Pilots falling asleep BEFORE they report.
Cool as a moosp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An airline with which I am familiar has its own rule that demands that if a crew member flies as a passenger on his own behalf before a flight then the full duty rest period must be taken before operating a flight duty period, i.e. you must be within 1 1/2 hours of the place of reporting for twelve hours before the flight.
A junior manager has the bone crushingly boring job of scanning all staff travel receipts each day to compare them to the rostered duty to ensure compliance. His only pleasure is when he finds a culprit and can get them. Some pilots and cabin crew have been sacked for this, even though they rested well as a passenger on the incoming flight. Paying full fare on another operator works, but there is always someone ready to dob you in if they see you at the airport.
Yes, it restricts commuting greatly but it does prevent that 1% of pilots from abusing FTL's and arriving tired for work.
Oh, and Lanfranc <What someone does on his own time, off duty, is NO business of yours or the company for whom he works.> is not true. A company may have no right to control what you do in you off duty time, but many do, both inside and outside the industry.
As an aside I often wondered why if I take the ferry from Macau to Hong Kong (one hour journey) to get to work I am OK but if I take the helicopter (14 minutes) I am in breach of company rules? Such is the silliness of a power and control bureaucracy.
A junior manager has the bone crushingly boring job of scanning all staff travel receipts each day to compare them to the rostered duty to ensure compliance. His only pleasure is when he finds a culprit and can get them. Some pilots and cabin crew have been sacked for this, even though they rested well as a passenger on the incoming flight. Paying full fare on another operator works, but there is always someone ready to dob you in if they see you at the airport.
Yes, it restricts commuting greatly but it does prevent that 1% of pilots from abusing FTL's and arriving tired for work.
Oh, and Lanfranc <What someone does on his own time, off duty, is NO business of yours or the company for whom he works.> is not true. A company may have no right to control what you do in you off duty time, but many do, both inside and outside the industry.
As an aside I often wondered why if I take the ferry from Macau to Hong Kong (one hour journey) to get to work I am OK but if I take the helicopter (14 minutes) I am in breach of company rules? Such is the silliness of a power and control bureaucracy.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Somewhere probing
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dewdrop - w.r.t. which companies Ops Manual.... I think you'll find that all UK CAA ( JAR? ) approved versions of this tome have the following statements within their FTL section(7), i.e. mine reads as follows:
I'm sure that we'd all like to live within a sensible commuting distance of our base airport. However the problem is that, as good as the job is, the pay ( for a great many ) does not stretch so far as to allow either the purchase of a primary home in the locale of the airport, or renting of digs for the provision of pre/post flight rest ( on top of keeping a home elsewhere ).
E.g. Let's say that you’re a 30 year old newly qualified F/O, flying jets with a LGW based airline, and say your partner’s at home looking after your two young children, i.e. you’re the sole bread winner in your family.
Your total gross salary might be in the region of, say, £40,000 - which, after tax, will give you an approx net / take-home figure of £2,395 per month.
To live within a reasonable commute your base, i.e. less than one hour away, the kind of housing costs you’re looking at are:
East Sussex : Average Cost: £184,315 / Detached: £281,966 / Semi-detached: £176,192 / Terraced: £152,140
West Sussex : Average Cost: £206,886 / Detached: £325,707 / Semi-detached: £199,711 / Terraced: £165,294
Gatwick / Crawley : Average Cost: £169,922 / Detached: £269,099 / Semi-detached: £191,716 / Terraced: £151,107
Banks and Building Societies will presently / typically lend 3.75x salary ( I’ve just checked that with HSBC ).
Thus, assuming you needed a mortgage for a property purchase in the Gatwick / Crawley area – average cost £169,992 and where you supply a 10% / £17,000 down payment ( “Oh look, there’s a money tree !” ).
Your repayments on that will, at present interest rates, be approx £900 per month – which will leave you & your family with £1,495 per month to live on ( i.e. £345 per week ) - and gawd help you when the Bank Of England raise interest rates !
Of course having paid £900 on your mortgage, what’s left of your salary will then need to cover Council tax, house insurance, electricity, gas, water rates, food, vehicle ( insurance, tax, mot, servicing, and petrol at +80p per litre ), pension & life-cover, union fees, clothing, etc, etc, etc........ and, needless to say, all of this assumes that your net income is ‘entirely disposable’, i.e. that you have no other pre-existing major debts, such as repaying your flying training and / or a type-rating, perhaps ?!
So, apart from the fact that you will struggle to find a house near your base that you can afford and / or one that’s in a locale that you’ll want to live in ( rather than in some ‘sink estate’ ) if you do manage to find one you’ll be close to skint - and if you’re able to stand financially still you’d be doing well – where the likelihood is that an unexpected bill will wipe you out.
Veritably we have to live in the real world. So what’s the answer ? Uhm, how about putting fares up and paying the crews more money, so that they can afford to live nearby ?
With everybody driving costs down, just what price does Joe Public put on safety – you can’t have it both ways, can you ?!
OPERATIONS MANUAL / Part A / Flight & Duty Time Limitations Scheme
Section 7.4.2 - Responsibility for the proper control of flight and duty time does not rest wholly with the Company. Crew members have the responsibility to make optimum use of the opportunities and facilities for rest provided. They are also responsible for planning and using their rest periods properly in order to minimise incurring fatigue.
The ANO places a further responsibility on crew members. Simply put, crew members shall not act as operating crew if they know, or suspect, that their physical or mental condition renders them unfit to operate. Furthermore, they must not fly if they know that they are, or are likely to be, in breach of this scheme.
Section 7.9.2 – Travelling time, from home to departure aerodrome, if long distances are involved, is a factor influencing any subsequent onset of fatigue. If the journey time from home to normal departure airfield is usually in excess of 1 hour, crew members should make arrangements for temporary accommodation nearer to base.
Section 7.4.2 - Responsibility for the proper control of flight and duty time does not rest wholly with the Company. Crew members have the responsibility to make optimum use of the opportunities and facilities for rest provided. They are also responsible for planning and using their rest periods properly in order to minimise incurring fatigue.
The ANO places a further responsibility on crew members. Simply put, crew members shall not act as operating crew if they know, or suspect, that their physical or mental condition renders them unfit to operate. Furthermore, they must not fly if they know that they are, or are likely to be, in breach of this scheme.
Section 7.9.2 – Travelling time, from home to departure aerodrome, if long distances are involved, is a factor influencing any subsequent onset of fatigue. If the journey time from home to normal departure airfield is usually in excess of 1 hour, crew members should make arrangements for temporary accommodation nearer to base.
E.g. Let's say that you’re a 30 year old newly qualified F/O, flying jets with a LGW based airline, and say your partner’s at home looking after your two young children, i.e. you’re the sole bread winner in your family.
Your total gross salary might be in the region of, say, £40,000 - which, after tax, will give you an approx net / take-home figure of £2,395 per month.
To live within a reasonable commute your base, i.e. less than one hour away, the kind of housing costs you’re looking at are:
East Sussex : Average Cost: £184,315 / Detached: £281,966 / Semi-detached: £176,192 / Terraced: £152,140
West Sussex : Average Cost: £206,886 / Detached: £325,707 / Semi-detached: £199,711 / Terraced: £165,294
Gatwick / Crawley : Average Cost: £169,922 / Detached: £269,099 / Semi-detached: £191,716 / Terraced: £151,107
Banks and Building Societies will presently / typically lend 3.75x salary ( I’ve just checked that with HSBC ).
Thus, assuming you needed a mortgage for a property purchase in the Gatwick / Crawley area – average cost £169,992 and where you supply a 10% / £17,000 down payment ( “Oh look, there’s a money tree !” ).
Your repayments on that will, at present interest rates, be approx £900 per month – which will leave you & your family with £1,495 per month to live on ( i.e. £345 per week ) - and gawd help you when the Bank Of England raise interest rates !
Of course having paid £900 on your mortgage, what’s left of your salary will then need to cover Council tax, house insurance, electricity, gas, water rates, food, vehicle ( insurance, tax, mot, servicing, and petrol at +80p per litre ), pension & life-cover, union fees, clothing, etc, etc, etc........ and, needless to say, all of this assumes that your net income is ‘entirely disposable’, i.e. that you have no other pre-existing major debts, such as repaying your flying training and / or a type-rating, perhaps ?!
So, apart from the fact that you will struggle to find a house near your base that you can afford and / or one that’s in a locale that you’ll want to live in ( rather than in some ‘sink estate’ ) if you do manage to find one you’ll be close to skint - and if you’re able to stand financially still you’d be doing well – where the likelihood is that an unexpected bill will wipe you out.
Veritably we have to live in the real world. So what’s the answer ? Uhm, how about putting fares up and paying the crews more money, so that they can afford to live nearby ?
With everybody driving costs down, just what price does Joe Public put on safety – you can’t have it both ways, can you ?!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: on the fence
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once upon a time as a commuter , I managed to miss report time (due someone blocking the runwaqy at LHR) by about 10 mins , not a big problem , a/c left on time etc , no probs or so I thought , phone call from God reminding me of responibility etc , OK my fault I choose to live up north and to the west .
Two weeks later , on another trip I turn up for work to find myself alone as a prang on the M25 is causing probs , still no probs , do all the work and we leave lhr 2 1/2 hrs late . Little bit anoyed to find out that the two other pilots end up with letters from the company praising them for their professional and dedication to duty etc and also vouchers for M&S etc .
Have also heard rumours that my company keeps a beady eye on all commuters report times by fact of using their postcode etc and will always be treated diff by the company
Two weeks later , on another trip I turn up for work to find myself alone as a prang on the M25 is causing probs , still no probs , do all the work and we leave lhr 2 1/2 hrs late . Little bit anoyed to find out that the two other pilots end up with letters from the company praising them for their professional and dedication to duty etc and also vouchers for M&S etc .
Have also heard rumours that my company keeps a beady eye on all commuters report times by fact of using their postcode etc and will always be treated diff by the company
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have 220 commuting Pilots in the company. When one lives
further away then 90 min from the AP then we put them in a Hotel
24 hours before departure............... during his duty days we kill
them allomost by rostering them for up to 120 hours in an AC
but only 80 hours on duty in the cockpit. It is sickening and not
safe we think ...... but all is legal!
NG
further away then 90 min from the AP then we put them in a Hotel
24 hours before departure............... during his duty days we kill
them allomost by rostering them for up to 120 hours in an AC
but only 80 hours on duty in the cockpit. It is sickening and not
safe we think ...... but all is legal!
NG
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Chester
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember Selby? Driver (allegedly) fell asleep, vehicle & trailer went down the embankment onto railway line. Hit by a train - passengers on train were killed.
Driver was charged with causing death by dangerous driving after the prosecution showed he had spent all night on the internet before driving: i.e. he'd not been properly rested. He went to prison for many years for a relatively minor action/omission (inattention/sleep) which resulted in a catastrophe.
If you fall asleep while driving and cause an accident the police will now almost certainly charge you with dangerous driving. It used to be 'careless driving' (also known as 'without due care & attention') but the Crown Prosecution Service are now pushing for the 'Dangerous Driving' charge. The (draconian) view is that if you're driving and start to feel tired you ought to pull over and take a nap. Pressing on then becomes 'reckless'. In the real world or course it's not that simple, but it won't stop you facing a jail term if convicted.
Those who sit in rush-hour traffic, barely awake after a 4 sector day that started with a 3.30am alarm had better have a good story ready should, God forbid, anything happen on the way home. The same thing goes for the drive into work and, for all those exceeding 90 minutes each way, you're probably in breach of your ops manual (and jar ops). Nobody cares until there is an incident, or worse. Then the lawyers will have a field day.
Of course, Chief Pilots and Ops Directors will claim no knowledge of individual circumstances and, hands wringing, will point to the rules. Likewise the CAA and the DfT. The $h*t will stick to you, not them. It never does. Forget the fatigue-inducing minimum-rest rostering - they've got you by the ball$ if there's an incident and you're regularly travelling in excess of 90 minutes.
I don't claim to have a simple answer - just a warning.
[I]
Driver was charged with causing death by dangerous driving after the prosecution showed he had spent all night on the internet before driving: i.e. he'd not been properly rested. He went to prison for many years for a relatively minor action/omission (inattention/sleep) which resulted in a catastrophe.
If you fall asleep while driving and cause an accident the police will now almost certainly charge you with dangerous driving. It used to be 'careless driving' (also known as 'without due care & attention') but the Crown Prosecution Service are now pushing for the 'Dangerous Driving' charge. The (draconian) view is that if you're driving and start to feel tired you ought to pull over and take a nap. Pressing on then becomes 'reckless'. In the real world or course it's not that simple, but it won't stop you facing a jail term if convicted.
Those who sit in rush-hour traffic, barely awake after a 4 sector day that started with a 3.30am alarm had better have a good story ready should, God forbid, anything happen on the way home. The same thing goes for the drive into work and, for all those exceeding 90 minutes each way, you're probably in breach of your ops manual (and jar ops). Nobody cares until there is an incident, or worse. Then the lawyers will have a field day.
Of course, Chief Pilots and Ops Directors will claim no knowledge of individual circumstances and, hands wringing, will point to the rules. Likewise the CAA and the DfT. The $h*t will stick to you, not them. It never does. Forget the fatigue-inducing minimum-rest rostering - they've got you by the ball$ if there's an incident and you're regularly travelling in excess of 90 minutes.
I don't claim to have a simple answer - just a warning.
[I]
I pointed out to Hand Solo on another forum (BA recruit DEPs) that it was my understanding that CAP 371 only allowed for a 1 hour and 30 minute drive to work. When last I worked under CAP 371 this was certainly written into our FDRs.
Hand Solo responded that "he and half of BA" were therefore breaking the rules and so it would appear that lots of you out there are doing the same.
It's no good pointing out the cost of housing in the South East at the subsequent board of inquiry. YOU will personally be held liable.
I have often been fascinated by pilots who drive to work from the likes of Cornwall and then bitch like mad if asked to extend a FDP by 10 minutes!
Mind you, they are then happy to drive back to Cornwall afterwards!!!!!!!
Hand Solo responded that "he and half of BA" were therefore breaking the rules and so it would appear that lots of you out there are doing the same.
It's no good pointing out the cost of housing in the South East at the subsequent board of inquiry. YOU will personally be held liable.
I have often been fascinated by pilots who drive to work from the likes of Cornwall and then bitch like mad if asked to extend a FDP by 10 minutes!
Mind you, they are then happy to drive back to Cornwall afterwards!!!!!!!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desperate
Well said.
A pilot living in Wales, for example, and accepting a job in Heathrow, that is his choice. The passengers, crew and the airline should expect nothing but a fully prepared, rested and able pilot to turn up for work. If said pilot cannot afford to find lodgings close enough to achieve the same, he should not accept the job and should allow someone who is prepared to abide by the rules to take it.
You wanna live in Wales? Take a job in Wales. If not move your house, your pregnant girlfriend and your wife and kids to the area, or rent a bed nearby, otherwise let someone else take the job.
Remember the story of the pilot in the US who used to fly his private airplane to work? Was rather foggy one morning, but he was so desparate to get to work on time, he landed on the taxiway!
Driving home long distances after a fatiguing day is as criminal as getting in an airplane unfit to fly. Both could kill innocent people.
Blaming fatiguing schedules only works if you abide by the same principles!
Cb
Well said.
A pilot living in Wales, for example, and accepting a job in Heathrow, that is his choice. The passengers, crew and the airline should expect nothing but a fully prepared, rested and able pilot to turn up for work. If said pilot cannot afford to find lodgings close enough to achieve the same, he should not accept the job and should allow someone who is prepared to abide by the rules to take it.
You wanna live in Wales? Take a job in Wales. If not move your house, your pregnant girlfriend and your wife and kids to the area, or rent a bed nearby, otherwise let someone else take the job.
Remember the story of the pilot in the US who used to fly his private airplane to work? Was rather foggy one morning, but he was so desparate to get to work on time, he landed on the taxiway!
Driving home long distances after a fatiguing day is as criminal as getting in an airplane unfit to fly. Both could kill innocent people.
Blaming fatiguing schedules only works if you abide by the same principles!
Cb
Join Date: May 2003
Location: ESSEX
Age: 66
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.5 HOURS
Trouble is in the London area 1.5 hours means living in the terminal! A friend of mine lives 7 miles from work and it takes her over an hour and thats by motorbike!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Zanzi's Bar
Age: 59
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argo36 saidFlight crew are subsidising airlines at the expense of their health.
I cannot agree more.
Our job as a job is going down d drain...
I am happy both my sons dont show a kink of interest in flyin.
But while we r at it, we must make sure we give our best as profis - meaning no compromise on rest!!!!!!!!!
Or else jump in the seat of the 25 yr old IT wizz kid who just bought his CPL for fun, but is definitely considering your job...
I cannot agree more.
Our job as a job is going down d drain...
I am happy both my sons dont show a kink of interest in flyin.
But while we r at it, we must make sure we give our best as profis - meaning no compromise on rest!!!!!!!!!
Or else jump in the seat of the 25 yr old IT wizz kid who just bought his CPL for fun, but is definitely considering your job...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I quite agree with the topic of this thread.
I think in many ways BA is to blame for this , especially with what i call the 'LGW displacement effect'
5-6 years ago BA at LGW was a busy happy place teeming with 767s,DC10s,747s,737s etc........
Alot of people were employed there , and lived reasonably locally , Surrey, the coast and so on....
Gatwick is now a ghost of its former self BA wise, with 10 777s and a handful of 737 destinations.
Of course,handfuls of the staff have had to go to LHR in the process.
Most cannot afford/have no desire to live in London and so have to commute , many daily.
I have a 40mile drive, but that is short compared to many, plus the effects of the M25 with frequent delays / traffic jams.
I think people should live a reasonable distance.... they stand more chance of being reasonably rested prior to their duty, and less chance of being late causing disruption.
As for some of the 'commuters' who leave it till the last minute to fly in from wherever - well they ask for all the trouble they can get if they leave things too late
In no way do i berate LGW, as for those of us who were previously based there - we would do anything to come back, if it was the thriving base it was mid-90's
I think in many ways BA is to blame for this , especially with what i call the 'LGW displacement effect'
5-6 years ago BA at LGW was a busy happy place teeming with 767s,DC10s,747s,737s etc........
Alot of people were employed there , and lived reasonably locally , Surrey, the coast and so on....
Gatwick is now a ghost of its former self BA wise, with 10 777s and a handful of 737 destinations.
Of course,handfuls of the staff have had to go to LHR in the process.
Most cannot afford/have no desire to live in London and so have to commute , many daily.
I have a 40mile drive, but that is short compared to many, plus the effects of the M25 with frequent delays / traffic jams.
I think people should live a reasonable distance.... they stand more chance of being reasonably rested prior to their duty, and less chance of being late causing disruption.
As for some of the 'commuters' who leave it till the last minute to fly in from wherever - well they ask for all the trouble they can get if they leave things too late
In no way do i berate LGW, as for those of us who were previously based there - we would do anything to come back, if it was the thriving base it was mid-90's
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Peoples Republic of EU
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I worked at LHR we used to have a lot of guys who would commute from Somerset, Manchester etc. They all stayed in B&B's during their working week and commuted home for days off.
However some of them on their first day would have their alarms going off at 2.30am to make a 5.30am report, do a 12 hour duty day and then nightstop.
In an accident enquiry house prices would not be deemed a mitigating factor.
However some of them on their first day would have their alarms going off at 2.30am to make a 5.30am report, do a 12 hour duty day and then nightstop.
In an accident enquiry house prices would not be deemed a mitigating factor.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nexus you say
but actually the one thing I can't do as a Captain is decide how tired my FO might be. That is down to him/her. The CAA should be aware of the abuses to it's regulations. If there was an incident then anybody who commuted more than 90 mins would be on very shaky ground. As the legal commander I have a right to expect that the FO has complied with all CAA/ BA regulations on checking in. Driving in from Devon or flying in from Spain is NOT complying with BA ops procedures. If you are going to travel long distances then make sure you do it the night before and not on the day you operate.
But stop bleating on about tired crew, individual responsiblity not blanket legislation for the few who abuse. You're the captain, you are ultimately responsible for a safe flight, so accept that responsiblity and if you think a crewmember isn't fit - don't go! But don't highlight a problem for the majority of long distance commuters, drivers etc. who turn up perfectly ok.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -11`
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I share the same concerns as JBC.
I find it troubling to see how many of my shorthaul colleagues choose to live in France, Spain, Wales, or even Canada!
Since I do not work for a British carrier, I would be very interested to know of any JAA regulations concerning the mentioned 90 minutes commute rule.
I find it troubling to see how many of my shorthaul colleagues choose to live in France, Spain, Wales, or even Canada!
Since I do not work for a British carrier, I would be very interested to know of any JAA regulations concerning the mentioned 90 minutes commute rule.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seam to be missing something here. CAP371 has been around longer than most of our jobs. The CAA requirement is 90 mins. I presume this is based on min rest (say 12 hrs) minus up to 3 hrs travelling = 8 hrs - a normal nights sleep. Breakfast etc is normally provided on the flight so no need for meals at home. Most of all you job contract specifies a base. All in all a normal safe and happy situation. If you over 90 mins away without a rest place closer then you are violating all the safety measures put in place to protect yourselves and everyone around you. If there is an incident because of tiredness you are to blame.
If companies acted in this way the tread would be 10 times longer than this. Selective reading of the Ops manual and CAP371 doesn't work - either by the company or the pilot / Cabin Crew.
If companies acted in this way the tread would be 10 times longer than this. Selective reading of the Ops manual and CAP371 doesn't work - either by the company or the pilot / Cabin Crew.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you over 90 mins away without a rest place closer then you are violating all the safety measures put in place to protect yourselves and everyone around you
So that's as clear as mud then !
NoD
Guest
Posts: n/a
CAP 371
9.2 Travelling time, from home to departure aerodrome, if long distances are involved, is a factor influencing any subsequent onset of fatigue. If the journey time from home to normal departure airfield is usually in excess of 1½ hours, crew members should consider making arrangements for temporary accommodation nearer to base.