Please explain
 

Can someone perhaps enlighten me as to why the AOA is complaining about 2 man OPS thru WOCL flights.... when in the next sentence they admit to us having given that provision away in the new AFTL's. I don't understand...

Surely you can't complain about this being a fatigue issue in one regard then go on to admit that under the new AFTLS it's not even provided for...

This is not a dig at the AOA as I know how hard the committee has worked on AFTL's...I'm simply trying to work out what happens under the new FTL's with this provision removed....Any info appreciated...

many thanks for the info....MC

The AOA did not give away anything.

We are talking OPS A, Section 7 FTLs page 9 Para 15.4 Note "B"

The final draft of the new CAD 371, after all the "consultation" was finished appeared with this note mysteriously deleted. Note A is still there in the new CAD 371.

I understand that the AOA has complained repeatedly to the CAD about this.

Why did the CAD do it? Supposedly to "align" us with industry practice - the European FTL's - which surprise, surprise are worse than the old (current) CAD371.

This is exactly the fight BALPA is having in the UK as the CAA also wants to "align" with the inferior Eurozone FTLs.

I would guess that the company is in favor of the new document since it would remove the 3rd pilot from all BNE, ADL and some ME and many freighter patterns that are over 8hrs, less than 9 hrs and go through the WOCL.

Hopefully Corporate Saftey will step in using the Fatigue Study data and we'll keep the 3rd man even if CAD 371 doesn't require it (call me a naive optimist!).

Don't keep your hope on corporate safety in coming to your rescue.

They can't fix a thing unless commercial lets them!

Barronflyer,
Post this on the AOA forum and you will get a sensible answer.

Frogman, that should read corporate safety cannot fix anything without data.
The "fear" factor shown by crews when "suggested" to fill out ASR-F's is disturbing. Grow a pair !

I believe corporate safety bypasses commercial and reports directly to the CEO. They are powerless without reports however: it never ceases to amaze me how many of us whinge and moan about a given flight or pattern but then go quiet when asked whether they filed an ASR-F :ugh:

I don't see why y'all are so concerned.

Because the new AFTLS are a degradation, not an improvement, to your COS, the company cannot introduce or impose them upon you WITHOUT your agreement.


Why do you think they are bothering to even pretend to talk to the AOA about this??


Bottom line is that I can't imagine why we would even consider signing away the 3rd man. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Really Jed???

The AFTLS is not part of your CoS...they don't need you consent.

Well done Jed.
The primary document pertaining to your relationship with your employer and you haven't read it.

Except, perhaps it's time for a court ruling about which of the many "agreements" are in reality part of our COS or not, rather than just accepting the convenient company line, just as with the years of "taxation are the individual officer's responsibility" baloney...particularly with so many "non COS" documents and agreements fully influencing the value of the COS: Rostering practices, housing agreement, basing policy, AHK's AOC and scope agreement...and AFTLS.

Thank you for your brickbats - I'm happy to take it on the chin if I'm wrong.

I was thinking about the court case (MG vs CX) - I don't know what the outcome was (was it put into abeyance?), but I thought the thrust of it was that because AFTLS and RPs had such a huge effect on our lives, that they were to be considered as part of our COS.

I will talk to the AOA next week and find out.

Edited to add:

I called the AOA, and whilst I didn't get a definitive answer on the court case, it was explained to me that (in Canada and Australia) the AFTLS (and RPs) are most definitely part of the COS. That makes them subject to the EA proceedures currently in place.

So, although that won't effect me here, I fail to see how the company can implement three or more sets of AFTLS, or even why any of those based would vote for such a system.

Fire wall. If you are correct. Why is it the we are still doing the DEL-BKK-DEL pattern without the break in BKK.

I've put in a fatigue ASR every time I have done the flight ( nice of you to assume that I did not!). My friends have also put in F ASR. I have even gone to speak to corporate Safety about it, and their response was that they could not change the pattern dispite the number is ASR's they have received.

Trust me they have all of the Data they need!

Maybe you should grow some balls and go and speak to them directly.

Frogman, The statement "grow a pair" was generic one and not directed at you but rather the general aircrew populus. With my loose grammar I can see that it could be seen otherwise and I apologise to you for the misunderstanding. As such you may also assume that I had not prejudged you in the admission of ASR-F's.

It has been sometime since I cast my eye over the master roster so give me some time and I shall respond ref the said flight.

Finally, you will find my name at the bottom right hand corner of a very large number of yellow forms, not to mention hard copy and online submissions of ASR's and CHIRPS. As to your suggestion reference direct contact, RH (not the DFO) and BP are on my contact list and I converse with them on a somewhat regular and first name basis ..... and my pair are quite large enough thank you !
With apologies and regards,
FW

Jed,
The AOA, of which I am a long standing paid member, make a lot of assertions of which not all are iron clad nor hold weight in a court of law.
In this case you may go to crew direct/ conditions of service/ and look at the COS for CX Australia. The document is a meger 35 pages in total and contains Sections 1-43, Schedules 1 and 2, Appendices 1 and 2. Note that, were you to accept an Australian based position, then you would sign a contract agreeing to be employed under Australian Conditions of Service 2008 but subject to the laws of ___________ maybe in a fight Hong Kong, are we really sure ? (or at least it used to state subject to HKG law. Interestingly the EUR guys are finding just the same ie told subject to EUR law and finding that doesn't always hold water )
Now I am not the sharpest knife in the block but I can tell you emphatically, having read the COS front to back/ upside down and in reverse in an effort to garner different interpretations that the company could use ....there is no mention of AFTL's in the document.
Believe who ever you want.

Dear fire wall. Sorry I misunderstood you comment on the other post. Please accept my apology about my comments with regards to the matter.*

With regards to the DEL- BKK *sector. I have put in numerous ASR's about the lack of rest opportunity on the pattern. I have spoken to a lot of other crews about the flight who say they have also submitted ASR's. Yet with all of this data, not to mention the 30,000 plus form we filled in a year ago stating the fatigue prior to every approach, the pattern continues!

The worst part about having to do one of these flights is the fact that now I only get them when on reserve as the rostered crew go sick for it. With that combination the rest opportunity is even more reduced.

I've even gone to speak to CS department with them acknowledging that they have numerous ASR's about the flight. Yet nothing changes.*

So please tell me with all of the info they have about the flight, why are we still doing it?

Maybe you should bypass RH and go to the guy with bigger ball!

Firewall,

What about these then:

18. FLIGHT TIME LIMITATIONS
18.1. The maximum Flight Time Limitations will be in accordance with the Approved Flight Time Limitations Scheme specified in the Operations Manual, Volume 1.
and

20. ROSTERING
20.1. The Company and the Officer agree that rostering shall be in accordance with the Rostering Practices 2007 Policy Agreement dated 17th April 2007 (“RP07”) during the Period of Validity of that Agreement.

That enshrines those policies in your contract. In most countries that means that if they degrade those policies (without consent) they have broken contract law.

I particularly enjoyed the following: "That enshrines those policies in your contract.". Really ? Where does it state that in the document you signed?

Not to be outdone: "In most countries that means that if they degrade those policies (without consent) they have broken contract law."
Somewhat of a broad brush statement, which countries ? Or are you just guessing.

Don't confuse Policy (which can be unilaterally changed at the company's behest) with Conditions of Service (or in other words the terms of your employment)

I would suggest to you that the only country that matters is the one that has juristiction over your contract. Do you know which country that is? If you are based in Australia or Canada then I am reasonably confident it is those same authorities. If you are based elsewhere then I think you are on shaky ground if you think you are subject to a juristiction other than HKG law

Adam if your COS isnt to your pleasing then who is to blame?
You signed it.

The recognized medium for reporting and tracking this is ASR-F.

However, the actual number of ASR-F's being filed is pathetic. This is understandable since the form is complex and very time consuming to fill out, at a point in time when you are at your most fatigued:sad:

Many of us are guilty of just going home (or to the hotel) and not filling out the ASR-F.

The forms/reporting system are being revised to make them more user friendly. But in the meanwhile, don't waste your time complaining on pprune or in the bar or at home.

Man up and send in the ASR-F, even if it is a few days late.

ASR-Fs that are not filled in correctly or are incomplete get binned so don't just assume that anything will change.

Pre fill the form out before the duty when you are rested then just finish it off.

We are our own worst enemy.

I completely agree, the amount of times I have seen crews say its too difficult to fill in the ASR F is pathetic. The ASR F is critical in building an "admissible" paper trail. By not filling it in "EVERY TIME" you are fatigued you are undoing any remote chance of these patterns being flagged and sealing our fate.

Apparently its up to us anyway in case you missed it "Employees have an obligation to minimize fatigue so that they are fit for duty, and shall not perform any duty if they consider their fatigue level to be unacceptable"

Don't sign on if you aren't rested, once commercial and rostering get the message that these particular flights in question are un-crewable , we'll go back to the SAFE OPTION, a hotel and a bed to sleep in.

Don't be that guy that has the fatigue related incident / god forbid accident, be at home asleep where you should have been all along.