensure they're fit for duty. Whether they've hung around at the airport for 1-4 hours is really no ones business.

[Gamechanger]

From all accounts Emirates are losing MANY pilots. Parked aircraft and shortages numbering nearly one thousand. Everyone going back to Europe or the USA and China.
The single biggest complaint. FATIGUE.
Not surprising given there are ZERO labour laws and the Sheik controls the airline, the equivalent of CASA and the airport operations. Nice little dictatorship.
The result must be the most dangerous FTLs globally. Pilots go sick genuinely and get a warning letter.
As a result Emirates have had a 777 crash and a fatal 737 accident with Fly Dubai.
Not to mention many incidents, tail scrapes etc.
So as others have wisely said. What does Emirates have to do with Qantas?
Australia has decent labour protections, decent FTLs,decent sick leave, proper laws, bacon
, and you can drink beer in public during the summer without getting stoned to death for doing it.
Emirates has the worst conditions globally. Why aspire to it or even compare it?
Back to the topic thanks.
There is a middle Eastern forum filled with thousands of Exhausted and unhappy pilots you can sympathise with there.

[*Lancer*]

Post incident, everyone will be asking Qantas why they allow - even facilitate - crew commuting prior to ULR flying.

Unfortunately it's not about whether the individual effectively manages their fatigue or not, but to what extent the company limits the possibility (and their liability). They can't stop your renovations or your kids' flu, but they can stop your staff travel.

Home transport isn't provided out of kindness.

[Qanchor]

Ditto Lancer.

......... is really no ones business.

If a crew member is unfortunate enough to be involved in an incident and that persons commuting/rest arrangements are scrutinised against whatever current fatigue management process is in place, it will quickly become the business of many entities.

[Tuck Mach]

Increasingly, litigation is bought against people, pilots are no exception. Any well versed aviation lawyer will explain that a progressive transference of liability has been undertaken away from the corporate and ending up with the pilot.

Pilots do understand mostly that 'the buck stops with them'

However, in a litigious environment, which has different rules in different jurisdictions any pilot seen sitting around an airport, for 4 hours or having commuted across the country to commence a pattern of rostered flying and then being involved in an accident, may find their impression of how the law views their pre-duty decision making is interpreted at odds with the litigant.

A commuter moving across a continent before duty may be viewed as 'contributing' to the accident that occurs later when duty has commenced. At the very least it would add additional stress when it could be avoided.

The FAA made specific reference to commuting and fatigue as did the NTSB in the Colgan Air accident.

Anyone thinking Qantas would rush to their defence if commuting were involved may want to re-examine their opinion.Any pilot wanting to test their defence in court would be welcome to provide a precedent in Australia :E

[engine out]

They can stop staff travel but they can't stop you buying a ticket on another carrier.

[Jetsbest]

All valid points, but do you think a pilot who goes to work despite being unfit to do so will be forgiven during an incident investigation because they are not a commuter? The hypothetical and uncommon examples provided are neither necessarily linked only to commuting nor common occurrences.

What needs to change? Nothing. A pilot must not operate if unfit to do so. There are many recourses to deal with the few who abuse the privilege. Blanket rules are not the best way though!

Btw, I'm not a commuter & don't plan to be either.:}

[ruprecht]

They can stop staff travel but they can't stop you buying a ticket on another carrier.

Correct, and in this case getting to work is YOUR responsibility and QF doesn't know or indeed care how you do it.

If you alt pax, or staff travel then QF ARE aware of how you get there. Ticking this box:

Flight Crew are responsible for ensuring that they are fit for duty.


When making Alternate Paxing arrangements, Flight Crew must consider how the

timing and method of their travel will affect their fatigue levels and must plan their

travel in a way that effectively manages fatigue.

seems to push responsibility to the pilot, but in allowing the alt pax I would imagine that QF share some responsibility.

[*Lancer*]

Jetsbest,

If it were that simple you could edit out half the FAM/OM1/(insert ops manual here).

[Qanchor]

.........but do you think a pilot who goes to work despite being unfit to do so will be forgiven during an incident investigation because they are not a commuter?

Agreed, but unfortunately many of us do go work not 100% fit and in a post incident investigation I'm sure this, and many, matters are considered.
If a crew member was domiciled at their base and was considered fit for duty, the investigation would most likely move on to other matters, (if not fit they would quite rightly have a case to answer).

If, on the other hand, it turned out that the crew member had commuted several hours from the other side of the country then waited around the terminal to operate out, the investigation may very well dwell upon this.

[C441]

So is that an issue that is specific to commuting, or is it more a pilot issue and that pilot happened to be a commuter? I've not had someone nod off mid sentence but I've flown with people who weren't commuters who have struggled to stay awake for the same reasons. It happens irrespective of commuting status.

He was not a commuter but used the other facility supposedly available to get a crewmember to their duty at a time of their choosing. He chose to pax down as late as possible despite there being 'suitable rest facilities' available to him.

The point I was making is that some of our colleagues do not accept the responsibility their job entails and turn up less than suitably rested in the hope they'll get the first break…..and angryrat yes the pilot in question was reminded of this responsibility, and no paperwork was submitted.

I don't see the relevance of your 'alcohol/fatigue analogy' either; we're arguing the same thing but you seem to be implying that you knew someone was unfit to operate but you let it slide anyway?!
We are arguing the same point but given the performance comparison between fatigue levels and alcohol consumption, it disappoints me that crew will still turn up to work knowing they are significantly under-rested and the impact that has on their performance, but would not in a million years deliberately turn up after even 1 beer. The performance impact is similar and I'm trying to point out that I don't condone either.

Alternatively, given that humans are often not great at assessing their own levels of fatigue, perhaps they started work in a fit state (even you were not alarmed?) but, as circadian disrhythmia can, your off-sider became very tired soon after departure. Predictable? Maybe. Desirable? Of course not! Insurmountable? I doubt it.😉
In this case, only he could determine his state of fitness but readily admitted later that he was expecting to get the first break and felt he'd be fine after a few hours sleep - that he could have had in the hotel hours before, but chose instead to stay in his home city and pax to start his duty as late as possible.

This is not uncommon on this particular sector. It's tiring enough even when you are well rested.

But given what you've described, I must have missed the Aviation Herald report about your experience.🤔...
I'm hoping to avoid an Av Herald report, not have a minor issue become an incident in a similar manner to how tiredness contributed to an A340 incident in Melbourne.

We don't (shouldn't) accept duties proposed by the airlines that don't allow sufficient rest, but some of our colleagues are prepared to impose this upon themselves and their colleagues.

Anyway I'm tiring :) of this conversation so I'll leave it at that!

[Gamechanger]

With the hourly rate so high on the 787 and the salary also high, I can't see why
A commuter can't afford to pay for a nights accommodation beforehand in Perth before flying up to London or Paris the next evening.
On the East Coast no current types fly that sector length at night.
I can see where Qantas would require you to be in port the day of departure from an FRMS perspective. Be close to a 19-20 hour tour of duty. Having had to drive to the airport, then fly 4-5 hours before a near 19 hour flight isn't wise. It hasn't been done before so previous commuting examples are invalid.
Great news for the Perth crews :)

[fearcampaign]

Agree with you C441.
No one is Forced into commuting.
If you know your bidding for a PER based 787 slot, then you understand that the greater majority of flying will be ultra long sectors.
The longest Qantas has ever flown. At the end of 18-19 hours of flying the weather can be less than optimal in the UK and Europe. Even if you were Perth based you'd Be tired enough. Having flown an additional 5 hours from the East Coast on day of ULH operations would be unprofessional in my opinion.
I'd be very surprised if new FRMS rules would allow this. You'd have to respect Qantas right to enforce this too.
Any incident and I think you'd be toast. Aren't Perth hotels cheap now anyway?

[JamieMaree]

Home transport isn't provided out of kindness.

Well I can assure you that there is absolutely no link between the provision of home transport and fatigue just as there is no link between home transport provisions and kindness.

[Vorsicht]

You may have 30 yrs in long haul, I pip you there, I have 45.
You may have 10 yrs with EK , you pip me there ,I have zero.
From what you say, you have no experience of QF so I repeat, what do you know about that operation?
I have no experience of EK so I can't comment on how they do it in EK.
I stand by original comments, with respect to any comments you make re QF , you don't know what you are talking about.

Sorry old boy, didn't realise it was a competition. Your 45 years clearly trumps my 30 and attests to the size of your huge appendage. Well done.
With regard to the other points I note that there is no fact based response, just more rhetoric. I'd genuinely be interested in which bit I got wrong. Given your claim that the entire post is false I'd appreciate you correcting me on the points I have misunderstood about either the ME augmented crew ops, or the manner in which Australian operators crew their long haul flights.

[On eyre]

So JM long haul for 45 years eh ? Started up the pointy end at 18 eh ? I dips me lid to you. My BS meter is ticking.

[JamieMaree]

So JM long haul for 45 years eh ? Started up the pointy end at 18 eh ? I dips me lid to you. My BS meter is ticking.

Actually 19.:D

[JamieMaree]

Sorry old boy, didn't realise it was a competition. Your 45 years clearly trumps my 30 and attests to the size of your huge appendage. Well done.
With regard to the other points I note that there is no fact based response, just more rhetoric. I'd genuinely be interested in which bit I got wrong. Given your claim that the entire post is false I'd appreciate you correcting me on the points I have misunderstood about either the ME augmented crew ops, or the manner in which Australian operators crew their long haul flights.

If you had read what I wrote, I said that I had no experience of the ME ops so wasn't in a position to comment unlike you re QF.
I didn't say that what you were saying was false. I said that what you were asserting was rubbish.

[framer]

Having flown an additional 5 hours from the East Coast on day of ULH operations would be unprofessional in my opinion.
That's it right there.

[Tuck Mach]

seems to push responsibility to the pilot, but in allowing the alt pax I would imagine that QF share some responsibility. I would bet a substantial sum that statement is carefully vetted to ensure that strict liability cannot be assigned to Qantas.

A big assumption on any pilot relying on it, that I would not test in court.

[PPRuNeUser0184]

Basically, you can do what you want and you will get away with it until there is a serious incident/accident. Then, upon investigation by the regulator, will your actions leading up to signing on for the TOD will be investigated. YOUR legal responsibilities with regards to rest and fatigue be examined. YOUR decisions will be challenged and it will be up to YOU to defend your actions and prove that you were not negligent. The company will absolve themselves of any responsibly . The regulator will need someone to blame. The only one who can manage fatigue and rest is the individual and only they can determine if they can legally sign on for duty. This is the world we live in now.

If I had a 20+ hour TOD ahead of me there is zero chance I would commute over the day of departure.

[maggot]

I would bet a substantial sum that statement is carefully vetted to ensure that strict liability cannot be assigned to Qantas.

A big assumption on any pilot relying on it, that I would not test in court.
Its good for a stuff up getting there on time, thats about it. The rest lies with us, where it belongs.
Regarding @C441's qf9 issue... well that is a tricky one, midnight departure and the planned pax 24hrs prior. Going straight through is a bad idea imo, unless you're the senior s/o and can call the first break :D going early arvo for a snooze at the hotel is the best compromise for that one imo

[Keg]

Having flown an additional 5 hours from the East Coast on day of ULH operations would be unprofessional in my opinion.



It depends a bit on the schedule. Under the current planned departure time ex PER of 1850 I'm inclined to agree. If it were me commuting for the 787 (it won't be), for an an evening sign on I'd be aiming to arrive in PER 8-10 hours prior to report time and get away from the airport, do some exercise and allow some time to have a snooze before report. All eminently doable if the report time was 8pm PER time or later. That could conceivably see me better rested than a local dealing with young family, life, etc.

The current report time of 1750 won't allow that so were I to commute for the PER-LHR based on the current schedule I'd arrange to be in port the night before.

Then again, that's based on my personal experience of commuting to PER for the A330 operation. Others who have commuted previously may have different opinions depending on where they have commuted from/ to and for what sort of operation. I certainly welcome the thoughts of those who have never commuted but having gone from someone who 10 years ago was in the 'never, ever' camp, actually living it opens one's eyes to how to ensure you're adequately rested for a tour of duty.

[theheadmaster]

Well I can assure you that there is absolutely no link between the provision of home transport and fatigue just as there is no link between home transport provisions and kindness.

I can assure you that there is a link between home transport and fatigue. Home transport triggers were changed in EBA9 specifically to address fatigue issues.

[JamieMaree]

"30.1.1
Where patterns exceed one (1) calendar day and:
(a) the operating crew has a crew complement of two (2) or three (3) pilots; and
(b) the pilot is scheduled to operate the last Tour of Duty on which a pilot returns to base or posting that includes more than two (2) hours between 0100 and 0459 (LT) based on the departure port.


30.1.2 Where a tour of duty exceeds 14 hours
Where a tour of duty (including solely deadheading duty periods and one (1) day patterns) on which a pilot returns to base or posting exceeds 14 hours, regardless of the time that the pilot is freed from duty.
30.1.3 Extensions to the last tour of duty in a pattern
At the completion of a pattern, where a pilot has elected to extend his or her
tour of duty during the last tour of duty of the pattern:
(a) beyond eight (8) hours flight time (2 pilot crew);
(b) beyond 11 hours tour of duty (2 pilot crew);
(c) beyond 14 hours tour of duty (3 pilot crew).
30.1.4 Two-pilot crews rostered for more than 11 hours tour of duty or eight (8) hours flight time
Where a two (2) pilot crew is rostered for more than 11 hours tour of duty or eight (8) hours flight deck duty, unless the pilot has exercised his or her discretion under RM21.2."




I'm not sure what you are talking about headmaster, but I would say that these provisions have been there for a long time.
The transport for early sign ons and late sign offs has gone so that was a giveaway and I suppose that it could be argued that those that are left have some relationship to a long day's work but I repeat I can assure you that none of these provisions were negotiated originally on the basis of a fatigue link.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

It cannot be coincidence that the only two UK Airlines with CAA approved FRMS both have commuting protocols as part of the FRMS and one has it written in their FTL scheme.
Anyone residing over 90 minutes away (road) has to submit their protocol to the Company with evidence of local arrangements and how they get to work.
This is primarily as EU law now dictates crew members responsibilities as much as Operators responsibilities.
What happens if crew members float the regs - I have heard 2 cases of instant dismissal (not at the above airlines) but at another BIG AOC.

These rules are only to manage the 5% as we all know

[theheadmaster]

"30.1.1
Where patterns exceed one (1) calendar day and:
(a) the operating crew has a crew complement of two (2) or three (3) pilots; and
(b) the pilot is scheduled to operate the last Tour of Duty on which a pilot returns to base or posting that includes more than two (2) hours between 0100 and 0459 (LT) based on the departure port.


30.1.2 Where a tour of duty exceeds 14 hours
Where a tour of duty (including solely deadheading duty periods and one (1) day patterns) on which a pilot returns to base or posting exceeds 14 hours, regardless of the time that the pilot is freed from duty.
30.1.3 Extensions to the last tour of duty in a pattern
At the completion of a pattern, where a pilot has elected to extend his or her
tour of duty during the last tour of duty of the pattern:
(a) beyond eight (8) hours flight time (2 pilot crew);
(b) beyond 11 hours tour of duty (2 pilot crew);
(c) beyond 14 hours tour of duty (3 pilot crew).
30.1.4 Two-pilot crews rostered for more than 11 hours tour of duty or eight (8) hours flight time
Where a two (2) pilot crew is rostered for more than 11 hours tour of duty or eight (8) hours flight deck duty, unless the pilot has exercised his or her discretion under RM21.2."




I'm not sure what you are talking about headmaster, but I would say that these provisions have been there for a long time.
The transport for early sign ons and late sign offs has gone so that was a giveaway and I suppose that it could be argued that those that are left have some relationship to a long day's work but I repeat I can assure you that none of these provisions were negotiated originally on the basis of a fatigue link.

I am aware of the provision and the changes made during EBA9 negotiations. Home transport may well have been purely industrial when initially negotiated, but the changes made during EBA9 negotiations were specifically made to address fatigue. The net result was an increase in the patterns captured by the home transport clause. I can assure you that these changes were pursued for fatigue reasons.

Moreover, the current 787 agreement are made under clause 11 specifically includes home transport for fatigue mitigation.

[Tuck Mach]

If QF go down that path then they can up my pay to afford Inner Sydney or pay for my accommodation before the flight. $2m plus to live within 90 minutes of work in peak hour. That just won't work.


An interesting point you raise..
Looking at salary erosion in QF, it is clear that real wages have slid as with most other Australian workers whilst of course managers enriched themselves, ( I digress!)

How would a Qantas link operation place pilots in Sydney? Subsidy? Mandatory transfer? Perhaps an extension of the 457 visa scheme? Bunk beds in foreign owned rented Ryde flats for a few hundred a week? :E

Or perhaps eventually supply will meet demand if the market pays better!

[mongooseflyer]

My exact issue here in NZ. Likely basing for me with Air NZ would be Wellington (90min commute on a good day / 40min flight) where house prices are rapidly going insane, or Auckland, which needs no further explanation. Commuting for new entrants is, very shortly, going to be the ONLY option.

With the house prices in Sydney a commute would be mandatory for new joiners based there .