Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Qantas Fatigue Risk Management System

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

Qantas Fatigue Risk Management System

Old 27th Mar 2019, 10:38
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,200
Qantas Fatigue Risk Management System

Anyone know about the debacle that is know happening with this trial involving I believe the ATSB and Qantas? I believe that is is causing all sorts of trouble in scheduling with crew compliments and length of slips.
dragon man is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2019, 11:33
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,679
Presumably Little Napoleon ensured Greg Hood at the ATSB was inducted into the Chairman's lounge. That always protects the outcome. Biased sampling and poor model specifications will also help the outcome.

That QF have unilaterally secured a FRMS trial which appears to lack the one thing that they need to be a valid representative study: Valid data is a concern.
Increasingly the onus will be (with regulatory capture) on the individual to assess subjectively fatigue and impairment. Thus,

Two questions are immediately obvious.
  1. Does QF maintain sufficient crew in slip ports in order to manage fatigue and pilots reporting unfit due fatigue?
If Qantas does not, then presumably the pilot knows that there is a high probability that he service from which he or she withdraws will been cancelled. Thus any data drawn from such a sample has not been cleaned to remove inherent bias in the sample:Reporting fatigued is not a zero risk strategy and the pilots know it. Thus the sample is not representative.

2. Is Qantas trying to extrapolate linearly the fatigue results from existing tours of duty?

If QF do this then again the sample is not representative. Fatigue is not a linear condition. If for example 19 hours is 10% more fatiguing than 18 hours, it does not follow necessarily that 20 hours is 10% more fatiguing than 19 hours. Any attempt to derive a linear relationship with such base assumptions may well serve the business case of Little Napoleon however it is not valid sampling.

A far more robust study is needed. This study will provide data that is for sure, but it is unlikely to be in any sense suitable for deriving inferences about fatigue on flying tours of duty not yet legal.
Rated De is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2019, 21:25
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: SE QLD
Posts: 197
Rated De, so far the only time I have seen anyone pull out of a trip due fatigue is when there is no financial penalty to THEMSELVES.
Unfortunately the collective WE are hopeless at mitigating fatigue risk when there is a financial incentive not to.

I hope I’m wrong.

ScepticalOptomist is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2019, 21:54
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,679
Originally Posted by ScepticalOptomist View Post
Rated De, so far the only time I have seen anyone pull out of a trip due fatigue is when there is no financial penalty to THEMSELVES.
Unfortunately the collective WE are hopeless at mitigating fatigue risk when there is a financial incentive not to.

I hope I’m wrong.



As Charlie Munger states "Show me the incentive, I show you the outcome"

Your point is well made.
The pilots need realise that loss of financial 'incentive' does not in the event of an accident,provide a lawful defence.
Unfortunately, pilots play their part too well. The airline management know it and the regulators turn a blind eye.

With Mr Hood comfortably upgraded, and the heads of CASA given similar treatment, the company can window dress and present any 'study' they choose.
Unless the labour representative association realise that the study is inherently flawed and any outcomes serve the commercial interest of the company, then the fail in their duty to protect the interest of member pilots, which includes protecting their health.
Rated De is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2019, 22:49
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,200
Now there is no financial incentive on the 787 I don’t think a decision on fatigue will be a problem.
dragon man is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 02:16
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 415
Angryrat, Like the FOQA gatekeeper but for Fatigue? Sounds progressive.
73qanda is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 03:26
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
I have worked in a major airline and also within the air charter industry for almost 30 years and have only seen one pilot call in fatigued. Upon management hearing of this they contacted the pilot, not to check on his welfare etc. but to talk him into doing the flight. From what I have seen the problem with fatigue management in aviation is the management of the various companies. Many don't think that it is serious and think that it is the pilot screwing them or just think it's a crock of sh!t.

I'm now in a different industry in a large company and they don't just talk about fatigue, but have measures in place to manage it. I've also seen staff call in fatigued and this will delay a trip, but from what I have seen there is no adverse repercussions from management. The big difference between the industry I'm in now and aviation is that the management can be held liable if there is an accident due to fatigue and rosters, management decisions/pressure etc. are the cause of the fatigue.
rammel is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 09:07
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 415
“Flight Operations Quality Assurance”.
Basically, if the safety department sees some red flags pop up for a flight ( unstable approach, flap over speed etc) and they want to know more, they call the gatekeeper, the gatekeeper is a pilot who isn’t a trainer or management, they go through a procedure to identify the crew and give them a bell to ask the questions the safety guys want answered.
I realise that with Fatigue the company needs to know who is Fatigued etc but if the pilot knew that they would be dealing with the gatekeeper rather than their manager they might make a better call as to pulling the pin.
Make it so that if you call fatigued you know you are only going to deal with an elected gatekeeper and they will liaise as necessary with management types. It would prevent managers implying that the pilot is at fault even when it is clearly the rostering/ recruitment that is at fault. Is that what you were suggesting?
73qanda is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 09:16
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 661
Isn't FSAG the gatekeeper?
CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 02:33
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 475
Anyone know about the debacle that is know happening with this trial involving I believe the ATSB and Qantas?
Well dragon man, it looks like no one knows anymore about this than you. Care to expand on what you have heard about some debacle?
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 11:21
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,200
Sure, what I’m hearing is that the FRMS had basically pasted into it the EBA flight time and slip industrial limits. The company has been using CAO limits when needed and crew agree to it. I’m lead to believe that they have been told that can not happen and what is in the FRMS is set in concrete. The Santiago flight on Wed had to go thru Auckland for a crew change as the slip in Santiago was under what was required in the FRMS. I have been told that it has been causing a lot of grief, however would appreciate some other feedback.
dragon man is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 11:31
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 223
Originally Posted by dragon man View Post
Sure, what I’m hearing is that the FRMS had basically pasted into it the EBA flight time and slip industrial limits. The company has been using CAO limits when needed and crew agree to it. I’m lead to believe that they have been told that can not happen and what is in the FRMS is set in concrete. The Santiago flight on Wed had to go thru Auckland for a crew change as the slip in Santiago was under what was required in the FRMS. I have been told that it has been causing a lot of grief, however would appreciate some other feedback.
FRMS
F#$ked Rooted Minimum Sleep
Troo believer is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2019, 01:23
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 475
Hahaha, thanks Dragon Man, that’s brilliant. I love the stories of Qantas’s ham-fisted implementation of policies that come back to burn them.
They locked AIPA out of any input into the FRMS so I feel they deserve this debacle.

Reminds me me of how they took out all the clauses in our EBA’s that essentially said, ‘unless varied in agreement with the association’. Done to try and weaken AIPA’s industrial effect but ended up meaning all the work rules were then written in stone and any sensible compromise was illegal.
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2019, 01:38
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,200
Originally Posted by Beer Baron View Post
Hahaha, thanks Dragon Man, that’s brilliant. I love the stories of Qantas’s ham-fisted implementation of policies that come back to burn them.
They locked AIPA out of any input into the FRMS so I feel they deserve this debacle.

Reminds me me of how they took out all the clauses in our EBA’s that essentially said, ‘unless varied in agreement with the association’. Done to try and weaken AIPA’s industrial effect but ended up meaning all the work rules were then written in stone and any sensible compromise was illegal.

Glad you like it, I know someone who was involved in it and then removed when he wouldn’t toe the line. He told them not to do it but they wouldn’t listen. I don’t think it is an easy fix either.
dragon man is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2019, 22:34
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,679
Originally Posted by dragon man View Post



Glad you like it, I know someone who was involved in it and then removed when he wouldn’t toe the line. He told them not to do it but they wouldn’t listen. I don’t think it is an easy fix either.
Fatigue is insidious, it is difficult to identify in oneself.
Thus the rule set needs to be clear, unambiguous and non punitive.
Every construct in airline operations is framed with overriding commercial imperative.

When was the last time any contributor to this forum can recall airline management acting without implied 'commercial coercion' when discussing why, in their 'opinion', the show must go on?

Commercial concerns are not the concern of a fatigued pilot.
In a less imperfect world, the airline the regulator and the travelling public would be mindful of the realities of the human body.
Rated De is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2019, 23:08
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 661
The regulators have simply stopped regulating, Banks, Boeing, FAA, CASA etc. The overriding philosophy is "it is better to profit now, and if necessary, repent later", Self regulation, light touch, whatever you want to call it. The banking Royal Commission is the exemplar. This is fascism, the melding of business and government into one, with all the Orwellian dystopian overtones that envisages.

However, it appears the top of flight operations hierarchy are simply too blinded by ideological by rage, and too stupid to fathom the consequences of their own actions. He is not a details man. The union would have saved them from themselves, but no he had to ambush everyone, including, ultimately himself. A masterstroke of incompetence.

I wonder what the AOC holder thinks of his man?
CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2019, 23:24
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,679
Originally Posted by CurtainTwitcher View Post
The regulators have simply stopped regulating, Banks, Boeing, FAA, CASA etc. The overriding philosophy is "it is better to profit now, and if necessary, repent later", Self regulation, light touch, whatever you want to call it. The banking Royal Commission is the exemplar. This is fascism, the melding of business and government into one, with all the Orwellian dystopian overtones that envisages.

However, it appears the top of flight operations hierarchy are simply too blinded by ideological by rage, and too stupid to fathom the consequences of their own actions. He is not a details man. The union would have saved them from themselves, but no he had to ambush everyone, including, ultimately himself. A masterstroke of incompetence.

I wonder what the AOC holder thinks of his man?
Corruption is endemic, it is entropic and it is as insidious as fatigue.

As Napoleon allegedly remarked "Never interrupt your enemy when he is busy making a mistake"

Would seem that there now exists some leverage for pilots, ironically a result of morbid ineptitude. Never though, look the gift horse in the mouth!
Rated De is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

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