Logbook Allowances
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canadian Forces log chock to chock. Had I ever been in the position of having had an exchange tour, I would have played the white man (can you still say that?) and not claimed taxi time allowance for those 3 years.
RT discrepancies are in hand, or so I'm told; at the very least, the ivory towers are aware of the issue - or so I'm led to believe. Ditto altimetry.
RT discrepancies are in hand, or so I'm told; at the very least, the ivory towers are aware of the issue - or so I'm led to believe. Ditto altimetry.
When FIS, RIS and RAS become 'Basic', 'Traffic' and 'Deconfliction' in the not too distant future would seem a good time to ditch things like "Roll" and "Overshoot"?
But will "Final, gear down" ever go?
For those old fossils flying very old turboprops, "Finals, gear checked" was binned over 15 years ago, by the way.
Don't tell me the RAF is going to have yet another flirt with QNH in the visual circuit....
But will "Final, gear down" ever go?
For those old fossils flying very old turboprops, "Finals, gear checked" was binned over 15 years ago, by the way.
Don't tell me the RAF is going to have yet another flirt with QNH in the visual circuit....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We can but hope....
Let's face it, must be quite tiresome winding on QFE at Kandahar, for example!
Reminds me of the time I was on the pan at Asmara and 2 Hunters called up ATC for the QFE! Man in tower most confused....needless to say they landed with QNH!
Let's face it, must be quite tiresome winding on QFE at Kandahar, for example!
Reminds me of the time I was on the pan at Asmara and 2 Hunters called up ATC for the QFE! Man in tower most confused....needless to say they landed with QNH!
But will "Final, gear down" ever go?
I would welcome RT in line with CAP 413, which should sort that one out.
However...
edited: to avoid starting a QFE/QNH debate.
Last edited by Brain Potter; 1st Oct 2007 at 22:34.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Norfolk
Age: 49
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taxi-time allowances: Total hours only?
LASORS clearly states the additional hours that can be added to one's total flying time to take into account the difference between military and civilian rules.
However, can we also factor P1 day/P1 night/Captain totals? An extra 300 hours P1 would probably be beneficial on the CV.
Thanks in advance for the reply.
CCP
However, can we also factor P1 day/P1 night/Captain totals? An extra 300 hours P1 would probably be beneficial on the CV.
Thanks in advance for the reply.
CCP
I see your point. However, I don't think that the day/night split would be of huge interest to a prospective employer - but pilot-in-command time and ME pilot-in-command-under-supervision time probably would.
Thus if, say, you described your aircraft types on the Table 2 form shown in LASORS 2008 (.pdf page 77 of 684) as, for example, Tutor PIC, Tutor dual, Tucano PIC, Tucano dual, Hawk PIC, Hawk dual, Tornado PIC, Tornnado dual and totted up the sorties under each heading, you would have a more useful breakdown of taxy-time allowance for CV purposes.
However, for ME aircraft such as C130, I would suggest describing aircraft types as C130 PIC for captain time, C130 PIC U/S for 'P1 non-captain' time and C130 'other' for any dual or co-pilot time. A right royal PITA to work out though! For Nimrod, '1st Pilot (P1)' time is regarded as PIC time, '2nd Pilot (P1)' time is regarded as PIC U/S and '2nd pilot (P2)' as 'co-pilot'.
Thus if, say, you described your aircraft types on the Table 2 form shown in LASORS 2008 (.pdf page 77 of 684) as, for example, Tutor PIC, Tutor dual, Tucano PIC, Tucano dual, Hawk PIC, Hawk dual, Tornado PIC, Tornnado dual and totted up the sorties under each heading, you would have a more useful breakdown of taxy-time allowance for CV purposes.
However, for ME aircraft such as C130, I would suggest describing aircraft types as C130 PIC for captain time, C130 PIC U/S for 'P1 non-captain' time and C130 'other' for any dual or co-pilot time. A right royal PITA to work out though! For Nimrod, '1st Pilot (P1)' time is regarded as PIC time, '2nd Pilot (P1)' time is regarded as PIC U/S and '2nd pilot (P2)' as 'co-pilot'.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: A quiet corner of blighty
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab RW logging of hours
Don't lets get started about non-standard logging of hours.
For example RAF CH & ME pilots in Afghanistan will log ALL the time from first lift, until shutting down, even if they spend a large proportion of their time refuelling, or wheels down at BSN. KAF or a FOB.
A RN SK pilot will fly the same programme as their crab counterparts, but will often log much much less, as they only log AIBORNE time.
I have had many days where the crabs would run out of crew duty having logged 8/10 hrs flying, when in fact their matelot colleagues who have been flying with them all day have only logged 6/7 and thus can still continue to fly, even though they've both been strapped to their seats for the same amount of time.
Absolutely barking. Someone decide which way is right, and lets all do the same thing, especially as we all come under JHC and the same rules....
For example RAF CH & ME pilots in Afghanistan will log ALL the time from first lift, until shutting down, even if they spend a large proportion of their time refuelling, or wheels down at BSN. KAF or a FOB.
A RN SK pilot will fly the same programme as their crab counterparts, but will often log much much less, as they only log AIBORNE time.
I have had many days where the crabs would run out of crew duty having logged 8/10 hrs flying, when in fact their matelot colleagues who have been flying with them all day have only logged 6/7 and thus can still continue to fly, even though they've both been strapped to their seats for the same amount of time.
Absolutely barking. Someone decide which way is right, and lets all do the same thing, especially as we all come under JHC and the same rules....
what about all those hours on 10 or 5 or 2 minute alert for all AD types? Freezing or boiling our n*ts off as the season/hour dictated.
"157!"
"157 wot, Nav?"
"157 cross-head screws in the back cockpit. I'm going to count the slotheads now!"
"157!"
"157 wot, Nav?"
"157 cross-head screws in the back cockpit. I'm going to count the slotheads now!"
I have had many days where the crabs would run out of crew duty having logged 8/10 hrs flying, when in fact their matelot colleagues who have been flying with them all day have only logged 6/7 and thus can still continue to fly, even though they've both been strapped to their seats for the same amount of time.
A first post and you're bent on internecine comment. How appropriate that fish is often served with chips....mayhap on the shoulder?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Norfolk
Age: 49
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
Thank you very much for the reply. - I think factoring P1 hours is within the spirit of the CAA rules. Shame LASORS isn't a bit clearer on the finer detail. - I'm a fast-jet mate so I need all the hours & mins I can get! At least it shouldn't take too long to add them all up!
Dan Winterland,
I think you have a crossed line somewhere in your brain! I am pretty sure we are not related, unless I am misunderstanding your banter. - My old friend Darth Vader used to keep muttering similar rumblings about being related to me too. (Brother's Sister's Uncle's former room mate or something!)
Urrrrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh
Chewy
Thank you very much for the reply. - I think factoring P1 hours is within the spirit of the CAA rules. Shame LASORS isn't a bit clearer on the finer detail. - I'm a fast-jet mate so I need all the hours & mins I can get! At least it shouldn't take too long to add them all up!
Dan Winterland,
I think you have a crossed line somewhere in your brain! I am pretty sure we are not related, unless I am misunderstanding your banter. - My old friend Darth Vader used to keep muttering similar rumblings about being related to me too. (Brother's Sister's Uncle's former room mate or something!)
Urrrrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh
Chewy
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
I have had many days where the crabs would run out of crew duty having logged 8/10 hrs flying, when in fact their matelot colleagues who have been flying with them all day have only logged 6/7 and thus can still continue to fly, even though they've both been strapped to their seats for the same amount of time.
Commonsense, a commodity lacking in certain forces, would dictate that, once again, the fishy folk have got things wrong.....
Beags, quite where have we 'Fishy Folk' got it wrong? What' is this 'once again'? Where have we previously showed daftness? (not that we are immune from doing so you understand, like anyone else) The blokes on the ground are in a far worse position than we are with far less sleep, more privations and in far more danger; they require our capability, it is our job to provide it in the best and most efficient means possible whilst maintaining an appropriate margin for safety.
Our common sense dictates that, given that RW hours here are severely limited by higher and that we in the RN have always recorded airborne time it seems wise to continue this - firstly it's what we've always done and secondly we might have half a dozen or more pax/refuels of 10 minutes plus - that's an hour straight away for a quiet day. If we log chock-chock then we will add another 1-3 hrs per tasking line per day and these are hours that then can not be used to support those on the ground. I'm not paid to accrue BA / Virgin tokens as fast as possible, I am paid to move blokes, water, ammo and kit by air because by doing so the body count is lower and the severely injured are fewer.
Perhaps you think we lack common sense since we are seeing ourselves off with fewer hours and longer on the poles? Maybe we are but I somehow feel happier doing that, providing a better service to others in need, rather than thinking of how I can better serve myself.
Edited for mong punctuation...
I have had many days where the crabs would run out of crew duty having logged 8/10 hrs flying, when in fact their matelot colleagues who have been flying with them all day have only logged 6/7 and thus can still continue to fly, even though they've both been strapped to their seats for the same amount of time.
Commonsense, a commodity lacking in certain forces, would dictate that, once again, the fishy folk have got things wrong.....
Beags, quite where have we 'Fishy Folk' got it wrong? What' is this 'once again'? Where have we previously showed daftness? (not that we are immune from doing so you understand, like anyone else) The blokes on the ground are in a far worse position than we are with far less sleep, more privations and in far more danger; they require our capability, it is our job to provide it in the best and most efficient means possible whilst maintaining an appropriate margin for safety.
Our common sense dictates that, given that RW hours here are severely limited by higher and that we in the RN have always recorded airborne time it seems wise to continue this - firstly it's what we've always done and secondly we might have half a dozen or more pax/refuels of 10 minutes plus - that's an hour straight away for a quiet day. If we log chock-chock then we will add another 1-3 hrs per tasking line per day and these are hours that then can not be used to support those on the ground. I'm not paid to accrue BA / Virgin tokens as fast as possible, I am paid to move blokes, water, ammo and kit by air because by doing so the body count is lower and the severely injured are fewer.
Perhaps you think we lack common sense since we are seeing ourselves off with fewer hours and longer on the poles? Maybe we are but I somehow feel happier doing that, providing a better service to others in need, rather than thinking of how I can better serve myself.
Edited for mong punctuation...
Regrettably, some people regard the concept of Crew Duty Time as a challenge to their can-do spirit and manhood. This is an outdated and frankly dangerous attitude and leads to lip service being paid to cumulative fatigue risks. There is bugger-all point in pressing for another trip in support of the lads on the ground if you subsequently pile in on landing...
Hence my view is that someone claiming to have operated for 7 hours in the same epoch that a colleague has claimed to operate for 10 is setting a very dangerous precedent. It isn't clever and no-one gives a stuff how it appears in a personal flying logbook, the issue is whether the 7 is as accurate a representation of cumulative fatigue as the 10. What would be the effect of the 'extra 3'....?
Hence my view is that someone claiming to have operated for 7 hours in the same epoch that a colleague has claimed to operate for 10 is setting a very dangerous precedent. It isn't clever and no-one gives a stuff how it appears in a personal flying logbook, the issue is whether the 7 is as accurate a representation of cumulative fatigue as the 10. What would be the effect of the 'extra 3'....?
DIRECTOR
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chewbacca's co-pilot
I would guess that Bananas had an Instructor who chewed tobacco and he wondered whether you had the same one once hence your pprune name. Just a guess and I might be totally bananas. Perhaps he also called everyone Dad?
I don't think Bananas thinks you are a long lost relative!
I would guess that Bananas had an Instructor who chewed tobacco and he wondered whether you had the same one once hence your pprune name. Just a guess and I might be totally bananas. Perhaps he also called everyone Dad?
I don't think Bananas thinks you are a long lost relative!
Chewbacca's co-pilot, what Dan W meant was do you recall having someone like this QFI'ing from the back of a Chipmunk when you were at EFTS:
Hi Dan.....
!
Hi Dan.....
!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Norfolk
Age: 49
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, a bit low-average from me, soz. My choice of name is out of respect for the great walking carpet from Star Wars. The only bloke I knew in training who properly knew how to chew tobacco was a legendary A10 driver on exchange from the USAF...and he did look remarkably like the chap in BEagle's picture!
CCP
CCP
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: A quiet corner of blighty
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF logging of hours...
Quote:
I have had many days where the crabs would run out of crew duty having logged 8/10 hrs flying, when in fact their matelot colleagues who have been flying with them all day have only logged 6/7 and thus can still continue to fly, even though they've both been strapped to their seats for the same amount of time.
Commonsense, a commodity lacking in certain forces, would dictate that, once again, the fishy folk have got things wrong.....
Beags, quite where have we 'Fishy Folk' got it wrong? What' is this 'once again'? Where have we previously showed daftness? (not that we are immune from doing so you understand, like anyone else) The blokes on the ground are in a far worse position than we are with far less sleep, more privations and in far more danger; they require our capability, it is our job to provide it in the best and most efficient means possible whilst maintaining an appropriate margin for safety.
Our common sense dictates that, given that RW hours here are severely limited by higher and that we in the RN have always recorded airborne time it seems wise to continue this - firstly it's what we've always done and secondly we might have half a dozen or more pax/refuels of 10 minutes plus - that's an hour straight away for a quiet day. If we log chock-chock then we will add another 1-3 hrs per tasking line per day and these are hours that then can not be used to support those on the ground. I'm not paid to accrue BA / Virgin tokens as fast as possible, I am paid to move blokes, water, ammo and kit by air because by doing so the body count is lower and the severely injured are fewer.
Perhaps you think we lack common sense since we are seeing ourselves off with fewer hours and longer on the poles? Maybe we are but I somehow feel happier doing that, providing a better service to others in need, rather than thinking of how I can better serve myself.
Edited for mong punctuation...
BEAGLE:
Regrettably, some people regard the concept of Crew Duty Time as a challenge to their can-do spirit and manhood. This is an outdated and frankly dangerous attitude and leads to lip service being paid to cumulative fatigue risks. There is bugger-all point in pressing for another trip in support of the lads on the ground if you subsequently pile in on landing...
Hence my view is that someone claiming to have operated for 7 hours in the same epoch that a colleague has claimed to operate for 10 is setting a very dangerous precedent. It isn't clever and no-one gives a stuff how it appears in a personal flying logbook, the issue is whether the 7 is as accurate a representation of cumulative fatigue as the 10. What would be the effect of the 'extra 3'....?
Beagle - I'm afraid i agree with 'Something Witty' 100%. Crew duty in terms of flying hour is 8 max, 10 with Command extension, more in exceptional circumstances, and total crew duty time 14 hours, 16 with command extension, and again more in extremis is normal in theatre.
My point is that some of our crab brethren will be well within their 14 hour rest crew duty time, and they will NOT support the troops on the ground further because they say they have flown their maximum 8 hrs per day (even though maybe 90 minutes of this has been sat on the deck at BSN waiting for a re-fuel or waiting for further orders)...
BEAGLE - Crew duty time is not a challenge. Do the blokes sat on the deck (that we are trying to support form the air) wrap their hand in after they have been working for 8 hours?
The point is, and as I made very clear in my first post - why do diffent units within JHC have very dissimilar rules for logging flying hours. I read, about 6 months ago, a new draft of the JHC FOB to draw a line in the soil about this, to make our crab sisters tow the sensible line about only logging airborne time, (not time from first burning and turning to shutting down) and what happened?
What happened was that a massive stink was kicked up by some old and bold light blue who decided that because this was the way we had always done business, then we should continue to do so.
IS IT ANY WONDER ROYAL AND PONGO KNOW THEY CAN ALWAYS RELY ON THE RN TO GET THEM OUT OF THE S**T?
I have had many days where the crabs would run out of crew duty having logged 8/10 hrs flying, when in fact their matelot colleagues who have been flying with them all day have only logged 6/7 and thus can still continue to fly, even though they've both been strapped to their seats for the same amount of time.
Commonsense, a commodity lacking in certain forces, would dictate that, once again, the fishy folk have got things wrong.....
Beags, quite where have we 'Fishy Folk' got it wrong? What' is this 'once again'? Where have we previously showed daftness? (not that we are immune from doing so you understand, like anyone else) The blokes on the ground are in a far worse position than we are with far less sleep, more privations and in far more danger; they require our capability, it is our job to provide it in the best and most efficient means possible whilst maintaining an appropriate margin for safety.
Our common sense dictates that, given that RW hours here are severely limited by higher and that we in the RN have always recorded airborne time it seems wise to continue this - firstly it's what we've always done and secondly we might have half a dozen or more pax/refuels of 10 minutes plus - that's an hour straight away for a quiet day. If we log chock-chock then we will add another 1-3 hrs per tasking line per day and these are hours that then can not be used to support those on the ground. I'm not paid to accrue BA / Virgin tokens as fast as possible, I am paid to move blokes, water, ammo and kit by air because by doing so the body count is lower and the severely injured are fewer.
Perhaps you think we lack common sense since we are seeing ourselves off with fewer hours and longer on the poles? Maybe we are but I somehow feel happier doing that, providing a better service to others in need, rather than thinking of how I can better serve myself.
Edited for mong punctuation...
BEAGLE:
Regrettably, some people regard the concept of Crew Duty Time as a challenge to their can-do spirit and manhood. This is an outdated and frankly dangerous attitude and leads to lip service being paid to cumulative fatigue risks. There is bugger-all point in pressing for another trip in support of the lads on the ground if you subsequently pile in on landing...
Hence my view is that someone claiming to have operated for 7 hours in the same epoch that a colleague has claimed to operate for 10 is setting a very dangerous precedent. It isn't clever and no-one gives a stuff how it appears in a personal flying logbook, the issue is whether the 7 is as accurate a representation of cumulative fatigue as the 10. What would be the effect of the 'extra 3'....?
Beagle - I'm afraid i agree with 'Something Witty' 100%. Crew duty in terms of flying hour is 8 max, 10 with Command extension, more in exceptional circumstances, and total crew duty time 14 hours, 16 with command extension, and again more in extremis is normal in theatre.
My point is that some of our crab brethren will be well within their 14 hour rest crew duty time, and they will NOT support the troops on the ground further because they say they have flown their maximum 8 hrs per day (even though maybe 90 minutes of this has been sat on the deck at BSN waiting for a re-fuel or waiting for further orders)...
BEAGLE - Crew duty time is not a challenge. Do the blokes sat on the deck (that we are trying to support form the air) wrap their hand in after they have been working for 8 hours?
The point is, and as I made very clear in my first post - why do diffent units within JHC have very dissimilar rules for logging flying hours. I read, about 6 months ago, a new draft of the JHC FOB to draw a line in the soil about this, to make our crab sisters tow the sensible line about only logging airborne time, (not time from first burning and turning to shutting down) and what happened?
What happened was that a massive stink was kicked up by some old and bold light blue who decided that because this was the way we had always done business, then we should continue to do so.
IS IT ANY WONDER ROYAL AND PONGO KNOW THEY CAN ALWAYS RELY ON THE RN TO GET THEM OUT OF THE S**T?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regrettably, some people regard the concept of Crew Duty Time as a challenge to their can-do spirit and manhood. This is an outdated and frankly dangerous attitude and leads to lip service being paid to cumulative fatigue risks. There is bugger-all point in pressing for another trip in support of the lads on the ground if you subsequently pile in on landing...
Hence my view is that someone claiming to have operated for 7 hours in the same epoch that a colleague has claimed to operate for 10 is setting a very dangerous precedent. It isn't clever and no-one gives a stuff how it appears in a personal flying logbook, the issue is whether the 7 is as accurate a representation of cumulative fatigue as the 10. What would be the effect of the 'extra 3'....?
There are two issues at stake here - first is the one I discussed in my first response, that of the logging of hours airbourne vs chock-chock and its affect on the hours available to effective tasking. Anyone using common sense would, I hope, appreciate where we are coming from.
The second issue is that of crew duty as discussed by yourself and Torque Limited.
Crew duty is something like speeding. Hit the kid that runs out 5 yards in front with you 1mph below the limit and you are ok, 1 mph above and speed was a factor, indeed, you were dangerous driving. Spear in after 7hrs58 min and you're safe. 8hrs 05? Outside crew duty and therefore guilty!
The idea that we are all ok to fly for up to 8hrs but not after is clearly drivel. It is certainly based on statistics I am sure however there will always be crews that unfortunatly prang both inside and outside their crew duty. Aside from financial reasons there is no imperative to fly outside of duty for civis. In the Forces there is often good reason to consider it. Note I said 'consider,' that is distinctly different from 'do it.'
This is an outdated and frankly dangerous attitude and leads to lip service being paid to cumulative fatigue risks.
I beg to differ. Whilst there is always the possibility of just ignoring the limits from what I have seen it works somewhat differently. We always aim to stay within crew duty but for various reasons this is not always the case. Why? Tasking changes, cabs break, weather causes delays, cabs spear in, troops are in contact, ammunition runs out... **** happens.
So - you say we run out of crew duty and call STOP! Fine. That is safe, it saves us and the a/c. It is entirely correct wrt Flight Safety. How about those in need? Those for whom we exist to serve? Should we not consider their position? We are in HM Forces, we are paid to take risk day to day, we are paid to take difficult and dangerous decisions. We are paid to balance risks.
Adopting the PC moral high ground and quoting the rules is all very well, it is easy, you are surely unassailable? However, it is also intellectualy lazy and reduces our capability. I firmly belive in the concept of crew duty - why? Because its a line in the sand. You cross it only after thought and consideration. Once beyond it you are put mentaly on a higher state of alert than you might otherwise be. It is a hole in your cheese... but only one. It is your cue to review the situation. Are we still fit? Is the task really necessary? Is there another asset / crew better placed? What if the blokes don't get this? How are they and their ops affected? Is the met good / bad / worsening? Harry black or gin-pigs? How is the cab - carrying minor snags or tip-top? What have I and my crew done in the last few days? Are they happy? Are those holes lining up?! At the board of inquiry will they say I was foolish and guilty or that I made a considered and understandable decision in light of the operational circumstances and was just unlucky?
If Human Factors only reared it's tragic head when we went outside of crew duty then we would stick to the duty and all be safe. It doesn't. Thats why we all have Human Factors training, why Flight Safety is drummed into us and why religeously sticking to crew duty and ignoring everything else will not ensure your survival. Military aviation is about risk - considered taking, mitigating and knowing when to stop. There is bugger-all point in pressing for another trip in support of the lads on the ground if you subsequently pile in on landing...
I agree entirely, that is why we do not pay lip service to crew duty, we use our common sense and good judgment and break crew duty only if we consider the balance of risks favorable.
Hence my view is that someone claiming to have operated for 7 hours in the same epoch that a colleague has claimed to operate for 10 is setting a very dangerous precedent. It isn't clever and no-one gives a stuff how it appears in a personal flying logbook, the issue is whether the 7 is as accurate a representation of cumulative fatigue as the 10. What would be the effect of the 'extra 3'....?
There are two issues at stake here - first is the one I discussed in my first response, that of the logging of hours airbourne vs chock-chock and its affect on the hours available to effective tasking. Anyone using common sense would, I hope, appreciate where we are coming from.
The second issue is that of crew duty as discussed by yourself and Torque Limited.
Crew duty is something like speeding. Hit the kid that runs out 5 yards in front with you 1mph below the limit and you are ok, 1 mph above and speed was a factor, indeed, you were dangerous driving. Spear in after 7hrs58 min and you're safe. 8hrs 05? Outside crew duty and therefore guilty!
The idea that we are all ok to fly for up to 8hrs but not after is clearly drivel. It is certainly based on statistics I am sure however there will always be crews that unfortunatly prang both inside and outside their crew duty. Aside from financial reasons there is no imperative to fly outside of duty for civis. In the Forces there is often good reason to consider it. Note I said 'consider,' that is distinctly different from 'do it.'
This is an outdated and frankly dangerous attitude and leads to lip service being paid to cumulative fatigue risks.
I beg to differ. Whilst there is always the possibility of just ignoring the limits from what I have seen it works somewhat differently. We always aim to stay within crew duty but for various reasons this is not always the case. Why? Tasking changes, cabs break, weather causes delays, cabs spear in, troops are in contact, ammunition runs out... **** happens.
So - you say we run out of crew duty and call STOP! Fine. That is safe, it saves us and the a/c. It is entirely correct wrt Flight Safety. How about those in need? Those for whom we exist to serve? Should we not consider their position? We are in HM Forces, we are paid to take risk day to day, we are paid to take difficult and dangerous decisions. We are paid to balance risks.
Adopting the PC moral high ground and quoting the rules is all very well, it is easy, you are surely unassailable? However, it is also intellectualy lazy and reduces our capability. I firmly belive in the concept of crew duty - why? Because its a line in the sand. You cross it only after thought and consideration. Once beyond it you are put mentaly on a higher state of alert than you might otherwise be. It is a hole in your cheese... but only one. It is your cue to review the situation. Are we still fit? Is the task really necessary? Is there another asset / crew better placed? What if the blokes don't get this? How are they and their ops affected? Is the met good / bad / worsening? Harry black or gin-pigs? How is the cab - carrying minor snags or tip-top? What have I and my crew done in the last few days? Are they happy? Are those holes lining up?! At the board of inquiry will they say I was foolish and guilty or that I made a considered and understandable decision in light of the operational circumstances and was just unlucky?
If Human Factors only reared it's tragic head when we went outside of crew duty then we would stick to the duty and all be safe. It doesn't. Thats why we all have Human Factors training, why Flight Safety is drummed into us and why religeously sticking to crew duty and ignoring everything else will not ensure your survival. Military aviation is about risk - considered taking, mitigating and knowing when to stop. There is bugger-all point in pressing for another trip in support of the lads on the ground if you subsequently pile in on landing...
I agree entirely, that is why we do not pay lip service to crew duty, we use our common sense and good judgment and break crew duty only if we consider the balance of risks favorable.
