Early duties
 

Hi all,

Quick question - am trying to hunt down the legislation (EU Directive, CAWTR, or otherwise) that 'backs up' an early duty (standby) that commences at 04:00am after a Day Off and as may be published on a roster under the UK CAA remit.

For the life of me I can't find it anywhere, so am guessing it must be enshrined or embodied within some other obscure rule (e.g. greater number of Days Off than the CAWTR or Company prescribed minimum).

Thanks in advance!.

F/o

Sounds like you work for the same outfit as me. I occasionally get one of these on my roster. I'm informed you need a minimum of 63 hours off duty before the commencement of the sby. How they get this one past the CAA I don't know, every other outfit I've worked for had 6am as the earliest start after a day off.

It's not a legally required day off?

EU (UK) Working Time Directive?
Although there are exceptions made for transport industry personnel.

I thought 6am was the earliest you could start, any earlier requiring a rest day?

Nope, as long as you meet the required hours for the number of days off you have then you can start at 0001.

Interesting. The last couple of (EASA) operators I worked for always gave a 'local night' before each rotation. You could start at 7am after an off day but if you started at 5am you'd need a rest day before.

Here they can call you from sby at 4am, with the previous day being a day off not rest, even after just 2 days off, as long as you've had 63 hours off duty.

Many thanks for the replies all....

Well, if it is the same operator - this (in the case of 2 consecutive days as tabled in the relevant company publication/guide) 63 hours is a minimum duration - it doesn't as far as I can see alleviate the requirement in this particular example, for the second consecutive 'day off' to have to have a 'local night' before commencing any duty at the behest of the company (therefore meaning 8 hours free from duty including standby duty, between the period 22:00L and 08:00L). An 04:00L standby duty start is a duty as may be assigned and therefore does not meet this stipulation for a 'day off' as best I can tell.

No, it's not - but regardless I cannot find anything in CAWTR, or otherwise - that would then allow the above 'day off' definition to be absolved - hoping someone might be able to point out the relevant legislation or directive that facilitates otherwise?.

Possibly, but I think the CAWTR is designed to cover the aviation industry here?.

My understanding also. If a duty is changed prior to 'day(s) off' to report for duty at 06:00L (or later) on the first day back on duty post 'day(s) off', then that meets the 'day off' definition and that is acceptable to meet the criteria.

Please expand if you don't mind? Legislation or otherwise as I can't find anything.

Yes, every operator I have worked for or know of, has met the 'day(s) off' local night requirement. I had heard a certain orange operator (UK) used the ability to start a standby as per my query, but on questioning colleagues working here - found this to be incorrect and merely a rumour that has circulated it seems? certainly none I spoke to have ever been rostered as such anyway.

As per my first quoted reply, think the 63 hours your referring to is in the case of say, 2 consecutive 'days off' and a requirement then to ensure a minimum of 63 hours as part of the required total. It's not a maximum that any excess over and above this figure, that will then afford the ability to reduce the local night requirements for a consecutive day off in this example - please correct me if I am wrong with links/examples?.

Whilst the above might seem 'nit picking' - I am only asking to ensure as to correct legality and that given in today's world the increasing litigious nature of all things - a scenario could be envisaged whereby ay an accident/incident could happen and that subsequently (if attributed to fatigue from accepting a non-compliant duty) renders both the operator and individual(s) liable on many fronts - extreme example? maybe. But it could happen - and we all mitigate risk as part of our professional lives after all, so for me this is just a case of this.