Flying hours
Lookleft,
What a useful contribution --- that the obvious answer is to get the pilot(s) out of the flighdeck ASAP, to preclude such problems, indeed, any fatigue related issues, in the future.
Music to the ears of the accountants, some pilots want to get rid of pilots??
Are you actually aware of what happened to -OJH?? The sequence of events?? On the face of it, the answer is no.
Tootle pip!!
What a useful contribution --- that the obvious answer is to get the pilot(s) out of the flighdeck ASAP, to preclude such problems, indeed, any fatigue related issues, in the future.
Music to the ears of the accountants, some pilots want to get rid of pilots??
Are you actually aware of what happened to -OJH?? The sequence of events?? On the face of it, the answer is no.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled, may I suggest that you have another objective read of my response to your assertion that fatigue was not an issue on QF 1 and that you consider that the PIC simply had a brain snap. A fairly big insult to your colleague IMHO.
You are entitled to your opinions, but not your own facts.
I stand by my posts, and I know that the PIC of -OJH in question would NOT be insulted by my comment.
Tootle pip!!
I am entitled to my own facts, possibly what you meant to say that my conclusions based on the facts presented in the QF1 report and subsequent research on fatigue were subject to counter claim. Whatever. Moving on.
Rated De in my little corner of aviation the crew are required to send an ACARS when a duty will exceed the roster limits. In theory it is part of the data collection to ascertain if a particular duty exceeds the limits regularly. There are a lot of noises made about FRMS so I find it frustrating that they just don't get on with it and let CASA catch up. I suspect that the rumors regarding CASA not approving the FRMS put forward because it smells to much like the CAO48 Exemption are true.
Rated De in my little corner of aviation the crew are required to send an ACARS when a duty will exceed the roster limits. In theory it is part of the data collection to ascertain if a particular duty exceeds the limits regularly. There are a lot of noises made about FRMS so I find it frustrating that they just don't get on with it and let CASA catch up. I suspect that the rumors regarding CASA not approving the FRMS put forward because it smells to much like the CAO48 Exemption are true.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that the rumors regarding CASA not approving the FRMS put forward because it smells to much like the CAO48 Exemption are true.
/s
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wellington
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a lot of noises made about FRMS so I find it frustrating that they just don't get on with it and let CASA catch up. I suspect that the rumors regarding CASA not approving the FRMS put forward because i
Nothing wrong with an FRMS. Nothing wrong with hard limits. It's the managerial support and culture that makes a rostering/limiting system, whatever it is, good or bad.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do realise that many management teams use the hard limits as "targets" and that you can still become extremely fatigued even when staying within "hard limits", don't you?
Nothing wrong with an FRMS. Nothing wrong with hard limits. It's the managerial support and culture that makes a rostering/limiting system, whatever it is, good or bad.
- TOD duty extension outside 12 hours were only to be granted where an unforeseen operational circumstances.
Is it any wonder such 'draconian' regulatory oversight was viciously opposed by airline management? Dare we say it, but at least one aviation union was happy to continue with the status quo....
Pilots collectively ought realise that the maximum roster limit offers protection for the operating crew. Stepping outside statutory protection (no matter what company manuals tell pilots) is not for the faint hearted. If something goes wrong (beyond say a hard 12 hour limit) the operator has a plausible defence that the pilot 'elected' to extend the duty. This is where strict liability is a term that aircraft commanders and their 'offsider' will come to understand intimately.
You do realise that many management teams use the hard limits as "targets" and that you can still become extremely fatigued even when staying within "hard limits", don't you?
Nothing wrong with an FRMS. Nothing wrong with hard limits. It's the managerial support and culture that makes a rostering/limiting system, whatever it is, good or bad.
My main point to Lookleft was that an FRMS alone is not the answer and if I was him/her I wouldn’t get too excited about its arrival.
What is the answer? In my opinion a regulator with real leadership that implements sensible non negotiable limits and mandates FRMS to operate within those limits thus forcing Airlines to hire sensible numbers of pilots which will in turn increase ticket prices by $2.50 per sector.
posted at the same time as RatedDe
The system doesn’t account for human nature, pilots will rarely call fatigued on the duty and the reports they do send afterwards achieve nothing.
I asked because your your reply seemed to indicate that "just because it's an FRMS, it's bad". But now I see that's not necessarily what you said. I do agree though with a lot that you, and RatedDe, have said in your latest replies.
Having worked under a much more basic GA-targeted FRMS (prior to this "new" 48), I much preferred it in many ways to the "old" 48 and a lot of the "new" annexes. Maybe my experience with the management of one has been pretty good and that's why I don't think "FRMS is bad"?
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just look at it from a logic point of view. If a CASA FRMS was commercially more favourable than the CAO48E to operators, then it would have been implemented ASAP. The fact that operators are foot dragging infers that any CASA approved FRMS (based on the ICAO 2011 principles) must therefore, be commercially detrimental.
I also note the CASA approved FRMS in the Virgin Narrow Body 2018 & 2013 agreement is more commercially favourable than their previous 2007 agreement which was CAO48 only, without the exemption. Therefore by implementing for Virgin management, an FRMS was a commercial win as it enables pilots to work harder than straight CAO48. I also note, Virgin are limited to 900 hours annually in all three agreements, compared to the 1,000 for the CAO48E operators. It is also unlikely Virgin will ever be gain CASA approval for the 1,000 limit under any system.
You have to look at the starting baseline of the operators, for some FRMS is a win, for others it is a loss. Existing CAO48E operators effectively get to cherry-pick the most commercially favourable ruleset, either by "Grandfathering" existing exemptions gained prior to 2013 in perpetuity, or implement an FRMS if they were on the straight CAO48.
I also note the CASA approved FRMS in the Virgin Narrow Body 2018 & 2013 agreement is more commercially favourable than their previous 2007 agreement which was CAO48 only, without the exemption. Therefore by implementing for Virgin management, an FRMS was a commercial win as it enables pilots to work harder than straight CAO48. I also note, Virgin are limited to 900 hours annually in all three agreements, compared to the 1,000 for the CAO48E operators. It is also unlikely Virgin will ever be gain CASA approval for the 1,000 limit under any system.
You have to look at the starting baseline of the operators, for some FRMS is a win, for others it is a loss. Existing CAO48E operators effectively get to cherry-pick the most commercially favourable ruleset, either by "Grandfathering" existing exemptions gained prior to 2013 in perpetuity, or implement an FRMS if they were on the straight CAO48.
73qanda I hear what you are saying about an FRMS not being a cure all. I have operated under the CAO48E when it worked fine but it has now turned into a Frankenstein. As a colleague stated it has turned rostering into a work, eat, sleep, work cycle and with the limits being turned into targets its not going to get any better.
I do agree with your statement:
but that is more an aspirational statement that will never become reality. Too many vested interests and political games for it to become either a CASA or airline policy.
I do agree with your statement:
What is the answer? In my opinion a regulator with real leadership that implements sensible non negotiable limits and mandates FRMS to operate within those limits thus forcing Airlines to hire sensible numbers of pilots which will in turn increase ticket prices by $2.50 per sector.
Nunc est bibendum
And the executive management wonder why they are struggling to find pilots. This is part of the reason. Actually, it’s 50% of the reason. The other 50% is the lack of $$$ on offer at anywhere other than QF mainline.
For me the dollars are nowhere near as important as the rostering. I guess it’s a combination of both and everyone values lifestyle and money differently. I’m about a 70/30 split favouring a nice lifestyle.
