Airline pilot workload practices being examined?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 68
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the legislated introduction of FRMS this is being addressed and validated scientifically. It will always be the case that some are happy and some are not as we are all of a different make up. e.g. Some love flying at night and some don't, some like long days with plenty of rest before and after and some prefer short days more often. There is IMHO no easy answer. I only know that in the majority, conditions today are mostly far better then they were in the past and in the end if the balance between safety and commercial reality are not addressed properly there would be no aviation jobs.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the legislated introduction of FRMS this is being addressed and validated scientifically.
I only know that in the majority, conditions today are mostly far better then they were in the past
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously you would rather attack Feenix than think about what he said. I've been flying 43 years and he is absolutely correct.
There are lots of companies with FRMS systems that have changed rostering principles approved and agreed and others that use them within the bounds of the published CAO48 or the general exemption. Just because your company hasn't done it doesn't mean that applies to them all. One size doesn't fit all. Take it up with your company. We are in fact looking at this very closely as the Part 121 approvals are looming.
Things have greatly improved generally over the years. If personal preference came into it I would much rather work two or 3 big days than the same number of hours spread over 5. You don't loose the going to or fro and sign on times for each day for starters. But it isn't going to happen.
There are lots of companies with FRMS systems that have changed rostering principles approved and agreed and others that use them within the bounds of the published CAO48 or the general exemption. Just because your company hasn't done it doesn't mean that applies to them all. One size doesn't fit all. Take it up with your company. We are in fact looking at this very closely as the Part 121 approvals are looming.
Things have greatly improved generally over the years. If personal preference came into it I would much rather work two or 3 big days than the same number of hours spread over 5. You don't loose the going to or fro and sign on times for each day for starters. But it isn't going to happen.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 68
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Rudder. As for you Derfred you don't even rate a reply. You obviously haven't been in the industry very long and if you have you have learnt nothing. You are the one who is unprofessional. Back to real contributions to the thread
The issue with FRMS is that it is whatever you want it to be. If the company and pilots are understanding and flexiable it can work well. However you can get some pretty ridiculous results out of them which the response is 'well it fits into the FRMS OK'.
It is then up to a commitee to agree on whether something is actually dangerous or not. The strength or weakness of your fatigue committee is the achilles heal of the system.
The other gaping hole is that FRMS doesn't consider cockpit noise and vibration, which is pretty damn high in some aircraft.
It is then up to a commitee to agree on whether something is actually dangerous or not. The strength or weakness of your fatigue committee is the achilles heal of the system.
The other gaping hole is that FRMS doesn't consider cockpit noise and vibration, which is pretty damn high in some aircraft.
Falling Leaf I tend to agree that FRMS is a cop out by the regulator.
Allowing management to set the terms is akin to putting a pedophile in charge of a primary school. At the other end of the scale, having it run by a union could be unduly restrictive to the point that the operation is not competitive.
Expecting pilots to self report fatigue won't happen in a culture where to do so could be a career limiting move. Or to be judged a pussy by one's peers.
The old CAO 48 was not perfect, but it was a bloody sight better than the 'standard industry exemption' which CASA allowed in order to squeeze more out of pilots. And the 'S' in CASA stands for....?
At least by using something like CAO 48 the playing field would be level for all.
Allowing management to set the terms is akin to putting a pedophile in charge of a primary school. At the other end of the scale, having it run by a union could be unduly restrictive to the point that the operation is not competitive.
Expecting pilots to self report fatigue won't happen in a culture where to do so could be a career limiting move. Or to be judged a pussy by one's peers.
The old CAO 48 was not perfect, but it was a bloody sight better than the 'standard industry exemption' which CASA allowed in order to squeeze more out of pilots. And the 'S' in CASA stands for....?
At least by using something like CAO 48 the playing field would be level for all.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 17th Apr 2015 at 06:47.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 68
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tend to agree Mach. I didn't mind the old CAO 48 but I bet a lot of the younger guys would cringe, especially in the airlines. I can't agree about the FRMS though. As someone who is currently trying to get one through CASA I can assure you we don't set the limits, CASA does and I don't know whether they know what they are doing. As I said earlier we don't all tire in the same way so any system is subjective and only caters for some and not all.
