PDA

View Full Version : Flying hours


130herc
29th Jul 2018, 07:34
i was checking flightradar24 and looking at the flight histories for planes, ive noticed that jetstar planes normally takeoff sydney around 6am and land back at sydney around 10pm .Am I right in thinking that a single 2 pilot crew would be in charge of the plane from 5am till around 10:30pm?

Keg
29th Jul 2018, 08:14
No. Definitely not. There’d be a crew change midway through the day.

Bend alot
29th Jul 2018, 08:50
i was checking flightradar24 and looking at the flight histories for planes, ive noticed that jetstar planes normally takeoff sydney around 6am and land back at sydney around 10pm .Am I right in thinking that a single 2 pilot crew would be in charge of the plane from 5am till around 10:30pm?

If they could they would - but even better with single 1 pilot crew 7 days a week.

LeadSled
29th Jul 2018, 08:55
Folks,
In 1966, the then CEO of Qantas, Cedric Turner, said: "When Boeing builds a pilotless airliner, Qantas will be the first to buy it".
Some things never change.
Tootle pip!!

130herc
29th Jul 2018, 10:49
No. Definitely not. There’d be a crew change midway through the day.

Ah. That makes a lot more sense now, thanks.

Tankengine
29th Jul 2018, 11:40
Folks,
In 1966, the then CEO of Qantas, Cedric Turner, said: "When Boeing builds a pilotless airliner, Qantas will be the first to buy it".
Some things never change.
Tootle pip!!
That particular Qantas CEO was also the last one to see/cause a pilot strike! ;)

Bleve
29th Jul 2018, 22:32
That particular Qantas CEO was also the last one to see/cause a pilot strike! ;)

Does being locked out by the current CEO and ordered back to work by the FWC count?

gordonfvckingramsay
29th Jul 2018, 22:52
Am I right in thinking that a single 2 pilot crew would be in charge of the plane from 5am till around 10:30pm?

There are operators who are of the belief that you can be in charge of a aircraft over 4 sectors from 0500 till 1900. The rationale being that because you have been allocated a legal duty under the exemption, you (a) cannot be fatigued and (b) are therefore both physically and mentally fit to extend.

Iron Bar
29th Jul 2018, 23:15
- slight thread drift -

I believe that "technically" no one was actually ever locked out. (There was certainly no strike). Notification of a lockout was given on Sat 29 to occur at 8pm on Mon 31. FWC terminated all action on 31st before 8pm.

The "grounding" order was given Sat lunchtime, so no one flew but not locked out per se.

(There was one pilot who held a protected stop work meeting in Hong Kong, I think he was locked out of the crew hotel and had to pax himself home. Not 100% sure on that one)


Re Gfk - Ramsay

They sure do - and then expect to be able to extend you out to "rostering" limits, ignoring (deliberately misinterpreting) the CAO.

CASA do not necessarily agree with this (mis) interpretation. But it's the QC that will get ya in the court of inquiry ....... Not CASA.

VH DSJ
30th Jul 2018, 02:47
i was checking flightradar24 and looking at the flight histories for planes, ive noticed that jetstar planes normally takeoff sydney around 6am and land back at sydney around 10pm .Am I right in thinking that a single 2 pilot crew would be in charge of the plane from 5am till around 10:30pm?

If you'd like some light leisure reading, have a read of CAO 48.0 . ;-)

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/106396/download?token=sQJCsvkg

gordonfvckingramsay
30th Jul 2018, 04:09
Iron Bar, it’s interesting you say that CASA don’t necessarily agree with the (mis) interpretation. One of those operators has allegedly had that very thing clarified by CASA. That clarification effectively enshrines the expectation that pilots will extend a duty. 12-14 hour duties in a shorthaul world are NOT safe, but since when is safety more important than a few bucks ay!

Street garbage
30th Jul 2018, 04:42
KPI's before shareprice before fuel saving before OTP (schedule) before safety...well, at least at Qantas

gordonfvckingramsay
30th Jul 2018, 04:57
Safest* airline in the world though.

Tankengine
30th Jul 2018, 05:02
Does being locked out by the current CEO and ordered back to work by the FWC count?
Not at all, although the two CEOs have similarities.

Tankengine
30th Jul 2018, 05:05
Iron Bar, it’s interesting you say that CASA don’t necessarily agree with the (mis) interpretation. One of those operators has allegedly had that very thing clarified by CASA. That clarification effectively enshrines the expectation that pilots will extend a duty. 12-14 hour duties in a shorthaul world are NOT safe, but since when is safety more important than a few bucks ay!
They can expect you to extend all they like, it does not mean you have to!

gileraguy
30th Jul 2018, 05:06
Safest* airline in the world though.

Just a thought about that:


Qantas Flight 1
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Qantas_Boeing_747-400%2C_VH-OJH%2C_SIN_for_web.jpg/220px-Qantas_Boeing_747-400%2C_VH-OJH%2C_SIN_for_web.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qantas_Boeing_747-400,_VH-OJH,_SIN_for_web.jpg)
VH-OJH, the aircraft involved in the accident, photographed at Singapore Changi Airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Changi_Airport)some eight years later.AccidentDate23 September 1999SummaryRunway excursion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_safety#Incursion_and_excursion) caused by hydroplaning, pilot error aggravated by inclement weatherSiteBangkok, Thailand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangkok,_Thailand)AircraftAircraft typeBoeing 747–438 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747%E2%80%93400)Aircraft nameCity of Darwin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Darwin)OperatorQantas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas)
Registration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_registration)VH-OJHFlight originSydney Airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Airport)StopoverDon Mueang International Airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Mueang_International_Airport)DestinationLondon Heathrow Airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Heathrow_Airport)Passengers391[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_1#cite_note-TMWK_QANTAS-1):1Crew19Fatalities0Injuries38 (minor)Survivors410 (all)Qantas Flight 1 (QF1, QFA1) was a Qantas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas)passenger flight between Sydney and London that was involved in a runway overrun accident at Don Mueang International Airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Mueang_International_Airport) in Bangkok on 23 September 1999 as it was landing for a stopover.

The importance of pilot training and the difference pilot decisions can make was dramatically demonstrated in the major Qantas accident at Bangkok in 1999. VH-OJH, a Boeing 747-438 with 391 passengers and a crew of nineteen, over-ran the runway when landing in a rainstorm. Nobody was hurt, but it cost $100 million to repair the aircraft.

The damage was such that the aircraft was a write-off, but to preserve its reputation Qantas had it repaired at a cost of $ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_dollar)100 million.By returning the aircraft to service, Qantas was able to retain its record of having no hull-loss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull-loss) accidents since the advent of the Jet Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Age)

GEOFFREY LUCK
How Qantas Became the Safest Airline


link to article in Quadrant:

How Qantas Became the Safest Airline ? Quadrant Online (http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2011/01-02/how-qantas-became-the-safest-airline/)

gordonfvckingramsay
30th Jul 2018, 05:28
Please note my sarcasm.

I think an airline who constantly refers to a lack of hull losses as proof of its commitment to safety, like one of our national airlines does, is frankly being deceptive.

Keg
30th Jul 2018, 06:16
The damage was such that the aircraft was a write-off, but to preserve its reputation Qantas had it repaired at a cost of $ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_dollar)100 million.By returning the aircraft to service, Qantas was able to retain its record of having no hull-loss (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull-loss) accidents since the advent of the Jet Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Age)


Oh FFS. This has been debunked so many times over the years it’s not funny.

OJH was repaired for a cost less than $100 million. It was insured for the replacement cost which was at the time well in excess of $140 million. In addition, at the time Boeing had a log jam of backorders for the 744 at the time meaning Qantas had the lost capacity back online well before they would have had they’d waited for the next available slot off the production line.

Source: the engineer that actually oversaw the repair job and is still sought after world wide for similar repair jobs on big airliners including one on a 747 in Maastricht as recently as a month or so ago.

LeadSled
30th Jul 2018, 06:31
Oh FFS. This has been debunked so many times over the years it’s not funny.

OJH was repaired for a cost less than $100 million. It was insured for the replacement cost which was at the time well in excess of $140 million. In addition, at the time Boeing had a log jam of backorders for the 744 at the time meaning Qantas had the lost capacity back online well before they would have had they’d waited for the next available slot off the production line.

Source: the engineer that actually oversaw the repair job and is still sought after world wide for similar repair jobs on big airliners including one on a 747 in Maastricht as recently as a month or so ago.
And, folks, subsequent to the repair job, became the best performing aircraft in the fleet, the ONLY one that needed zero rudder trim in cruise, and then had the best "Delta" fuel in the fleet, indeed it then performed ahead of baseline, the real proof for any airframe.
There is an excellent documentary on the whole rebuild, it is made abundantly clear there, by those those doing the work, particularly the senior Boeing engineer on the job, that the aircraft was far from a write-off.
It is insurance underwriters who decide whether a hull is loss or not, in conjunction with the aircraft owners, who are usually finance organisations of some kind, not whoever's name is painted on the side.
Source, me, who flew the aeroplane frequently after the rebuild.
Tootle pip!!

C441
30th Jul 2018, 07:08
Source, me, who flew the aeroplane frequently after the rebuild.
Me too! A remarkably successful repair.
………..How did this thread get from "hours" to "OJH"??

Getting back to 130Herc's original question….
Am I right in thinking that a single 2 pilot crew would be in charge of the plane from 5am till around 10:30pm?
It would be unlikely that they'd stick with the same aircraft all day even if the crew did do a full 11 or 12 hour day. It would not be unusual to do 4 sectors in 4 different aircraft.

Iron Bar
30th Jul 2018, 09:06
Gfknrammer

Yeah, as Tankengine says, the obligation is on the pilot. Ops manual will talk about a joint responsibility but that only goes so far.

Paragraphs like;

"A pilot may extend a tour of duty already commenced by up to 2 hours in order to complete the original tour of duty"

Are pretty clear.

The argument that a pilot can be "re-rostered" mid TOD, therefore roster limits apply is based on semantics and doesn't convince me. This may have unreasonable limitations in some circumstances, but too bad. Shit drafting is not the fault of the pilots and shouldn't be used as an opportunity to manipulate them.

If any company says they have had this clarified by CASA then I would want to see it in writing, with a FOI signed off on it. (That may well have happened and I'm just not aware of it)

Alrenatively an unconvinced pilot could write directly to CASA and seek clarification themselves. You can read between the lines on that one ........

layman
30th Jul 2018, 10:18
Was told that tale only a few weeks ago.

When they finished early afternoon after an early morning start, I asked about going out for a run after 'work'

I was told they didn't have to that day as it was (almost) a run between aircraft at sometimes distant gates

130herc
30th Jul 2018, 12:11
It would be unlikely that they'd stick with the same aircraft all day even if the crew did do a full 11 or 12 hour day. It would not be unusual to do 4 sectors in 4 different aircraft.

Interesting, I did not know that before now.

Lookleft
31st Jul 2018, 03:04
It would be unlikely that they'd stick with the same aircraft all day even if the crew did do a full 11 or 12 hour day. It would not be unusual to do 4 sectors in 4 different aircraft.

Not at J*. Its the other way around. It is most unlikely to have to swap aircraft on a 4 sector 11 hour day.

C441
31st Jul 2018, 09:00
Not at J*. Its the other way around. It is most unlikely to have to swap aircraft on a 4 sector 11 hour day.
.....What Qantas short haul crew would give for that to be the case :sad:

Keg
31st Jul 2018, 12:12
Was flying with a former JQ captain recently. Four sectors, same aircraft, same cabin crew. Reckoned it was awesome though still ran an hour late at end of day due to ridiculously stupid turn around times coupled with standard ATC delays.

Beer Baron
31st Jul 2018, 14:13
I think an airline who constantly refers to a lack of hull losses as proof of its commitment to safety, like one of our national airlines does, is frankly being deceptive.
Not sure if you’re still being sarcastic Gordon but could you share one single example of Qantas referring to its lack of hull losses??

gordonfvckingramsay
31st Jul 2018, 19:38
You’re right Beer Baron, no mention of actual hull losses but it does hang its hat on a “no fatalities in the jet era” record. I suspect you have to crash one pretty badly to cause (passenger) fatalities. The point of my statement was that they are dwelling on their PAST safety record and assuming that will continue. Scheduling, including it’s sub operators, is hazardous and overly optimistic. I’ve heard it first hand, “you can’t be fatigued because we’ve rostered you within limits”. Pushing the limits and getting away with it has a name.

gordonfvckingramsay
31st Jul 2018, 19:48
As far as obtaining interpretations of the 48 exemption in regard to max duties and extension, the explanation was obtained so that pilots would stop “misinterpreting” that clause. It was used in such a way as to put the subject to bed. To my knowledge it hasn’t been sighted or officially questioned by the pilot group.

The general feeling is this: at sign on, we have you for the max duty allowed plus two hours if we need you. Then some disclaimer about being physically and mentally fit.

KZ Kiwi
31st Jul 2018, 22:22
Was flying with a former JQ captain recently. Four sectors, same aircraft, same cabin crew. Reckoned it was awesome though still ran an hour late at end of day due to ridiculously stupid turn around times coupled with standard ATC delays.

Regularly do 4 sector days with 30min turnarounds and in the majority of cases get back on time.....even with the occasional aircraft swap.

ruprecht
31st Jul 2018, 22:29
Regularly do 4 sector days with 30min turnarounds and in the majority of cases get back on time.....even with the occasional aircraft swap.

Your mother was right: you are special.

mrdeux
1st Aug 2018, 00:58
The general feeling is this: at sign on, we have you for the max duty allowed plus two hours if we need you.

Really? Well, that's not how I see it, and as such you won't be getting any extension unless I feel like giving it.

jetlikespeeds
1st Aug 2018, 02:36
Really? Well, that's not how I see it, and as such you won't be getting any extension unless I feel like giving it.

i am concerned with your attitude Mr Deux. How is the company expected to employ more gender and diversity managers and pay for a giant amount of maternity leave in the near future if you aren’t working yourself to the bone now?

22k
1st Aug 2018, 02:45
And, folks, subsequent to the repair job, became the best performing aircraft in the fleet, the ONLY one that needed zero rudder trim in cruise, and then had the best "Delta" fuel in the fleet, indeed it then performed ahead of baseline, the real proof for any airframe.
There is an excellent documentary on the whole rebuild, it is made abundantly clear there, by those those doing the work, particularly the senior Boeing engineer on the job, that the aircraft was far from a write-off.
It is insurance underwriters who decide whether a hull is loss or not, in conjunction with the aircraft owners, who are usually finance organisations of some kind, not whoever's name is painted on the side.
Source, me, who flew the aeroplane frequently after the rebuild.
Tootle pip!!

leadsled,

mate you you mention a video on the repair of OJH.

any chance you remember what it’s called or where one could find it?

Very interested in watching such a film!!

Lookleft
1st Aug 2018, 06:37
There was one part of the QF1 accident that is relevant to this discussion. The PIC had put a full day in the office prior to operating QF1. His duty hours were well over the limit but at that time "office duty" was not considered to be a part of operational duty even though there was no basis for that. Even the CAO 48 exemption now defines duty as all duties associated with the pilots employment, or words to that effect.

As a matter of interest Iron Bar, the reasons I have been given as to why my interpretation of the differences between roster limits and duty limits(I agree with your interpretation BTW) is wrong is:

Thats the way its always been done
So if you are doing a 4 hour duty you can only be extended to 6 hours!
Thats how it was done at Ansett

LeadSled
1st Aug 2018, 06:54
Folks,
I knew the Captain of QF-1/ OJH well, and in my view fatigue had nothing to do with it.
Knowing the situation in some considerable detail, not really reflected in the accident report, he simply had a "brain-snap" and did something completely out of not only training and indoctrination frameworks, but character.
How do any of us make ourselves fireproof against something like that??
He was, and remained, a well above average stick and rudder man, and a bloody bright bloke.
In my opinion, as long as he lives, he will never be able to satisfactorily explain to himself, let alone anybody else, why he did what he did.
Tootle pip!!

Lookleft
1st Aug 2018, 09:34
not really reflected in the accident report, he simply had a "brain-snap" and did something completely out of not only training and indoctrination frameworks, but character.

To state that the PIC simply had a brain snap does him a great disservice. If someone as well qualified and experienced as the PIC of QF1 can overrun a runway and cause significant damage with no better explanation than "he had a brain snap" then the technology of getting the human out of the cockpit needs to be accelerated.

When the report on QF1 was written the science and research behind fatigue was still in its early stages. The crew reported that they didn't feel fatigued. We know now that the people who are least able to report their fatigue levels are the crew. We also know that the period of continuous wakefulness can have a blood alcohol equivalency. Being awake for 17 hours continuously is equivalent to .05, 21 hours is equivalent to .08.

https://www.ausenco.com/en/did-you-know-that-17-hours-awake-is-equivalent-to-a-blood-alcohol-content-of-0-05

The PIC woke up at 5:00am on the day of the accident and had not slept prior to the accident at 00:47EST. To dismiss fatigue as a significant factor in the event is to ignore current science on the matter, keeping in context that QF1 occurred 19 years ago.

The changes to CAO48 should be implemented now and not sent to yet another review or extended so that industry can get familiar with it. The current exemption was designed for airline rostering practices that are no longer followed.With the shortage in crew and the pressure on costs, airlines need to be forced into a proper FRMS that is scientifically based. The fact they can implement one at any time and have chosen not to suggests they want to squeeze the last possible drop out of the CAO 48 exemption lemon that they possibly can.

The lessons from QF 1 when it relates to fatigue show that, far from being a brain snap by a well trained professional crew, was in fact impairment of judgement, reduced reaction times and impulsive behaviour which are all markers of fatigue. In this case fatigue that was equivalent to a BAC of .08

LeadSled
2nd Aug 2018, 00:37
I know the ATSB are held in very little regard already but if they ever published that an accident was caused by a pilot's "brain snap" then they would really deserve to be laughed at.

Lookleft,
True, but there are other suitably obfuscating ways of describing the same thing. Mine is just a simple but comprehensive layman's explanation.
Fact is I don't know how you ultimately prevent such almost instantaneous and virtually irretrievable actions.
There but for the grace ---------.
Tootle pip!!

CurtainTwitcher
2nd Aug 2018, 05:11
The changes to CAO48 should be implemented now and not sent to yet another review or extended so that industry can get familiar with it. The current exemption was designed for airline rostering practices that are no longer followed.With the shortage in crew and the pressure on costs, airlines need to be forced into a proper FRMS that is scientifically based.

Fully agree Lookleft. It might surprise you, a major jet operator about to implement in the wild( Nov 18) a rolled gold genuine CASA approved FRMS in agreement with their pilots: Virgin Narrow Body agreement 2018 (https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/agreements/fwa/ae428327.pdf) (Appendix 2 Work Rules, page 67).

There can be no longer be an argument from any other operators that it is not possible, this FRMS agreement creates the template. There is almost equal flexibility in the Virgin FRMS compared to CAO48E, however, the FRMS rest & recovery requirements are what 48E lack. Little things like transit time to and from the hotel are considered. Compare this to CAO48E where you can have a planned 11:45 TOD, as little as 8 hours in the hotel room when transit time is taken into account followed by another 11:45 hour TOD. A couple of extra hours doesn't sound like much, but it significantly improves the quality of rest.

Here is just a sample from the FRMS (my bold):

13.4 The minimum Rest Period which must be taken before undertaking a flying duty period (including a SIM duty period) will be: (a) at least as long as the preceding duty period, or (b) 12 hours, whichever is the greater.

13.5 When away from Home Base, in the case when the Rest Period earned by a Pilot is 12 hours, and suitable accommodation is provided by Virgin Australia, then that Rest Period may be reduced by one hour. In such circumstances, if the travelling time between the airport and the accommodation is more than 30 minutes each way then the Rest Period will be increased by the amount the total time spent travelling exceeds one hour. In both situations the room allocated to the Pilot must be available for occupation for a minimum of 10 hours. In circumstances where access to the room is delayed because of matters outside of the Pilot’s control, they can ring network operations and extend the Rest Period by the period of the delay. This sub-paragraph does not apply to Rest Periods that exceed 12 hours. 13.6 Where the preceding duty period was 11:30-11:59 hours the Rest Period will be minimum 12 hours.

Rated De
2nd Aug 2018, 07:41
Fully agree Lookleft. It might surprise you, a major jet operator about to implement in the wild( Nov 18) a rolled gold genuine CASA approved FRMS in agreement with their pilots: Virgin Narrow Body agreement 2018 (https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/agreements/fwa/ae428327.pdf) (Appendix 2 Work Rules, page 67).

There can be no longer be an argument from any other operators that it is not possible, this FRMS agreement creates the template. There is almost equal flexibility in the Virgin FRMS compared to CAO48E, however, the FRMS rest & recovery requirements are what 48E lack. Little things like transit time to and from the hotel are considered. Compare this to CAO48E where you can have a planned 11:45 TOD, as little as 8 hours in the hotel room when transit time is taken into account followed by another 11:45 hour TOD. A couple of extra hours doesn't sound like much, but it significantly improves the quality of rest.

Here is just a sample from the FRMS (my bold):

On the contrary, CAO 48.1 aligning with ICAO annex 6 (from memory) required rest periods to be in accommodation. As is understood some operators consider rest periods are brakes to park plus 30 mins. How one 'rests' when yet to exit a terminal and somehow get to a room is a mystery. Interestingly roster clerks and office workers never bother finding out how. Strangely labour representatives feared that this may mean airport hotels (where rest periods were near prescribed minimums) and they never addressed the matter either.

The violent opposition to CAO48.1 was literally driven by 'commercial considerations'

CAO48.1 contained provisions for the granting of exemption greater than 12 hours would only be granted when:
'An unplanned exceptional event that becomes evident after the commencement of the FDP (i.e. un-forecast weather, equipment malfunction, or air traffic delay).'

This is detailed in CAAP48.01. This would stop 'roster planned duties at 11 hours, to permit a usual extension to 12 hours. Any desire to extend over 12 hours required historical data pertaining to the 'frequency' of occurrence of the delay being the subject of the extension request. The threshold required that the event under consideration had been observed in less than 5% of the data set. Strangely airlines themselves had collected little data. Airline operators were very unhappy about this provision, given that 'efficiency' implied roster preparation to the extent permitted by the regulation. What was not mentioned to crew extending beyond 12 hours was where the liability ceased for the operator.

LeadSled
2nd Aug 2018, 08:21
Lookleft,
What a useful contribution --- that the obvious answer is to get the pilot(s) out of the flighdeck ASAP, to preclude such problems, indeed, any fatigue related issues, in the future.
Music to the ears of the accountants, some pilots want to get rid of pilots??
Are you actually aware of what happened to -OJH?? The sequence of events?? On the face of it, the answer is no.
Tootle pip!!

Lookleft
2nd Aug 2018, 09:45
LeadSled, may I suggest that you have another objective read of my response to your assertion that fatigue was not an issue on QF 1 and that you consider that the PIC simply had a brain snap. A fairly big insult to your colleague IMHO.

LeadSled
3rd Aug 2018, 01:31
LeadSled, may I suggest that you have another objective read of my response to your assertion that fatigue was not an issue on QF 1 and that you consider that the PIC simply had a brain snap. A fairly big insult to your colleague IMHO.
Lookleft,
You are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts.
I stand by my posts, and I know that the PIC of -OJH in question would NOT be insulted by my comment.
Tootle pip!!

Lookleft
3rd Aug 2018, 02:06
I am entitled to my own facts, possibly what you meant to say that my conclusions based on the facts presented in the QF1 report and subsequent research on fatigue were subject to counter claim. Whatever. Moving on.

Rated De in my little corner of aviation the crew are required to send an ACARS when a duty will exceed the roster limits. In theory it is part of the data collection to ascertain if a particular duty exceeds the limits regularly. There are a lot of noises made about FRMS so I find it frustrating that they just don't get on with it and let CASA catch up. I suspect that the rumors regarding CASA not approving the FRMS put forward because it smells to much like the CAO48 Exemption are true.

CurtainTwitcher
3rd Aug 2018, 04:15
I suspect that the rumors regarding CASA not approving the FRMS put forward because it smells to much like the CAO48 Exemption are true.
What are you suggesting, operators are unable to shoehorn a fatigue management system into a business model?
/s

Lookleft
3rd Aug 2018, 08:25
I can't possibly be suggesting that, because as we all know, "Safety is our number 1 priority"

bazza stub
4th Aug 2018, 09:09
Safety? Number 1 priority? BAHAHA!!

Street garbage
4th Aug 2018, 09:38
Safety? Number 1 priority? BAHAHA!!
1) KPI's 2) Share buy back 3) OTP 4) Coffee in the Street 5) Catching a glimpse of Alan or Andrew in QCC 5) Safety

73qanda
4th Aug 2018, 10:51
There are a lot of noises made about FRMS so I find it frustrating that they just don't get on with it and let CASA catch up. I suspect that the rumors regarding CASA not approving the FRMS put forward because i
Lookleft, my experience of working under/ within an FRMS is that it allowed the company to work me harder than ever before and not be breaking any laws. They collected lots of data, they had lots of “systems in place”, they payed for consultants ( then ignored their advice), they issued lots of advice on fatigue management, they sent pilots to sleep hygienists or doctors if they used the fatigue reporting system, they did lots of things but creating sensible rosters was not one of them. I’ve since moved on but I certainly wouldn’t get too excited about FRMS. Hard legal limits are the only thing that provides you with protection from efficient rostering software and FRMS makes limits soft and squishy.

Car RAMROD
4th Aug 2018, 21:11
Hard legal limits are the only thing that provides you with protection from efficient rostering software and FRMS makes limits soft and squishy.


You do realise that many management teams use the hard limits as "targets" and that you can still become extremely fatigued even when staying within "hard limits", don't you?

Nothing wrong with an FRMS. Nothing wrong with hard limits. It's the managerial support and culture that makes a rostering/limiting system, whatever it is, good or bad.

Rated De
4th Aug 2018, 21:48
You do realise that many management teams use the hard limits as "targets" and that you can still become extremely fatigued even when staying within "hard limits", don't you?

Nothing wrong with an FRMS. Nothing wrong with hard limits. It's the managerial support and culture that makes a rostering/limiting system, whatever it is, good or bad.



This is precisely why the original CAO48.1 brief, aligning Australian regulation with ICAO Annex 6 sought clarity and established clearly mandated limits which among other things saw rest periods in accommodation, not in transport. In the case of one high capacity RPT operator in Australia, 'rest period' was usually when still in the aircraft..

TOD duty extension outside 12 hours were only to be granted where an unforeseen operational circumstances.

Unforeseen Operational Circumstances were defined as those in which the OPERATOR could not have anticipated the occurrence, as it had only been observed in 5% or less of cases previously. Unfortunately for management, seasonal thunderstorms or peak hour holding were not likely to be grounds for an extension to be granted. Practically speaking this necessitated operators reducing roster TOD to say, 11 hours, with 95% of delays allowing the duty (as planned) was completed by 12 hours.

Is it any wonder such 'draconian' regulatory oversight was viciously opposed by airline management? Dare we say it, but at least one aviation union was happy to continue with the status quo....







Pilots collectively ought realise that the maximum roster limit offers protection for the operating crew. Stepping outside statutory protection (no matter what company manuals tell pilots) is not for the faint hearted. If something goes wrong (beyond say a hard 12 hour limit) the operator has a plausible defence that the pilot 'elected' to extend the duty. This is where strict liability is a term that aircraft commanders and their 'offsider' will come to understand intimately.

73qanda
4th Aug 2018, 22:13
You do realise that many management teams use the hard limits as "targets" and that you can still become extremely fatigued even when staying within "hard limits", don't you?
Yes. Why do you ask?
Nothing wrong with an FRMS. Nothing wrong with hard limits. It's the managerial support and culture that makes a rostering/limiting system, whatever it is, good or bad.

True. So looking around Australia and New Zealand at the industrial relationships that exist between say, Rex management and their pilot group, Virgin management and their pilots, QLink pilots and their management, Jetconnect pilots and their management, Jetstar pilots and their management , how much ‘managerial support’ are we seeing for the respective rostering systems? Quite a bit of support for maximising commercial efficiencies with zero regard for the employees who are not enjoying the rise of optimisation software , their bodies and brains think it is sub-optimal. In those circumstances had legal limits are preferable to an FRMS. The limit is the limit. An FRMS operating within a framework of non negotiable and sensible legal limits would be the answer but the exemptions are sought and granted and we have two crew operations signing on at 6pm to do planned 11.5 hour two sector duties with the inevitable diversions off the return sector......simply rediculous yet legal. A train driver, taxi driver, truck driver couldn’t do it even in dalylight hours and they’re not sitting at 8000ft. An FRMS managed by the wrong crowd will allow this to continue regardless of how many reports go in simply by regularly reminding pilots that they can call fatigued at any time. The system doesn’t account for human nature, pilots will rarely call fatigued on the duty and the reports they do send afterwards achieve nothing.
My main point to Lookleft was that an FRMS alone is not the answer and if I was him/her I wouldn’t get too excited about its arrival.
What is the answer? In my opinion a regulator with real leadership that implements sensible non negotiable limits and mandates FRMS to operate within those limits thus forcing Airlines to hire sensible numbers of pilots which will in turn increase ticket prices by $2.50 per sector.
posted at the same time as RatedDe

Car RAMROD
4th Aug 2018, 23:12
The system doesn’t account for human nature, pilots will rarely call fatigued on the duty and the reports they do send afterwards achieve nothing.

Exaxtly the same happens in non-FRMS environments too.


I asked because your your reply seemed to indicate that "just because it's an FRMS, it's bad". But now I see that's not necessarily what you said. I do agree though with a lot that you, and RatedDe, have said in your latest replies.
Having worked under a much more basic GA-targeted FRMS (prior to this "new" 48), I much preferred it in many ways to the "old" 48 and a lot of the "new" annexes. Maybe my experience with the management of one has been pretty good and that's why I don't think "FRMS is bad"?

CurtainTwitcher
5th Aug 2018, 00:04
I just look at it from a logic point of view. If a CASA FRMS was commercially more favourable than the CAO48E to operators, then it would have been implemented ASAP. The fact that operators are foot dragging infers that any CASA approved FRMS (based on the ICAO 2011 principles (https://www.icao.int/safety/fatiguemanagement/FRMS%20Tools/FRMS%20Implementation%20Guide%20for%20Operators%20July%20201 1.pdf)) must therefore, be commercially detrimental.

I also note the CASA approved FRMS in the Virgin Narrow Body 2018 (https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/agreements/fwa/ae428327.pdf) & 2013 agreement (https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/agreements/fwa/ae401020.pdf) is more commercially favourable than their previous 2007 agreement (https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/documents/agreements/wpa/caun072787135.pdf)which was CAO48 only, without the exemption. Therefore by implementing for Virgin management, an FRMS was a commercial win as it enables pilots to work harder than straight CAO48. I also note, Virgin are limited to 900 hours annually in all three agreements, compared to the 1,000 for the CAO48E operators. It is also unlikely Virgin will ever be gain CASA approval for the 1,000 limit under any system.

You have to look at the starting baseline of the operators, for some FRMS is a win, for others it is a loss. Existing CAO48E operators effectively get to cherry-pick the most commercially favourable ruleset, either by "Grandfathering" existing exemptions gained prior to 2013 in perpetuity, or implement an FRMS if they were on the straight CAO48.

Lookleft
5th Aug 2018, 01:56
73qanda I hear what you are saying about an FRMS not being a cure all. I have operated under the CAO48E when it worked fine but it has now turned into a Frankenstein. As a colleague stated it has turned rostering into a work, eat, sleep, work cycle and with the limits being turned into targets its not going to get any better.

I do agree with your statement:

What is the answer? In my opinion a regulator with real leadership that implements sensible non negotiable limits and mandates FRMS to operate within those limits thus forcing Airlines to hire sensible numbers of pilots which will in turn increase ticket prices by $2.50 per sector.

​​​​​​​but that is more an aspirational statement that will never become reality. Too many vested interests and political games for it to become either a CASA or airline policy.

Keg
5th Aug 2018, 06:13
As a colleague stated it has turned rostering into a work, eat, sleep, work cycle and with the limits being turned into targets its not going to get any better.
.

And the executive management wonder why they are struggling to find pilots. This is part of the reason. Actually, it’s 50% of the reason. The other 50% is the lack of $$$ on offer at anywhere other than QF mainline.

73qanda
5th Aug 2018, 14:14
For me the dollars are nowhere near as important as the rostering. I guess it’s a combination of both and everyone values lifestyle and money differently. I’m about a 70/30 split favouring a nice lifestyle.