FRMS Battlelines
I often think about fatigue management and what thought process the people responsible go through. They seem to manage fatigue quite well 
I would like to see the person responsible for oversight of fatigue management join me on a select series of flights, including signing on at the same time, "hanging around" for 4 hours during turnarounds after waking up at 2 ish to start the shift, and then completing the shift only to do it again Followed by some long sectors with late sin offs six days in a row.
If that person closed theirs eyes during the duty period, their continued employment should be assed as they have obviously failed in their role.
Damp testing on the 4th or 5th day would be prudent to ensure they weren't "popping pills" with the obvious consequences, also they can only eat the food provided to the flight crew.
I would like to see the person responsible for oversight of fatigue management join me on a select series of flights, including signing on at the same time, "hanging around" for 4 hours during turnarounds after waking up at 2 ish to start the shift, and then completing the shift only to do it again Followed by some long sectors with late sin offs six days in a row.
If that person closed theirs eyes during the duty period, their continued employment should be assed as they have obviously failed in their role.
Damp testing on the 4th or 5th day would be prudent to ensure they weren't "popping pills" with the obvious consequences, also they can only eat the food provided to the flight crew.
In addition, they should sit, buckled in, every second that you are. No wandering back to business for half an hour. And if we really want to make it realistic, have them answering super simple questions on an iPad app non stop while airborne every thirty seconds for the entire journey. Ie 1+1 = ? Then thirty seconds later what is the opposite of up? And if they miss one get them to turn up for tea and bickies to explain themselves. By the end of the second day they will be starting to rethink things I reckon.
https://www.rt.com/news/336514-flydu...-fatigue-crash
I bet they don't have a fatigue problem there either.
I bet they don't have a fatigue problem there either.
Thread Starter
Lets hope the FRMS legislation has its focus on safe operations and not commercial imperative. Three things we already know about the Fly Dubai accident.
- It was a new aircraft
- The crew had significant flying hours
- The accident occurred early in the morning local time
- It was a new aircraft
- The crew had significant flying hours
- The accident occurred early in the morning local time
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FRMS farce
The reality is that FRMS is just a tick box within a flawed SMS structure that has no resilience beyond the aircrew member. As pilots we have at least a little more clout than the CC who have virtually no respite provisions that do not automatically result in a performance management meeting.
We also need to be very conscious of the backdooring of the regs by pining a flag of convenience to an aircraft and its crew.
The in-camera discussions at the Senate Inquiry were unambiguous and clearly identified the need to tie FRMS performance back through post day of ops processes Put simply a front end CAO that seeks to prevent a fatigue being a casual or contributing factor is worth jack if there is no tie back to management remedy and response.
Have always said that if FRMS is given more consideration in AOC approval and continuity, then those in management who only ever experience flying in a J or P seat are likely adopt a very different approach.
AT
We also need to be very conscious of the backdooring of the regs by pining a flag of convenience to an aircraft and its crew.
The in-camera discussions at the Senate Inquiry were unambiguous and clearly identified the need to tie FRMS performance back through post day of ops processes Put simply a front end CAO that seeks to prevent a fatigue being a casual or contributing factor is worth jack if there is no tie back to management remedy and response.
Have always said that if FRMS is given more consideration in AOC approval and continuity, then those in management who only ever experience flying in a J or P seat are likely adopt a very different approach.
AT
Last edited by airtags; 23rd Mar 2016 at 08:07. Reason: tired typing......
You are dead right that legislation is the only answer to the problem.
It has to be accepted that in today's highly competitive industry with executives that simply don't understand what they are managing ( how can you if you have never done it) the legal maximums are the target. We have to have sensible legal maximums in order to achieve sensible rosters.
The efficiency of the systems in place will be quickly honed due to the power of the almighty dollar right up to whatever limit is set.
It has to be accepted that in today's highly competitive industry with executives that simply don't understand what they are managing ( how can you if you have never done it) the legal maximums are the target. We have to have sensible legal maximums in order to achieve sensible rosters.
The efficiency of the systems in place will be quickly honed due to the power of the almighty dollar right up to whatever limit is set.
As a testament to the single dimensional stupidity of management, I always carry more fuel, flex a little less, go a little slower and generally be a lot less lean when I am fatigued. I hope I am costing someone their bonus.
After all, your safety is our first priority, and if management won't walk the walk, I must
After all, your safety is our first priority, and if management won't walk the walk, I must
We also need to be very conscious of the backdooring of the regs by pining a flag of convenience to an aircraft and its crew.
Never a truer word spoken.
Unless the rules are applied equally to all operators, irrespective of the state of registry, we will simply see more local companies using "our Asian division" to operate arduous duties to and from Australian ports.
Lest you think that this then becomes someone else's problem, consider that the aircraft trying to intercept the PRM ILS alongside you is flown by a very tired crew, who may be more prone to mis-programming the AFS, or slow to react to a TCAS RA.
There is no point having a mandatory FRMS system unless it applies equally to all users of airspace.
Never a truer word spoken.
Unless the rules are applied equally to all operators, irrespective of the state of registry, we will simply see more local companies using "our Asian division" to operate arduous duties to and from Australian ports.
Lest you think that this then becomes someone else's problem, consider that the aircraft trying to intercept the PRM ILS alongside you is flown by a very tired crew, who may be more prone to mis-programming the AFS, or slow to react to a TCAS RA.
There is no point having a mandatory FRMS system unless it applies equally to all users of airspace.
There is no point having a mandatory FRMS system unless it applies equally to all users of airspac
Interestingly there is comment on the FZ981 crash thread in regard to the GCAA putting pressure on the Australian authorities to remove any reference to fatigue in the EK MEL incident. Yet if that was a VH registered airline the flight would have been illegal.
Thread Starter
The FRMS battlelines are really firing up (pun intended)! Easyjet pilots have had enough and are voting on strike action over the issue of fatigue
Easyjet pilots consider half-term strike action - BBC News
and the head of the RAAA is still stating that there is nothing wrong with the current rules. There might be nothing wrong for seat warmers and pen pushers but the exemption is being used in ways that the original rules were never intended for. Of course the latest attempt at getting the rules deferred probably have nothing to do with the looming deadline to have an FRMS in place. The airlines and operators have had more than enough time to get their house in order. The rumour mill has it that Jetstar has had their FRMS knocked back 3 times because it doesn't meet the new rules. They have had a good run in maximising the productivity of the pilots, now its time to make the rostering legally sustainable. Lets hope the EasyJet pilots are successful.
Easyjet pilots consider half-term strike action - BBC News
and the head of the RAAA is still stating that there is nothing wrong with the current rules. There might be nothing wrong for seat warmers and pen pushers but the exemption is being used in ways that the original rules were never intended for. Of course the latest attempt at getting the rules deferred probably have nothing to do with the looming deadline to have an FRMS in place. The airlines and operators have had more than enough time to get their house in order. The rumour mill has it that Jetstar has had their FRMS knocked back 3 times because it doesn't meet the new rules. They have had a good run in maximising the productivity of the pilots, now its time to make the rostering legally sustainable. Lets hope the EasyJet pilots are successful.
Problem is though that Virgin, which has had a successful FRMS since 2007 needs to make changes to meet the legislation (as best I can tell) and stuff that is ok now won't be and stuff that isn't ok now will be.
Why casa can't just leave them alone and let them get in with what they have been doing since 2007 is beyond me.
Why casa can't just leave them alone and let them get in with what they have been doing since 2007 is beyond me.
Thread Starter
Thats because SC it is an FRMS in name only and probably based on the CAO48 or its exemption. Jetstar also claims to have an FRMS currently but it is all smoke and mirrors as it uses FAID as its basis which is not a scientifically based program. Supposedly the person doing Jetstars FRMS was the same one that was trying to get Virgin's program up and running but it also got knocked back.
If FAID is not "scientifically based", what is? Genuinely interested...
Lookleft it is based on the British CAAP and works well. It is, and has been, the only airline FRMS operating in Australia for some time (since 2007) and bears no relationship to cao48 or the standard industry exemption.
The person running jetstar's FRMS who came from Virgin is excellent and very knowledgable but can only do so much.
Being knocked back by casa isn't an indication of the efficacy of a FRMS, merely an indication that casa don't know what they want.
Faid was the only tool available for some time. They are transitioning to FAST as we speak
The person running jetstar's FRMS who came from Virgin is excellent and very knowledgable but can only do so much.
Being knocked back by casa isn't an indication of the efficacy of a FRMS, merely an indication that casa don't know what they want.
Faid was the only tool available for some time. They are transitioning to FAST as we speak
Thread Starter
If FAID is not "scientifically based", what is?
Lookleft it is based on the British CAAP and works well.
Being knocked back by casa isn't an indication of the efficacy of a FRMS, merely an indication that casa don't know what they want.
Lookleft, can't speak for the Jetstar FRMS but the Virgin FRMS bears no relationship to the Cao 48 exemption and if you worked there you would know that.
No FRMS is perfect, and a FRMS is more than just the work rules, it is how you manage individual fatigue, how the business treats staff that go fatigued, how the business is proactive about ensuring pairings are not fatiguing and how the troops feel about reporting fatigue, even if they have not removed themselves from duty for fatigue reasons.
None of those things are in the CAO 48 exemption and individuals react to different stressors in relation to fatigue differently, so what is fatiguing for me may not be for you.
No FRMS is perfect, and a FRMS is more than just the work rules, it is how you manage individual fatigue, how the business treats staff that go fatigued, how the business is proactive about ensuring pairings are not fatiguing and how the troops feel about reporting fatigue, even if they have not removed themselves from duty for fatigue reasons.
None of those things are in the CAO 48 exemption and individuals react to different stressors in relation to fatigue differently, so what is fatiguing for me may not be for you.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: ACT
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the RAAA article and did some research. In spite of the illusion, the RAAA does not represent QF or VA or any other big players. They only represent the smaller feeder airlines. Their argument seems more about the need for change, rather than the new 48.1?
Aviation section in The Australian, states the RFDS WA Section will require an additional 17 pilots with the proposed changes to CAO 48.
Lots of experts on fatigue these days in our industry, but most of these people never seem to work past about 1630 in the afternoon, and 1530 on a Friday. But then again those three day weekends can be very fatiguing!
Lots of experts on fatigue these days in our industry, but most of these people never seem to work past about 1630 in the afternoon, and 1530 on a Friday. But then again those three day weekends can be very fatiguing!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Word on the street indicates JQ's FRMS application has been knocked back 3 times now and that a senior manager has been unfairly made to take the fall. The deadline for approval is nominally the end of next month for a 1 May 2017 implementation date.
I hear one of the reasons they are scrambling to recruit now is that many of the current crewing practices will not be permitted under the approved FRMS. There will likely be a need for significant numbers of extra pilots to crew A320 back of the clock flights as well as a third pilot on some more of the B787 sectors.
Apparently the crew rest setup on the 787 (just a pax seat in cabin) has not met CASA requirements either. Rumours that options being looked at (cheapest cost) include fitting some kind of pre-fabricated box with a lie-flat seat in the forward economy cabin as the re-fitting of the manufacturer-designed pilot crew rest above the forward galley is very costly. I was told it could possibly be fitted as needed and then replaced with revenue seats on flights where it was not required. I can see the engineers really loving that on a 2 hour turnaround!
With the FRMS application deadline looming, will CASA back down and gift them a further time extension to get their house in order? Or will JQ pilots finally get some safe and sensible limits imposed on their often dreadful, fatiguing rosters?
PG
I hear one of the reasons they are scrambling to recruit now is that many of the current crewing practices will not be permitted under the approved FRMS. There will likely be a need for significant numbers of extra pilots to crew A320 back of the clock flights as well as a third pilot on some more of the B787 sectors.
Apparently the crew rest setup on the 787 (just a pax seat in cabin) has not met CASA requirements either. Rumours that options being looked at (cheapest cost) include fitting some kind of pre-fabricated box with a lie-flat seat in the forward economy cabin as the re-fitting of the manufacturer-designed pilot crew rest above the forward galley is very costly. I was told it could possibly be fitted as needed and then replaced with revenue seats on flights where it was not required. I can see the engineers really loving that on a 2 hour turnaround!
With the FRMS application deadline looming, will CASA back down and gift them a further time extension to get their house in order? Or will JQ pilots finally get some safe and sensible limits imposed on their often dreadful, fatiguing rosters?
PG