CAO 48.1 Operators Breaching the Award
Thread Starter
As am I LB.
Sometimes I do leap before I look, and it’s with gratitude that I take advice from others when they point things out.
As for the entire raping of our well-being by those in the industry who either don’t have the first clue, or even worse those who do, of what it is to be a professional pilot, it just leaves me shaking my head as to what a cynical exercise the whole FRMS system has become.
Sometimes I do leap before I look, and it’s with gratitude that I take advice from others when they point things out.
As for the entire raping of our well-being by those in the industry who either don’t have the first clue, or even worse those who do, of what it is to be a professional pilot, it just leaves me shaking my head as to what a cynical exercise the whole FRMS system has become.
As stated previously, the FRMS limitations are set by operator and then approved by CASA. I’m sure in some cases the standard 48.1 appendices are more restrictive than what some of the approved FRMS’s are.
I believe the minor variation approvals for those who have them, are only temporary and have been issued to allow the operator to make changes in order to transition to an appendix or FRMS. They certainly aren’t exemptions, nor was it the intention based on the information from CASA.
Just be careful if your going to take an operator to task, as it could end up in tears if you don’t fully understand the limitations of what ever system your operating under. The new requirements are certainly more difficult to interpret in comparison to the previous 48.1 limitations, that most of us fully understood as it was drilled into us from the day we started the CPL theory studies.
I believe the minor variation approvals for those who have them, are only temporary and have been issued to allow the operator to make changes in order to transition to an appendix or FRMS. They certainly aren’t exemptions, nor was it the intention based on the information from CASA.
Just be careful if your going to take an operator to task, as it could end up in tears if you don’t fully understand the limitations of what ever system your operating under. The new requirements are certainly more difficult to interpret in comparison to the previous 48.1 limitations, that most of us fully understood as it was drilled into us from the day we started the CPL theory studies.
The minor variations approvals have the same effect as an exemption. The operator gets to do something that would otherwise be unlawful.
They might be ‘temporary’ and ‘minor’, but who’d know. It’s hidden from public and Parliamentary scrutiny.
What we believe and what CASA said it intended to do are not determinants of what’s happening in fact.
They might be ‘temporary’ and ‘minor’, but who’d know. It’s hidden from public and Parliamentary scrutiny.
What we believe and what CASA said it intended to do are not determinants of what’s happening in fact.
But the “science” says it’s ok. (One question I’ve always had, is when developing an FRMS, does the science also cover the maximum extension beyond max duty?)
If the duty limit is 12 hours with a 2 hour extension why isn't the limit 14 hours in the first place?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: not Bungendore
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By setting the soft planning limit of 12 hours, with an allowable extension when delays occur, all this chaos is avoided by rostering 12 hours shifts to the planning limit, and then just putting pressure on crews to extend when delayed. "Do you mean you signed on this morning unfit to operate a legal FDP?"
The flip-side is there should be tracking and monitoring of how often the planning limit is exceeded and the extension is actually used and if that frequency hits a certain threshold then the pairing should be removed from the roster planning pool of options.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the “science” says it’s ok. (One question I’ve always had, is when developing an FRMS, does the science also cover the maximum extension beyond max duty?)
Regarding the 'extensions', one thing my thesis taught me was never to extend. If you do you are entering an environment devoid of scientific or legal protection. The extensions I was told by numerous leaders of fatigue studies were a 'gift' to industry to keep them in the tent. When you extend, you are basically putting all the responsibility on yourself by saying that you are in a fit state to continue beyond the stated limits, which lets face it, are not conservative and already in industries favour.
By setting the soft planning limit of 12 hours, with an allowable extension when delays occur, all this chaos is avoided by rostering 12 hours shifts to the planning limit, and then just putting pressure on crews to extend when delayed…….
I'd be very surprised if it's not still occurring.
When you extend, you are basically putting all the responsibility on yourself by saying that you are in a fit state to continue beyond the stated limits, which lets face it, are not conservative and already in industries favour.
Who in their right mind would accept duty extensions in the current climate. It's meant to be a one off, unforseen circumstances kind of thing. Not an every day occurrence because the airline doesn't have (insert lack of any resource you want here.)
They schedule 4 sector 11/12 hour days knowing the chances of things going to plan are almost zero and they are relying on crew to extend just because they want to go home. I feel sorry for the pax but I just don't care anymore. If I'm going to go over my duty (even by one minute) I'm getting off. I figure the pax may thank me instead of doing something in a haze of fatigue that gets people hurt or killed. (I'm sure that not many pax know this though). Yes, I have to suffer now too. Stuck in a hotel instead of with the Mrs and kids but... I get paid (not enough) to make difficult and ****ty decisions sometimes. And I'm all out of helpfulness and good will.
They schedule 4 sector 11/12 hour days knowing the chances of things going to plan are almost zero and they are relying on crew to extend just because they want to go home. I feel sorry for the pax but I just don't care anymore. If I'm going to go over my duty (even by one minute) I'm getting off. I figure the pax may thank me instead of doing something in a haze of fatigue that gets people hurt or killed. (I'm sure that not many pax know this though). Yes, I have to suffer now too. Stuck in a hotel instead of with the Mrs and kids but... I get paid (not enough) to make difficult and ****ty decisions sometimes. And I'm all out of helpfulness and good will.
how does one do that if they have fatiguely-agreed to extending (kinda like being drunk and not thinking you’re that drunk), and then realising mid sector they’re actually stuffed (or get unexpected holding etc)?
When assessing your fatigue levels you need to remember you need to get home after work safely as well. If you crash your car on your way home and hurt someone will you be ok with that…
The fact is there is no way you can honestly judge if you will be fatigued when driving home so how or why would you ever extend?
The fact is there is no way you can honestly judge if you will be fatigued when driving home so how or why would you ever extend?
If you do you are entering an environment devoid of scientific or legal protection. The extensions I was told by numerous leaders of fatigue studies were a 'gift' to industry to keep them in the tent. When you extend, you are basically putting all the responsibility on yourself by saying that you are in a fit state to continue beyond the stated limits, which lets face it, are not conservative and already in industries favour.
Additional to that there is nothing saying you can't extend every duty, which seems to be almost become a expectation at many carriers in the current climate.
I did my Masters thesis on the new rules, just after they came out. The purpose of my thesis was to see how well the new rules meet the agreed 'science'. My thesis stated that while the new rules were an improvement on the old, they still did not meet the agreed international standards as stated by the 'science'. Since that work, industry spent a further few years beating the rules back further to the result we have today.
Regarding the 'extensions', one thing my thesis taught me was never to extend. If you do you are entering an environment devoid of scientific or legal protection. The extensions I was told by numerous leaders of fatigue studies were a 'gift' to industry to keep them in the tent. When you extend, you are basically putting all the responsibility on yourself by saying that you are in a fit state to continue beyond the stated limits, which lets face it, are not conservative and already in industries favour.
Regarding the 'extensions', one thing my thesis taught me was never to extend. If you do you are entering an environment devoid of scientific or legal protection. The extensions I was told by numerous leaders of fatigue studies were a 'gift' to industry to keep them in the tent. When you extend, you are basically putting all the responsibility on yourself by saying that you are in a fit state to continue beyond the stated limits, which lets face it, are not conservative and already in industries favour.
I have had non tertiary educated CASA people telling me it was the "science" when I questioned why the new App 6 meant I had to take more days off, therefore having to start earlier and work longer hours on the days I was allowed to be there. The only studies they referred me to, which were not what you and I would call references, showed that earlier starts are more fatiguing than later ones, which kinda proved my point, not theirs. So if you can give me some doi s I have access to multiple databases. I do love to befuddle them with pedantry. Thanks!
I did my Masters thesis on the new rules, just after they came out. The purpose of my thesis was to see how well the new rules meet the agreed 'science'. My thesis stated that while the new rules were an improvement on the old, they still did not meet the agreed international standards as stated by the 'science'. Since that work, industry spent a further few years beating the rules back further to the result we have today.
Regarding the 'extensions', one thing my thesis taught me was never to extend. If you do you are entering an environment devoid of scientific or legal protection. The extensions I was told by numerous leaders of fatigue studies were a 'gift' to industry to keep them in the tent. When you extend, you are basically putting all the responsibility on yourself by saying that you are in a fit state to continue beyond the stated limits, which lets face it, are not conservative and already in industries favour.
Regarding the 'extensions', one thing my thesis taught me was never to extend. If you do you are entering an environment devoid of scientific or legal protection. The extensions I was told by numerous leaders of fatigue studies were a 'gift' to industry to keep them in the tent. When you extend, you are basically putting all the responsibility on yourself by saying that you are in a fit state to continue beyond the stated limits, which lets face it, are not conservative and already in industries favour.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just wondering if you have the references about the unknown consequences of extending handy at all- this would be useful resistance as my company tries to ram an undistilled FRMS rule set through. Cheers
There are no academic references from memory explicitely regarding extending. As I have already mentioned, extensions have been part of the rules for a very long time so it was going to be almost impossible for CASA to remove them, even though they have no basis in the fatigue studies.
cool thanks
Pilots pressured to fly while tired: Union
Michael Ramsey AAPJuly 5, 2022 1:33AM
Australian pilots are being pressured to fly while tired and work around "unstable" rosters, according to a union survey.
The survey by the newly-merged Transport Workers Union and Virgin Independent Pilots' Association has highlighted concerns about job security after thousands of aviation workers were stood down earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic.Of the 150 respondents from multiple companies, more than half said roster uncertainty was pressuring pilots to work while tired or unfit to fly.
The vast majority expressed concerns about fatigue management and believed there was a growing trend towards insecure work.
Workers will meet in Perth on Tuesday for the official launch of the TWU's pilots division after the merger was recently approved by the Fair Work Commission.
"Bringing pilots into the TWU means all aviation workers benefit from the might of collectivism, from the ground and baggage room right through to the flight deck," TWU national secretary Michael Kaine said.
"The (survey) results show workers continue to bear the brunt of aviation's peaks and troughs while profit-fanatic executives draw bonuses and exorbitant salaries.
"We need a commission to rebalance aviation, support good jobs, and ensure Australians can always rely on safe and secure skies."
Rex pilots, represented by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, last month voted to take protected industrial action after years-long wage negotiations stalled.
One respondent to the TWU survey said industry morale was at an "all-time low", with the pandemic used as an excuse to erode wages and conditions.
"Very few pilots would view this as a sustainable career in the long term anymore," another respondent said.
"We have no job security, are asked to work more for less and have no control of our lives due to rostering practices."
