Cao 48
 

I would like to know the opinion of the industry on operators who force their employees to breach CAO 48. I am aware of a number of organisations within the SY basin doing this.

Personally, I think that an organisation that can force their employees to breach CAO 48 essentially to keep their jobs is really poor form.

I would like all who view this post to reply their honest feelings on the matter. :)

Do these operators use the standard industry exemption? I can't see why you would force a breach of the CAO when you can get some additional flexibility simply by applying for the exemption. Silly operator really.

I have worked for a number of organisations in both training and charter. All of these have operated within CAO 48.

However, there was a threat to my job if I did not attend the organisation six days a week even considering that one of the days was my 21st Birthday!!

Organisations who breach CAO 48 should be brought out into the open!

Interesting Spruce. My understanding is that CASA haven't granted exemptions to it for ages.

Considering they won't consider QF 767 drivers getting the same exemptions the 737 drivers operate under, I can't see how they can give them to anyone else either!

Spoke to an ex AN 767 driver though a couple of months back and he reckoned the exemptions were great for east coast domestic flying but downright dangerous for MEL-HKG. Perhaps we are best not having them anyway.

Maybe I should have clarified myself a little more. I am talking about operators who do not have any exemptions to CAO 48. ie. a large number of training organisations!!

I don't know Keg. Of course the move is towards each operator having it's own fatigue managment program which will do away with this CAO48 stuff. I find it interesting that CASA appear to be leaving this program up to the operators. Seems to me they have somewhat embraced the concept but have no idea how to manage it themselves so it will be up to each operator to design a program and then CASA will consider it for approval. Self regulation at its best/worst. Kind of like me taking over control of the 52nd airborne and telling the troops to report back to me on how they plan to wage the attack and I'll then decide if it's a good idea or not!

As for the exemption I think it was intended for domestic application but perhaps someone else here can clarify that. I wasn't aware that CASA were not issuing them anymore.

Sorry BK, I am not trying to hijack the thread. For what it's worth there was a large GA operator in Kununurra who had a chief pilot that nudged his pilots quite firmly to blow out the CAO48 limits. His philosophy was you either "store" the time somewhere and log it when the flying is lean or go fly somewhere else.

I have heard recently of an operator at BK "un-officially" informing the staff that they should attend six days a week and be on duty eleven hours a day.

I believe that they are not the only ones doing this, and it probably occurs ast other airports around the country.

A fatigue management system is of course an option, but I believe it is also limited/restrictive depending upon the pilots being honest about their out of work activities.

Can viewers give an indication if this practise is in fact occuring elsewhere??

Sprucie,
Dunno about the airlines, but we just had our G.A Part V exemption reissued, and for 3 years! It appears the "push" towards the self administered regulation is not travelling too well. The principal proponent of it I believe did not get his contract renewed. Just a rumour tho....... Cheers

Ah, yes, the good old CAO48 exemption, rostered for 12 hours duty, can extend to 14, fly 9 hours.........
What was that ?? fatigue management programme?? oh yes, we are looking into that.....cheque's in the post, bla bla bla.:mad:

Hey, we get up to 16 hrs..........

I do not want to be rude, but I would like to redirect the thread to the occurences experienced by pilots within Australia with regard to the breaches of CAO 48 by organisations without exemptions or fatigue management systems.

I have spoken to a number of associates in the position where their job is on the line if they do not breach CAO 48! :eek:

Our dispensation lapsed as Casa would not renew without fatigue management programe.

Fortunately Part 48 suits us almost always. With Customers who accept the fact we can't do what we used to do, its not been a problem.

In any case who wan'ts to work the ridiculous under a dispensation with in many cases no extra pay!

The Casa approved dispensations with their fatigue m'ment programes that we have seen and heard about don't seem too popular with the troops.

Keg,

Rest assured, exemptions to 48 are still flowing thick and fast.

As to the initial poll question, there's probably a little more to it than meets the eye. The only ones in the industry able to publically 'out' comanies that disrespect CAO 48 or any of its exempting clauses, are those legally savvy enough to do so without landing themselves or others in the middle of a defamation case. Read this as being truly the sole domain of the incumbent regulator. Anyone else should submit reports through the proper channels before giving Mike Munro a call.

Just read a accident brief in Aviation International News, June 2002

B1900 Aug 99 Quebec Canada

Crew Duty prior to fatal non authorised GPS runway approach down to 100 ft - CFIT

Capt 7000 hrs 606 on type 127 hours previous 30 days

F O 2,600 179 on type 181 hours previous 30 days

preceding few days 12 - 14 hours duty 8 hours +
flight each day Last day off almost one month
prior.

Bad eh

While not wishing to detract from the fact that such work practices may have contributed to the accident described above, I think you are drawing a long bow to intimate resonsibility here to duty/flight times. I think that given the previous workloads while being contributary to the accident, the "Non authorised GPS approach to 100 ft" kind of says a lot about the accident.

Ive worked both for great companies and bosses Id rather not comment on... A good company looks after the staff who look after the company clients.

This includes a safe working environment with effective controls on fatigue management. Ive seen more than one pilot threatened, go to work against their better judgement, and then make an expensive mistake for which damages where docked out of their final paycheck. It is an attitude which is rife in GA.

Ive met some good operators, who pay well, rarely have problems with staff morale, and ironically no-body is recruited into these companies unless the company decides to expand or someone leaves. Everyone is happy, morale and comunication both benefit as well! :D

If the staff are happy, the clients have every chance of having their day go as well as can be expected barring unforeseen circumstances. The majority of the time the clients are well informed prior to departure what weather risks etc there may be so surprises are few and far between.

Any fatigue management program will encorporate some level of stress management. Pilots stressing about busted duty times, fudging log books and duty times so the evidence isnt conflicting, making sure MRs arent a dead giveaway.... yeap lying is a stressful and uneconmical way to effectively run shop. Tired, fatigued and stressed pilots are not going to be the wonderful people they could be to the clients. Loosing clients gets really expensive.

Fuelling errors, alternate errors, get-home-itis, poor airmanship are all mistakes made commonly enough by pilots under stress.

So to end my rave... compromising pilots by pushing them outside CAO 48 is bad management practice which has in the past contributed toward many fatilites, increased damage and heartache for those invloved...

How very true N.C.

FMS
 

NC...reference your last comment about working outside CAO 48.

One of the current CASA approved FMS systems allows a 20+ hours duty period for any operation provided you have had the previous 2 days off. There is no flight time limit in this duty period and the flight may be single pilot IFR. In theory you may start at 0900 and finish at 0500 the next day. CASA's own physiological data states that being awake for more than 19 hours continuously impairs performance akin to having a couple of glasses of beer.

If the pilot thinks s/he will be fatigued, then it is up to s/he to advise the company the s/he will be unable to finish the flight.

Scary stuff in the hands of unscrupulous operators.

Also, the blame of an accident like the one listed above in Canada would be put fairly and squarely on the pilots for accepting the flight. Flightcrew are being asked to make judgements on their fatigue levels when they are fatigued and a by product of that is impaired judgement.

I would of thought that companies would of learnt after what came out from that accident in South Australia a few years ago.

If someone in the company was to have an accident, they will find that CASA will bring up all the recorded flight movements (ie. Sartimes, Controlled Airspace Ops) and start matching them with duty sheets. Its amazing what is recorded and how far back it goes.

In my opinion these companies exceeding flight and duty limits are the same ones that are not paying their pilots the correct wage.

It could be a lengthy process to sort through ATC records and compare it to company duty sheets, however, it might be time that some regulatory body went through the companies systematically and check if they are paying their pilots correctly. That could be an easy way to sort out the ones that might need further investigation into their operations.