BBC investigation into fatigue, working culture & safety standards
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London, UK
Age: 48
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC investigation into fatigue, working culture & safety standards
Hi all
This is the third thread I've started on pprune, the others being on safety standards in the loco sector (which was absorbed by Danny into "Ryanair in the news...") and the other being on "IAA, CAA and safety standards".
As I made clear at the start of those posts, my name is Ian Shoesmith and I am a BBC News journalist who is investigating safety standards within the airline industry in general, and within the low-cost operators in particular.
Part of my research to date has thrown up the importance of flight time limitations (FTLs), and whether the existing 900hour annual limit (including no more than 100 in a 28day period) is working sufficiently well in order to prevent pilots flying when unfit due to fatigue.
I know Easyjet changed their rosters a while ago, in response to a trial in which they found evidence of fewer errors being made when they moved away from a 6/3 roster to a 5 early shifts/2/5 late shifts/4 (David Learmount wrote extensively about this in Flight International, 6/6/06). Do his conclusions ring true in your experience?
Should Ryanair adopt a similar roster? Would it cut down on mistakes being made?
I would imagine it's very hard for airlines to make pilots go "over-hours" in terms of the 900/100 rule, but please correct me if I'm wrong. And what about the 12-hour shift rule? Do (loco) airlines regard this, as some contributors have posted, as a target rather than a limit? How frequently are pilots asked to fly into what I believe is called a "discretionary" period beyond the 12 hours but certainly no more than 14?
Naturally I understand we're talking about some pretty sensitive issues here, and that you may not want to publish a post on the forum. If this is the case, you can either pm me, or email [email protected] or call me on +44 (0)7769 977665. As ever, any conversations, emails etc will be treated in the strictest of confidence, and I'm happy (at least at this stage) to speak to people anonymously.
Best wishes, and apologies for the somewhat lengthy posting
Ian
This is the third thread I've started on pprune, the others being on safety standards in the loco sector (which was absorbed by Danny into "Ryanair in the news...") and the other being on "IAA, CAA and safety standards".
As I made clear at the start of those posts, my name is Ian Shoesmith and I am a BBC News journalist who is investigating safety standards within the airline industry in general, and within the low-cost operators in particular.
Part of my research to date has thrown up the importance of flight time limitations (FTLs), and whether the existing 900hour annual limit (including no more than 100 in a 28day period) is working sufficiently well in order to prevent pilots flying when unfit due to fatigue.
I know Easyjet changed their rosters a while ago, in response to a trial in which they found evidence of fewer errors being made when they moved away from a 6/3 roster to a 5 early shifts/2/5 late shifts/4 (David Learmount wrote extensively about this in Flight International, 6/6/06). Do his conclusions ring true in your experience?
Should Ryanair adopt a similar roster? Would it cut down on mistakes being made?
I would imagine it's very hard for airlines to make pilots go "over-hours" in terms of the 900/100 rule, but please correct me if I'm wrong. And what about the 12-hour shift rule? Do (loco) airlines regard this, as some contributors have posted, as a target rather than a limit? How frequently are pilots asked to fly into what I believe is called a "discretionary" period beyond the 12 hours but certainly no more than 14?
Naturally I understand we're talking about some pretty sensitive issues here, and that you may not want to publish a post on the forum. If this is the case, you can either pm me, or email [email protected] or call me on +44 (0)7769 977665. As ever, any conversations, emails etc will be treated in the strictest of confidence, and I'm happy (at least at this stage) to speak to people anonymously.
Best wishes, and apologies for the somewhat lengthy posting
Ian
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Ian,
You may already have a full appreciation of this point, but please make sure that you don't fall for the type of line that O'Leary often spouts that gives the impression that his pilots only work for 18 hours per week/900 hours per year. He does specify fly and not work when he says it, but I think we all know what impression he's trying to give Joe Public. He's simply raking up a comment which worked well for Rupert Murdoch during the Australian Pilot strike of the early 90s.
Likewise in your post above, make sure it's clear in your mind that the FTL figures you quote are for flight time and not duty time.
You may already have a full appreciation of this point, but please make sure that you don't fall for the type of line that O'Leary often spouts that gives the impression that his pilots only work for 18 hours per week/900 hours per year. He does specify fly and not work when he says it, but I think we all know what impression he's trying to give Joe Public. He's simply raking up a comment which worked well for Rupert Murdoch during the Australian Pilot strike of the early 90s.
Likewise in your post above, make sure it's clear in your mind that the FTL figures you quote are for flight time and not duty time.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try Canada. Normal duty day is 14hrs which can be extended to 17 for unforseen circumstances. What is an unforseen circumstance? Well that depends who you ask. Ask an operator he'll tell you anything can be unforseen. The hours a pilot can fly in Canada are 1200 per year 120 in 30 and 40 in 7. And yes 14 is a target not a limit. Transport Canada gets alot of it's safety recommendations from ATAC. Who is ATAC. The owners of Canadian airlines. Bit of a conflict ya think?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian
The follow up to Easyjets fatigue study was they moved from 5/2/5/4 to 5/3/5/4. The study suggested I believe, that it took more than 2 days off to recover sufficiently from 5 earlies (although I would add Ground Staff have to
suffer still). The 900 hours limit is sufficient to protect crews from suffering long term fatigue in theory. Fly to PMI 5 days a week at 0900, back at 1700, have 2 days off and so on. However with the mixture of earlies, lates, nights, only Pilots that work for EZY/FR/BA can tell you.
Ryanair operate a 6/3/6/3 so in theory 2 extra days to EZY Crews, and because they work to Irish FTL limits, can work longer days and more sectors, on average around 1hr more a day and 5 hrs more a week.
In terms of going over the 100 hr limit most airlines can get their crews to that limit, especially in the summer months. Going right to the 900 annual limit is a Esy/FR/BA specialist subject.
With ref to the 12 hr shift limit you need to do some more homework on CAP371 the UK CAA regs and the Irish regs. Its not a simple 12hrs, in the UK it depends on time of report and sectors flown, the more you do the less hours you can work. The funnier the time you report the less you can work etc depending if your body says you should be asleep etc.
Commanders discretion is allowed on the day to recover situations and the maximum is 3 hrs, most crews don't go over 2 hrs as 3hrs the report goes to the CAA.
Last and by no means least, please remember that UK and even Irish rules are restrictive compared to the Spanish, and Eastern Block countries. And last and by no means least, with all due respect, pilots in general don't like coming to work!. When they get to work they are fantastic, god like people whom I have the utmost respect for.
The follow up to Easyjets fatigue study was they moved from 5/2/5/4 to 5/3/5/4. The study suggested I believe, that it took more than 2 days off to recover sufficiently from 5 earlies (although I would add Ground Staff have to
suffer still). The 900 hours limit is sufficient to protect crews from suffering long term fatigue in theory. Fly to PMI 5 days a week at 0900, back at 1700, have 2 days off and so on. However with the mixture of earlies, lates, nights, only Pilots that work for EZY/FR/BA can tell you.
Ryanair operate a 6/3/6/3 so in theory 2 extra days to EZY Crews, and because they work to Irish FTL limits, can work longer days and more sectors, on average around 1hr more a day and 5 hrs more a week.
In terms of going over the 100 hr limit most airlines can get their crews to that limit, especially in the summer months. Going right to the 900 annual limit is a Esy/FR/BA specialist subject.
With ref to the 12 hr shift limit you need to do some more homework on CAP371 the UK CAA regs and the Irish regs. Its not a simple 12hrs, in the UK it depends on time of report and sectors flown, the more you do the less hours you can work. The funnier the time you report the less you can work etc depending if your body says you should be asleep etc.
Commanders discretion is allowed on the day to recover situations and the maximum is 3 hrs, most crews don't go over 2 hrs as 3hrs the report goes to the CAA.
Last and by no means least, please remember that UK and even Irish rules are restrictive compared to the Spanish, and Eastern Block countries. And last and by no means least, with all due respect, pilots in general don't like coming to work!. When they get to work they are fantastic, god like people whom I have the utmost respect for.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Barcelona
Age: 41
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian, with regard to discretion being used to extend flight time to 14 hours, if discretion is used in such a way, this will generally result in the crew member not being used for their following days roster.
According to the IAA, all crew must have an amount of rest equivalent to their duty period, 10 hours being the minimum amount of rest following duty. For a 4 sector day you can generally add 3 hours of duty( assuming there are no delays on the ground). So say a captain were to use discretion to extend flight time to 13 hours, this would mean all crew members would require a minimum of 16 hours rest. Our usual method of dealing with this would be to put all crew members on standby from when they are "back in hours" and hence would, in this situation, only be called if a new crew were needed top operate later in the day or if any crew members offloaded after 2 sectors.
No crew members can be rostered a 12 hour+ shift but for a small number of routes it would only take a delay of 20 mins before discretion may need to be used.
According to the IAA, all crew must have an amount of rest equivalent to their duty period, 10 hours being the minimum amount of rest following duty. For a 4 sector day you can generally add 3 hours of duty( assuming there are no delays on the ground). So say a captain were to use discretion to extend flight time to 13 hours, this would mean all crew members would require a minimum of 16 hours rest. Our usual method of dealing with this would be to put all crew members on standby from when they are "back in hours" and hence would, in this situation, only be called if a new crew were needed top operate later in the day or if any crew members offloaded after 2 sectors.
No crew members can be rostered a 12 hour+ shift but for a small number of routes it would only take a delay of 20 mins before discretion may need to be used.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the Tearooms of Mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian, phone BALPA on 0208 476 4000 and ask them about JAR-OPS Sub Part Q and the new pan-European safety body - EASA.
Some UK operators will protect themselves from the bold aspirations of 'Q' by the controls placed upon them by industrial agreements. These will be the subject of commercial pressure by the time the legislation becomes compulsory by the middle of next year. The pilots will hold out for a while, but the pressure from management to extend to the limit (target) of 'Q' will be inexorable.
From that point on you can expect your pilot to be flying longer days than long distance lorry drivers whilst enjoying shorter rest breaks than livestock in transit.
Oh, and while you're at it, ask the CAA how happy they are with EASA taking over the supervision of safety in the UK.
Good luck. You have a real opportunity to achieve soemthing here. We'll help you where we can.
Some UK operators will protect themselves from the bold aspirations of 'Q' by the controls placed upon them by industrial agreements. These will be the subject of commercial pressure by the time the legislation becomes compulsory by the middle of next year. The pilots will hold out for a while, but the pressure from management to extend to the limit (target) of 'Q' will be inexorable.
From that point on you can expect your pilot to be flying longer days than long distance lorry drivers whilst enjoying shorter rest breaks than livestock in transit.
Oh, and while you're at it, ask the CAA how happy they are with EASA taking over the supervision of safety in the UK.
Good luck. You have a real opportunity to achieve soemthing here. We'll help you where we can.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Subpart Q is of course not a great thing, but at least its a common ground in europe, at the moment we can only dream about conditions like pilots flying according to CAA regulations do. Over here in germany it is allowed and commonly done to fly up to 13:59 planned duty time and to work more than 140 hours in a month during the summer. Most known to use that as target rather than the maximum for its pilots is of course Air Berlin. With discretion you can go up to 16 and in exceptional circumstances up to 20 hours.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Location
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap 371
Ian,
Have a read of CAP371 'Avoidance of Fatigue in Aircrew'. You'll find it at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP371.PDF
CAP371 is the FTL document which defines maximum duty hours, flying hours and commanders discretion. Although each company might have a slightly different interpretation, the limits are printed here in black and white, and any UK scheduled operation will have to adhere to them very strictly. We all face CAA audits on a regular basis, and CAP371 compliance is something that gets looked at very closely.
This is the gospel according to Gatwick. That is of course assuming that you are operating a UK registered aircraft with a UK license and a UK AOC (Air Operators Certificate).
I think one other area to be considered when looking at fatigue is roster turbulence/instability.
The LoCo I work for flies me for approx 870 hours every year. Last year, crewing and the rostering system were in turmoil, and my 870 hours almost finished me off. This year, however, crewing and rostering have been sorted out, and I'm flying exactly what I was rostered for. I'm actually on track to do slightly more hours this year, but feel a lot better for it ...
Good luck ...
Have a read of CAP371 'Avoidance of Fatigue in Aircrew'. You'll find it at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP371.PDF
CAP371 is the FTL document which defines maximum duty hours, flying hours and commanders discretion. Although each company might have a slightly different interpretation, the limits are printed here in black and white, and any UK scheduled operation will have to adhere to them very strictly. We all face CAA audits on a regular basis, and CAP371 compliance is something that gets looked at very closely.
This is the gospel according to Gatwick. That is of course assuming that you are operating a UK registered aircraft with a UK license and a UK AOC (Air Operators Certificate).
I think one other area to be considered when looking at fatigue is roster turbulence/instability.
The LoCo I work for flies me for approx 870 hours every year. Last year, crewing and the rostering system were in turmoil, and my 870 hours almost finished me off. This year, however, crewing and rostering have been sorted out, and I'm flying exactly what I was rostered for. I'm actually on track to do slightly more hours this year, but feel a lot better for it ...
Good luck ...
Paxing All Over The World
From the responses generated by the first threads that Ian started and the first nine posts here, there is no doubt that the first area of enquiry is not the carriers but the regulatory bodies. If they choose not to see transgressions - then the carrier can do anything they like.
Secondly, I suspect from Ian's brief:
and by his line of questions, that LoCos are in the firing line. I do hope that does not obscure what the legacy carriers are doing. They know what they are doing as they have been playing the game for a long time! My reckoning is that Pax assume that LoCos are cutting corners and the Legacy carriers are not. All that I have seen on PPRuNe in the six years I have been fortunate to read the forums - says that is not the case.
Secondly, I suspect from Ian's brief:
... investigating safety standards within the airline industry in general, and within the low-cost operators in particular.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 79
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap 371
A reminder and for Ian to take into account. History of CAP 371. After many, many consultations with all interested parties and Aero Medical specialists in the early 70s (the so called Bader Committee) CAP 371 was acted into law.
Most carriers had/have an industrial document which conforms to, or betters CAP 371.
I remember going from a UK non-sched carrier who's industrial doc bettered CAP 371 to a US FAA121 supplemental (non scheduled) operator where you could operate an outbound 121 duty up to 12 hours wheels off to wheels on, and then a back-end FAA91 ferry for 12 hours. A duty day of 30+ hours. Only time aloft was counted, NOT DUTY TIME!
CAP 371 got it right, don't blow it away, no other regulatory authority has had the courage to go for it, just look at the mess in the US with the FAA, NTSB, NASA, AALP, NATA et al, trying to make a code, let alone those oiks in EASA!!!
Most carriers had/have an industrial document which conforms to, or betters CAP 371.
I remember going from a UK non-sched carrier who's industrial doc bettered CAP 371 to a US FAA121 supplemental (non scheduled) operator where you could operate an outbound 121 duty up to 12 hours wheels off to wheels on, and then a back-end FAA91 ferry for 12 hours. A duty day of 30+ hours. Only time aloft was counted, NOT DUTY TIME!
CAP 371 got it right, don't blow it away, no other regulatory authority has had the courage to go for it, just look at the mess in the US with the FAA, NTSB, NASA, AALP, NATA et al, trying to make a code, let alone those oiks in EASA!!!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Age: 79
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian,
It would probably also be useful for you to look at the consumer side of this issue. There is increasing public concern at such "efficiency" measures by operators.
See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A9679C8B63 for example and do a Google search on "airline passenger consumer organisations safety" or similar.
I suspect that most of the travelling public would prefer pilots (like my son) to be properly rested, focused, etc. Ultimately everyone's life and safety is at stake and operators who continually push the limits of good sense and safety are going to cause serious incidents if we let them...
Good luck on your project.
Federal agencies who bow to "industry pressure" (notice this is usually business owners, many are cost cutters rather than profit growers) and forget their obligations to the whole of the industry who ultimately depend on the consumers (passengers).
Regards!
It would probably also be useful for you to look at the consumer side of this issue. There is increasing public concern at such "efficiency" measures by operators.
See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A9679C8B63 for example and do a Google search on "airline passenger consumer organisations safety" or similar.
I suspect that most of the travelling public would prefer pilots (like my son) to be properly rested, focused, etc. Ultimately everyone's life and safety is at stake and operators who continually push the limits of good sense and safety are going to cause serious incidents if we let them...
Good luck on your project.
Federal agencies who bow to "industry pressure" (notice this is usually business owners, many are cost cutters rather than profit growers) and forget their obligations to the whole of the industry who ultimately depend on the consumers (passengers).
Regards!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian,
The one that always gets you is an afternoon standby say 14 to 2300. You wake up at 0800 as your body clock says wake up. And off you go to do things for the wife/kids etc then at 1430 ring ring "we need you for a flt" " 1630 report A/Line to say Glasgow hang around for say 4 hours then operate.
say GLA - AGP(Malaga) - LTN (Luton) throw in a little delay and discretion and whoa! you are landing at LTN in maybe bad weather having been up for something like 22 hrs. All quite legal. (Note hav'nt got my CAP371 on me at mom but the above gives you an idea of what actually happens for real. Substitute any flt from GLA that works to the FTL and it works out virtually the same)
The one that always gets you is an afternoon standby say 14 to 2300. You wake up at 0800 as your body clock says wake up. And off you go to do things for the wife/kids etc then at 1430 ring ring "we need you for a flt" " 1630 report A/Line to say Glasgow hang around for say 4 hours then operate.
say GLA - AGP(Malaga) - LTN (Luton) throw in a little delay and discretion and whoa! you are landing at LTN in maybe bad weather having been up for something like 22 hrs. All quite legal. (Note hav'nt got my CAP371 on me at mom but the above gives you an idea of what actually happens for real. Substitute any flt from GLA that works to the FTL and it works out virtually the same)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Floating around the planet
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to have a full understanding of what fatigue is :
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAAPaper2005_04.pdf
http://www.wingfiles.com/files/hf/fatigue.pdf
cheers
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAAPaper2005_04.pdf
http://www.wingfiles.com/files/hf/fatigue.pdf
cheers
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 52
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What also is never factored into the above equations is operating into and out of some challenging/fatiguing/energy sapping places like LHR (I'm sure there are others).
Good luck Shoey - it will be nice to see a well balanced, informative, fact based programme. Unlike the usual Daily Mail/Sky News sensationalist dross.
SD
Good luck Shoey - it will be nice to see a well balanced, informative, fact based programme. Unlike the usual Daily Mail/Sky News sensationalist dross.
SD
Last edited by Sean Dell; 21st Feb 2007 at 09:28. Reason: typo
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: England
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the 1990s the medical evidence submitted to the CAA recommended limiting CAP 371Table A Flight Duty Period Limits to something like 9 hours for 4 sectors. Especially early morning duties.
In the debate this was dismissed on economic grounds by the CAA committee and this I fear is the problem. The medical evidence will always be dismissed on economic grounds.
Ask the CAA for a copy of the submissions from interested parties ie employers ,unions and medics along with the minutes of the meetings conducted before the revised edition of CAP 371 at or around 1990.
I bet you won't get very far.
The NASA report into duty limits would also be a good read.
Good luck with your investigation.
Most people believe flight crew and I include the cabin crew are under worked over paid and lazy.
To maintain our professional standards we have to spend many hour learning and revising procedures from our Flight Manuals in our own time. Cabin Crew face a check on their saftey knowledge at pre departure brief.
Most crew have to report between 15 and 20 minutes early to complete their preflight duties in time for an on time departure. Parking at work and lack of public transport can increase the need to plan arriving at the car park even earlier.
At one time there was a despatch service now it's all self help to prepare your own brief and flight plan material. Great if it works but if computer says NO an absolute nightmare as you try to brief for you flights.
In the debate this was dismissed on economic grounds by the CAA committee and this I fear is the problem. The medical evidence will always be dismissed on economic grounds.
Ask the CAA for a copy of the submissions from interested parties ie employers ,unions and medics along with the minutes of the meetings conducted before the revised edition of CAP 371 at or around 1990.
I bet you won't get very far.
The NASA report into duty limits would also be a good read.
Good luck with your investigation.
Most people believe flight crew and I include the cabin crew are under worked over paid and lazy.
To maintain our professional standards we have to spend many hour learning and revising procedures from our Flight Manuals in our own time. Cabin Crew face a check on their saftey knowledge at pre departure brief.
Most crew have to report between 15 and 20 minutes early to complete their preflight duties in time for an on time departure. Parking at work and lack of public transport can increase the need to plan arriving at the car park even earlier.
At one time there was a despatch service now it's all self help to prepare your own brief and flight plan material. Great if it works but if computer says NO an absolute nightmare as you try to brief for you flights.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: guess!
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first accident where crew fatigue was recognised as a causal factor in the report was FEDEX at guantanomo bay. (Several years ago).
A friend told me that in a meeting with the 'safety department' of her airline, they were invited to offer their opinions as to the most likely cause of a hull loss. (To see if it concurred with their expert opinion).
All the usual candidates were voiced. Weather, ATC mis-communication, Maintenance, blah blah.
When she suggested fatigue as the no.1 cause, she was told that this was not an available 'option' as it was 'too political'.
So why have the meeting, and why have a 'safety dept.'?
A friend told me that in a meeting with the 'safety department' of her airline, they were invited to offer their opinions as to the most likely cause of a hull loss. (To see if it concurred with their expert opinion).
All the usual candidates were voiced. Weather, ATC mis-communication, Maintenance, blah blah.
When she suggested fatigue as the no.1 cause, she was told that this was not an available 'option' as it was 'too political'.
So why have the meeting, and why have a 'safety dept.'?
merlinxx:
I have no desire to nitpick but when I flew in the USA flag carriers operated to Part 121 and supplemental carriers operated to Part 135. Most flights that we flew came under Part 121 but some (usually military charters) came under Part 135.
Has it all been changed?
I have no desire to nitpick but when I flew in the USA flag carriers operated to Part 121 and supplemental carriers operated to Part 135. Most flights that we flew came under Part 121 but some (usually military charters) came under Part 135.
Has it all been changed?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember learning that the first time "fatigue" was recognised as a factor in a British-registered aircraft accident was the BOAC Constellation crash in Singapore in March 1954.