Crew meals - an employer obligation to staff and customers.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA CAO 48 makes mention of: "Adequate sustenance means sufficient quantities of food and drink"
CAO 48 deals with flight crew time, duty, and other limitations.
Para 1.4 goes on to say:
Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly, and an operator shall not require that person to fly if either the flight crew member is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, fatigue or illness which may affect judgement or performance to the extent that safety may be impaired."
Now, the factor that may impair that ability may be as lowly as lack of adequate sustenance... FATIGUE via BGL depletion (known medical FACT)
ADDITIONALLY, I found this, albeit listed under Aerial Agricultural Operations:
2.15 An operator must not require or permit a pilot to operate an aircraft unless, at the commencement of the duty period:
(a) the pilot has had the required minimum rest period free of duty; and
(b) the pilot has had the opportunity to take adequate sustenance; and
(c) the pilot is free of any fatigue, illness, injury, medication or drug which could affect the safe exercise of his or her licence priveleges
Why that is not broadend to ALL commercial operations is up to tyhe boffins that be at CASA
It probably IS denoted to RPT somewhere too, but have you ever seen the CAO's????????????????? RPT operators have a BIT more responsibility.....
As to the term "strike", no, none of us ever were. That is purely a media invention at the hands of the fragile little Ms. Jana Wendt...
It was a "Go Slow" dispute. Worked regular worker\'s 9am to 5pm hours. Technically, we were never on strike. Strike means stop work.
When the airlines did not agree to the conditions et al, we all merely resigned. NEVER a strike... DISPUTE, not strike.
I am sure Kaptin has a lot more knowledge of the political pedanticism than we "non-heirarchy" AFAP members do/did.
CAO 48 deals with flight crew time, duty, and other limitations.
Para 1.4 goes on to say:
Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly, and an operator shall not require that person to fly if either the flight crew member is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, fatigue or illness which may affect judgement or performance to the extent that safety may be impaired."
Now, the factor that may impair that ability may be as lowly as lack of adequate sustenance... FATIGUE via BGL depletion (known medical FACT)
ADDITIONALLY, I found this, albeit listed under Aerial Agricultural Operations:
2.15 An operator must not require or permit a pilot to operate an aircraft unless, at the commencement of the duty period:
(a) the pilot has had the required minimum rest period free of duty; and
(b) the pilot has had the opportunity to take adequate sustenance; and
(c) the pilot is free of any fatigue, illness, injury, medication or drug which could affect the safe exercise of his or her licence priveleges
Why that is not broadend to ALL commercial operations is up to tyhe boffins that be at CASA
It probably IS denoted to RPT somewhere too, but have you ever seen the CAO's????????????????? RPT operators have a BIT more responsibility.....As to the term "strike", no, none of us ever were. That is purely a media invention at the hands of the fragile little Ms. Jana Wendt...
It was a "Go Slow" dispute. Worked regular worker\'s 9am to 5pm hours. Technically, we were never on strike. Strike means stop work.
When the airlines did not agree to the conditions et al, we all merely resigned. NEVER a strike... DISPUTE, not strike.
I am sure Kaptin has a lot more knowledge of the political pedanticism than we "non-heirarchy" AFAP members do/did.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: OZ.
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there you go.
After all this, and some insults, maybe someone can get CASA to clarify those regulations, then all will be okay, the Airlines will HAVE to provide the meals.
Glad I was able to help.
After all this, and some insults, maybe someone can get CASA to clarify those regulations, then all will be okay, the Airlines will HAVE to provide the meals.
Glad I was able to help.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: OZ.
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well IF you run out of jobs, let me know, my Wife will soon find you some.......
Just found this at another site.
YES, it is a joke, I think.
The only other words that will more quickly capture the attention of the steely-eyed, granite-jawed airline captain are "Uh, oh, they forgot to load the crew meals".
Now you have me searching the Internet for ideas.
I was trying to find some regulations, but so far found these.
Designer Notes
Designed and built at the request of Flight Attendants (they are now bringing their own meals along for 3-4 day trips), this cooler is an excellent choice for people who want to look professional when bringing food to work.
Bernard Majeau, Product Design Manager.
Product Features
Designed specifically for the unique needs of Flight Attendants
Top “dry” compartment has two zipper pulls for easy access and is perfect items that do not need to be kept cold
Zippered mesh pocket in the lid keeps napkins and other small items in place
Bottom “cold” compartment is insulated on all six sides and has a leak-proof welded PVC liner
Front tip-out pocket has two zipper pullers for easy access and side pleats to prevent contents from spilling out
An elasticized mesh pocket against the body is great for packets of mayo, mustard, etc. plus there is zippered mesh pocket against the front – a perfect place for silverware
Unzip the special pouch pockets on either end to reveal mesh drop-bottom water bottle carriers – sized to hold a .5 liter bottle on one side and 1.0 liter bottle on the other
There are three ways to carry the Crew Cooler
1) Padded web handles that are rivet-reinforced and box-x stitched for traditional tote-style carrying
2) Removable adjustable shoulder strap
3) Rear pass-thru pocket for stacking on top of your wheeled carry-on
ID Pocket on the back fits a standard business card
Satin nickel zipper pulls are easy to find and easy to grab
All seams fully finished
A TIP FROM THE PROS: Use zip-loc bags to hold ice. A variety of sizes will help to keep the ice where you want it, prevent the melt-off from soaking into food containers and from leaking to the outside of the bag while you are on the go, and are easy to refill from the galley, hotel, or office.
Just found this at another site.
YES, it is a joke, I think.
The only other words that will more quickly capture the attention of the steely-eyed, granite-jawed airline captain are "Uh, oh, they forgot to load the crew meals".
Now you have me searching the Internet for ideas.
I was trying to find some regulations, but so far found these.
Designer Notes
Designed and built at the request of Flight Attendants (they are now bringing their own meals along for 3-4 day trips), this cooler is an excellent choice for people who want to look professional when bringing food to work.
Bernard Majeau, Product Design Manager.
Product Features
Designed specifically for the unique needs of Flight Attendants
Top “dry” compartment has two zipper pulls for easy access and is perfect items that do not need to be kept cold
Zippered mesh pocket in the lid keeps napkins and other small items in place
Bottom “cold” compartment is insulated on all six sides and has a leak-proof welded PVC liner
Front tip-out pocket has two zipper pullers for easy access and side pleats to prevent contents from spilling out
An elasticized mesh pocket against the body is great for packets of mayo, mustard, etc. plus there is zippered mesh pocket against the front – a perfect place for silverware
Unzip the special pouch pockets on either end to reveal mesh drop-bottom water bottle carriers – sized to hold a .5 liter bottle on one side and 1.0 liter bottle on the other
There are three ways to carry the Crew Cooler
1) Padded web handles that are rivet-reinforced and box-x stitched for traditional tote-style carrying
2) Removable adjustable shoulder strap
3) Rear pass-thru pocket for stacking on top of your wheeled carry-on
ID Pocket on the back fits a standard business card
Satin nickel zipper pulls are easy to find and easy to grab
All seams fully finished
A TIP FROM THE PROS: Use zip-loc bags to hold ice. A variety of sizes will help to keep the ice where you want it, prevent the melt-off from soaking into food containers and from leaking to the outside of the bag while you are on the go, and are easy to refill from the galley, hotel, or office.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: OZ.
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just when everything in PPRuNeland seemed peaceful, along comes another with a chip on their shoulder.
Why is there so much of this, is it common with all Pilots?
I have posted nothing nasty, not insulted anyone, yet have been accused just on this one thread of being an idiot, an America West Pilot and now an Accountant who couldn't make it as a Pilot.
You are (in general) a very sorry lot.
Why is there so much of this, is it common with all Pilots?
I have posted nothing nasty, not insulted anyone, yet have been accused just on this one thread of being an idiot, an America West Pilot and now an Accountant who couldn't make it as a Pilot.
You are (in general) a very sorry lot.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plane Mad,
Yes, there is a chip on a LOT of australian airline pilots, and a LOT of it stems back to 1989...
Those who appear on a certain list go around life expecting to be attacked and confronted for their actions in 1989 / 1990. It's a case of the "scabs, and the scab-nots" (pun intentional).
Have I ever attacked one of the "heroes"? Not physically - I don't think anyone from our rank did. Have I emotionally and psychologically "attacked" a hero? You bet. I carried a "clicker" for many years, in and out of uniform. Just one click is enough to see a grown man hide his face. You walk through ghosts.
Care factor these days is negligable, but I still won't talk to one, except here...
I am sorry to get political and personal again, but, you asked.
As an aside, it is AMAZING how many young airline pilots these days go OUT OF THEIR WAY to confirm that they did not join an airline until a particular date. I have found that more than a few times.
Woomera- fell free to yank this post.
Yes, there is a chip on a LOT of australian airline pilots, and a LOT of it stems back to 1989...
Those who appear on a certain list go around life expecting to be attacked and confronted for their actions in 1989 / 1990. It's a case of the "scabs, and the scab-nots" (pun intentional).
Have I ever attacked one of the "heroes"? Not physically - I don't think anyone from our rank did. Have I emotionally and psychologically "attacked" a hero? You bet. I carried a "clicker" for many years, in and out of uniform. Just one click is enough to see a grown man hide his face. You walk through ghosts.
Care factor these days is negligable, but I still won't talk to one, except here...
I am sorry to get political and personal again, but, you asked.
As an aside, it is AMAZING how many young airline pilots these days go OUT OF THEIR WAY to confirm that they did not join an airline until a particular date. I have found that more than a few times.
Woomera- fell free to yank this post.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: OZ.
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, so you hate each others guts.
But why take it out (not you, others) on me, and that other poster (The Owl from memory) who are not even Pilots. let alone directly involved in what happened back in 1989.
But why take it out (not you, others) on me, and that other poster (The Owl from memory) who are not even Pilots. let alone directly involved in what happened back in 1989.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think Kap M ever REALLY attacks TNO - I think, like NORMAL ADULTS, they merely have heated discussions when differing viewpoints and opinions are raised. I myself have had mutually disagreeable posts with TNO, but we always kept it "clean" merely differing with each other. Differing opinion is NOT attack.
Problem here is, that the "attack radar" is constantly on with a LOT of posters - myself included at times - they think people are affronting them if they disagree. Human psychology.
There is not much anyone can do to change the attitudes in australian aviation. WE (non scab) will NEVER get over it per se, and THEY (the "heroes") won't either, for different, albeit similar in context, reasons.
You learn to live with it, as much as it tastes like crap!
To coin an old TAA slogan " Vive la differance!"
Problem here is, that the "attack radar" is constantly on with a LOT of posters - myself included at times - they think people are affronting them if they disagree. Human psychology.
There is not much anyone can do to change the attitudes in australian aviation. WE (non scab) will NEVER get over it per se, and THEY (the "heroes") won't either, for different, albeit similar in context, reasons.
You learn to live with it, as much as it tastes like crap!
To coin an old TAA slogan " Vive la differance!"
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: OZ.
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, I have seen threads here about 1989 which I avoid like the Plague.
This one was meant to be about Crew Meals, and I sadly thought it would be safe.
Guess I will have to be even more careful.
Excuse me if I don't answer on this one any more either.
This one was meant to be about Crew Meals, and I sadly thought it would be safe.
Guess I will have to be even more careful.
Excuse me if I don't answer on this one any more either.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
Perhaps we ought to change the title of this thread to "The Kiss & Make up Thread" 
I'm feeling all warm & gooey inside.........................just like CREW MEALS.
Some of the ex-MAS pilots would probably agree that some of the best crew meals were had there - but THAT'S another story (because this is the D & G forum???
)
Thanks for the input, pm2, and RTA for researching the CAO's,
Let's hope the thread provides enough "nutrition" to move things along with some of the employers who cannot see why there is a Safety issue involved wrt ensuring pilots have accessibility to sustenance whilst on duty.
It is NOT a case of looking to get something for nothing!
I'm feeling all warm & gooey inside.........................just like CREW MEALS.
Some of the ex-MAS pilots would probably agree that some of the best crew meals were had there - but THAT'S another story (because this is the D & G forum???
)Thanks for the input, pm2, and RTA for researching the CAO's,
Let's hope the thread provides enough "nutrition" to move things along with some of the employers who cannot see why there is a Safety issue involved wrt ensuring pilots have accessibility to sustenance whilst on duty.
It is NOT a case of looking to get something for nothing!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTA, i said this back on page 2, and you have found the reference for it.
(b) the pilot has had the opportunity to take adequate sustenance; and
I say again that along with ensuring the opportunity is provided, and that would be at an appropriate time, if an opportunity can't be provided, then a meal should be provided. Not necessarioly a three course feast, but a basic meal that will keep the sugar levle up.
Now there are people who have critica lsugar levels; at the extreme of that are diabetes sufferers, and if you've ever seen one of them hanging out, doing all sorts of irrational things, then you would agree that taking food atan appropriate time is most important. I have a friend who has a cirtical sugar level, and when he's approaching it, pity helop anybody who crosses him. His behaviour is no longer voluntary; its driven by his low sugar level, and it's not nice to be around. Of course he recognizes the symptoms and has something to eat way short of that....most times.
(b) the pilot has had the opportunity to take adequate sustenance; and
I say again that along with ensuring the opportunity is provided, and that would be at an appropriate time, if an opportunity can't be provided, then a meal should be provided. Not necessarioly a three course feast, but a basic meal that will keep the sugar levle up.
Now there are people who have critica lsugar levels; at the extreme of that are diabetes sufferers, and if you've ever seen one of them hanging out, doing all sorts of irrational things, then you would agree that taking food atan appropriate time is most important. I have a friend who has a cirtical sugar level, and when he's approaching it, pity helop anybody who crosses him. His behaviour is no longer voluntary; its driven by his low sugar level, and it's not nice to be around. Of course he recognizes the symptoms and has something to eat way short of that....most times.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: OZ.
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF anyone hasn't seen this site, check it out.
All about Airline Meals, including Crew Meals.
http://www.airplanemeals.com/
All about Airline Meals, including Crew Meals.
http://www.airplanemeals.com/
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 84
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez, leave for a couple of days and all is sweetness and light when I get back! Not on, fellas, thank God amos is here to prove that the world is still turning correctly and he is still the dim***t he always was!
I wish, RTA and others, that you would correctly address the issue I raised - I asked why you would expect an employer to pay for your in-flight meal, NOT whether you should have one available. I am well aware that, as a simtech, I could leave a job to eat, and how that compares with being trapped in a cockpit, but may I point out that, when I went for a meal, I did not expect AN to pick up the tab! Why would you expect your employer to feed you for free?
I'm quite sure that a drop in Blood/Sugar level could, in some circumstances, lead to a safety problem in flight, I'm just not convinced that it is QUITE such a serious problem as some would have us believe. Yes, I understand the problems experienced by diabetics, I am qualified in First-aid, but I also understand that such a condition would disqualify you from practising your trade as a pilot.
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl.
I wish, RTA and others, that you would correctly address the issue I raised - I asked why you would expect an employer to pay for your in-flight meal, NOT whether you should have one available. I am well aware that, as a simtech, I could leave a job to eat, and how that compares with being trapped in a cockpit, but may I point out that, when I went for a meal, I did not expect AN to pick up the tab! Why would you expect your employer to feed you for free?
I'm quite sure that a drop in Blood/Sugar level could, in some circumstances, lead to a safety problem in flight, I'm just not convinced that it is QUITE such a serious problem as some would have us believe. Yes, I understand the problems experienced by diabetics, I am qualified in First-aid, but I also understand that such a condition would disqualify you from practising your trade as a pilot.
Kind regards,
TheNightOwl.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TNO,Hypoglycemia affects non diabetic people as well as people who have diabetes.It can result when a person has eaten a high proportion of fast acting carbohydrate,hence an over action of insulin resulting in a drop in blood glucose levels(a lay mans definition)Also,I think the ANO's say you may not operate an aircraft under the influence of drugs.Insulin,as taken as an injection by a person with type1 diabetes ,is a hormone.Of cource teh airline should supply meals to its crew for no other reason than it's always been done.Think of the eye candy DJ get every time they get a meal;The others get heartburn.Old boilers !
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: posts: 666
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can anyone believe this thread is still going on???
What's happened around here, D&G used to be interesting.
How about KM, Anos, TNO and Wiz all get in a scrap and the rest of us will stand around and cyber-kick them until they go nuts....
I've been hanging out in JB with the Pallid Poms looking for something interesting. They are a VERY weird bunch of in-breds over there. Even odder than the sheep-shaggers and hobbits from InnZidd. Must be something to do with living on tiny little islands. Anyone actually BEEN to England??? What a dump. No wonder they all want to come over here.
Actually they are very "cliquey" in JB, if there's such a use of the word. A few aussies try hard to fit in (I don't think any of them has a licence) but generally it is that dry old "wit" the poms think of as humour.
Oh well... back to Kaptin Emm's engrossing sandwich debate. I have taken food to work lots of times when I got sick of the work-slop the Fitters-and-Turners in the galley come up with. Never been sick once.
What's happened around here, D&G used to be interesting.
How about KM, Anos, TNO and Wiz all get in a scrap and the rest of us will stand around and cyber-kick them until they go nuts....
I've been hanging out in JB with the Pallid Poms looking for something interesting. They are a VERY weird bunch of in-breds over there. Even odder than the sheep-shaggers and hobbits from InnZidd. Must be something to do with living on tiny little islands. Anyone actually BEEN to England??? What a dump. No wonder they all want to come over here.
Actually they are very "cliquey" in JB, if there's such a use of the word. A few aussies try hard to fit in (I don't think any of them has a licence) but generally it is that dry old "wit" the poms think of as humour.
Oh well... back to Kaptin Emm's engrossing sandwich debate. I have taken food to work lots of times when I got sick of the work-slop the Fitters-and-Turners in the galley come up with. Never been sick once.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TNO,
Sorry to have strayed somewhat from your original retort. To naswer it, I think you must weight the pros and cons of feeding a pilot FREE:
PRO:
1. It ensures a safety factor - an obligation I still believe the airline owes tech crew. Whether tech crew decide to partake is THEIR choice.
2. Cost is VERY low for a meal - even if it is a sandwich for pity's sake! Cost? Less than you think! And it need only be one. I am sure a $1.99 WITH INFLATION, GST, and seasonal adjustments sandwich isn't going to hurt the big bad airline!
Cons:
1. Yes, it costs the airline. So does bad advertising, bad safety, poor crew performance....
It was NEVER a problem pre-dispute, so why the problem now? Yes, I know the contrats and conditions changed MARKEDLY post-89, but... Penny pinching can only go so far!
You also mentioned the inability of a diabetic to hold an ATPL - that is correct. Now, consider that a diabetic is only dangerous when his/her blood sugar either rises or falls below a normal level (5-7 is normal). Now, a NORMAL non-diabetic who's blood sugar drops or raises significantly is ALSO JUST AS DANGEROUS! I know a LOT about diabetes - my sister is diabetic, and I grew up with it. Seeing someone drop in BGL's is something SCARY to watch, from going irrational and angry, to sweaty and uncontrollable, to full on near seizure. I once watched my sister convulse uncontrollably, cracking a front tooth, before we managed to jab a glucose shot into her.
Yes, shanges in BGL are both phsysiological and psychological - MAJOR effect on the chemistry of the mind!
Again, why should an airline pay for tech crew meals? SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY! Off duty or overnighting - WHO CARES - that's up to the employee, but ON DUTY - I believe it is an employer obligation!
Sorry to have strayed somewhat from your original retort. To naswer it, I think you must weight the pros and cons of feeding a pilot FREE:
PRO:
1. It ensures a safety factor - an obligation I still believe the airline owes tech crew. Whether tech crew decide to partake is THEIR choice.
2. Cost is VERY low for a meal - even if it is a sandwich for pity's sake! Cost? Less than you think! And it need only be one. I am sure a $1.99 WITH INFLATION, GST, and seasonal adjustments sandwich isn't going to hurt the big bad airline!
Cons:
1. Yes, it costs the airline. So does bad advertising, bad safety, poor crew performance....
It was NEVER a problem pre-dispute, so why the problem now? Yes, I know the contrats and conditions changed MARKEDLY post-89, but... Penny pinching can only go so far!
You also mentioned the inability of a diabetic to hold an ATPL - that is correct. Now, consider that a diabetic is only dangerous when his/her blood sugar either rises or falls below a normal level (5-7 is normal). Now, a NORMAL non-diabetic who's blood sugar drops or raises significantly is ALSO JUST AS DANGEROUS! I know a LOT about diabetes - my sister is diabetic, and I grew up with it. Seeing someone drop in BGL's is something SCARY to watch, from going irrational and angry, to sweaty and uncontrollable, to full on near seizure. I once watched my sister convulse uncontrollably, cracking a front tooth, before we managed to jab a glucose shot into her.
Yes, shanges in BGL are both phsysiological and psychological - MAJOR effect on the chemistry of the mind!
Again, why should an airline pay for tech crew meals? SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY! Off duty or overnighting - WHO CARES - that's up to the employee, but ON DUTY - I believe it is an employer obligation!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Thread Starter
On August 28, TNO wrote,
"I agree that an employer should provide a meal for Tech Crew in flight.."
On August 29, RTA provided us with the results of some researching he'd done, and wrote,
"CAO 48 deals with flight crew time, duty, and other limitations.
Para 1.4 goes on to say:
Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly, and an operator shall not require that person to fly if either the flight crew member is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, fatigue or illness which may affect judgement or performance to the extent that safety may be impaired."
Thereby placing the onus on the operator ie the employer to ensure that the flight crew members are not a threat to the Safety of the flight they are crewing.
In other words, the Safety equipment needed to counter the adverse affects caused by low blood sugar levels during flight, due to lack of nourishment, is the RESPONSIBILITY of the operator.
Quite plainly, TNO, nourishment of the crew on duty has to be considered a Safety issue
Just as crews are required to undertake simulator a couple of times every year - to ensure their proficiency and SAFE operation - and for the same reason aircraft are required to carry reserves over and above the minimum sector fuel - to ensure flight SAFETY, the SAFE OPERATION of the flight(s) conducted by the duty crew must also be maximised....not minimised.....by having the employer provide that training, fuel, and crew nourishment.
Would you also suggest, TNO, that we should pay for the required sims, and extra reserve fuel carried?
As a passenger, how secure would you feel, if you were advised that the pilots were paying for the fuel on your flight?
Aviation history is strewn with casualties that have resulted from crashes caused by fuel starvation, where the (usually private) pilot has had the personal responsibility of paying for the gas.
Let's stick to the Safety aspect of why meals are REQUIRED for crews on duty - that is the crux of the argument.
"I agree that an employer should provide a meal for Tech Crew in flight.."
On August 29, RTA provided us with the results of some researching he'd done, and wrote,
"CAO 48 deals with flight crew time, duty, and other limitations.
Para 1.4 goes on to say:
Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly, and an operator shall not require that person to fly if either the flight crew member is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, fatigue or illness which may affect judgement or performance to the extent that safety may be impaired."
Thereby placing the onus on the operator ie the employer to ensure that the flight crew members are not a threat to the Safety of the flight they are crewing.
In other words, the Safety equipment needed to counter the adverse affects caused by low blood sugar levels during flight, due to lack of nourishment, is the RESPONSIBILITY of the operator.
Quite plainly, TNO, nourishment of the crew on duty has to be considered a Safety issue
Just as crews are required to undertake simulator a couple of times every year - to ensure their proficiency and SAFE operation - and for the same reason aircraft are required to carry reserves over and above the minimum sector fuel - to ensure flight SAFETY, the SAFE OPERATION of the flight(s) conducted by the duty crew must also be maximised....not minimised.....by having the employer provide that training, fuel, and crew nourishment.
Would you also suggest, TNO, that we should pay for the required sims, and extra reserve fuel carried?
As a passenger, how secure would you feel, if you were advised that the pilots were paying for the fuel on your flight?
Aviation history is strewn with casualties that have resulted from crashes caused by fuel starvation, where the (usually private) pilot has had the personal responsibility of paying for the gas.
Let's stick to the Safety aspect of why meals are REQUIRED for crews on duty - that is the crux of the argument.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TNO, I`ve been an admirer of your posts and wisdom for some time, long before I became a contributor myself.
KM, also a sometimes admirer of yours, but sometimes not.
It may have been put further up in the thread, but whilst I agree with both of you on some points, the main point may have been missed. Sorry if it`s been covered; I may not have read thoroughly enough.
My belief is that since pilots must eat their meals on the run, i.e., don`t have a defined meal break, the meal isprovided as form of compensation for that inconvenience.
TNO, you have a meal break; Km no doubt doesn`t.
If pilots downed tools to head to a restaurant at the recognized meal hours, then chaos would result. I believe tha airlines recognize this and are getting good value by providing a meal in lieu of a meal break.
KM, also a sometimes admirer of yours, but sometimes not.
It may have been put further up in the thread, but whilst I agree with both of you on some points, the main point may have been missed. Sorry if it`s been covered; I may not have read thoroughly enough.
My belief is that since pilots must eat their meals on the run, i.e., don`t have a defined meal break, the meal isprovided as form of compensation for that inconvenience.
TNO, you have a meal break; Km no doubt doesn`t.
If pilots downed tools to head to a restaurant at the recognized meal hours, then chaos would result. I believe tha airlines recognize this and are getting good value by providing a meal in lieu of a meal break.
