Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Flying hours

Old 30th Jul 2018, 10:06
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 264
Gfknrammer

Yeah, as Tankengine says, the obligation is on the pilot. Ops manual will talk about a joint responsibility but that only goes so far.

Paragraphs like;

"A pilot may extend a tour of duty already commenced by up to 2 hours in order to complete the original tour of duty"

Are pretty clear.

The argument that a pilot can be "re-rostered" mid TOD, therefore roster limits apply is based on semantics and doesn't convince me. This may have unreasonable limitations in some circumstances, but too bad. Shit drafting is not the fault of the pilots and shouldn't be used as an opportunity to manipulate them.

If any company says they have had this clarified by CASA then I would want to see it in writing, with a FOI signed off on it. (That may well have happened and I'm just not aware of it)

Alrenatively an unconvinced pilot could write directly to CASA and seek clarification themselves. You can read between the lines on that one ........

Last edited by Iron Bar; 30th Jul 2018 at 12:01.
Iron Bar is online now  
Old 30th Jul 2018, 11:18
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canberra
Posts: 124
4 sectors in 4 aircraft in one day

Was told that tale only a few weeks ago.

When they finished early afternoon after an early morning start, I asked about going out for a run after 'work'

I was told they didn't have to that day as it was (almost) a run between aircraft at sometimes distant gates
layman is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2018, 13:11
  #23 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: aus
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by C441 View Post

It would be unlikely that they'd stick with the same aircraft all day even if the crew did do a full 11 or 12 hour day. It would not be unusual to do 4 sectors in 4 different aircraft.
Interesting, I did not know that before now.
130herc is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2018, 04:04
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
It would be unlikely that they'd stick with the same aircraft all day even if the crew did do a full 11 or 12 hour day. It would not be unusual to do 4 sectors in 4 different aircraft.
Not at J*. Its the other way around. It is most unlikely to have to swap aircraft on a 4 sector 11 hour day.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2018, 10:00
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 573
Not at J*. Its the other way around. It is most unlikely to have to swap aircraft on a 4 sector 11 hour day.
.....What Qantas short haul crew would give for that to be the case
C441 is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2018, 13:12
  #26 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,178
Was flying with a former JQ captain recently. Four sectors, same aircraft, same cabin crew. Reckoned it was awesome though still ran an hour late at end of day due to ridiculously stupid turn around times coupled with standard ATC delays.
Keg is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2018, 15:13
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 404
I think an airline who constantly refers to a lack of hull losses as proof of its commitment to safety, like one of our national airlines does, is frankly being deceptive.
Not sure if you’re still being sarcastic Gordon but could you share one single example of Qantas referring to its lack of hull losses??
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2018, 20:38
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 380
You’re right Beer Baron, no mention of actual hull losses but it does hang its hat on a “no fatalities in the jet era” record. I suspect you have to crash one pretty badly to cause (passenger) fatalities. The point of my statement was that they are dwelling on their PAST safety record and assuming that will continue. Scheduling, including it’s sub operators, is hazardous and overly optimistic. I’ve heard it first hand, “you can’t be fatigued because we’ve rostered you within limits”. Pushing the limits and getting away with it has a name.
gordonfvckingramsay is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2018, 20:48
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kichin
Posts: 380
As far as obtaining interpretations of the 48 exemption in regard to max duties and extension, the explanation was obtained so that pilots would stop “misinterpreting” that clause. It was used in such a way as to put the subject to bed. To my knowledge it hasn’t been sighted or officially questioned by the pilot group.

The general feeling is this: at sign on, we have you for the max duty allowed plus two hours if we need you. Then some disclaimer about being physically and mentally fit.
gordonfvckingramsay is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2018, 23:22
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by Keg View Post
Was flying with a former JQ captain recently. Four sectors, same aircraft, same cabin crew. Reckoned it was awesome though still ran an hour late at end of day due to ridiculously stupid turn around times coupled with standard ATC delays.
Regularly do 4 sector days with 30min turnarounds and in the majority of cases get back on time.....even with the occasional aircraft swap.
KZ Kiwi is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2018, 23:29
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 346
Originally Posted by KZ Kiwi View Post
Regularly do 4 sector days with 30min turnarounds and in the majority of cases get back on time.....even with the occasional aircraft swap.
Your mother was right: you are special.
ruprecht is online now  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 01:58
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 64
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by gordonfvckingramsay View Post
The general feeling is this: at sign on, we have you for the max duty allowed plus two hours if we need you.
Really? Well, that's not how I see it, and as such you won't be getting any extension unless I feel like giving it.
mrdeux is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 03:36
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by mrdeux View Post
Really? Well, that's not how I see it, and as such you won't be getting any extension unless I feel like giving it.
i am concerned with your attitude Mr Deux. How is the company expected to employ more gender and diversity managers and pay for a giant amount of maternity leave in the near future if you aren’t working yourself to the bone now?
jetlikespeeds is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 03:45
  #34 (permalink)  
22k
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
And, folks, subsequent to the repair job, became the best performing aircraft in the fleet, the ONLY one that needed zero rudder trim in cruise, and then had the best "Delta" fuel in the fleet, indeed it then performed ahead of baseline, the real proof for any airframe.
There is an excellent documentary on the whole rebuild, it is made abundantly clear there, by those those doing the work, particularly the senior Boeing engineer on the job, that the aircraft was far from a write-off.
It is insurance underwriters who decide whether a hull is loss or not, in conjunction with the aircraft owners, who are usually finance organisations of some kind, not whoever's name is painted on the side.
Source, me, who flew the aeroplane frequently after the rebuild.
Tootle pip!!
leadsled,

mate you you mention a video on the repair of OJH.

any chance you remember what it’s called or where one could find it?

Very interested in watching such a film!!
22k is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 07:37
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
There was one part of the QF1 accident that is relevant to this discussion. The PIC had put a full day in the office prior to operating QF1. His duty hours were well over the limit but at that time "office duty" was not considered to be a part of operational duty even though there was no basis for that. Even the CAO 48 exemption now defines duty as all duties associated with the pilots employment, or words to that effect.

As a matter of interest Iron Bar, the reasons I have been given as to why my interpretation of the differences between roster limits and duty limits(I agree with your interpretation BTW) is wrong is:
  • Thats the way its always been done
  • So if you are doing a 4 hour duty you can only be extended to 6 hours!
  • Thats how it was done at Ansett
Lookleft is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 07:54
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Folks,
I knew the Captain of QF-1/ OJH well, and in my view fatigue had nothing to do with it.
Knowing the situation in some considerable detail, not really reflected in the accident report, he simply had a "brain-snap" and did something completely out of not only training and indoctrination frameworks, but character.
How do any of us make ourselves fireproof against something like that??
He was, and remained, a well above average stick and rudder man, and a bloody bright bloke.
In my opinion, as long as he lives, he will never be able to satisfactorily explain to himself, let alone anybody else, why he did what he did.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 10:34
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
not really reflected in the accident report, he simply had a "brain-snap" and did something completely out of not only training and indoctrination frameworks, but character.
To state that the PIC simply had a brain snap does him a great disservice. If someone as well qualified and experienced as the PIC of QF1 can overrun a runway and cause significant damage with no better explanation than "he had a brain snap" then the technology of getting the human out of the cockpit needs to be accelerated.

When the report on QF1 was written the science and research behind fatigue was still in its early stages. The crew reported that they didn't feel fatigued. We know now that the people who are least able to report their fatigue levels are the crew. We also know that the period of continuous wakefulness can have a blood alcohol equivalency. Being awake for 17 hours continuously is equivalent to .05, 21 hours is equivalent to .08.

https://www.ausenco.com/en/did-you-k...ontent-of-0-05

The PIC woke up at 5:00am on the day of the accident and had not slept prior to the accident at 00:47EST. To dismiss fatigue as a significant factor in the event is to ignore current science on the matter, keeping in context that QF1 occurred 19 years ago.

The changes to CAO48 should be implemented now and not sent to yet another review or extended so that industry can get familiar with it. The current exemption was designed for airline rostering practices that are no longer followed.With the shortage in crew and the pressure on costs, airlines need to be forced into a proper FRMS that is scientifically based. The fact they can implement one at any time and have chosen not to suggests they want to squeeze the last possible drop out of the CAO 48 exemption lemon that they possibly can.

The lessons from QF 1 when it relates to fatigue show that, far from being a brain snap by a well trained professional crew, was in fact impairment of judgement, reduced reaction times and impulsive behaviour which are all markers of fatigue. In this case fatigue that was equivalent to a BAC of .08

Last edited by Lookleft; 2nd Aug 2018 at 01:33.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2018, 01:37
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Originally Posted by Lookleft View Post
I know the ATSB are held in very little regard already but if they ever published that an accident was caused by a pilot's "brain snap" then they would really deserve to be laughed at.
Lookleft,
True, but there are other suitably obfuscating ways of describing the same thing. Mine is just a simple but comprehensive layman's explanation.
Fact is I don't know how you ultimately prevent such almost instantaneous and virtually irretrievable actions.
There but for the grace ---------.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2018, 06:11
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 600
Originally Posted by Lookleft
The changes to CAO48 should be implemented now and not sent to yet another review or extended so that industry can get familiar with it. The current exemption was designed for airline rostering practices that are no longer followed.With the shortage in crew and the pressure on costs, airlines need to be forced into a proper FRMS that is scientifically based.
Fully agree Lookleft. It might surprise you, a major jet operator about to implement in the wild( Nov 18) a rolled gold genuine CASA approved FRMS in agreement with their pilots: Virgin Narrow Body agreement 2018 (Appendix 2 Work Rules, page 67).

There can be no longer be an argument from any other operators that it is not possible, this FRMS agreement creates the template. There is almost equal flexibility in the Virgin FRMS compared to CAO48E, however, the FRMS rest & recovery requirements are what 48E lack. Little things like transit time to and from the hotel are considered. Compare this to CAO48E where you can have a planned 11:45 TOD, as little as 8 hours in the hotel room when transit time is taken into account followed by another 11:45 hour TOD. A couple of extra hours doesn't sound like much, but it significantly improves the quality of rest.

Here is just a sample from the FRMS (my bold):

13.4 The minimum Rest Period which must be taken before undertaking a flying duty period (including a SIM duty period) will be: (a) at least as long as the preceding duty period, or (b) 12 hours, whichever is the greater.

13.5 When away from Home Base, in the case when the Rest Period earned by a Pilot is 12 hours, and suitable accommodation is provided by Virgin Australia, then that Rest Period may be reduced by one hour. In such circumstances, if the travelling time between the airport and the accommodation is more than 30 minutes each way then the Rest Period will be increased by the amount the total time spent travelling exceeds one hour. In both situations the room allocated to the Pilot must be available for occupation for a minimum of 10 hours. In circumstances where access to the room is delayed because of matters outside of the Pilot’s control, they can ring network operations and extend the Rest Period by the period of the delay. This sub-paragraph does not apply to Rest Periods that exceed 12 hours. 13.6 Where the preceding duty period was 11:30-11:59 hours the Rest Period will be minimum 12 hours.
CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2018, 08:41
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by CurtainTwitcher View Post
Fully agree Lookleft. It might surprise you, a major jet operator about to implement in the wild( Nov 18) a rolled gold genuine CASA approved FRMS in agreement with their pilots: Virgin Narrow Body agreement 2018 (Appendix 2 Work Rules, page 67).

There can be no longer be an argument from any other operators that it is not possible, this FRMS agreement creates the template. There is almost equal flexibility in the Virgin FRMS compared to CAO48E, however, the FRMS rest & recovery requirements are what 48E lack. Little things like transit time to and from the hotel are considered. Compare this to CAO48E where you can have a planned 11:45 TOD, as little as 8 hours in the hotel room when transit time is taken into account followed by another 11:45 hour TOD. A couple of extra hours doesn't sound like much, but it significantly improves the quality of rest.

Here is just a sample from the FRMS (my bold):
On the contrary, CAO 48.1 aligning with ICAO annex 6 (from memory) required rest periods to be in accommodation. As is understood some operators consider rest periods are brakes to park plus 30 mins. How one 'rests' when yet to exit a terminal and somehow get to a room is a mystery. Interestingly roster clerks and office workers never bother finding out how. Strangely labour representatives feared that this may mean airport hotels (where rest periods were near prescribed minimums) and they never addressed the matter either.

The violent opposition to CAO48.1 was literally driven by 'commercial considerations'

CAO48.1 contained provisions for the granting of exemption greater than 12 hours would only be granted when:
'An unplanned exceptional event that becomes evident after the commencement of the FDP (i.e. un-forecast weather, equipment malfunction, or air traffic delay).'

This is detailed in CAAP48.01. This would stop 'roster planned duties at 11 hours, to permit a usual extension to 12 hours. Any desire to extend over 12 hours required historical data pertaining to the 'frequency' of occurrence of the delay being the subject of the extension request. The threshold required that the event under consideration had been observed in less than 5% of the data set. Strangely airlines themselves had collected little data. Airline operators were very unhappy about this provision, given that 'efficiency' implied roster preparation to the extent permitted by the regulation. What was not mentioned to crew extending beyond 12 hours was where the liability ceased for the operator.
Rated De is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.