War casualty flights shunned by union

[Jet II]

From todays Times
AIRLINE pilots will refuse to fly aircraft chartered to evacuate casualties of war because the Government is seeking to relax flight safety rules.
The Department for Transport has produced a draft directive requiring civilian pilots flying jets chartered by the Armed Forces to work for more than 19 consecutive hours, six hours more than the present legal limit.

The Government is negotiating contracts with several airlines to provide aircraft and crews to evacuate the injured and to ferry troops and supplies. It wants to change safety rules to allow for the special circumstances of waging war.

The DfT directive, a copy of which has been obtained by The Times, says that pilots operating medical flights can have their duty hours extended by four hours beyond the present 13hr 15min maximum. Pilots can be ordered to work for 70 hours a week, 15 hours more than the existing 55-hour limit. Rest periods between shifts have also been cut to a minimum of nine hours.

The British Airline Pilots’ Association (Balpa) said the rule changes could lead to an exhausted pilot making a fatal error after a 19-hour day. Trevor Phillips, Balpa’s head of scheduling, said: “It is clearly unsafe to allow such huge increases in the duty period. The existing safety rules are there for a reason but this directive would mean pilots returning over densely populated areas when they are dangerously fatigued.”

Balpa is advising its members to refuse to undertake such flights and is calling on airlines not to sign contracts unless safety standards are maintained. Military pilots are already permitted to work much longer hours than civilian pilots, but they are given pills to keep them alert. Civilian pilots are banned from taking any stimulants.

Any evacuation flights are expected to fly from Cyprus or Kuwait. The flight time to London from Cyprus is about five hours but the chartered aircraft would take an hour longer when carrying casualties as they would have to fly at a lower altitude to maintain the optimum flow of oxygen.

I would have thought that if the country goes to war BALPA might be a bit more flexible in its interpretation of the rules, especially to help badly wounded troops to get to medical treatment.

[Spartacan]

Doesn't it come down to cost?

I.e. they could evacuate a given amount of casualties by chartering more aircraft and staying WITHIN the current FTL's.

I agree that different rules apply in war but FTL'S are about safety.

[Moses Mashomba]

Spartacan, you took the words out of my mouth ( keyboard ).

If the rules are set as present to ensure that safety margins are not eroded, why should the general public and / or injured troops accept a reduced safety margin, e.g just because the UK Government want to save a few quid.

Mind you, I'll bet that there's some small print in the DfT contracts that let's them off the hook should a knackered civvy pilot manage to prang his aircraft after being awake for +24 hours !

[Stampe]

Jet11 as am active Balpa member who has (like many of my colleagues) volounteered for this task I am sure I and my colleagues will do all that is necessary for the task in hand relevant to the the circumstances pertaining at the time.This government dispensation will allow planned rostering 3 weeks in advance by the operators of duty periods way in excess of what is currently considered prudent and many would say that is far to generous.3 weeks in advance is not an emergency!!!!.The thinking is not joined up.Is the government trying to skimp on the cost of repatriating injured personnel by permitting the planning in advance of what would be considered an unacceptable standard of operation.What are your plans for the forthcoming war?????.You clearly enjoy union bashing.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Thin end of a very dangerous wedge?

[fireflybob]

You cannot be SERIOUS!!

This set a dangerous precedent - I am with BALPA on this one.

[Arkroyal]

In my operational days it was always the crabs hiding behind 'crew duty time'.

Will the crews at Lyneham and Brize be flying these extended hours?

I doubt it.

If the government reqire these extended flghts, then crew them properly so that the bloke with the stick remains alert.

[BUSTACLOUD]

well Stampe, by accepting the stretched FTLs as pilots you are also providing ammunition for European Governments to argue the case for increasing FTLs to 14 hours. Do not think it will wash too well when they say "but you were able to do longer FDs for medivacs" and you say "Ahh but that was different!"

QUE???

[JW411]

Arkroyal:

I assume that you were a fish head or an airey fairey? When I was a crab in Transport Command we frequently flew 22 hour duties when the sh*t was in the fan. I also once did a 42 hour duty with a double crew (not to be recommended).

By the way, did you chaps actually have an aeroplane that didn't run out of fuel after a couple of hours?

[Jet II]

Arkroyal

As an ex crab. I'm with JW411 on this - I have never seen or even heard of anyone quoteing FTL's in time of emergency - especially on medevac duties.

[TightSlot]

The Department for Transport has produced a draft directive requiring....

I don't understand this - surely the DOT can provide an alleviation for pilots to operate to revised FTL's without being punished, assuming they, and their employers consent, but the DOT cannot "require" anybody to do anything? Presumably this is exactly what they are in the process of discovering the hard way at the moment?

As Cabin Crew, I've also volunteered, like Stampe to work these flights, as have many others in the company (I'm aware that pilot hours are more important and more limiting). On the day, I'd be happy to work whatever hours were appropriate to get the job done: Surely that's what discretion is intended for?

I can well understand that pilots might be twitchy about massively extended FDP's followed by reduced rest on a recurrent basis. Let's face it, 9 hours rest never is 9 hours rest. The transport is never there, the beds are still occupied, the company has just faxed changes to your room which is located adjacent to the afterburner engine run bay.

Seems to me that one group of bean counters hasn't been talking to the other group

That's my dime

[Diesel]

In time of emrgency I would be only too willing to work beyond any limitation if it meant potentially saving lives. However seeking to change to such limits several weeks in advance seems to me to be trying to take advantage of the situation. I smell a rat here. I'm with BALPA on this 100%.

[unwiseowl]

We would all be prepared to go the extra mile to get injured troops home, but this is just about avoiding the cost of positioning crews out to Cyprus.

[Night_fr8]

Where do I sign up !!!!

If you were in pain and had sustained wounds for your country, would you not wish to be brought home as quickly as possible, so you could be nearer your loved ones.

Enough of the clap trap about FTL's, if we go to war then lets fully support our troops even if it means going that extra mile or duty hours. Your not out there with your neck on the chopping block they are.

War is a new set of rules played differently by all sides, lets just forget ourselves, and if necessary give 110% and get the job done.

Ever Heard of a Heavy Crew to help eleviate fatigue.

Support our Boys and Girls and stop complaining.

[NigelOnDraft]

<<Ever Heard of a Heavy Crew to help eleviate fatigue>>

Exactly - if a heavy crew had been proposed, then there would be no need for the directive!

i.e. its all about saving money, NOT getting people home.

NoD

[Abbeville]

If it is 'bona fide', and without commercial gain, I would not hesitate to do it. Get the lads and lasses home.

'Nuff said

[S76Heavy]

Using discretion to extend FTLs in an emergency is one thing. Planning an emergency weeks in advance is taking the Mickey, though. :*

Don't let them talk you into breaking safety guidelines for the sake of a few pennies (compared to the total cost of going to war) by appealing to your sense of national pride and standing shoulder to shoulder and all that rubbish. :rolleyes:

[fireflybob]

Night_fr8, I think you have missed the point.

I am sure that no crew member is going to refuse to extend the duty day when it is necessary to save life when "circumstances warrant such action".

However, this is pre-meditated. There must surely be enough spare capacity amongst all the operators to fly any such mission within the normal parameters especially given the current downturn in business.

As has been previously stated why should the normal FTLs be conveniently ignored? I would have thought that our own "kith and kin" deserve the protection of all the normal rules and regulations. Why make an exception in this case?

[Night_fr8]

I have not missed the point

The FTL's proposed in the EU for JAA Operations are the current hot potato in the European Flight Crew Associations, thus BALPA has seen this proposed increase as a means of making a point.

This is not the time to make a point, but it is a time to rally round and prove we are not a bunch of die hard unionists (remember SABENA )

[Idunno]

There's a very simple solution to this.

The authorities in question must PLAN the operation based on existing FTLs.

If the operation goes off the rails then crews should be given EXTRAORDINARY discretion to extend where necessary.

Thus the FTLs are respected in principal and crews are allowed help the war effort if thats their choice (as volunteers).

[unwiseowl]

If being a die hard unionist means not flying a 19 hour day to satisfy the tightfistedness of Gordon Brown, then fine, I'll be a die hard unionist. If the powers that be gave a damn about our troops, they would spend the money to bring them home with the same safety standards as all other passengers - they deserve the best.

Idunno - I agree with what you are saying, except we already have the option to extend discretion beyond three hours where lives are at risk and I'm sure we all would.

[stalling attitude]

anybody got any idea which companies the MOD are talking to.I seem to remember an article again in the times mentioning BA , Virgin and EasyJet , all three of which i would of thought were unlikely candidates. Aren't the charter companies more likely to have the spare airframes initially and yes i know in times of war all aircraft can be used if needed.

[Dan Winterland]

Arkroyal - RAF FTLs for transport aircraft are known as Crew Duty Hours and are less restrictive than the CAA FTLs. Furthermore, in 'war' they don't apply. On 3 occasions while in the RAF, I flew well in excess of the published limits - during conflicts.

However, I don't agree with the proposals. It's about costs - and will produce a precedent which we don't need while the current FTLs are in dispute.

[trolleydollylover]

Well Diplomat et al

From my reading of this I believe that this is what is called a contingency plan.
If there are some casualties then I am sure that they will be repatriated by the RAF.
What they are talking about is the use of a chemical weapons against our countrymen. (and other weapons).
I am not a war hawk, however I am disgusted that there are people who are more concerned about their straight eight than those who are risking their lives.

On a personal note, I have recieved my standby for the gulf. I guess at 29 I am younger than most if not all of the posters. I am willing to stand up and be counted, I am against the war but I will do my duty, and a lack of sleep is just part of that.

I do not want to get into a debate as to the legality of the war. But as I have served with many of those out there already I am part of that family. BALPA may slip to the same level of the fire brigade if they are not careful. If I am injured I hope that somebody would get me home as quick as possible to those who I love and will protect me.

Sorry to say this gentlemen but England Expects.

[Moses Mashomba]

Don't make me laugh, this is March 2003 not October 1805 !

What next - "Ve ver simply following ze orders !" ?

Grow up mate.

[Hand Solo]

Errr, am I being thick or does the post before last not quite make sense? If you're injured then the RAF will take you home. If Saddam uses chemical weapons against you, then the RAF will take you home (but lets face it were not going to withdraw the entire military presence in a hurry just because Saddam has done the entirely expected). So who are these 'countrymen' that were all supposed to be riding to the rescue of?

[DownIn3Green]

So anyway, in Angola in 1992, I was on a crew tasked to take several (read 195) Zaire citizens (who were either employees or familiy of employees of our company) from Luanda to Kinshasa.

Our A/C was a 727/100 outfitted to tanker fuel.

We fit them all, plus more, between the fuel tanks on the cargo deck.

Duty time was not an issue in this instance, but when the ball goes up, real pilots can be counted on to be counted on, regardless of union affilation or CAA/FAR regulations.

Grow up guys, people may get hurt here, and our risk is nothing compared to that of the young folks who may be sent into harms way...

[fmgc]

Night_fr8 & Down In 3Green,

You both miss the point, this isn't WW2, nor will lives be at stake by not extending FTL's, it is about the MoD saving money and my company making more.

Our company has such a contract and if they were to try and get me to work outside of FTL (and therefore my contract) they can go and shove it.

It has nothing to do with defense of the realm, my company are not chartering these aircraft to the MoD for nothing, it is all about PROFIT, not Charity.

Down In 3Green, what a stirling chap you are, but you signed up for that, did you not?

[NigelOnDraft]

Basil...

<<NigelonDraft - for example, do you know for sure that heavy crews are not being used?>>
I know nothing about this topic other than what has been posted here.

However, from the start of the thread:
<<The DfT directive, a copy of which has been obtained by The Times, says that pilots operating medical flights can have their duty hours extended by four hours beyond the present 13hr 15min maximum. Pilots can be ordered to work for 70 hours a week, 15 hours more than the existing 55-hour limit. Rest periods between shifts have also been cut to a minimum of nine hours>>

From our (BA) scheme the 13:15 limit is 2+ Flt Crew, 2 sectors, 0800-1259 start. So the above figures seems to be based on "some" fact.

My point was that if Heavy crews are planned (which would be the sensible, but expensive option to GB), then there would be no need for the directive - it would all be legal. The fact the directive has been produced (and leaked?) implies to me they are trying to get around the need (and cost passed on from the airline) for heavy crew. The same sort of attitude that has "our boys" in the Gulf without bog paper!

NoD

[Basil]

The real Basil wishes it to be known that he is not a Batlord or even batty and his only similarity to the order Chiroptera of furry nocturnal flying mammals is his involuntary habit of flying around in the middle of the night and occasionally finding the crewroom by echolocation :)

[soddim]

Maybe I have the wrong impression but many of the posters on this thread don't seem prepared to work longer hours than currently allowed in order to perform medivac flights to the Gulf, if required. If that is the case what a sad lot they are.

I believe it is enshrined in maritime law that you must go to the assistance of anyone in distress and that takes priority over all including your beauty sleep or normal crew rest. It does not matter if they became injured doing something you did not agree with or if it was a military vessel involved. A medivac requirement is not dissimilar in my book unless you know for sure that it is merely a routine logistic task and the patients lives are not at risk from delay.

I really hope I have the wrong impression of those earlier posters who say they will not respond.

[Hand Solo]

Maybe I have the wrong impression but many of the posters on this thread don't seem prepared to work longer hours than currently allowed in order to perform medivac flights to the Gulf, if required.

Not quite. My impression of this thread is that lots of people are quite willing to help perform medivac flights, and would be quite willing to go into discretion (and perhaps even beyond) should it be required on the day. What they are not prepared to do is allow their employers and the government to fly them until they drop for the purposes of increasing profits and reducing costs. If the government want a proper medivac operation let them pay for it, they screw enough tax out of us already.

The maritime analogy is inappropriate. The government are not asking passing seafarers to divert in order to assist parties in unexpected peril. They are planning several weeks in advance for civilian pilots to fly civilian aircraft to a known hotspot to collect expected casualties. They have more than enough time to plan a scehdule which will allow the medivac needs to be met without infringing existing cvilian safety guidelines. They choose not to do so because they don't want to spend the money.

[NigelOnDraft]

soddim

<<don't seem prepared to work longer hours than currently allowed >>
Please note, we are NOT talking of Union agreed "Industrial Limits", or of demanding our beauty sleep!

We are talking of the LEGAL limits, limits derived by long experience back to the Bader "enquiry", set up after a number of fatal accidents due to fatigue.

This is just typical 2 faced government that sets "safe rules" (aren't we a good caring Govt?) until its their turn to pay the bill, when suddenly all the safe limits no longer apply, and we can fly the servicemen home in what was the week before an illegally tired state. And where there is a perfectly safe and practiced alternative - heavy crewing...

NoD

[Basil]

HS
Precisely what I'd have said if I were as eloquent as your goodself:cool:

[Agaricus bisporus]

Forgive me but I cannot see the rationale behind claiming it is not safe to carry holidaymakers in excess of 12hrs duty (or whatever)but it is safe to carry squaddies. What has changed, safety & fatigue wise?

If there are wounded to be repatriated then they must be stabilised in a local hospital first (and the field facilities plus local hospitals will in all probability be good enough). You cannot fly seriously wounded home unless the medical facilities in theatreare chronically deficient - the level of care available in a (chertered civvy) aeroplane are just not good enough.

This idea is surely a govt cop out to save a few bob instead of contracting return crews to be on standby in theatre or nearby in case. For the cost of one smart bomb you'd keep an entire crew on sby for three months or so. How mean can the get?

I seriously wonder about the legal implications of agreeing to do this. We are told (by CAP 371) it is not safe therefore you are duty bound not to do it. Have an accident at 19hrs duty and what do you suppose the relative's lawyers would concentrate on? They won't claim from the MOD, but you are defenceless.

Equally, if this is done and deemed safe what chance do we stand of defeating the outrageous new duty limitations the europrats are proposing? We'll be screwing ourselves for ever!

INSIST the company tells the MOD we'll do it, but only within the law.

Is that unreasonable?

[Alex Whittingham]

The problem is the military have been doing this for years and their Airships probably think its safe. They used to have a rule, maybe still have, that crew duty could be extended to 18 hours by calling it an 'operation'. The worst they did to me was, in a TriStar, Brize to Dusseldorf, pick up troops, flag Dusseldorf to Las Vegas drop off troops, flag Las Vegas to Los Angeles. Night stop, 18 hours off. Next day, repeat the trip backwards. That was savage.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

I can see where pilots are coming from WRT duty time and doing the job on the cheap.

I firmly believe that should the situation arise on the day that required them to extend they will do so to get the job done.

Absolutely right, the cost of one cruise missile would cover this. Most people have come to expect nothing less of this government.

[rentaghost]

It seems that the good old media have got / twisted the initial idea of these revised FTL's...

Here's how I heard it, and my observations on a few comments in a few of the above posts...

1. Crews will NOT be ORDERED to operate these flights. All required operations are planned to be on a voluntary basis with crews being asked if they want to perform them.

2. Possible extensions to FTL's will be advised to all crew in advance of them operating.

3. Rest periods may be cut to 9 hour periods, but crews will not be expected to fly multiple rotations - new crews will be arranged for each flight.

4. It does not come down to cost.

5. Reasoning behind seeking to get these FTL changes in place prior to any conflict is to ensure that Aircraft can be provided to recover casualties at the 'drop of a hat'.

6. Crews cannot be left in Cyprus. (There are reasons).

7. How many large Aircraft fitted with stretchers are just sitting around waiting to be chartered?

8. Idunno hits the nail on the head.

9. I asume the civil requirement is due to RAF aircraft operating elsewhere.

10. Planning a schedule to allow medivac flights... how do they know how many people are going to be injured?

[Arkroyal]

Apologies all for my earlier crab-bating, now is probably not the time. I just remember Bessbrook about 20 years ago when a 72 sqn crew called duty hours and poked off to bed leaving us to pick up the pieces. It was operational too.

The point here is that as said by many, each and every one of us would bend the rules and work whatever hours were necessary if the task on the day required it.

We are saying that we would not agree to be bound to do this simply to save the government from spending more of OUR money.

Fund it and crew it properly, you skin-flints.

England expects alright. It expects its government to treat its loyal servants at least as well as a holidaymaker.

[beamer]

I signed up for this duty without hesitation - it is a backstop Operation should RAF AT aircraft be unable to cope with a high
number of casualties should Tone and George screw up bigtime.
The 'possible extension' of crew duty times is to cover the potential diversion en-route between the Middle East and the UK;
this is quite a likely scenario bearing in mind the aircraft could be
carrying large numbers of casualties. Lets say we have to divert for medical reasons half way home - what are we supposed to do - plead FTL and head off to a hotel leaving the aeromed staff to sit in the aircraft for 12 hours ?

For God's sake - the aircraft will be heavy crewed anyway to cover this eventuality - are we supposed to do nothing when the
poor sods down the back have been injured in fighting ? Yes, the
military should have enough assets to do it all themselves but the
simple fact is they don't - they do not even seem to have military
hospitals anymore.

Some will recall that RAF AT crews flew up to 28 hours on a single sector many years ago, albeit heavy crewed, whilst single crews
certainly flew up to 20 hours - I know, its in my log book !! Of
course its not desirable but sometimes........................

[BOAC]

Beamer - "Lets say we have to divert for medical reasons half way home - what are we supposed to do - plead FTL and head off to a hotel leaving the aeromed staff to sit in the aircraft for 12 hours ?"

That comment is totally out of order, IMO. I cannot imagine ANY crews refusing to get the job done unless they are UNFIT. REPEAT UNFIT. Then it is in everyones' interest to stop before you kill everyone on board, no?

It has been said several times already on this thread, and at the risk of boring repetition:

The option to extend FDP is already there for the Captain. I and I'm sure others would use it. What BALPA and others are trying to forestall is the planning WEEKS ahead of FDPs outside the rules when it is not necessary. There is NO need for change. The ANO allows it as it is. IF you are a Captain you have the authority to get the job done. IF you are an f/o or c/c YOUR Captain has it. What is your difficulty with that?

I will do the job if called upon. Let's leave this nonsense now?

[JW411]

Arkroyal:

I thank you for your apology. I am sorry to hear that 72 Sqn let you down but I know nothing of the rotary world never having flown an angry palm tree in my life.

[Alan Hill]

Well I'm taking a risk posting this under my real name but can't be bothered to do it anonymously. Like many others on this list I am civilian and have no military experience. However If called upon (unlikely) to carry out casevac duties I would do it irrespective of FTLs Unless I considered myself so fatigued as to pose more of a risk to the pax than the reason for their evacuation.

[soddim]

Alan Hill - well done!

[Night_fr8]

Alan

I feel that you and many others are of the same opinion, its a small myopic group who let the others down in time of need.

Unless the PM has no balls at all, the last news broadcasts seem to indicate that the US will go it alone and we will not be called upon to fly those in need back to Blighty.

I have not heard any good reason why I should not support our service personel overseas, and in return if I am called upon to put in those extra hours, will do so, keeping a weather eye upon the possible fatigue.

The safety of my crew and those who fly with me is always paramount

Those persons who think that this is a way to increase their hours (FTL's) at a later date are mistaken, its just a proposal in the event we are called upon in a time of War.
If longer duty times are to be considered as per JAA proposals then there are ways and means to go about showing our displeasure, a time of war is not the forum for this action.

[peterwm]

Night_fr8

Calm down.

You miss the point. We all support our forces when they are at war.

This is not 1940.

If the government wants the forces looked after there will be plenty of spare crews and aircraft available when the war starts. There is absolutely no need for any alleviations to FTL's for pilots. On the day it's the individuals call.

The current rules are in place to stop individuals being pressurised to operate when they should not.

Decisions made in the calm now are bound to better than those made in the heat of a war.

BALPA is right to take this stand and most members, ex-military and civilian pilots, are bound to support them.

Peter

[Moses Mashomba]

..... Alan / soddim / Night_fr8, etc...... some might thank you for your supposed 'patriotism’, but on the flip side some would suggest that your “Yes Boss” attitude is really nothing more than the thin end of the wedge into our safety orientated FTL scheme(s).

That said, on a slightly more esoteric note, and as per the lyrics of the ballad ‘The Patriot Game’ :Come all ye young rebels, and list while I sing,
For the love of one's country is a terrible thing.
It banishes fear with the speed of a flame,
And it makes us all part of the patriot game. ...... and indeed it seemingly does !

Ps. ( hence edit ) Peter .... hear hear !!

[Alan Hill]

As a Brit (half Scottish and half English) I cannot conceive of not supporting our forces. In the (very) unlikely event of the country requiring my services the FTL Scheme would be the last thing on my mind. This has nothing to do with being a warmonger but has everything to do with looking after your own of whatever race, crede or colour. After all we would all expect the armed services to look after us.. wouldn't we?

[Moses Mashomba]

What, as in 'Bloody Sunday' ?!

[fireflybob]

Alan Hill, I still think you are missing the point of this thread.

Like you, I would do everything I could to support our armed forces, especially in a war situation.

However, when the resources are clearly available then surely complying with the normal FTL "planning" rules IS supporting our armed forces.

How ironic it would be if, as a soldier, I suffered injury only to meet death when being flown back to the UK owing to the fatigued state of the flight deck crew!

[Ignition Override]

Pardon this attempt by a foreign (narrowbody pilot) to understand something, and bring up an apparent contrast, because what happens over there is certainly none of my business.

It was my impression that the CAA is more conscientious about enforcement of crew rest requirements than is often the case with our 'friends' here at the FAA, which in the past allowed airlines to force crews to fly an extra leg in order to reposition a plane (using FAR Part 91, as with a private or corporate plane)-which could add on an extra 5-12 hour duty period.

There never seemed to be news about US widebody crews being pushed (or shamed) into exceeding their FAR duty day limitations during Desert Storm, although they had some long periods in order to return to Frankfurt etc. My company just a week or two ago announced activation of the CRAF (C. Res. Air Fleet), and there has been no news from our union about being expected to fly extra long duty days as a substitute for pre-planning by our DOD (Dept. of Defense) or company, that I'm aware of. It was also my impression that the govt here pays higher fares for military passengers on DOD business, than what our typical "local yokel" (wearing t-shirt and sandals) pays to sit in coach class.:=

[Land ASAP]

I only wish to make a point on how this could be spun by our beloved media.

It is highly likely that they will soon be portraying Flight Crew as work-shy in order to instigate the 'new-improved' FTL's that whilst being anti-safety are certainly pro-shareholder. We all know who 'owns' these media groups so we must be very careful about the public reaction to the story "Pilots refuse to work a bit longer to bring back our dead".

I hope BALPA are taking note of some of the excellent posts being made here. 'Spin' it back to them chaps!

[ferris]

Why do the rules have to be changed to accommodate unforeseen long duties? Isn't that the definition of a "mercy flight". Changing the rules is merely acknowledging that the situation is not unforeseen, and therefore a penny-pinching exercise.

[beamer]

BOAC - Thankyou so much for your considered reply - I guess your
'handle' says it all.

Alan Hill - Hear hear - what small minded people there are out there !

[NigelOnDraft]

In my (relatively few) years in civvie street / aviation, I have been quite impressed with how accurate the FTLs are i.e. whenever I get near their limits, I am getting near mine!

Pre-planning on "disregarding" FTLs, however noble the cause, has a danger - these limits are NOT union inspired, quality of life limits. They are borne of scientific study, and dead bodies, and are there solely to preserve safety levels. Anyone who states now they are willing to fly well in excess of current FTLs is endangering the pax you would be flying.

There are ways around this - suitable heavy crewing levels, pre-positioning crews etc. On the day, circumstances may well lead to discretion, and given the medical nature of the flights, even the cop out in our scheme (and presumably therefore CAP371) for discretion to go beyond 3 hours ("...emergency... judgement of commander ... presents serious risk to health / safety of crew / PAX / others"). Sums up the situation well...

Pre-planned significant extension to current FTLs is NOT the way to go - IMHO!

NoD

[A and C]

You have hit the nail on the head , All the regulations are in place to extend the duty day if it is a life and death situation.

The changing of the rules is not about saving lives it is about saving money and the trade off is the safety of the very casualtys that that the goverment claim they are trying to help.

[Hand Solo]

We're not at war, nor are we going to be at war. It is likely that there will be a contained conflict within Iraq and British forces may, or may not it seems, be involved in an active combat role. This isn't 1939 and we don't need all hands to battle stations to survive this. There is ample capacity within the UK aviation industry to cover all likely eventualities in the Gulf without the need to endanger lives further through cost-cutting. Jingoistic fervour does nobody any favours right now.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

We're not at war, nor are we going to be at war.
Tell that to the troops at the front!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

[CargoOne]

It might came from cosideration of actual operational issues: London to Baghdad is like 5:15 on 757/767 (in even more in case you going to BSR or KWI), basically 10:30 flight time plus you can expect 2-3 hours turnaround time at SDA, so it doesn't fit into 13 hrs, and in case of emergency you cannot manage to do a crew swap somewhere en-route, and sure you would not consider to have crews based in SDA.

[Neo]

One point appears to have been forgotten in all this. During the last Gulf War, contingency plans were laid in much the same way, but in the event all of the British casualties from that theatre could quite comfortably have been carried in one widebody airliner.

If this war produces similar levels of British casualties, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then it would not overstress the resources of even the smallest British charter airline to crew with a heavy crew or using a stopover in the SBA at Akrotiri. This could all be achieved within UK CAA FTLs as they stand at the moment.

It should be borne in mind that BA are staging their crews through Larnaca, and some other airlines are staging through Paphos.

If the situation degenerates into a nightmare carnage, casualties are excessive and there is a genuine need for us to operate beyond current FTLs, then I suspect that all of us would certainly consider doing so. However, I don't remotely believe that it will be necessary, and so the current gung-ho twaddle from some contributors on this thread is seriously misplaced.

[A and C]

You may not give a XXXX for the FTL,s but it also shows that you dont give a XXXX for the safety of your passengers and crew.

Much scientific reserch and consideration has gone into the FTL,s and so to dis-regard them with so little consideration is foolish to say the least.

The idea is to get the unfortunate casualtys home without further injury and a macho "I can fly without regard to the FTL,s" puts this at risk.

No pilot that I know would not go well past the normal FTL limits if lives were in danger and there is a get out clause to enable you to do that but I will not put an aircraft and its passengers at undue risk just to save a quid or two for the goverment.

[IceHouse]

So it seems that these gung-ho contributors willing to exeed the FTLs have something in common with our man in No10..spineless.
Maybe they might actually take notice of the union when at a later date revised FTLs are on the agenda..they might even join a union then?

[Pub User]

As a military man, who has exceeded (military) FTLs several times, for various reasons, could someone please explain the current civil FTLs.

Reading these posts, I am assuming that they do not contain any sort of exemption clause that gives the responsibility to the Captain, is that correct?

[A and C]

You said "if we are at war I dont give a XXXX for the FTL and will do what ever I,m asked ".

That sounds like dis- regarding the FTL to me.

I am quite ready to go well past the limits of the FTL if the life of a passenger is at risk and the balance between the crews ability to fly due to fatigue and the risk to the passenger is favorable to the passenger.

What I wont do is dis-regard the FLT just so the goverment can save a quid or two , it is the interests of the people who have been unfortunate enough to become casualtys that I wish to protect not the goverment beancounters budgets.

[BOAC]

For 'Pub user':

The UK FTL scheme is designed to protect crews from fatigue on a regular day to day basis, ie it is judged that they can fly up to the maximum limit every working day without risk of fatigue (nb NOT tiredness - there is a difference).

This means that airlines CAN roster crews up to the maximum every working day although the CAA 'expects' companies NOT to use the 'limits' in this way. Some airlines have been 'economical' with their observation of this request, BTW. You will note that these limits apply to the whole working life of crew, which can be 40 years or more!

On top of that is 'Captain's discretion', which allows the aircraft commander to extend these limits by up to 3 hours if he judges it safe so to do. This too can be exercised on a 'regular' basis, although its application IS monitored by the CAA.

So far we have talked about 'normal' REGULAR operations only, including those which 'go off the rails' due to tech problems, ATC strikes etc.

Finally, and this is what we cannot seem to get across to some of the posters on this thread, there is ALREADY IN PLACE the right for the a/c commander to extend BEYOND the 3 hours (NB NO LIMIT TO THIS EXTENSION) in an 'emergency' (as defined in the scheme, and this could cover a casevac that went wrong).

In my opinion, and others seem to agree, there is NO need for any changes. Commanders have (and I'm sure will use) the power to do what they judge to be safe and necessary, and I wish to see it left at that, as, I assume, do BALPA. It is perfectly possible to PLAN these flights within the existing scheme, and leave it to crews to sort it out 'on the day'.

For the benefit of OTHER posters on this thread, there are a LOT of ex-military crews (including myself) in our seats, and we KNOW what operations are, and we do NOT turn into flag-waving 'won't -do's' the day we leave HM Forces!

[BOAC]

Basil: I trust your news is accurate?

"'nuff said." - not quite!

"I think you will find that five pages of discussion have been wasted. " - a stimulating 'discussion' is rarely wasted - and where else could we have 5 pages?!

[corp.f/a]

night_fr8

Page 1

Well said!!!!!

If our lads and lasses who are fighting in this war (voluntarily I might add) have to put their necks on the chopping block. We should do whatever we can to help them.
Hiding behind FTL's, your just a bunch of wimps!!!!!!!

CFA
:mad:

[fmgc]

Basil the Batlord

Not Chinese Whispers at all but actual fact.

[S76Heavy]

CFA, nobody was "hiding" behind FTLs and if you would read the posts properly you would know that.

What I find disturbing in this thread is what a gung-ho attitude says about one's ability to make well-informed and safe command decisions when push comes to shove. Especially if these persons would have allowed themselves to become fatigued beforehand by accepting extended duty times.

So I agree, no pages wasted here on an interesting discussion, but I would hesitate to share the cockpit with some of the posters. No doubt that the feeling would be mutual..:}

[A and C]

And just how much help is it to the injured servicemen to end up in a crew fatigue induced accident back in the UK.

None what so ever !.

Please read before posting as you will see that the vast majority of pilots will do every thing in there power to aid the casualtys if the war starts , but most of us see that there is nothing in the FLT to stop normal flight dutys from being exceeded if life is in danger.

This is not hiding behind the FTL,s it is looking after the interests of the passengers and not letting safety become the victim of a goverment beancounters wish to save money .

Ask yourself is your macho attitude the proper and safe way to help these people or should it be done in the considered way that BOAC and others posting above have outlined.

[Pub User]

BOAC

Thanks for your comprehensive reply. The key thing I was looking for is the 'ultimate' discretion clause, wherebya capatin can exceed limits in an emergency situation.

It's intriguing to know what the authorities were after when they suggested the amendment. I suspect the majority here are correct in their assertion that it's a money-saving exercise. It would be relatively simple (but expensive) to pre-position sufficient crews to keep them all inside their FTLs.

If the brown-stuff really hit the fan, and people were in grave danger, then I cannot believe that any captain would not exceed FTLs to get the aircraft, crew and (already injured) passengers away from the area. Legislative changes would not be required.

I'm on BALPA's side here. Let the government spend a bit extra on civil charters, someone's got to at the moment!