Pilots' fatigue investigation
 

Hi everyone. My name is Paula Slier, I am the RT (Russia Today) reporter involved in the story on pilot fatigue related to the Fly Dubai crush. We are really concerned about the welfare of pilots and we want to help expose airline companies that exploit their pilots by making them fly unreasonable and fatigue-inducing schedules.We will treat any information given to us with the utmost confidentiality and those former Fly Dubai pilots who are talking with us are happy with the way we are managing our investigation. Anyone with information please contact me at [email protected]

Here is some of the work we've done so far:
https://www.rt.com/news/336514-flydu...fatigue-crash/

https://www.rt.com/news/336821-fatig...lydubai-pilot/

Hi Paula, thanks for your message.

I have to tell you that in my previous job I was a union representative, and my work was focused on dealing with media.

After some years there are quite a few things I have learned, and sorry to say, but I believe people has to know.

For journalists, their trending hashtag is like a trip for us: it brings money to the bag for some days, but as it runs old, the only thing in the horizon to keep the bike running is a different trip, a different article, a different hashtag, a different story. And you and I know that it is not you who decides what's trendy or not every morning.

More...it would not be the first time, nor it would be the last, that an amazing tale to be spread is just cut in half forever after some airline (or company related to any other industry) marketing manager calls to offer a nice advertising contract...exchanged by silence. You and me know this is true.

That day, two things will take place: first, the half told story remains dead until another tragedy resurrects it (because it is trendy again) and maybe, maybe...some guys that approached the story teller with hope are left out with nothing but the threat of their initials found out. About the last, don't get bothered, there's a lot of honest professionals everywhere and I bet you are one of them, but again, you and I know this has happened...

More...this is a sensible and specialized business at the same time, and I've long and strongly struggled with journalists to get them to tell about aviation related matters in a way that public understands but does not fall apart when it comes to being strict about what things really mean and stand for. You can do a lot of good with your articles, but the bottom line is thin, and can do a lot of bad to us who make a living out of this, spike fears among our clients and not serve the purpose you are seeking with good intention. Because, listen, there's a big bunch of fine stuff that could outcome your job, but most of the time in this issues the result ends up summarized in the eye catching material.

In my ideal world, long experience backgrounded, only professionals should write about some matters, and never be taken hostages for it, never fear that the truth has a price that is paid in the unemployment queue.

But we don't live in that world, so my advice to you and all is: be careful what you write, be careful what you say.

Thanks.

Oh great RT Russia's answer to Fox News

Hi Paula, read your article https://www.rt.com/news/337128-emira...tigue-scandal/ and although not privy to the ins and outs at Emirates I appreciate you looking into this. Unfortunately this is not a Emirates related issue but an industry wide one including ColganAir in the US, various Lowcost outfits (including in Russia!) and it needs close attention...

Not an EK issue!!! You are joking right?

Paula all I would say is keep digging as you are doing a good thing, and giving a very public
voice to people who normal get told to 'shut up and get on with it or there's the door.'

Take some time to peruse some of the threads in the Middle East section and you'll get a flavor of what goes on. It'll also make it easy to spot the mgt trolls who try to counter the message but stand out like a sore thumb.

It's a VERY real issue, that as we've all seen can have horrific consequences.

So Ana- C

Tell us what RT have written in that article that is not true?

Paula

I am sure lot of pilots express gratitude silently for what you are doing. Most may not come out with information. Not that they don't want to, but the system is rigged to prevent from doing that.

Mgmt uses carrot (PR budget) and stick (worldwide legal reach) to suppress media. Unlike western media my hope RT is immune to both.

You may observe no other media outlets and aviation safety experts will pickup on this and RT will be discounted promptly. They care about their annual image/brand management contract revenues from airline, not safety.

Good luck

PS - look into factoring, and 24 hr rest periods, at EK.

Factoring, Variations, Annex's, reduced rest, ....the list goes on. My compliments to the author for her work, and providing an outlet to so many.:ok::D

how about leaving home base knowing very well that you will have to use discretion on a multi-sector flight...:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Request to all regulators to impose a limit to changes in circadian rythms.
Ie a briefing at 10 pm,landing at 6 am followed by a briefing at 4 am followed by a landing 10 am ,followed by four sectors starting at 4 pm ending at midnight.
That would be a good start,see what they say.
Only regulators can change fatigue issue,airliners are just using the rules to the extreme,just as tax evaders do.

Give the journalist the benefit of the doubt. If one can inform without killing the goose then help them. What does it cost one to provide evidence? If the story dies after a week.... Well, it died. If it doesnt and the box gets opened for all and sundry to see.... Well it's there.

Just off topic but in your reports when you say the word "fatigue" you sound really aggressive. Just a word of advice to maybe soften up when using this word.

too much:
sorry but fatique is a standing terminology.
There is nothing to soften!
And why, don't you wana see the truth?
Please go back to Costa!

EK Statement: Quote

CAR-OPS stated prior to JAN 2016 revision: LRO (Long Range Operation), any flight time over 14 hours the layover at off base location should be minimum 48 hours. However the note at the end of the paragraph said: all pairings accepted prior to the revision can be operated as approved.
New revision JAN 2016 is changed. The entire paragraph regarding the LRO has been removed, including the statement above. I tried to find any relating limitations regarding LRO in the current CAROPS, it is just vanished. Can somebody point out that I am incorrect in this matter? For who's benefit this goes again and by who.

It did say "should".

It's the same the world over; the difference one word can make, changing "shall" to "should". That way, authorities can lay out the rules, but tacitly let companies flout them without it bouncing back in the authorities' laps when it all goes awry. It is a global problem, not just local, this attitude to regulations and looking for loopholes, and appears in almost every industry.

It is because money men run almost all of those industries, and non-specific bureaucrats run the authorities and regulators, not professionals relevant to that industry (like doctors running hospitals, teachers running schools or engineers running construction or manufacturing businesses or regulators). The money men and bureaucrats have complete detachment from what their business is actually about, only comprehending spreadsheets, rather than the business and its staff. It appears to resemble some kind of autism.

Captain's discretion is exactly what it says.

Very tricky to decline a flight departing home base on a multi sector day claiming you will enter discretion as that will only be the case on the final sector. You can then say no and get a lay over at the hotel on minimum rest. I know of a Capt that packs an overnight kit for just such an occasion.

I have refused discretion departing DXB on single sector flights 3 times and have never heard anything from HQ either during or after the fact. A lot of pressure but if sticking to what you believe then crewing will back down.

Just have to pick your battles and avoid the ones you will never win.

Aluminium
EASA doesn't have too many "should's" its been tightened up a lot. It has also stopped a few crew practices such as swapping rosters to get back to backs and loads of off days (fatigue goes out the window then funnily enough)

Fatbus, what is your f#€ing point to answer "should"? That is so irrelevant. There is the question mark at the end of the post. If you don't have anything to write then the word "should", don't do it at all. You miss the point here. My question was genuine to ask if any of the guys knows where GCAA placed the regulations regarding the LRO operations?