A question from a Newbie
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Horsham
A question from a Newbie
Thoughts, please, on this scenario.
Day 1. Published rosters are released. Pilot A is rostered 54 duty hours for 7 days commencing Day 15. (Day 15 being the start of CAP371 definition of "a week").
Day 3. Due Operational Disruption, including unprecedented amount of crew sickness, Pilot A's duties are changed for Day 16 which sees his duty hours now extended to 55 hours and 30 minutes for that 7 day "week".
The change was made AFTER roster publication, and was unavoidable due Operation Disruption and the contribution of high levels of sickness not apparent at roster publication.
Would it be considered acceptable, given the level of disruption and the dates put forward, to utilise the 5 hour "window" to allow pilot A to continue operating beyond the allowable 55 hours but within the maximum 60 hours given the circumstances. (i.e the disruption hadn't been planned at roster publication - not ideal that the "violation" could have been avoided if higher crew levels were available - but acceptable given all circumstance?).
Would really appreciate feedback. Cheers.
Day 1. Published rosters are released. Pilot A is rostered 54 duty hours for 7 days commencing Day 15. (Day 15 being the start of CAP371 definition of "a week").
Day 3. Due Operational Disruption, including unprecedented amount of crew sickness, Pilot A's duties are changed for Day 16 which sees his duty hours now extended to 55 hours and 30 minutes for that 7 day "week".
The change was made AFTER roster publication, and was unavoidable due Operation Disruption and the contribution of high levels of sickness not apparent at roster publication.
Would it be considered acceptable, given the level of disruption and the dates put forward, to utilise the 5 hour "window" to allow pilot A to continue operating beyond the allowable 55 hours but within the maximum 60 hours given the circumstances. (i.e the disruption hadn't been planned at roster publication - not ideal that the "violation" could have been avoided if higher crew levels were available - but acceptable given all circumstance?).
Would really appreciate feedback. Cheers.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,643
Likes: 0
From: UK
Blue
In my opinion (none nigel) Yes.
Why -
because the 2 week limit will give you protection from the hard week.
because you state it's for good reason (high sickness levels - was this a one off?)
Was it over school hols when crews on holiday?
If i'm to change my mind to No
What are your other average weeks duty hours, is this the norm because Crewing levels are low?
What does the 55hrs consist of? Nights, days, lates or maybe sby time?
The CAA don't have a problem with running to 60 hrs as long as not a trend. In terms of risk of running past 60 hours then that's the Companies problem not yours as they should be monitoring weekly duty
In my opinion (none nigel) Yes.
Why -
because the 2 week limit will give you protection from the hard week.
because you state it's for good reason (high sickness levels - was this a one off?)
Was it over school hols when crews on holiday?
If i'm to change my mind to No
What are your other average weeks duty hours, is this the norm because Crewing levels are low?
What does the 55hrs consist of? Nights, days, lates or maybe sby time?
The CAA don't have a problem with running to 60 hrs as long as not a trend. In terms of risk of running past 60 hours then that's the Companies problem not yours as they should be monitoring weekly duty
