Commuting Qantas 787 and other types
.........but do you think a pilot who goes to work despite being unfit to do so will be forgiven during an incident investigation because they are not a commuter?
If a crew member was domiciled at their base and was considered fit for duty, the investigation would most likely move on to other matters, (if not fit they would quite rightly have a case to answer).
If, on the other hand, it turned out that the crew member had commuted several hours from the other side of the country then waited around the terminal to operate out, the investigation may very well dwell upon this.
So is that an issue that is specific to commuting, or is it more a pilot issue and that pilot happened to be a commuter? I've not had someone nod off mid sentence but I've flown with people who weren't commuters who have struggled to stay awake for the same reasons. It happens irrespective of commuting status.
The point I was making is that some of our colleagues do not accept the responsibility their job entails and turn up less than suitably rested in the hope they'll get the first break…..and angryrat yes the pilot in question was reminded of this responsibility, and no paperwork was submitted.
I don't see the relevance of your 'alcohol/fatigue analogy' either; we're arguing the same thing but you seem to be implying that you knew someone was unfit to operate but you let it slide anyway?!
Alternatively, given that humans are often not great at assessing their own levels of fatigue, perhaps they started work in a fit state (even you were not alarmed?) but, as circadian disrhythmia can, your off-sider became very tired soon after departure. Predictable? Maybe. Desirable? Of course not! Insurmountable? I doubt it.😉
This is not uncommon on this particular sector. It's tiring enough even when you are well rested.
But given what you've described, I must have missed the Aviation Herald report about your experience.🤔...
We don't (shouldn't) accept duties proposed by the airlines that don't allow sufficient rest, but some of our colleagues are prepared to impose this upon themselves and their colleagues.
Anyway I'm tiring
of this conversation so I'll leave it at that!
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Lattes in the street
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the hourly rate so high on the 787 and the salary also high, I can't see why
A commuter can't afford to pay for a nights accommodation beforehand in Perth before flying up to London or Paris the next evening.
On the East Coast no current types fly that sector length at night.
I can see where Qantas would require you to be in port the day of departure from an FRMS perspective. Be close to a 19-20 hour tour of duty. Having had to drive to the airport, then fly 4-5 hours before a near 19 hour flight isn't wise. It hasn't been done before so previous commuting examples are invalid.
Great news for the Perth crews
A commuter can't afford to pay for a nights accommodation beforehand in Perth before flying up to London or Paris the next evening.
On the East Coast no current types fly that sector length at night.
I can see where Qantas would require you to be in port the day of departure from an FRMS perspective. Be close to a 19-20 hour tour of duty. Having had to drive to the airport, then fly 4-5 hours before a near 19 hour flight isn't wise. It hasn't been done before so previous commuting examples are invalid.
Great news for the Perth crews
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: thelodge
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with you C441.
No one is Forced into commuting.
If you know your bidding for a PER based 787 slot, then you understand that the greater majority of flying will be ultra long sectors.
The longest Qantas has ever flown. At the end of 18-19 hours of flying the weather can be less than optimal in the UK and Europe. Even if you were Perth based you'd Be tired enough. Having flown an additional 5 hours from the East Coast on day of ULH operations would be unprofessional in my opinion.
I'd be very surprised if new FRMS rules would allow this. You'd have to respect Qantas right to enforce this too.
Any incident and I think you'd be toast. Aren't Perth hotels cheap now anyway?
No one is Forced into commuting.
If you know your bidding for a PER based 787 slot, then you understand that the greater majority of flying will be ultra long sectors.
The longest Qantas has ever flown. At the end of 18-19 hours of flying the weather can be less than optimal in the UK and Europe. Even if you were Perth based you'd Be tired enough. Having flown an additional 5 hours from the East Coast on day of ULH operations would be unprofessional in my opinion.
I'd be very surprised if new FRMS rules would allow this. You'd have to respect Qantas right to enforce this too.
Any incident and I think you'd be toast. Aren't Perth hotels cheap now anyway?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bolivia
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may have 30 yrs in long haul, I pip you there, I have 45.
You may have 10 yrs with EK , you pip me there ,I have zero.
From what you say, you have no experience of QF so I repeat, what do you know about that operation?
I have no experience of EK so I can't comment on how they do it in EK.
I stand by original comments, with respect to any comments you make re QF , you don't know what you are talking about.
You may have 10 yrs with EK , you pip me there ,I have zero.
From what you say, you have no experience of QF so I repeat, what do you know about that operation?
I have no experience of EK so I can't comment on how they do it in EK.
I stand by original comments, with respect to any comments you make re QF , you don't know what you are talking about.
With regard to the other points I note that there is no fact based response, just more rhetoric. I'd genuinely be interested in which bit I got wrong. Given your claim that the entire post is false I'd appreciate you correcting me on the points I have misunderstood about either the ME augmented crew ops, or the manner in which Australian operators crew their long haul flights.
Sorry old boy, didn't realise it was a competition. Your 45 years clearly trumps my 30 and attests to the size of your huge appendage. Well done.
With regard to the other points I note that there is no fact based response, just more rhetoric. I'd genuinely be interested in which bit I got wrong. Given your claim that the entire post is false I'd appreciate you correcting me on the points I have misunderstood about either the ME augmented crew ops, or the manner in which Australian operators crew their long haul flights.
With regard to the other points I note that there is no fact based response, just more rhetoric. I'd genuinely be interested in which bit I got wrong. Given your claim that the entire post is false I'd appreciate you correcting me on the points I have misunderstood about either the ME augmented crew ops, or the manner in which Australian operators crew their long haul flights.
I didn't say that what you were saying was false. I said that what you were asserting was rubbish.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
seems to push responsibility to the pilot, but in allowing the alt pax I would imagine that QF share some responsibility.
A big assumption on any pilot relying on it, that I would not test in court.
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically, you can do what you want and you will get away with it until there is a serious incident/accident. Then, upon investigation by the regulator, will your actions leading up to signing on for the TOD will be investigated. YOUR legal responsibilities with regards to rest and fatigue be examined. YOUR decisions will be challenged and it will be up to YOU to defend your actions and prove that you were not negligent. The company will absolve themselves of any responsibly . The regulator will need someone to blame. The only one who can manage fatigue and rest is the individual and only they can determine if they can legally sign on for duty. This is the world we live in now.
If I had a 20+ hour TOD ahead of me there is zero chance I would commute over the day of departure.
If I had a 20+ hour TOD ahead of me there is zero chance I would commute over the day of departure.
Regarding @C441's qf9 issue... well that is a tricky one, midnight departure and the planned pax 24hrs prior. Going straight through is a bad idea imo, unless you're the senior s/o and can call the first break
going early arvo for a snooze at the hotel is the best compromise for that one imo
Nunc est bibendum
It depends a bit on the schedule. Under the current planned departure time ex PER of 1850 I'm inclined to agree. If it were me commuting for the 787 (it won't be), for an an evening sign on I'd be aiming to arrive in PER 8-10 hours prior to report time and get away from the airport, do some exercise and allow some time to have a snooze before report. All eminently doable if the report time was 8pm PER time or later. That could conceivably see me better rested than a local dealing with young family, life, etc.
The current report time of 1750 won't allow that so were I to commute for the PER-LHR based on the current schedule I'd arrange to be in port the night before.
Then again, that's based on my personal experience of commuting to PER for the A330 operation. Others who have commuted previously may have different opinions depending on where they have commuted from/ to and for what sort of operation. I certainly welcome the thoughts of those who have never commuted but having gone from someone who 10 years ago was in the 'never, ever' camp, actually living it opens one's eyes to how to ensure you're adequately rested for a tour of duty.
I can assure you that there is a link between home transport and fatigue. Home transport triggers were changed in EBA9 specifically to address fatigue issues.
"30.1.1
Where patterns exceed one (1) calendar day and:
(a) the operating crew has a crew complement of two (2) or three (3) pilots; and
(b) the pilot is scheduled to operate the last Tour of Duty on which a pilot returns to base or posting that includes more than two (2) hours between 0100 and 0459 (LT) based on the departure port.
30.1.2 Where a tour of duty exceeds 14 hours
Where a tour of duty (including solely deadheading duty periods and one (1) day patterns) on which a pilot returns to base or posting exceeds 14 hours, regardless of the time that the pilot is freed from duty.
30.1.3 Extensions to the last tour of duty in a pattern
At the completion of a pattern, where a pilot has elected to extend his or her
tour of duty during the last tour of duty of the pattern:
(a) beyond eight (8) hours flight time (2 pilot crew);
(b) beyond 11 hours tour of duty (2 pilot crew);
(c) beyond 14 hours tour of duty (3 pilot crew).
30.1.4 Two-pilot crews rostered for more than 11 hours tour of duty or eight (8) hours flight time
Where a two (2) pilot crew is rostered for more than 11 hours tour of duty or eight (8) hours flight deck duty, unless the pilot has exercised his or her discretion under RM21.2."
I'm not sure what you are talking about headmaster, but I would say that these provisions have been there for a long time.
The transport for early sign ons and late sign offs has gone so that was a giveaway and I suppose that it could be argued that those that are left have some relationship to a long day's work but I repeat I can assure you that none of these provisions were negotiated originally on the basis of a fatigue link.
Where patterns exceed one (1) calendar day and:
(a) the operating crew has a crew complement of two (2) or three (3) pilots; and
(b) the pilot is scheduled to operate the last Tour of Duty on which a pilot returns to base or posting that includes more than two (2) hours between 0100 and 0459 (LT) based on the departure port.
30.1.2 Where a tour of duty exceeds 14 hours
Where a tour of duty (including solely deadheading duty periods and one (1) day patterns) on which a pilot returns to base or posting exceeds 14 hours, regardless of the time that the pilot is freed from duty.
30.1.3 Extensions to the last tour of duty in a pattern
At the completion of a pattern, where a pilot has elected to extend his or her
tour of duty during the last tour of duty of the pattern:
(a) beyond eight (8) hours flight time (2 pilot crew);
(b) beyond 11 hours tour of duty (2 pilot crew);
(c) beyond 14 hours tour of duty (3 pilot crew).
30.1.4 Two-pilot crews rostered for more than 11 hours tour of duty or eight (8) hours flight time
Where a two (2) pilot crew is rostered for more than 11 hours tour of duty or eight (8) hours flight deck duty, unless the pilot has exercised his or her discretion under RM21.2."
I'm not sure what you are talking about headmaster, but I would say that these provisions have been there for a long time.
The transport for early sign ons and late sign offs has gone so that was a giveaway and I suppose that it could be argued that those that are left have some relationship to a long day's work but I repeat I can assure you that none of these provisions were negotiated originally on the basis of a fatigue link.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It cannot be coincidence that the only two UK Airlines with CAA approved FRMS both have commuting protocols as part of the FRMS and one has it written in their FTL scheme.
Anyone residing over 90 minutes away (road) has to submit their protocol to the Company with evidence of local arrangements and how they get to work.
This is primarily as EU law now dictates crew members responsibilities as much as Operators responsibilities.
What happens if crew members float the regs - I have heard 2 cases of instant dismissal (not at the above airlines) but at another BIG AOC.
These rules are only to manage the 5% as we all know
Anyone residing over 90 minutes away (road) has to submit their protocol to the Company with evidence of local arrangements and how they get to work.
This is primarily as EU law now dictates crew members responsibilities as much as Operators responsibilities.
What happens if crew members float the regs - I have heard 2 cases of instant dismissal (not at the above airlines) but at another BIG AOC.
These rules are only to manage the 5% as we all know
"30.1.1
Where patterns exceed one (1) calendar day and:
(a) the operating crew has a crew complement of two (2) or three (3) pilots; and
(b) the pilot is scheduled to operate the last Tour of Duty on which a pilot returns to base or posting that includes more than two (2) hours between 0100 and 0459 (LT) based on the departure port.
30.1.2 Where a tour of duty exceeds 14 hours
Where a tour of duty (including solely deadheading duty periods and one (1) day patterns) on which a pilot returns to base or posting exceeds 14 hours, regardless of the time that the pilot is freed from duty.
30.1.3 Extensions to the last tour of duty in a pattern
At the completion of a pattern, where a pilot has elected to extend his or her
tour of duty during the last tour of duty of the pattern:
(a) beyond eight (8) hours flight time (2 pilot crew);
(b) beyond 11 hours tour of duty (2 pilot crew);
(c) beyond 14 hours tour of duty (3 pilot crew).
30.1.4 Two-pilot crews rostered for more than 11 hours tour of duty or eight (8) hours flight time
Where a two (2) pilot crew is rostered for more than 11 hours tour of duty or eight (8) hours flight deck duty, unless the pilot has exercised his or her discretion under RM21.2."
I'm not sure what you are talking about headmaster, but I would say that these provisions have been there for a long time.
The transport for early sign ons and late sign offs has gone so that was a giveaway and I suppose that it could be argued that those that are left have some relationship to a long day's work but I repeat I can assure you that none of these provisions were negotiated originally on the basis of a fatigue link.
Where patterns exceed one (1) calendar day and:
(a) the operating crew has a crew complement of two (2) or three (3) pilots; and
(b) the pilot is scheduled to operate the last Tour of Duty on which a pilot returns to base or posting that includes more than two (2) hours between 0100 and 0459 (LT) based on the departure port.
30.1.2 Where a tour of duty exceeds 14 hours
Where a tour of duty (including solely deadheading duty periods and one (1) day patterns) on which a pilot returns to base or posting exceeds 14 hours, regardless of the time that the pilot is freed from duty.
30.1.3 Extensions to the last tour of duty in a pattern
At the completion of a pattern, where a pilot has elected to extend his or her
tour of duty during the last tour of duty of the pattern:
(a) beyond eight (8) hours flight time (2 pilot crew);
(b) beyond 11 hours tour of duty (2 pilot crew);
(c) beyond 14 hours tour of duty (3 pilot crew).
30.1.4 Two-pilot crews rostered for more than 11 hours tour of duty or eight (8) hours flight time
Where a two (2) pilot crew is rostered for more than 11 hours tour of duty or eight (8) hours flight deck duty, unless the pilot has exercised his or her discretion under RM21.2."
I'm not sure what you are talking about headmaster, but I would say that these provisions have been there for a long time.
The transport for early sign ons and late sign offs has gone so that was a giveaway and I suppose that it could be argued that those that are left have some relationship to a long day's work but I repeat I can assure you that none of these provisions were negotiated originally on the basis of a fatigue link.
Moreover, the current 787 agreement are made under clause 11 specifically includes home transport for fatigue mitigation.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If QF go down that path then they can up my pay to afford Inner Sydney or pay for my accommodation before the flight. $2m plus to live within 90 minutes of work in peak hour. That just won't work.
Looking at salary erosion in QF, it is clear that real wages have slid as with most other Australian workers whilst of course managers enriched themselves, ( I digress!)
How would a Qantas link operation place pilots in Sydney? Subsidy? Mandatory transfer? Perhaps an extension of the 457 visa scheme? Bunk beds in foreign owned rented Ryde flats for a few hundred a week?
Or perhaps eventually supply will meet demand if the market pays better!