Changes to CAP371
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ah well, it looks like this topic is headed the way of so many others of real interest to the professional aviator. Time to switch to old wive's tales and the sleep patterns of spouses, or ex-spouses as the case may be. Far more important than fatigue and its impact on flight safety, of course ... and oooh sooo INTERESTING! 
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tilii
Very informative post, I must admit, the ANO is the most unfriendly document I have ever tried to read. (Close second is the Working Time Regulations 1998).
Q How am I (as the Operations Controller, for a 12 jet Airline, based 3 miles from the Airport, responsible for Crew Control) suposed to know if you are Knackered?
To put some cards on the table, I work for a carrier that is JAR, the FTLS is CAP371 driven, but the 'Crew Control Procedures Manual, is the most restrictive. We fly Scheds from 0600-2200ish (with W/end charters) so perhaps I miss the point
With regard to my Stellair post, the answer is yes, I lived very cose to the arport, just down the road from the Nuke Power station, but just like the residents near LHR&LGW at the time had to have faith in Official Supervision.
See it like this, cos it is not a pop in any way, If CAP371, or the ANO does not protect you, your Airline is not entering into the 'Spirit' Enter BALPA, and when that fails, the CAA for a ruling............
As for Old Wive's Tails, Tun got it, or not, depending on the wife's mooooooooood.
I stand by the saying, FLY SAFE.
------------------
Speak the truth,accept the truth.....and only use one handle
Very informative post, I must admit, the ANO is the most unfriendly document I have ever tried to read. (Close second is the Working Time Regulations 1998).
Q How am I (as the Operations Controller, for a 12 jet Airline, based 3 miles from the Airport, responsible for Crew Control) suposed to know if you are Knackered?
To put some cards on the table, I work for a carrier that is JAR, the FTLS is CAP371 driven, but the 'Crew Control Procedures Manual, is the most restrictive. We fly Scheds from 0600-2200ish (with W/end charters) so perhaps I miss the point
With regard to my Stellair post, the answer is yes, I lived very cose to the arport, just down the road from the Nuke Power station, but just like the residents near LHR&LGW at the time had to have faith in Official Supervision.
See it like this, cos it is not a pop in any way, If CAP371, or the ANO does not protect you, your Airline is not entering into the 'Spirit' Enter BALPA, and when that fails, the CAA for a ruling............
As for Old Wive's Tails, Tun got it, or not, depending on the wife's mooooooooood.
I stand by the saying, FLY SAFE.
------------------
Speak the truth,accept the truth.....and only use one handle
Guest
Posts: n/a
boredcounter,
You cannot be expected to know if a crew member is knackered or not. This is where the system falls down.
Said crew member will 'probably' keep quiet, as per tilli's and hugmonster's posts and of course the airline is 'ignorant' to the fact that some of their crew's could well be fatigued for whatever reason.
It is a very sad state of affairs in the 21st Century if a crew member feels they will be 'sh@fted' if they inform the Company that they are fatigued. Before I get shot, yes I know there are unscrupulous operators out there!
You cannot be expected to know if a crew member is knackered or not. This is where the system falls down.
Said crew member will 'probably' keep quiet, as per tilli's and hugmonster's posts and of course the airline is 'ignorant' to the fact that some of their crew's could well be fatigued for whatever reason.
It is a very sad state of affairs in the 21st Century if a crew member feels they will be 'sh@fted' if they inform the Company that they are fatigued. Before I get shot, yes I know there are unscrupulous operators out there!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tilli, don't be such a sensitive soul. It was not my intention to divert the theme of this very important topic. I actually believe boredcounter made a very valid point re:wives abilities to sleep at any time..I just added a little (ok very little) bit of humour on the end.
For the record I am a very poor sleeper and very often tired but probably not fatigued.
Re: yor point about defining dangerously fatigued, surely this is covered in the preceding paragraphs you quote from the ANO...i.e. "is likely to suffer from, such fatigue as may endanger the safety of the aircraft or of its occupants."
Interesting article today in AIRWAVES (BALPA) regarding a former Ryanair F/O who filed an ASR stating he was unfit to fly..Ryanair's answer: immediate disciplinary meeting on "gross misconduct" and refused F/O right to BALPA rep accompanying him to meeting. F/O left Ryanair before any meeting took place, due to delaying tactics from company. Could have been due to the fact that BALPA threatened court action until Ryanair agreed to legal right of F/O to be accompanied by rep.
THe fact is that we all have a duty to not fly when we believe we are unfit but it can still be very difficult to do so in some companies.
For the record I am a very poor sleeper and very often tired but probably not fatigued.
Re: yor point about defining dangerously fatigued, surely this is covered in the preceding paragraphs you quote from the ANO...i.e. "is likely to suffer from, such fatigue as may endanger the safety of the aircraft or of its occupants."
Interesting article today in AIRWAVES (BALPA) regarding a former Ryanair F/O who filed an ASR stating he was unfit to fly..Ryanair's answer: immediate disciplinary meeting on "gross misconduct" and refused F/O right to BALPA rep accompanying him to meeting. F/O left Ryanair before any meeting took place, due to delaying tactics from company. Could have been due to the fact that BALPA threatened court action until Ryanair agreed to legal right of F/O to be accompanied by rep.
THe fact is that we all have a duty to not fly when we believe we are unfit but it can still be very difficult to do so in some companies.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boredcounter
I am with you on this one, and I am genuinely delighted to see that an Ops Controller demonstrates interest, even concern, sufficient to put the question you have posed. Without wishing to be too inflammatory, most ops personnel of my experience appear to be utterly disinterested and quite ignorant with respect to any issue beyond carrying out their employer’s instruction to fly the crews to the absolute maximums as promulgated either in the company FTL Scheme or CAP371 (and beyond those maximums in the case of the unscrupulous, even rostering on the assumption that commanders WILL exercise discretion to achieve the task). So, congratulations to you. I would happily work with you at any time.
Now, to your question. It is undoubtedly true that most legislation is ‘unfriendly’ and often difficult to interpret. Let’s face it, one of the primary roles of our judges is to interpret legislation and this does suggest that even those with years of legal experience may find the task a little daunting at times.
However, Articles 63 and 64 of the Air Navigation (No.2) Order 1995 are in plain and simple language and therefore relatively easy to understand. Likewise, the provisions of CAP371, though sometimes a little complex, are not unduly daunting. In your stated occupation, I feel confident that none of these documents presents a problem for you. And your post with regard to Stellair does suggest that you are quite able to recognise an ‘unsafe’ rostering issue.
I think the answer to your question is simply that you should not be expected to know if a pilot is fatigued unless it is apparent from the scheduling (as in your Stellair example above). The rules themselves should, in the normal course of events, ENSURE that aircrews are well rested and at their best at all times. I repeat, ‘in the normal course of events’, for it is unarguable that there will be times when extrinsic factors beyond the knowledge of an employer or the operations controllers may come into play. In these circumstances, only the pilot him/herself will be aware of his/her fitness to fly (hence the reason for the existence of Article 64 of the ANO). But once the pilot reports fatigue, then Article 63 (2) comes into play and the ‘operator’ then “knows” or has reason to believe that a crew member is suffering from fatigue and must not be permitted to fly.
Sadly, it is my experience that, when a crewmember reports fatigue, the reaction from crewing, ops, the employer, et al is openly hostile, disbelieving, and sometimes punitive. There are occasions where this response may be justified, and I am the first to acknowledge that it is incumbent upon aircrew to ensure that their rest periods are, within the bounds of reason, used for rest rather than … er, shall we say ‘horseplay’. But it is a statement of simple fact to say that the present aviation environment is such that crews are often genuinely fatigued due entirely to their work schedules and they are reluctant to report it for fear of reprisal. This is a recipe for disaster. And, without wishing to be a harbinger of doom, I am of the view that we may already have seen the beginnings of such problems in recent incidents/accidents and we are very likely to see worse in the future unless some positive action is taken to prevent it.
The answer, I think, lies not so much in changing the rules (though they may certainly be improved) as in their proper use and enforcement. The rules are already in place, and, if properly utilised, they would do a fine job in relieving the problem of aircrew fatigue. What is happening is that, in seeking to maximise profits (and this is the primary ‘raison d’etre’ of any company worth being called that) operators are BEING PERMITTED to use MAXIMUM LIMITS as ROSTERING TARGETS (as Hugmonster has quite rightly said above). Note that it is that they are “being permitted” to do this. So the path to solution of this problem lies along two distinctly different routes, but either would achieve the same goal of prevention of fatigue in aircrews. Either we introduce a new rule (preferably via legislation) that makes it an offence to routinely roster crews to the maximum limits as defined within FTL Schemes and/or CAP371, or we REQUIRE and EMPOWER the CAA to enforce the existing rules in the ‘spirit’ (and I like your use of that term) in which they were first laid down.
It is very interesting to see precisely this scenario being acted out in the US as we speak. The FAA has at last taken the initiative and declared its intention to properly interpret and enforce existing rules there. The airlines are up in arms and threatening bloody murder. It is perhaps ironic that US airlines fail to recognise that, even if they succeed, they may in the end face charges of manslaughter and/or murder in the courts following fatigue-related accidents.
I would like to believe that we in the UK are better able to sort out this problem in a non-confrontational manner (though I do have my doubts). And if we do, then only fatigue related to extrinsic matters will remain to face you with the dilemma you posed above. And the answer to your question then will be that, when a pilot tells you that he/she has been up all night nursing a screaming baby, has not slept, and is therefore so fatigued that he/she may, if acting as a crew member, endanger the aircraft or its occupants, you will KNOW that he/she is “knackered” and, hopefully, will be able to do your duty and remove that pilot from the roster for an appropriate rest period. Simple, eh?
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 05 July 2001).]
I am with you on this one, and I am genuinely delighted to see that an Ops Controller demonstrates interest, even concern, sufficient to put the question you have posed. Without wishing to be too inflammatory, most ops personnel of my experience appear to be utterly disinterested and quite ignorant with respect to any issue beyond carrying out their employer’s instruction to fly the crews to the absolute maximums as promulgated either in the company FTL Scheme or CAP371 (and beyond those maximums in the case of the unscrupulous, even rostering on the assumption that commanders WILL exercise discretion to achieve the task). So, congratulations to you. I would happily work with you at any time.
Now, to your question. It is undoubtedly true that most legislation is ‘unfriendly’ and often difficult to interpret. Let’s face it, one of the primary roles of our judges is to interpret legislation and this does suggest that even those with years of legal experience may find the task a little daunting at times.
However, Articles 63 and 64 of the Air Navigation (No.2) Order 1995 are in plain and simple language and therefore relatively easy to understand. Likewise, the provisions of CAP371, though sometimes a little complex, are not unduly daunting. In your stated occupation, I feel confident that none of these documents presents a problem for you. And your post with regard to Stellair does suggest that you are quite able to recognise an ‘unsafe’ rostering issue.
I think the answer to your question is simply that you should not be expected to know if a pilot is fatigued unless it is apparent from the scheduling (as in your Stellair example above). The rules themselves should, in the normal course of events, ENSURE that aircrews are well rested and at their best at all times. I repeat, ‘in the normal course of events’, for it is unarguable that there will be times when extrinsic factors beyond the knowledge of an employer or the operations controllers may come into play. In these circumstances, only the pilot him/herself will be aware of his/her fitness to fly (hence the reason for the existence of Article 64 of the ANO). But once the pilot reports fatigue, then Article 63 (2) comes into play and the ‘operator’ then “knows” or has reason to believe that a crew member is suffering from fatigue and must not be permitted to fly.
Sadly, it is my experience that, when a crewmember reports fatigue, the reaction from crewing, ops, the employer, et al is openly hostile, disbelieving, and sometimes punitive. There are occasions where this response may be justified, and I am the first to acknowledge that it is incumbent upon aircrew to ensure that their rest periods are, within the bounds of reason, used for rest rather than … er, shall we say ‘horseplay’. But it is a statement of simple fact to say that the present aviation environment is such that crews are often genuinely fatigued due entirely to their work schedules and they are reluctant to report it for fear of reprisal. This is a recipe for disaster. And, without wishing to be a harbinger of doom, I am of the view that we may already have seen the beginnings of such problems in recent incidents/accidents and we are very likely to see worse in the future unless some positive action is taken to prevent it.
The answer, I think, lies not so much in changing the rules (though they may certainly be improved) as in their proper use and enforcement. The rules are already in place, and, if properly utilised, they would do a fine job in relieving the problem of aircrew fatigue. What is happening is that, in seeking to maximise profits (and this is the primary ‘raison d’etre’ of any company worth being called that) operators are BEING PERMITTED to use MAXIMUM LIMITS as ROSTERING TARGETS (as Hugmonster has quite rightly said above). Note that it is that they are “being permitted” to do this. So the path to solution of this problem lies along two distinctly different routes, but either would achieve the same goal of prevention of fatigue in aircrews. Either we introduce a new rule (preferably via legislation) that makes it an offence to routinely roster crews to the maximum limits as defined within FTL Schemes and/or CAP371, or we REQUIRE and EMPOWER the CAA to enforce the existing rules in the ‘spirit’ (and I like your use of that term) in which they were first laid down.
It is very interesting to see precisely this scenario being acted out in the US as we speak. The FAA has at last taken the initiative and declared its intention to properly interpret and enforce existing rules there. The airlines are up in arms and threatening bloody murder. It is perhaps ironic that US airlines fail to recognise that, even if they succeed, they may in the end face charges of manslaughter and/or murder in the courts following fatigue-related accidents.
I would like to believe that we in the UK are better able to sort out this problem in a non-confrontational manner (though I do have my doubts). And if we do, then only fatigue related to extrinsic matters will remain to face you with the dilemma you posed above. And the answer to your question then will be that, when a pilot tells you that he/she has been up all night nursing a screaming baby, has not slept, and is therefore so fatigued that he/she may, if acting as a crew member, endanger the aircraft or its occupants, you will KNOW that he/she is “knackered” and, hopefully, will be able to do your duty and remove that pilot from the roster for an appropriate rest period. Simple, eh?
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 05 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tunturi
With respect, it was not so much a matter of my sensitivity as my perception that, while boredcounter had been funny, you had become somewhat sexist in your remarks. Perhaps your ex-wife DID have a point, dear chap, and no offence intended.
As to your suggestion with regard to defining ‘dangerously fatigued’, while this is undoubtedly what the drafters of the rule in question presumed, how does one objectively arrive at the point of recognising “such fatigue as may endanger the safety, [etcetera]” ? The point I would make here is that a person suffering from “such fatigue” is scientifically known to be in a state of poor cognitive powers. Mental faculties are depressed when fatigued (as opposed to merely tired). How does such a person reliably recognise this state in him/herself and stand down from duty, or even report it?
I long ago left BALPA for what I believed were very good reasons, so I have not read the article in question. If it is as you describe in your précis, then it supports what Hugmonster and I have been saying about pilots being reluctant to do their duty under the ANOs for fear of retribution. Ryanair ought to be utterly ashamed of itself, and the sooner it ceases to exist as an employer of human beings then so much the better for the aviation community and the fare-paying public at large. I would stand solidly by the side of the F/O in question. The question is, did BALPA?
With respect, it was not so much a matter of my sensitivity as my perception that, while boredcounter had been funny, you had become somewhat sexist in your remarks. Perhaps your ex-wife DID have a point, dear chap, and no offence intended.
As to your suggestion with regard to defining ‘dangerously fatigued’, while this is undoubtedly what the drafters of the rule in question presumed, how does one objectively arrive at the point of recognising “such fatigue as may endanger the safety, [etcetera]” ? The point I would make here is that a person suffering from “such fatigue” is scientifically known to be in a state of poor cognitive powers. Mental faculties are depressed when fatigued (as opposed to merely tired). How does such a person reliably recognise this state in him/herself and stand down from duty, or even report it?
I long ago left BALPA for what I believed were very good reasons, so I have not read the article in question. If it is as you describe in your précis, then it supports what Hugmonster and I have been saying about pilots being reluctant to do their duty under the ANOs for fear of retribution. Ryanair ought to be utterly ashamed of itself, and the sooner it ceases to exist as an employer of human beings then so much the better for the aviation community and the fare-paying public at large. I would stand solidly by the side of the F/O in question. The question is, did BALPA?
Guest
Posts: n/a
tilii reproduced in full for your perusal -
COURT THREAT BRINGS RYANAIR TO SENSES
A threat of legal action by BALPA on behalf of First Officer J**** W****** has forced Ryanair to agree that BALPA members do have a right to be accompanied by a BALPA representative at disciplinary meetings.
J**** W****** had filed a safety report stating he was unfit to take out an aircraft. Without investigating the safety report, Ryanair moved immediately to a disciplinary meeting on gross misconduct charges.
They refused to allow J**** his statutory right, under the Employment Relations Act 1999, to be accompanied by a BALPA representative whether or not BALPA is recognised.
The company first agreed he could be accompanied by Principal Negotiator Roger Kline, then postponed the hearing until after J**** left Ryanair for another company so no hearing took place at all. J**** said " I am delighted at BALPA's support and Ryanair's retreat".
I believe that the "Whitehatters" are not permitted to position with Ryanair (on duty).
You may wish to consider rejoining BALPA !!
[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 07 July 2001).]
COURT THREAT BRINGS RYANAIR TO SENSES
A threat of legal action by BALPA on behalf of First Officer J**** W****** has forced Ryanair to agree that BALPA members do have a right to be accompanied by a BALPA representative at disciplinary meetings.
J**** W****** had filed a safety report stating he was unfit to take out an aircraft. Without investigating the safety report, Ryanair moved immediately to a disciplinary meeting on gross misconduct charges.
They refused to allow J**** his statutory right, under the Employment Relations Act 1999, to be accompanied by a BALPA representative whether or not BALPA is recognised.
The company first agreed he could be accompanied by Principal Negotiator Roger Kline, then postponed the hearing until after J**** left Ryanair for another company so no hearing took place at all. J**** said " I am delighted at BALPA's support and Ryanair's retreat".
I believe that the "Whitehatters" are not permitted to position with Ryanair (on duty).
You may wish to consider rejoining BALPA !!
[This message has been edited by PPRuNe Towers (edited 07 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pat Pong
Thanks for that very enlightening post. However, ignoring for a moment the thoroughly reprehensible conduct of the airline, one or two issues arise therefrom as follows:
1. I am left to ponder as to the length of time between the occurrence of JW’s ASR submission and the eventual resolution by default (there was NOT, it seems a resolution as such, merely a departure of the employee). You report that “Ryanair moved IMMEDIATELY [own emphasis] to a disciplinary meeting”, following which certain posturing led eventually to J****’s departure from Ryanair to another employer. Given that most pilots are on contracts requiring 3 months notice or more, it would seem that the posturing between the airline and BALPA may have gone on for sufficient time for the hapless pilot to be either stood down from duty or forced to work out the notice period while worrying as to the eventual outcome for that very long period of time;
2. While I acknowledge that J**** is reported to have been ‘delighted’ with BALPA’s support, I wonder what kind of support there really was in assisting in retention of the position with Ryanair. That J***** chose to leave Ryanair may not have been the preferred choice and may have been driven by despair as to a perceived satisfactory resolution to the problem. That a pilot should feel driven to leave employment in these circumstances is, to me, a somewhat bizarre solution to the quite outrageous facts in this case;
3. Though J***** may now feel that he/she is better off with the new employer, the fact remains that Ryanair has not been ‘brought to book’ for its conduct in the matter and may well feel free to repeat the exercise with some other hapless employee, necessitating repetition of precisely the same posturing and blowing of smoke. Would it not have been far better to see the pilot remain employed and Ryanair ‘educated’ as to the error of its ways?
As to my rejoining BALPA, I would be delighted to do so the very moment I see that it truly represents the best interests of its pilot membership. But it had better make rapid changes for I will soon retire, and nothing in this case leads me to alter my present stance on BALPA.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 06 July 2001).]
[ 07 July 2001: Message edited by: Sick Squid ]
Thanks for that very enlightening post. However, ignoring for a moment the thoroughly reprehensible conduct of the airline, one or two issues arise therefrom as follows:
1. I am left to ponder as to the length of time between the occurrence of JW’s ASR submission and the eventual resolution by default (there was NOT, it seems a resolution as such, merely a departure of the employee). You report that “Ryanair moved IMMEDIATELY [own emphasis] to a disciplinary meeting”, following which certain posturing led eventually to J****’s departure from Ryanair to another employer. Given that most pilots are on contracts requiring 3 months notice or more, it would seem that the posturing between the airline and BALPA may have gone on for sufficient time for the hapless pilot to be either stood down from duty or forced to work out the notice period while worrying as to the eventual outcome for that very long period of time;
2. While I acknowledge that J**** is reported to have been ‘delighted’ with BALPA’s support, I wonder what kind of support there really was in assisting in retention of the position with Ryanair. That J***** chose to leave Ryanair may not have been the preferred choice and may have been driven by despair as to a perceived satisfactory resolution to the problem. That a pilot should feel driven to leave employment in these circumstances is, to me, a somewhat bizarre solution to the quite outrageous facts in this case;
3. Though J***** may now feel that he/she is better off with the new employer, the fact remains that Ryanair has not been ‘brought to book’ for its conduct in the matter and may well feel free to repeat the exercise with some other hapless employee, necessitating repetition of precisely the same posturing and blowing of smoke. Would it not have been far better to see the pilot remain employed and Ryanair ‘educated’ as to the error of its ways?
As to my rejoining BALPA, I would be delighted to do so the very moment I see that it truly represents the best interests of its pilot membership. But it had better make rapid changes for I will soon retire, and nothing in this case leads me to alter my present stance on BALPA.
[This message has been edited by tilii (edited 06 July 2001).]
[ 07 July 2001: Message edited by: Sick Squid ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Late comment on:
Assuming UK CAA applies, if your Ops Manual specifies a 90 minute report time, then it is a breach of the AOC to reduce this without a CAA exemption/alleviation or a Dispatch Crew (only if your Ops Manual permits a Dispatch Crew).
To answer another query on this thread, SARPs are ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices. Unless the State of Registration has formally filed a Difference with ICAO, a Standard must be obeyed. A Recommended Practice is not compulsory.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2"> 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 </font>
To answer another query on this thread, SARPs are ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices. Unless the State of Registration has formally filed a Difference with ICAO, a Standard must be obeyed. A Recommended Practice is not compulsory.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tilli
Thanks mate, we are always on the lookout for crew, pehaps you will get the chance to work with me one day.......It should not seem odd that I am an Ops guy who cares about fatigue, It 'should' be the norm. The fault must lie with the carriers attitude in the cases where fatigue is met with open hostility. And that is always going to be the biggest stumbling block. We all know that for every Airline with an Agreement for Service with its crews, There is another, that doesn't, that'll take you to 900 hrs dead. Now I have put my cards on the table earlier, and you can guess we don't push our crews to the max, but we do roster 5 earlies, and use n/stop clause to roster more than three, but in a responsible manner.
I think, in 8 years we have had 2 cases of fatigue, both advised prior to the proceeding rest period. Fatigue should never be an issue responsible aircrew need fear. Sure expect a meeting with your Fleet Capt, If something like that didn't happen chaos would reign. As times change, ANY SHIFT WORKER, finds it harder to sleep, what with all the Car / House alarms and longer 'living hours' around now.
That said, how many Agreements for service allow, those who want the o/time, to work to the limits of the Company FTLS / CAP371. Could negotiations around your AFS be a good starting point for those of you lucky enough to have one. (I see the AFS as being the norm soon at all responsible carriers, hence the Q. it is not to be misconstrued as petty jealousy.)
FLY SAFE
Bored
Thanks mate, we are always on the lookout for crew, pehaps you will get the chance to work with me one day.......It should not seem odd that I am an Ops guy who cares about fatigue, It 'should' be the norm. The fault must lie with the carriers attitude in the cases where fatigue is met with open hostility. And that is always going to be the biggest stumbling block. We all know that for every Airline with an Agreement for Service with its crews, There is another, that doesn't, that'll take you to 900 hrs dead. Now I have put my cards on the table earlier, and you can guess we don't push our crews to the max, but we do roster 5 earlies, and use n/stop clause to roster more than three, but in a responsible manner.
I think, in 8 years we have had 2 cases of fatigue, both advised prior to the proceeding rest period. Fatigue should never be an issue responsible aircrew need fear. Sure expect a meeting with your Fleet Capt, If something like that didn't happen chaos would reign. As times change, ANY SHIFT WORKER, finds it harder to sleep, what with all the Car / House alarms and longer 'living hours' around now.
That said, how many Agreements for service allow, those who want the o/time, to work to the limits of the Company FTLS / CAP371. Could negotiations around your AFS be a good starting point for those of you lucky enough to have one. (I see the AFS as being the norm soon at all responsible carriers, hence the Q. it is not to be misconstrued as petty jealousy.)
FLY SAFE
Bored
Guest
Posts: n/a
Boredcounter
Sadly, my friend, I am very close to retirement. Thus it seems unlikely that we shall ever work together. That does not change the fact that I admire your expressed views as an Ops Controller. I feel certain that the pilots whose everyday lives are influenced by your department are equally pleased with you. But please do keep a sharp eye out for fatigue in them. It is an ever present problem in the hectic lives of the modern airline pilot.
Hope to meet you one day. Maybe you should organise a bash where you work and I will come along.
Sadly, my friend, I am very close to retirement. Thus it seems unlikely that we shall ever work together. That does not change the fact that I admire your expressed views as an Ops Controller. I feel certain that the pilots whose everyday lives are influenced by your department are equally pleased with you. But please do keep a sharp eye out for fatigue in them. It is an ever present problem in the hectic lives of the modern airline pilot.
Hope to meet you one day. Maybe you should organise a bash where you work and I will come along.
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there is a problem with fatigued crews feeling unable to report the fact due to company pressure, and if it doesn't get fixed, then I can predict exactly what'll happen. Nothing for a while, then there'll be a fatal accident, then there'll be a lot of fuss and funerals, some bright spark will come up with a physiological test for fatigue, another sliver of professional respect will be sliced off the job but it *will* be safer -- at a cost.
Or am I missing something here?
R
Or am I missing something here?
R
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East Midlands
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF
No, we are right on top of the issue.
Flying is still safer than crossing the street.........Fact.
The Lad/Lasses at the sharp end still get it right, very nearly all of the time, and in the times that something screws their plans, Front and Backend crew will see you OK.
Cos they are PRO'S
No doubt about it................
tilli, email me please, gotta personal Q, now you give you status away..........
FLY S A F E all of ya, (SLF you will)
No, we are right on top of the issue.
Flying is still safer than crossing the street.........Fact.
The Lad/Lasses at the sharp end still get it right, very nearly all of the time, and in the times that something screws their plans, Front and Backend crew will see you OK.
Cos they are PRO'S
No doubt about it................
tilli, email me please, gotta personal Q, now you give you status away..........
FLY S A F E all of ya, (SLF you will)
