Fatigue Regulation and Industrial Agreements covering hours of work
 

The prescribed flight and duty limits of CAO 48 are due to be expunged and will come under the control of the business operators. The matter of flight and duty time limits were borne from industrial agreements circa early 1950's and it is due to this circumstance why many agreements covering hours of work and rostering were tied to the ANO/CAO part 48.
Now this relationship will be severed, industrial agreements covering pilots should be structured to specify hours of work on the basis of remuneration. The subject of hours of work (rostering) should no longer be based on the limits of fatigue regulation and any element of industrial agreements that does so, should be removed. Compliance of fatigue mamanagement rules should be a seperate matter between the business operator and the relevant authority.
Discussion?

CAO 48 is not perfect, but has served us well for over 50 years. In a few places the wording could be simplified perhaps to make it easier for us old blokes to interpret some of the few "gotchas", but in general why fiddle with it in the name of fatigue management?

Unless the new legislation will guarantee that we work LESS.....yeah right, Santa Claus is real too.

Allowing operators to control flight and duty programs is akin to putting a paedophile in charge of the primary school.

Or Joyce in charge of an airline for that matter!

Two seperate issues here, one is the integrity behind the process and validation of granting control of duty limits to business operators. The reason put forward is that fatigue management rules need to take into account the scientific findings concerning the subject matter. I believe that the previous CAO 48 did just that, it was devised by mature aged aviators who had experienced the wider spectrum of life experiences and used that as the basis to determine what are reasonable and safe limits for periods of work.

In my view this research based approach carries just as much validity as scientific research limited to one (biological) aspect of the human condition. I am unsure about the scientific evidence used to support that fatigue will be reduced by granting control to the business operator. Imperical data may suggest otherwise. Within this new framework part of the operator's obligation to set controls for management of fatigue is to take into account the environment under which the work will be performed, however there does not appear to be any scientific formula as to how these factors will applied instead it will be left to the discretion of the operator.

The other issue is, if a bargain is struck for X amount of remuneration for Z amount of working hours, if an industrial agreement is tied to a regulatory document that is substantively altered to its previous form does this mean one will carry out duty for thirty seven and half hours per week or seventy two hours per week?

I have been to the CASA seminar on the new FRMS and believe it to be a quantum leap from CAO 48.

The new system addresses the type of operation and considers many additional factors not envisaged 50 years ago. I actually think it will be a great improvement.

Whereas CAO 48 did not distinguish between a single-pilot 8-sector per day operation in an unpressurised piston twin and a multi-crew single-sector duty in controlled airspace, the new rules will have particular relevance (and protections) for each different type of operation.

I look forward to the new system, but do concede that on-call jet charter operators in particular will need to be very careful in regard to rostering.

So what are the new rules?

Clear as mud.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/ops/nfrm/1202os-annexc.pdf

Thanks mail-man.

Interesting. I would suggest that rules should remain and indeed be tightened in industrial agreements until such time as the regulator and the operators can be trusted.

New Fatigue laws
 

"The new system addresses the type of operation and considers many additional factors not envisaged 50 years ago. I actually think it will be a great improvement."

I disagree Chimbu. JQ flew (flies?) CNS-PER-CNS back of the clock. 9.4 hours flight time in a 11 hour night. Previous duties and post duties may have been 0500 sign ons. The fact that it's pressurized, flight attendants to bring coffee and inedible in-flight meals does not belie the fact that it is outside of normal human tolerances. Sometimes we'd get whacked with two in a row!

CAO 48 was written post-WW2, and had a lot of input from those days. If you fly 8 hours in a day, then you know you've worked. The nay-sayers suggest that the reasoning behind CAO 48 was "not scientific".

I would acceed that it was not deductive, but inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning is how we all learned things from the crib. For example, I'm at a Smithy's place, stoking the charcoal fire and using the bellows to heat a piece of iron until it's red - and then I throw it to you. You catch it and it costs you 50% of the flesh of your hands.

Will you catch it again?

Is anyone else finding this a nightmare to understand?

In the past, from experience, all FRMS was really, was a way for operators to rort the system "Legally", dependant on the FOI of the day.
I applaud CASA for attempting to sort out the issue, if in fact mitigating fatigue was their motive? But does replacing 4 or 5 pages of intelligble gobbeldegook with 20 or 30 pages of intelligble gobbeldegook really "sort it out"?
At the end of the day it will still come down to whatever the FOI of the day considers appropriate, they are the experts in all things aviation, and of course are highly trained in fatigue management.
I am fearful that FRMS will just end up another piece of "Shelfware", required to absolve CAsA of responsibility for anything, that gathers dust until the next Audit, when it will turn into a "Imminent threat to aviation safety" because there's been a change of FOI.

If only it was 20 or 30 pages, came out at 58 pages of rubbish when i printed it.

I have worked under an FRMS and currently work under an exemption to CAO48. The FRMS that I worked under would not have allowed the rosters that are allowed under the CAO48 exemption.

Well, I guess until I see the FRMS my operator plans to use, I cannot comment much further.

That is if they can decipher the ünless',increases, reduces, remaining portions, delays, weather or nots, despites, with or withouts; considers, exceeds, unforeseens, suitable locations, agrees, displaced times, FDP 1, FDP 2, periods.

This is law?

What is the state of the Motion to Diss-allowance?

From the comments thus far it seems there will no longer be clear specified limits for duty and flight times. If these rules come to fruition then the only mechanism that could provide adequate protection against a pseudo scientific based system is an industrial document (agreement) that stipulates working hours and rostering practices etc.

Disallowance still pending. Looks like it will not be examined
by the Senate until post election.

"That is if they can decipher the ünless',increases, reduces, remaining portions, delays, weather or nots, despites, with or withouts; considers, exceeds, unforeseens, suitable locations, agrees, displaced times, FDP 1, FDP 2, periods."

and there in lies the problem "Interpretation".
The lawyers who put this stuff together, by nature write the rules this way, because they imagine it will provide lawyers and courts and judges to descide what they actually mean with steady income.
Where this theory falls down is the industry is already on its knees with compliance costs and cannot afford to run to court to get a judge to determine what a rule means.
The enforcers are well aware of this so they can run rampant through the industry with their own particular interpretations secure in the knowledge that there's nobody who can afford to challenge them.
The AG boys provided us with a solution, but the industry as a whole will have to get together and produce it.
Generic manuals approved by the head office would make a lot of this compliance madness go away and go a long way to standardizing operations.

None if this rubbish is written for the man on the street to whom it actually applies.
As has been mentioned already here in some ways it's written like that (Egyptian Hieroglyphics) to keep the man on the street at bay & to provide a legal out for the goons (lawyers/rule makers) discretion!

Simplicity & common sense have no place in our judicial system!:ugh:


Wmk2