Changes to CAP371
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hugmonster,
I agree with you totally on the issue of good rostering practices.
I remeber vividly a few years ago, getting a call at 1700 asking me to work nightshift that night. I had no plans and agreed.
(The extra money is always welcome) By 0400 the next morning I could hardly spell my name correctly. If i had adjusted myself like normal there would not have been the problems.
That still does not detract from the point I made, with the greatest of respect, that this should be a two way process of responsible rostering, coupled with responsible administration of that roster by both the company and the individual.
I agree with you totally on the issue of good rostering practices.
I remeber vividly a few years ago, getting a call at 1700 asking me to work nightshift that night. I had no plans and agreed.
(The extra money is always welcome) By 0400 the next morning I could hardly spell my name correctly. If i had adjusted myself like normal there would not have been the problems.
That still does not detract from the point I made, with the greatest of respect, that this should be a two way process of responsible rostering, coupled with responsible administration of that roster by both the company and the individual.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I feel for the charter boys 'n' girls, I really do. I'm a scheduled short haul whack and I sometimes get a string of earlies which are not classed as earlies by one minute!
Unfortunately our company has always worked to cap 371 (and sometimes tried to pull the wool over our eyes and bent the rules!) A lot of the time you question their rosterring and they are correct but in my view cap 371 was not intended to be worked to ALL the time to within a minute.
For a while we were doing a Zurich which departed at 08:25L. Now we usually report 90minutes before a duty but for this particular duty (which incidentally may have been the start of a tour) they made us report at 07:00L just so that it wouldn't be classed as an early. Of course, the FOD and chief pilots never got rosterred these so it was about six months before anyone important got to hear about it.
Unfortunately for us, this will come too late as we are now going on some BA Carmen system which is more limiting than cap 371. Still, may the trend continue for the benefit of the downtrodden everywhere.
------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!
Unfortunately our company has always worked to cap 371 (and sometimes tried to pull the wool over our eyes and bent the rules!) A lot of the time you question their rosterring and they are correct but in my view cap 371 was not intended to be worked to ALL the time to within a minute.
For a while we were doing a Zurich which departed at 08:25L. Now we usually report 90minutes before a duty but for this particular duty (which incidentally may have been the start of a tour) they made us report at 07:00L just so that it wouldn't be classed as an early. Of course, the FOD and chief pilots never got rosterred these so it was about six months before anyone important got to hear about it.
Unfortunately for us, this will come too late as we are now going on some BA Carmen system which is more limiting than cap 371. Still, may the trend continue for the benefit of the downtrodden everywhere.
------------------
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes. Scrap CAP371 and replace it with something rather more meaningful, after discussion with aeromedical experts, physiologists and pilots.
When CAP371 was introduced the world of aviation was a very different place from today. Needs have moved on. It's well past time that the rules moved with them.
Introduce rather more stringent and realistic audits of flight duty records, and train the airlines to realise that the rules are guidelines - they are not targets.
When CAP371 was introduced the world of aviation was a very different place from today. Needs have moved on. It's well past time that the rules moved with them.
Introduce rather more stringent and realistic audits of flight duty records, and train the airlines to realise that the rules are guidelines - they are not targets.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hug
Guess you are right there, things have moved on in 50 years or so.
Should Cabin Crew not be consulted?
To the crux of the matter. If CAP371 be revamped as you describe, will each individual's body clock tow the line.
Not looking to start a slaggin match, but like me, with no legal hours limits, you are shift workers, makin the best of a bad lot.
Fly safe
Bored
------------------
Speak the truth,accept the truth.....and only use one handle
Guess you are right there, things have moved on in 50 years or so.
Should Cabin Crew not be consulted?
To the crux of the matter. If CAP371 be revamped as you describe, will each individual's body clock tow the line.
Not looking to start a slaggin match, but like me, with no legal hours limits, you are shift workers, makin the best of a bad lot.
Fly safe
Bored
------------------
Speak the truth,accept the truth.....and only use one handle
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hugmonster,
CAP371 IS the work of scientists, pilots (BALPA), etc. The problem is the scientists cannot agree on what CAUSES fatigue or how the body's sleep function works, hence you get different FTL rules around the world.
In an ideal world, every airline around the world would work to the same FTL rules and have the same crew ratio per aircraft.
As for audits, I can vouch we have realistc audits not only by the CAA but our own internal quality department.
As for realistic rostering, the CAA stressed this in NTAOCH 6/94. A lot of CAA audits around 1993 and 1994 looked at the rostering practises of airlines.
What it comes down to, is that all rostering and crewing staff, should have formal training in Human Factors, especially on the subject of circadian rhythms.
CAP371 IS the work of scientists, pilots (BALPA), etc. The problem is the scientists cannot agree on what CAUSES fatigue or how the body's sleep function works, hence you get different FTL rules around the world.
In an ideal world, every airline around the world would work to the same FTL rules and have the same crew ratio per aircraft.
As for audits, I can vouch we have realistc audits not only by the CAA but our own internal quality department.
As for realistic rostering, the CAA stressed this in NTAOCH 6/94. A lot of CAA audits around 1993 and 1994 looked at the rostering practises of airlines.
What it comes down to, is that all rostering and crewing staff, should have formal training in Human Factors, especially on the subject of circadian rhythms.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hugmonster
Again, find myself agreeing with you 100%. You show quite remarkable insight at times and have been elevated in my estimation manyfold.
excrewingbod
Don't entirely agree with your last post above in that it is my long held belief that CAP371 had its origins in the Bader report of many long moons ago. I think it is true that there has been subsequent input by 'scientists' (for want of a more apt description) but it seems to me that all such input has merely served to water down rules that were far more consistent with 'the reduction of fatigue in aircrew', and therefore more in keeping with airline safety, than is the present form of CAP371.
IMHO there is nothing particularly complex about establishing what causes pilot fatigue;in most cases it is little more than overwork. As to "sleep functions", I honestly believe that fatigue/sleep problems are more a result of unintellegent rostering practices than anything else. For example, fatigue does not appear to be problematic in crews who regularly fly night duties (freight carriers for example) yet will inevitably appear in schedule/charter crews who find themselves rostered for earlies/lates in combination during short roster cycles.
The solution seems to be the application of logic and intelligence rather than simply 'science'. I think this is in line with Hugmonster's comment above.
Good topic.
Again, find myself agreeing with you 100%. You show quite remarkable insight at times and have been elevated in my estimation manyfold.
excrewingbod
Don't entirely agree with your last post above in that it is my long held belief that CAP371 had its origins in the Bader report of many long moons ago. I think it is true that there has been subsequent input by 'scientists' (for want of a more apt description) but it seems to me that all such input has merely served to water down rules that were far more consistent with 'the reduction of fatigue in aircrew', and therefore more in keeping with airline safety, than is the present form of CAP371.
IMHO there is nothing particularly complex about establishing what causes pilot fatigue;in most cases it is little more than overwork. As to "sleep functions", I honestly believe that fatigue/sleep problems are more a result of unintellegent rostering practices than anything else. For example, fatigue does not appear to be problematic in crews who regularly fly night duties (freight carriers for example) yet will inevitably appear in schedule/charter crews who find themselves rostered for earlies/lates in combination during short roster cycles.
The solution seems to be the application of logic and intelligence rather than simply 'science'. I think this is in line with Hugmonster's comment above.
Good topic.
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilii, thanks for the compliment.
Part of the problem as I see it is that, in the absence of anything more meaningful and helpful than CAP371 and, consequently, most airlines' FTL schemes, the airlines use the figures they have as targets. It is considered that if it's legal, it's safe.
As almost all of us know, this is not necessarily the case. There is, of course, the catch-all section that tells aircrew that "if they know, or suspect that they may be, suffering from fatigue" they should not fly. In many cases this is an invitation to get yourself blacklisted by the less scrupulous companies.
Fatigue is also something that, post-incident, someone is unlikely to own up to, because of the above catch-all phrase. Who wants to put their own neck in the noose by admitting they flew when fatigued?
When all the discussion was going on about the Channel 4 programme on crews allegedly breaking drinking regulations, little was said about fatigue. I suspect that it is a far bigger problem than alcohol. The problem is that it's easy for airlines to crack down on drink. If they were to crack down on fatigue, they would see their aircrews' productivity drop. The effects of alcohol on the system are easy to detect and define. The effects and extent of fatigue are much less easy to enumerate.
Yet while incidents don't get put down to pilot fatigue, they will continue to point to an apparently accident-free record, claiming that (No Accident)=(Safe Airline).
But a safe airline is one that takes a proactive approach to all aspects of Flight Safety, and constantly is looking for ways to improve safety margins. An unsafe airline is one that is happy to rest on its past performance.
Part of the problem as I see it is that, in the absence of anything more meaningful and helpful than CAP371 and, consequently, most airlines' FTL schemes, the airlines use the figures they have as targets. It is considered that if it's legal, it's safe.
As almost all of us know, this is not necessarily the case. There is, of course, the catch-all section that tells aircrew that "if they know, or suspect that they may be, suffering from fatigue" they should not fly. In many cases this is an invitation to get yourself blacklisted by the less scrupulous companies.
Fatigue is also something that, post-incident, someone is unlikely to own up to, because of the above catch-all phrase. Who wants to put their own neck in the noose by admitting they flew when fatigued?
When all the discussion was going on about the Channel 4 programme on crews allegedly breaking drinking regulations, little was said about fatigue. I suspect that it is a far bigger problem than alcohol. The problem is that it's easy for airlines to crack down on drink. If they were to crack down on fatigue, they would see their aircrews' productivity drop. The effects of alcohol on the system are easy to detect and define. The effects and extent of fatigue are much less easy to enumerate.
Yet while incidents don't get put down to pilot fatigue, they will continue to point to an apparently accident-free record, claiming that (No Accident)=(Safe Airline).
But a safe airline is one that takes a proactive approach to all aspects of Flight Safety, and constantly is looking for ways to improve safety margins. An unsafe airline is one that is happy to rest on its past performance.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bored Counter
you are absolutely right we (crews and you) are shiftworkers trying to make the best of it. I would dare to suggest though that if you get it wrong through fatigue the worst end result could be a very expensive financial cock-up whilst the same scenario for a crew could result in same financial chaos and then some. And before I am accused of pilot thinking I immediately acknowledge that the same applies to engineeers, ATC and others DIRECTLY associated with the safe operation of an aeroplane.
I genuinely mean no disrespect to your position but it IS different. Incidentally I was an still am licensed maintenance engineer (now a pilot). I still recall many "ghosters" to finish a check (usually for 3rd party aircraft). Fatigued? After 24 hours plus... you bet and I'll wager it still goes on today.
you are absolutely right we (crews and you) are shiftworkers trying to make the best of it. I would dare to suggest though that if you get it wrong through fatigue the worst end result could be a very expensive financial cock-up whilst the same scenario for a crew could result in same financial chaos and then some. And before I am accused of pilot thinking I immediately acknowledge that the same applies to engineeers, ATC and others DIRECTLY associated with the safe operation of an aeroplane.
I genuinely mean no disrespect to your position but it IS different. Incidentally I was an still am licensed maintenance engineer (now a pilot). I still recall many "ghosters" to finish a check (usually for 3rd party aircraft). Fatigued? After 24 hours plus... you bet and I'll wager it still goes on today.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hugmonster
As you say, and I agree, all, if not most, UK airlines have adopted CAP371 as the rostering target, rather than the rostering maximum, for aircrew duty. However, it is surely true that the CAA as well as pilots should be making this point rather firmly. I cannot speak for the CAA, but it seems to me that the only UK pilot union, BALPA, has had a duty to act and has so far failed to do so.
It has been rather interesting to read on another thread on this subject that, as soon as the FAA declared its intention to crack down on similar issues in the States, the employers collectively began screaming like the proverbial ‘stuck pig’. I await the outcome of this situation with considerable interest.
Most of us are very familiar with the provisions of CAP371 but many are not familiar with the precise nature of the ‘catch-all’ you describe. It is found within the Air Navigation (No.2) Order 1995, and contravention of these Orders is an offence. It might be useful to here describe the relevant parts of the Order, the nature of the offence committed, and the applicable penalty where in breach.
The responsibilities under this ANO are as follows:
Fatigue of crew — operator’s responsibilities:
Article 63. — ( 2) The operator of an aircraft to which this article applies shall not cause or permit any person to fly therein as a member of its crew if he knows or has reason to believe that the person is suffering from, or, having regard to the circumstances of the flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, such fatigue while he is so flying as may endanger the safety of the aircraft or of its occupants.
Fatigue of crew — responsibilities of crew:
Article 64. — (1) A person shall not act as a member of the crew of an aircraft to which this article applies if he knows or suspects that he is suffering from, or, having regard to the circumstances of the flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, such fatigue as may endanger the safety of the aircraft or of its occupants.
Thus the responsibilities for the pilot and the employer are essentially the same. The offence is described in a schedule of penalties. Part B of the schedule reads as follows:
Breach of Article 63 (2) “Operator’s obligation not to allow flight by crew in dangerous state of fatigue”; and
Breach of Article 64 (1) “Crew’s obligation not to fly in dangerous state of fatigue”.
It is interesting that I cannot find a specific definition within the Order as to what is said to constitute a “dangerous state of fatigue” and this is not only problematic for us as pilots but would present something of a hurdle to a prosecutor proceeding under this legislation.
At Article 111 of the Order, the penalty applicable is described as follows:
Article 111. — (6) If any person contravenes any provision specified in Part B of the said Schedule [the schedule of penalties] he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction in Great Britain to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or in Northern Ireland to a fine not exceeding £2000 and on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.
It might be helpful to add that ‘summary conviction’ occurs when the accused pleads guilty from the outset, whereas ‘conviction on indictment’ is where found guilty after plea of not guilty. It might also be said that, given the serious potential in a pilot flying in said “dangerous state of fatigue”, the penalties to be imposed here are quite laughably inadequate. Of course they might be added to with charges of, for example, manslaughter but, in the absence of a fatal accident, an employer is not likely to be terribly concerned with pleading guilty and copping a fine in the order of £2000.
Why have I gone to the trouble above, I hear you say? Well, it is clear that, from a legal view, any assertion by a pilot as to his/her unfitness to fly because of fatigue SHOULD be quite a serious matter for the airline employer in that, if the pilot is then coerced into flying, the operator becomes involved in the commission of the offence. If the pilot is silent, the operator pleads no knowledge as to the presence of fatigue and the pilot stands alone with sole responsibility for his/her actions. But where the pilot speaks up (preferably in writing, I suggest), the employer becomes aware of the fatigue and then shares, repeat ‘shares’, the responsibility should the pilot then fly in that state.
As you quite rightly say, pilots speaking out may well fall from favour, be fired, even blacklisted. But each of these alternatives is, in my mind, infinitely more desirable than one’s own death and/or the manslaughter of many others. Therefore, it does seem that it will be better to speak up and say one is fatigued than to be silent on the issue.
In the absence of action to address this issue by the CAA and the pilot union, it seems that pilots believing themselves fatigued through imposition of CAP371 maximums as daily routine scheduling must speak up and point to their fatigue. Failure to do so means that they are likely to become victims of legislation that largely makes them, and them alone, liable for their continued duty while their (unscrupulous) employers laugh all the way to the bank.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 02 July 2001).]
As you say, and I agree, all, if not most, UK airlines have adopted CAP371 as the rostering target, rather than the rostering maximum, for aircrew duty. However, it is surely true that the CAA as well as pilots should be making this point rather firmly. I cannot speak for the CAA, but it seems to me that the only UK pilot union, BALPA, has had a duty to act and has so far failed to do so.
It has been rather interesting to read on another thread on this subject that, as soon as the FAA declared its intention to crack down on similar issues in the States, the employers collectively began screaming like the proverbial ‘stuck pig’. I await the outcome of this situation with considerable interest.
Most of us are very familiar with the provisions of CAP371 but many are not familiar with the precise nature of the ‘catch-all’ you describe. It is found within the Air Navigation (No.2) Order 1995, and contravention of these Orders is an offence. It might be useful to here describe the relevant parts of the Order, the nature of the offence committed, and the applicable penalty where in breach.
The responsibilities under this ANO are as follows:
Fatigue of crew — operator’s responsibilities:
Article 63. — ( 2) The operator of an aircraft to which this article applies shall not cause or permit any person to fly therein as a member of its crew if he knows or has reason to believe that the person is suffering from, or, having regard to the circumstances of the flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, such fatigue while he is so flying as may endanger the safety of the aircraft or of its occupants.
Fatigue of crew — responsibilities of crew:
Article 64. — (1) A person shall not act as a member of the crew of an aircraft to which this article applies if he knows or suspects that he is suffering from, or, having regard to the circumstances of the flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, such fatigue as may endanger the safety of the aircraft or of its occupants.
Thus the responsibilities for the pilot and the employer are essentially the same. The offence is described in a schedule of penalties. Part B of the schedule reads as follows:
Breach of Article 63 (2) “Operator’s obligation not to allow flight by crew in dangerous state of fatigue”; and
Breach of Article 64 (1) “Crew’s obligation not to fly in dangerous state of fatigue”.
It is interesting that I cannot find a specific definition within the Order as to what is said to constitute a “dangerous state of fatigue” and this is not only problematic for us as pilots but would present something of a hurdle to a prosecutor proceeding under this legislation.
At Article 111 of the Order, the penalty applicable is described as follows:
Article 111. — (6) If any person contravenes any provision specified in Part B of the said Schedule [the schedule of penalties] he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction in Great Britain to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or in Northern Ireland to a fine not exceeding £2000 and on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.
It might be helpful to add that ‘summary conviction’ occurs when the accused pleads guilty from the outset, whereas ‘conviction on indictment’ is where found guilty after plea of not guilty. It might also be said that, given the serious potential in a pilot flying in said “dangerous state of fatigue”, the penalties to be imposed here are quite laughably inadequate. Of course they might be added to with charges of, for example, manslaughter but, in the absence of a fatal accident, an employer is not likely to be terribly concerned with pleading guilty and copping a fine in the order of £2000.
Why have I gone to the trouble above, I hear you say? Well, it is clear that, from a legal view, any assertion by a pilot as to his/her unfitness to fly because of fatigue SHOULD be quite a serious matter for the airline employer in that, if the pilot is then coerced into flying, the operator becomes involved in the commission of the offence. If the pilot is silent, the operator pleads no knowledge as to the presence of fatigue and the pilot stands alone with sole responsibility for his/her actions. But where the pilot speaks up (preferably in writing, I suggest), the employer becomes aware of the fatigue and then shares, repeat ‘shares’, the responsibility should the pilot then fly in that state.
As you quite rightly say, pilots speaking out may well fall from favour, be fired, even blacklisted. But each of these alternatives is, in my mind, infinitely more desirable than one’s own death and/or the manslaughter of many others. Therefore, it does seem that it will be better to speak up and say one is fatigued than to be silent on the issue.
In the absence of action to address this issue by the CAA and the pilot union, it seems that pilots believing themselves fatigued through imposition of CAP371 maximums as daily routine scheduling must speak up and point to their fatigue. Failure to do so means that they are likely to become victims of legislation that largely makes them, and them alone, liable for their continued duty while their (unscrupulous) employers laugh all the way to the bank.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 02 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think the biggest problem in the existing guidelines is that only 'earlies' are defined.
It is legal under the current definition to effectively do seven early starts in a row.
An example of a recent roster of mine...
Day one: Airport Sby. Rpt 06.00z (07.00L UK - NOT an 'early' by one minute).
Day two: 3 Sectors. Rpt 06.25z (07.25L UK - NOT an 'early' by 26 minutes).
Day three: 3 Sectors. Rpt 04.00z (06.00L Mainland Europe (AMS) - An 'early' under CAP371).
Day four: 3 Sectors. Rpt 04:30z (05.30L UK - Another 'early' under CAP371).
Day five: 3 Sectors. Rpt 04:30z (05.30L UK - Another 'early' under CAP371).
Day six: Airport Sby. Rpt 06.00z (07.00L UK - NOT an 'early' by one minute).
Day seven: 2 Sectors. Rpt 06.25z (07.25L UK - NOT an 'early' by 26 minutes).
Now I'm not in any way complaining about the amount of work here... Rough with the smooth and all that (I don't complain when I occasionally get 3 in a row off, 4 on then another 3 off - mind you it is rare).
The problem for me is that all seven involve me getting out of bed at or before the crack of sparrows. And yet four of the above duties are NOT 'earlies' - two by one minute and two by 26 minutes. This is actually not even rostering up to the CAP371 limits as one of these four could have been earlier as you're actually allowed to do four 'earlies' in seven days subject to a maximum of three in a row.
Surely what was intended by those who first worked on CAP371 was to allow one to 'recover' on days that are not defined as 'earlies'?
Such recovery, involves (at the very least, IMHO) being allowed to have a lie in.
And that's where the current regulations fall down. What would be more useful in avoiding the fatigue caused by early starts would be to make sure that once your quota of 'earlies' are used up in a given period, that any remaining duties should actually be 'LATES' and defined as such (i.e. not starting BEFORE 11.00L or similar) rather than simply not being 'earlies' (i.e. must start later than 07.00L).
I consider that the seven days work I was rostered above is simply a reprehensible and immoral abuse of the 'spirit' of CAP371. Unfortunately the spirit of what was intended does not feature in most companies' views on the subject of FTLs. Until changes are made to CAP 371 itself we will always hear those over-used words from crewing/rostering departments... "well, it's legal - so you'll have to do it".
What I have difficulty understanding is that if more than four 'earlies' in a seven day period could have had me so dangerously fatigued that it has to be leglislated against... how does the extra 54 minutes in bed that the above roster gives me (against all seven being made 'earlies') relieve this potential fatigue?
Are there any scientists out there who can explain it?
------------------
Climbing at an R.A.T.E. of 1.53 vertical seconds per foot of thrust!
It is legal under the current definition to effectively do seven early starts in a row.
An example of a recent roster of mine...
Day one: Airport Sby. Rpt 06.00z (07.00L UK - NOT an 'early' by one minute).
Day two: 3 Sectors. Rpt 06.25z (07.25L UK - NOT an 'early' by 26 minutes).
Day three: 3 Sectors. Rpt 04.00z (06.00L Mainland Europe (AMS) - An 'early' under CAP371).
Day four: 3 Sectors. Rpt 04:30z (05.30L UK - Another 'early' under CAP371).
Day five: 3 Sectors. Rpt 04:30z (05.30L UK - Another 'early' under CAP371).
Day six: Airport Sby. Rpt 06.00z (07.00L UK - NOT an 'early' by one minute).
Day seven: 2 Sectors. Rpt 06.25z (07.25L UK - NOT an 'early' by 26 minutes).
Now I'm not in any way complaining about the amount of work here... Rough with the smooth and all that (I don't complain when I occasionally get 3 in a row off, 4 on then another 3 off - mind you it is rare).
The problem for me is that all seven involve me getting out of bed at or before the crack of sparrows. And yet four of the above duties are NOT 'earlies' - two by one minute and two by 26 minutes. This is actually not even rostering up to the CAP371 limits as one of these four could have been earlier as you're actually allowed to do four 'earlies' in seven days subject to a maximum of three in a row.
Surely what was intended by those who first worked on CAP371 was to allow one to 'recover' on days that are not defined as 'earlies'?
Such recovery, involves (at the very least, IMHO) being allowed to have a lie in.
And that's where the current regulations fall down. What would be more useful in avoiding the fatigue caused by early starts would be to make sure that once your quota of 'earlies' are used up in a given period, that any remaining duties should actually be 'LATES' and defined as such (i.e. not starting BEFORE 11.00L or similar) rather than simply not being 'earlies' (i.e. must start later than 07.00L).
I consider that the seven days work I was rostered above is simply a reprehensible and immoral abuse of the 'spirit' of CAP371. Unfortunately the spirit of what was intended does not feature in most companies' views on the subject of FTLs. Until changes are made to CAP 371 itself we will always hear those over-used words from crewing/rostering departments... "well, it's legal - so you'll have to do it".
What I have difficulty understanding is that if more than four 'earlies' in a seven day period could have had me so dangerously fatigued that it has to be leglislated against... how does the extra 54 minutes in bed that the above roster gives me (against all seven being made 'earlies') relieve this potential fatigue?
Are there any scientists out there who can explain it?
------------------
Climbing at an R.A.T.E. of 1.53 vertical seconds per foot of thrust!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Proposed EU FTL by ECA has 17 time bands and differences of little as 8 minutes between reporting at for example 1759 and 1801!!.
Cant see how that can be safety driven, more like an industrial agenda which will put airlines out of business. UK Airlines have taken advantage of the ridiculous fixed week duty hour limits in a vain attempt to get on a level playing field with their airline counterparts who for example in Spain can do 15 hour days at least at any time of the day and Germans who can do 24 hour standbys and get called out at the 23rd hour to do a 12HR FDP.
UK Airlines had the whammy when CAP371 cam in years ago so any change wont hurt that much. The EU Union proposal will....
Cant see how that can be safety driven, more like an industrial agenda which will put airlines out of business. UK Airlines have taken advantage of the ridiculous fixed week duty hour limits in a vain attempt to get on a level playing field with their airline counterparts who for example in Spain can do 15 hour days at least at any time of the day and Germans who can do 24 hour standbys and get called out at the 23rd hour to do a 12HR FDP.
UK Airlines had the whammy when CAP371 cam in years ago so any change wont hurt that much. The EU Union proposal will....
Guest
Posts: n/a
The vexed question of "earlies" and doing more than 3 consecutively is covered by a NTAOCH 6/94 where the use of the word "regular" as in regular early morning duties was defined as meaning "3 weeks" or more. Incidentally the 15 minutes travel mentioned later, is defined as commencing when you walk out of the hotel main door and ending when you walk through the door of the place you normally report at.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tunturi.
Cop this for a duty week, yes it is pre-JAR,
F reg carrier Stellair, F27 flying for UK carrier.
Mon
Posn A/C NTE-LYX to arrive 0600
MON-FRI
LYX-LTQ-LYX-BVA-LYX 0700-1200
LYX-LTQ-LYX-BVA-LYX 1600-2130
SAT
0700 start
LYX-LTQ-LYX-BVA-LYX-LTQ-LYX-JER-LYX-LTQ-LYX-BVA-LYX-LTQ-LYX
2130 Finish (14 sectors!!!!) and they wanted to ferry JER-NTE-JER for a nosewheel change, Skipper almost made love to me when I arranged for the job to be done in JER!!!!
SUN
0700 start
LYX-LTQ-LYX-BVA-LYX-LTQ-LYX
3hrs off
LYX-LTQ-LYX-BVA-LYX-LTQ-LYX-(ferry)NTE.
I honestley felt compelled to challenge the crew regarding this ONE CREW OPERATION, but was told by the Captain 'We work 7 on 7 off and the days off are worth it............'
The above is honest, (in the 90's) legal, and FATIGUE. Hope you guys were not flying near these clowns...
On another note Tun, I do see your point, and respect it regarding the difference Groundie/Aircrew. More so with Eng than Office based. (Q am I right to think Engineers now have a legal obligation to ensure they are 'fit' to carry out the task?)
However, work is only a small part of it.
We all have to get there and back. Yes an equaliser, enter Reps, Bankers etc. I could just as easily kill a bus queue as you on the way home. Limits on Admin hours are 40 or so years behind yours, and don't apply to me. (Just a bone to chew, nothing more). Please remember in 16 days, my life goes full cycle, Days and Nights so I do understand fatigue.
Beaver Eager.
As you kindly quote your roster, can I please use poetic lisence on it.
(to prove my concerns for one of the initial posts advised changes to CAP371). also a Q, does your airline roster 7 on as a rule? , mine does not as counter-productive when a crew have to posn back day 8 when it hits the fan.
Roster is legal, but presume, flights not E by Cap371 definition, are so because they are away from base. Under proposed change, roster now illegal. So I the uncaring rosterer now roster EEELLLL min rest EEELLLL.
See the GENUINE concern?
Hug.
Why?
I was going to propose to you till you raised C4 and fatige.....They did not film the 8.5 hours sleep the crews concerned obviouly got. Yes people, I include myself, use alcohol to aid sleep, but different rules apply. (the whole C4 debate would have been answered if the crew were 'spot checked' by nice Mr Bill on the way home, but thankfully they weren't.
Fly safe, and remember, most mens wives can sleep on demand, do they hold the answer?
Bored
------------------
Speak the truth,accept the truth.....and only use one handle
Cop this for a duty week, yes it is pre-JAR,
F reg carrier Stellair, F27 flying for UK carrier.
Mon
Posn A/C NTE-LYX to arrive 0600
MON-FRI
LYX-LTQ-LYX-BVA-LYX 0700-1200
LYX-LTQ-LYX-BVA-LYX 1600-2130
SAT
0700 start
LYX-LTQ-LYX-BVA-LYX-LTQ-LYX-JER-LYX-LTQ-LYX-BVA-LYX-LTQ-LYX
2130 Finish (14 sectors!!!!) and they wanted to ferry JER-NTE-JER for a nosewheel change, Skipper almost made love to me when I arranged for the job to be done in JER!!!!
SUN
0700 start
LYX-LTQ-LYX-BVA-LYX-LTQ-LYX
3hrs off
LYX-LTQ-LYX-BVA-LYX-LTQ-LYX-(ferry)NTE.
I honestley felt compelled to challenge the crew regarding this ONE CREW OPERATION, but was told by the Captain 'We work 7 on 7 off and the days off are worth it............'
The above is honest, (in the 90's) legal, and FATIGUE. Hope you guys were not flying near these clowns...
On another note Tun, I do see your point, and respect it regarding the difference Groundie/Aircrew. More so with Eng than Office based. (Q am I right to think Engineers now have a legal obligation to ensure they are 'fit' to carry out the task?)
However, work is only a small part of it.
We all have to get there and back. Yes an equaliser, enter Reps, Bankers etc. I could just as easily kill a bus queue as you on the way home. Limits on Admin hours are 40 or so years behind yours, and don't apply to me. (Just a bone to chew, nothing more). Please remember in 16 days, my life goes full cycle, Days and Nights so I do understand fatigue.
Beaver Eager.
As you kindly quote your roster, can I please use poetic lisence on it.
(to prove my concerns for one of the initial posts advised changes to CAP371). also a Q, does your airline roster 7 on as a rule? , mine does not as counter-productive when a crew have to posn back day 8 when it hits the fan.
Roster is legal, but presume, flights not E by Cap371 definition, are so because they are away from base. Under proposed change, roster now illegal. So I the uncaring rosterer now roster EEELLLL min rest EEELLLL.
See the GENUINE concern?
Hug.
Why?
I was going to propose to you till you raised C4 and fatige.....They did not film the 8.5 hours sleep the crews concerned obviouly got. Yes people, I include myself, use alcohol to aid sleep, but different rules apply. (the whole C4 debate would have been answered if the crew were 'spot checked' by nice Mr Bill on the way home, but thankfully they weren't.
Fly safe, and remember, most mens wives can sleep on demand, do they hold the answer?
Bored
------------------
Speak the truth,accept the truth.....and only use one handle
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boredcounter and Beaver Eager
Not wishing to be too pedantic here, but you both seem to be labouring under a commonly held misapprehension as to the 'legality' of the rostering you each describe.
If you read my post above (not a lot to ask, I would have thought), you will see there that Hugmonster's 'catch-all' is in the ANOs and adequately covers both the scenarios you describe. The point is that irrespective of the roster's conformity with either CAP371 or the company's FTL Scheme, in circumstances where it is either known or foreseeable that a crew will be operating in a dangerous state of fatigue, the crew AND the airline are in breach of the ANO and liable to fines, imprisonment or both. The scenarios described are unarguably such circumstances and only a fool would argue otherwise.
Boredcounter, you say you considered challenging the crew. Why did you not? Why did you accept their explanation as to 7on/7off being to their liking? Surely, personal preference is not the issue here. The real issue is fatigue and the dangers present when a crew is flying an aircraft while suffering from fatigue are self-evident, are they not?
Let me put it this way: would you like to have been a passenger on these flights or be living with your wife and family under the flight paths of the aircraft concerned on each of the days in question? I most certainly would not.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 03 July 2001).]
Not wishing to be too pedantic here, but you both seem to be labouring under a commonly held misapprehension as to the 'legality' of the rostering you each describe.
If you read my post above (not a lot to ask, I would have thought), you will see there that Hugmonster's 'catch-all' is in the ANOs and adequately covers both the scenarios you describe. The point is that irrespective of the roster's conformity with either CAP371 or the company's FTL Scheme, in circumstances where it is either known or foreseeable that a crew will be operating in a dangerous state of fatigue, the crew AND the airline are in breach of the ANO and liable to fines, imprisonment or both. The scenarios described are unarguably such circumstances and only a fool would argue otherwise.
Boredcounter, you say you considered challenging the crew. Why did you not? Why did you accept their explanation as to 7on/7off being to their liking? Surely, personal preference is not the issue here. The real issue is fatigue and the dangers present when a crew is flying an aircraft while suffering from fatigue are self-evident, are they not?
Let me put it this way: would you like to have been a passenger on these flights or be living with your wife and family under the flight paths of the aircraft concerned on each of the days in question? I most certainly would not.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 03 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well put, tilii.
At present, CAP371 is the law, supported by the ANO.
The argument here is not whether this or that rostering pattern is legal or not if one ignores the fatigue catch-all paragraphs, but whether it is safe. If it is not safe, then the law needs to be changed.
And whether or not changed, the law needs some form of enforcement that actually works, so that crews do NOT fly when fatigued, and are not rostered for fatiguing duties because the airlines need to get their money's worth out of their staff. My contention is that the current system of enforcement does not work.
At present, CAP371 is the law, supported by the ANO.
The argument here is not whether this or that rostering pattern is legal or not if one ignores the fatigue catch-all paragraphs, but whether it is safe. If it is not safe, then the law needs to be changed.
And whether or not changed, the law needs some form of enforcement that actually works, so that crews do NOT fly when fatigued, and are not rostered for fatiguing duties because the airlines need to get their money's worth out of their staff. My contention is that the current system of enforcement does not work.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hugmonster
Not so sure about wheher CAP371 is, in fact, the 'law' as such.
I downloaded the following passage from a DETR website the other day. It is supposedly the DETR response to an ICAO report criticising the UK system. I quote:
"1. The Civil Aviation Act 1982 has been framed in such a way as to distance the safety regulation of civil aviation from day to day political control but to set it within a framework of public accountability. It would not be consistent with this framework for Parliament to delegate legislative powers to the Civil Aviation Authority. Although the CAA cannot make "operating regulations" as defined in the report, the UK system does allow the Authority to impose and enforce operational conditions which implement ICAO SARPs.
2. Parliament recognises the need for the CAA to act independently and has given it the power to issue, vary and revoke licences, certificates and other authorisation subject to such conditions as the CAA thinks fit. The CAA's policy on its discretionary powers and the conditions under which it will grant a licence etc are published in documents called Civil Aviation Publications. Such conditions are used to implement SARPs and are enforceable. The CAA's power to impose such conditions therefore give the CAA the same powers envisaged for operational regulations in paragraph 2.1.2 of ICAO Doc 8335. The report does not give any example of a situation, nor is the UK aware of any, where the Authority has not been able to implement and enforce a SARP under this system."
Now, I am not quite sure what a SARP is (perhaps you can enlighten me?) but it appears from this official response to ICAO that CAP371 (and all other CAPs in fact) are not "law" as such but are nothing more than CAA 'policy statements' as to 'operating conditions' it imposes on licence holders. Naturally, the CAA can 'enforce' these conditions but, as stated above, it seems it can only do so through punitive action with respect to AOCs, pilot licences etc. There is not, it seems, an offence committed by breaching the CAP371 provisions.
Perhaps, after all, the 'catch-all' you have described is the only effective legislation on this issue and CAP371 has no teeth whatsoever? Of course, it remains incumbent upon operators under the provisions of the Air Navigation (No.2) Order 1995 to produce an FTL Scheme for inclusion in the Operations Manual and one is left to speculate what powers might be employed to enforce compliance with the provisions of a company's own FTL scheme.
The mind boggles sometimes, does it not? Any lawyers care to comment on this subject?
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 03 July 2001).]
Not so sure about wheher CAP371 is, in fact, the 'law' as such.
I downloaded the following passage from a DETR website the other day. It is supposedly the DETR response to an ICAO report criticising the UK system. I quote:
"1. The Civil Aviation Act 1982 has been framed in such a way as to distance the safety regulation of civil aviation from day to day political control but to set it within a framework of public accountability. It would not be consistent with this framework for Parliament to delegate legislative powers to the Civil Aviation Authority. Although the CAA cannot make "operating regulations" as defined in the report, the UK system does allow the Authority to impose and enforce operational conditions which implement ICAO SARPs.
2. Parliament recognises the need for the CAA to act independently and has given it the power to issue, vary and revoke licences, certificates and other authorisation subject to such conditions as the CAA thinks fit. The CAA's policy on its discretionary powers and the conditions under which it will grant a licence etc are published in documents called Civil Aviation Publications. Such conditions are used to implement SARPs and are enforceable. The CAA's power to impose such conditions therefore give the CAA the same powers envisaged for operational regulations in paragraph 2.1.2 of ICAO Doc 8335. The report does not give any example of a situation, nor is the UK aware of any, where the Authority has not been able to implement and enforce a SARP under this system."
Now, I am not quite sure what a SARP is (perhaps you can enlighten me?) but it appears from this official response to ICAO that CAP371 (and all other CAPs in fact) are not "law" as such but are nothing more than CAA 'policy statements' as to 'operating conditions' it imposes on licence holders. Naturally, the CAA can 'enforce' these conditions but, as stated above, it seems it can only do so through punitive action with respect to AOCs, pilot licences etc. There is not, it seems, an offence committed by breaching the CAP371 provisions.
Perhaps, after all, the 'catch-all' you have described is the only effective legislation on this issue and CAP371 has no teeth whatsoever? Of course, it remains incumbent upon operators under the provisions of the Air Navigation (No.2) Order 1995 to produce an FTL Scheme for inclusion in the Operations Manual and one is left to speculate what powers might be employed to enforce compliance with the provisions of a company's own FTL scheme.
The mind boggles sometimes, does it not? Any lawyers care to comment on this subject?
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 03 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boredcounter, I have no argument whatsoever with your last post and fully associate with your final comment: Fly safe, and remember, most mens wives can sleep on demand, do they hold the answer.
My ex wife always said my inability to sleep was the result of a guilty conscience....as she is my ex wife perhaps she had a point.....?
My ex wife always said my inability to sleep was the result of a guilty conscience....as she is my ex wife perhaps she had a point.....?