CAP 371 Amendments - Sold down the line ?
Thread Starter
CAP 371 Amendments - Sold down the line ?
The BALPA Airwaves supplement has a choice article on the progress of FODCOM 12-01 Proposals to amend CAP 371. See <a href="http://www.chirp.co.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.chirp.co.uk/</a> and go to the 'What's New' banner.
For those new to this topic here is a brief reminder. The DERA (now known as Qinetiq) conducted a fatigue study on a large British airline. This measured the performance of crews operating multi-sectors on short haul duties. An outcome of this study was a recommendation that the law be subtlety changed to prevent a series of five early duties being rostered utilising the one hour time zone change between Britain and Europe.
Affected UK Operators were given a fixed period in which to comment after which the proposals would be used to amend the CAP. It would seem, according to BALPA, that one 'very large UK operator' managed to coerce rival airlines into co-ordinated response along lines of total rejection of the amendment.
To state matters clearly these amendments are solely a safety issue. Working practices in the industry have changed quite a bit over the last decade to reflect the requirements of business travel. Human physiology is struggling to keep up with imposed demands of the rosters these schedules demand. Perfectly reasonable scientific research has indicated a remedy in the interests of public safety.
However, At least one politically astute individual has rallied round the opposition and presented the CAA with a case it is frightened to answer lest it be criticised for compromising the commercial interests of the industry at this difficult time.
To put matters bluntly a really tired crew operating the London TMA, in bad weather and with an operational problem are a public liability.
So what is going on?
At the heart of our industrial society commerce rule over safety. The publics lives are risked at the expense of corporate profits.
If there is a fatigue related accident involving a crew on the fourth sector of their fifth early start then the inky finger of blame could well be directed at the thoughtless individual who rallied round the other UK Operations Directors to divert necessary safety regulation so his bosses balance sheet looked a bit better.
For those new to this topic here is a brief reminder. The DERA (now known as Qinetiq) conducted a fatigue study on a large British airline. This measured the performance of crews operating multi-sectors on short haul duties. An outcome of this study was a recommendation that the law be subtlety changed to prevent a series of five early duties being rostered utilising the one hour time zone change between Britain and Europe.
Affected UK Operators were given a fixed period in which to comment after which the proposals would be used to amend the CAP. It would seem, according to BALPA, that one 'very large UK operator' managed to coerce rival airlines into co-ordinated response along lines of total rejection of the amendment.
To state matters clearly these amendments are solely a safety issue. Working practices in the industry have changed quite a bit over the last decade to reflect the requirements of business travel. Human physiology is struggling to keep up with imposed demands of the rosters these schedules demand. Perfectly reasonable scientific research has indicated a remedy in the interests of public safety.
However, At least one politically astute individual has rallied round the opposition and presented the CAA with a case it is frightened to answer lest it be criticised for compromising the commercial interests of the industry at this difficult time.
To put matters bluntly a really tired crew operating the London TMA, in bad weather and with an operational problem are a public liability.
So what is going on?
At the heart of our industrial society commerce rule over safety. The publics lives are risked at the expense of corporate profits.
If there is a fatigue related accident involving a crew on the fourth sector of their fifth early start then the inky finger of blame could well be directed at the thoughtless individual who rallied round the other UK Operations Directors to divert necessary safety regulation so his bosses balance sheet looked a bit better.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW. Do read my post 'Irish rip off'. Please excuse the childish banter preceeding my main thrust that; some airline management, without proper supervision from authorities, will run amuck.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wig Wag
If an UK Crew at London TMA in bad wx is a liability what state will crews from Ireland / Belguim / Spain / Europe / Africa / Russia etc be in given that they all have one thing in common - more flexible FTL's than UK Crews?. . .The 1 hr time difference was one subject amongst others that the FODCOM mentioned, admitingly the Airlines most likely affected would be Scheduled Airlines because of their route structures and crew patterns. However, I do feel the CAA on this subject should have looked at the wider picture. . .Give me your thoughts on the following
1/ A Virgin crew operating a late PM JFK, if they took 12 hours rest and operated back following morning JFK time.Could it be argued they could stay acclimatised to UK time rather than becoming unacclimatised?. The 12 hours rest would be see the crew mainly asleep?. A better FTL would be achievable and possibly on some route structures mean 2 crew rather than 3 crew ops
2/ A crew on a series of night flights commencing. .in UK, but first stop in Europe all on min rest. Do the same rules apply in that their FDP will be based on UK start time (with the possibility that a more favourable FDP may be achievable given UK time - 1 hr). If they stay on UK time zones what happens when they go back to the UK, do they switch to the European time start or stay at UK
So on this particular subject the CAA FOP omitted. .to look at the "wider picture", and choose to be selective, albeit based on medical evidence but common sense would suggest that if its going to affect a crew on a series of earlys then it will do for afternoons and nights.
As for BA asserting pressure on other UK Airlines I can assure you its normally the other way around... <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
If an UK Crew at London TMA in bad wx is a liability what state will crews from Ireland / Belguim / Spain / Europe / Africa / Russia etc be in given that they all have one thing in common - more flexible FTL's than UK Crews?. . .The 1 hr time difference was one subject amongst others that the FODCOM mentioned, admitingly the Airlines most likely affected would be Scheduled Airlines because of their route structures and crew patterns. However, I do feel the CAA on this subject should have looked at the wider picture. . .Give me your thoughts on the following
1/ A Virgin crew operating a late PM JFK, if they took 12 hours rest and operated back following morning JFK time.Could it be argued they could stay acclimatised to UK time rather than becoming unacclimatised?. The 12 hours rest would be see the crew mainly asleep?. A better FTL would be achievable and possibly on some route structures mean 2 crew rather than 3 crew ops
2/ A crew on a series of night flights commencing. .in UK, but first stop in Europe all on min rest. Do the same rules apply in that their FDP will be based on UK start time (with the possibility that a more favourable FDP may be achievable given UK time - 1 hr). If they stay on UK time zones what happens when they go back to the UK, do they switch to the European time start or stay at UK
So on this particular subject the CAA FOP omitted. .to look at the "wider picture", and choose to be selective, albeit based on medical evidence but common sense would suggest that if its going to affect a crew on a series of earlys then it will do for afternoons and nights.
As for BA asserting pressure on other UK Airlines I can assure you its normally the other way around... <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
Thread Starter
Hullo Mr Angry ! Good to hear from you.
The BALPA article mentioned a 'very large UK operator'. I don't know which airline was meant by this statement so neither of us can assume it is British Airways.
Ref your 1st point I have operated the 24 hour slip pattern many times and found it very tiring. If the schedule allowed for 12 hours rest Stateside then (in my view) it might be less tiring on a regular basis.
I am not clear on your second point and decline to comment.
The point I am making is this: Where the CAA, backed by scientific research, finds that CAP 371 needs amending to limit industry working practices how can the airlines rightly veto the changes?
The problem with FTL won't go away and the CAP is established as the safegaurd against fatigue in commercial pilots.
Is not something wrong with system if the CAA, as I suspect, is bowing to commercial pressure?
The BALPA article mentioned a 'very large UK operator'. I don't know which airline was meant by this statement so neither of us can assume it is British Airways.
Ref your 1st point I have operated the 24 hour slip pattern many times and found it very tiring. If the schedule allowed for 12 hours rest Stateside then (in my view) it might be less tiring on a regular basis.
I am not clear on your second point and decline to comment.
The point I am making is this: Where the CAA, backed by scientific research, finds that CAP 371 needs amending to limit industry working practices how can the airlines rightly veto the changes?
The problem with FTL won't go away and the CAP is established as the safegaurd against fatigue in commercial pilots.
Is not something wrong with system if the CAA, as I suspect, is bowing to commercial pressure?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: At work
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wig Wag. .The changes apply to any first night stopover in Continental Europe, and not specifically to the 5 . .early variation. The study was done on KLM UK on "earlys" and i believe a study has also been done on BMI on "lates". Another question;. .If the crew night stop in Europe the first night and apply the UK time to the FDP allowable, if they go back to the UK and nightstop do they calculate their allowable FDP on UK time or Continental time? (recipe for confusion, perhaps. .we should persuade the Euro's to move their clocks back instead, and all switch to CAP371 for a level playing field)
As for the CAA bending to commercial pressure, don't think so from experience.
As for the CAA bending to commercial pressure, don't think so from experience.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I feel the issues are clouded by the possible implementation of JAR OPS FTL's in approx 18 months time. Why penalise UK airlines any more so than at present (against Ryanair! etc) when the whole gambit is about to change anyway.
I think we should be far more concerned about the forthcoming JAR OPS limitations and their potential increase in FTL's, as opposed to a potentialy short term improvement to our life-styles, but at the expense of UK airlines remaining competetive.
Anyway, when on the continent, I find going to bed an hour earlier usually does the trick
I think we should be far more concerned about the forthcoming JAR OPS limitations and their potential increase in FTL's, as opposed to a potentialy short term improvement to our life-styles, but at the expense of UK airlines remaining competetive.
Anyway, when on the continent, I find going to bed an hour earlier usually does the trick
Thread Starter
>>As for the CAA bending to commercial pressure, don't think so from experience.<<
The point of this this thread being that the CAA have not instituted the CAP 371 changes as several airlines have made objections on grounds of cost.
. .>>I think we should be far more concerned about the forthcoming JAR OPS limitations and their potential increase in FTL's,<<
Sure we should be concerned about JAR OPS limitations; they are likely to be more permissive with a consequent deterioration in lifestyle for UK crews.
>>as opposed to a potentialy short term improvement to our life-styles, but at the expense of UK airlines remaining competetive.<<
. .Wooof, why not let the airlines set their own FTL's ?
The point of this this thread being that the CAA have not instituted the CAP 371 changes as several airlines have made objections on grounds of cost.
. .>>I think we should be far more concerned about the forthcoming JAR OPS limitations and their potential increase in FTL's,<<
Sure we should be concerned about JAR OPS limitations; they are likely to be more permissive with a consequent deterioration in lifestyle for UK crews.
>>as opposed to a potentialy short term improvement to our life-styles, but at the expense of UK airlines remaining competetive.<<
. .Wooof, why not let the airlines set their own FTL's ?
Uncle Pete
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Frodsham Cheshire
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone is talking about changes but perhaps the CAA are merely trying to close the loop-holes that are invariably exploited by the airlines when a new piece of legislation becomes the law?
Make the legislation absolutely watertight in the first place and you save all the hastle.
MP <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Make the legislation absolutely watertight in the first place and you save all the hastle.
MP <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: where the licence is easiest
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stop whingin' and have a kip en route instead of your meal, problem solved.. .dont know why half of you bothered wastin your money on a licence, when you could have had a career with ricky gervaise in "the office".. .usual "english flat earth society " waffle.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Blackburn
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I first read that CAP371 was being amended I thought "HOORAY!!", however, it now seems to be that it has definitely been swept under the carpet.
In the modern age of political correctness, employee rights etc I find it very hard to understand why the CAA or JAA get away with the limits on hours cabin and flight crew are allowed to operate.
If I worked on the ground, the Health and Safety at Work Act protects me. I have to have a set number of breaks within certain hours of duty. So, why is it that I can legally operate an 18 hour duty (with max discretion), have 17 hours rest and then do it again, and not be entitled to have a break/rest period during the flight?
Research has shown that working at altitude - which we all do - is equivalent to working at least 1 1/2 to 2 hours at sea level. Why does the HASAWA purposely exclude flight and cabin crew from protection?
Can you imagine the country's factories working flat out for 18 hours (max allowed for cabin crew, depending on check-in time and sectors flown etc)without a legally allowed break? I happen to think not, so why are all flying staff expected to do it?
The revision of CAP371,whilst good with it's intentions does not go far enough. I am not unrealistic and understand the nature of the job etc., and I am not whinging (is that how you spell it?) I would just like someone to explain to me why the CAA/JAA think that crew who work 6 days on, with an average FDA of 12 hours per flight can operate healthily with just 11 hours rest in between duties, and why we are excluded from the HASAWA.
End of the day, I am happy to be fortunate enough to have kept my job in the present climate and am thankful for it, but it does make me wonder if some of the airlines are getting away with murder. . . <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
In the modern age of political correctness, employee rights etc I find it very hard to understand why the CAA or JAA get away with the limits on hours cabin and flight crew are allowed to operate.
If I worked on the ground, the Health and Safety at Work Act protects me. I have to have a set number of breaks within certain hours of duty. So, why is it that I can legally operate an 18 hour duty (with max discretion), have 17 hours rest and then do it again, and not be entitled to have a break/rest period during the flight?
Research has shown that working at altitude - which we all do - is equivalent to working at least 1 1/2 to 2 hours at sea level. Why does the HASAWA purposely exclude flight and cabin crew from protection?
Can you imagine the country's factories working flat out for 18 hours (max allowed for cabin crew, depending on check-in time and sectors flown etc)without a legally allowed break? I happen to think not, so why are all flying staff expected to do it?
The revision of CAP371,whilst good with it's intentions does not go far enough. I am not unrealistic and understand the nature of the job etc., and I am not whinging (is that how you spell it?) I would just like someone to explain to me why the CAA/JAA think that crew who work 6 days on, with an average FDA of 12 hours per flight can operate healthily with just 11 hours rest in between duties, and why we are excluded from the HASAWA.
End of the day, I am happy to be fortunate enough to have kept my job in the present climate and am thankful for it, but it does make me wonder if some of the airlines are getting away with murder. . . <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly, the Guantanamo incident which found fatigue as a factor in the crash raises the question of the liability of the CAA.
Having proposed a safety amendment if they then back down on implementing it due to comercial pressure from airlines they could be held liable should an acident occur where fatigue was identified as a causal factor. The recent court case involving the M62 driver springs to mind; fatigue was identified as the root cause of the crash.
Having proposed a safety amendment if they then back down on implementing it due to comercial pressure from airlines they could be held liable should an acident occur where fatigue was identified as a causal factor. The recent court case involving the M62 driver springs to mind; fatigue was identified as the root cause of the crash.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW
Every scenario has a safety case and your example of a crew being excessively tired (to the effect of under-performance) on their fifth early, in London TMA in peak period, with an operational problem in bad wx.......is just a tad remote.
I know that we are all aware of history and that this could potentially lead to an incident but as long as the safety case is made then the rule remains the same. We cannot complain when the safety case is 1 in 100million flight hours and an incident happens once in 100 million flight hours - surely that is the point of the safety case.
We all have the duty to ensure we are able to complete the duty safely and securely. In my opinion you can be just as fatigued on the third early and all aircrew are responsible for their own performance.
Another opinion of mine on this subject is the very existance of a rule can have an adverse effect on safety as it creates a standard which crews feel that the must achieve. We are all made differently and lead different lives and are capable of different levels of stamina. However, we are all individually responsible for ensuring we can complete the duty safely. The very rule itself can incite a fatigued pilot to push him/herself over the edge since there is a rule that says he/she should be able to do it.
PSR777 / You should open your eyes next time you manage to struggle onto or off an aircraft in your fatigued state with your CAP371 dreaming of HASAWA. I can tell you now that there are a lot of people on the airport doing much longer hours, more days of the week with far less leave than you and receiving a fraction of your pay. Stop moaning - next time you talk to a loader ask him how many hours he has worked this week - I gurantee he will average 60 (is this not your max?) The Operations guy frantically trying to keep the airline on the rails for 12hours is under far more stress than you or I can understand. The rep dealing with pax from a cancelled flight is the same. These people don't walk away after 3hr 30mins to take their 'meal break'.
I suspect you have forgotton why you joined this industry in the first place.
I too want a level playing field - but I want it for everyone - do not isolate yourselves from your colleagues, your life could depend on it.
MM
Every scenario has a safety case and your example of a crew being excessively tired (to the effect of under-performance) on their fifth early, in London TMA in peak period, with an operational problem in bad wx.......is just a tad remote.
I know that we are all aware of history and that this could potentially lead to an incident but as long as the safety case is made then the rule remains the same. We cannot complain when the safety case is 1 in 100million flight hours and an incident happens once in 100 million flight hours - surely that is the point of the safety case.
We all have the duty to ensure we are able to complete the duty safely and securely. In my opinion you can be just as fatigued on the third early and all aircrew are responsible for their own performance.
Another opinion of mine on this subject is the very existance of a rule can have an adverse effect on safety as it creates a standard which crews feel that the must achieve. We are all made differently and lead different lives and are capable of different levels of stamina. However, we are all individually responsible for ensuring we can complete the duty safely. The very rule itself can incite a fatigued pilot to push him/herself over the edge since there is a rule that says he/she should be able to do it.
PSR777 / You should open your eyes next time you manage to struggle onto or off an aircraft in your fatigued state with your CAP371 dreaming of HASAWA. I can tell you now that there are a lot of people on the airport doing much longer hours, more days of the week with far less leave than you and receiving a fraction of your pay. Stop moaning - next time you talk to a loader ask him how many hours he has worked this week - I gurantee he will average 60 (is this not your max?) The Operations guy frantically trying to keep the airline on the rails for 12hours is under far more stress than you or I can understand. The rep dealing with pax from a cancelled flight is the same. These people don't walk away after 3hr 30mins to take their 'meal break'.
I suspect you have forgotton why you joined this industry in the first place.
I too want a level playing field - but I want it for everyone - do not isolate yourselves from your colleagues, your life could depend on it.
MM
Thread Starter
>>Every scenario has a safety case and your example of a crew being excessively tired (to the effect of under-performance) on their fifth early, in London TMA in peak period, with an operational problem in bad wx.......is just a tad remote.<<
Sh*t happens I'm afraid.
So, moodymoosey , who decides how long a crew should fly on a given shift?
The airline or the regulator?
Sh*t happens I'm afraid.
So, moodymoosey , who decides how long a crew should fly on a given shift?
The airline or the regulator?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW
I agree the regulator regulates but this should not be exclusively and without contact with the operators of the policy.
At the end of the day it is the operator that is going to try to prevent the crew member being given the chance to become fatigued. They will employ the policy and their opinion counts. This opinion should be courted by the regulator as should that of all interested parties.
You may remember the third revision which introduced the early/late regulation which was a shockingly poor attempt at producing a balanced 'rule'. At the rostering stage an operator could roster only one night duty if finishing before 2100 and yet an on-the-day an operator could retain the crew member on duty until 0200 and thus allow them to perform 2 more night duties [unplanned]. Put a pilot in your scenario over London TMA on the back of a 2300 LGW-TFS on third [unplanned] night with poor wx and everything else against you.....and someone let that rule be introduced! The example proves the risk involved with any 'minor adjustments'.
Might just be that someone learnt a lesson that just because a doctor and some crews say something is the s**t end of the stick doesn't mean we have to run around with the red safety flag and introduce every recommendation. I want to be safer than is possible but there is every chance 'tweeking' the rules will make the problem a whole lot worse.
Furthermore, we should all remember that CAP371 is a publication aimed at reducing the instances of fatigue in aircrew.....not a labour agreement. Both Operators, Unions and individual crew need to find a more developed method of working with each other to stop the chances of fatigue. The CAA, as the regulator, needs to learn that regulation should be a last resort.
I don't pretend to have all answers but I would love to see an end to this debate in my lifetime...
MM
I agree the regulator regulates but this should not be exclusively and without contact with the operators of the policy.
At the end of the day it is the operator that is going to try to prevent the crew member being given the chance to become fatigued. They will employ the policy and their opinion counts. This opinion should be courted by the regulator as should that of all interested parties.
You may remember the third revision which introduced the early/late regulation which was a shockingly poor attempt at producing a balanced 'rule'. At the rostering stage an operator could roster only one night duty if finishing before 2100 and yet an on-the-day an operator could retain the crew member on duty until 0200 and thus allow them to perform 2 more night duties [unplanned]. Put a pilot in your scenario over London TMA on the back of a 2300 LGW-TFS on third [unplanned] night with poor wx and everything else against you.....and someone let that rule be introduced! The example proves the risk involved with any 'minor adjustments'.
Might just be that someone learnt a lesson that just because a doctor and some crews say something is the s**t end of the stick doesn't mean we have to run around with the red safety flag and introduce every recommendation. I want to be safer than is possible but there is every chance 'tweeking' the rules will make the problem a whole lot worse.
Furthermore, we should all remember that CAP371 is a publication aimed at reducing the instances of fatigue in aircrew.....not a labour agreement. Both Operators, Unions and individual crew need to find a more developed method of working with each other to stop the chances of fatigue. The CAA, as the regulator, needs to learn that regulation should be a last resort.
I don't pretend to have all answers but I would love to see an end to this debate in my lifetime...
MM
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mm
[quote]At the end of the day it is the operator that is going to try to prevent the crew member being given the chance to become fatigued. <hr></blockquote>
Please enlighten us as to which planet you fly from. The operators milk every last second of duty from FTLs. If they had the moral conscience that you appear to suggest then they would be increasing seat pitch as well.
Your analogy to other airport workers is fundamentally flawed. They are not hurtling around at seven or eight miles per minute in a three-dimensional environment. May I be so bold as to suggest that falling asleep adjacent to the baggage belt is potentially far less catastrophic than nodding off in the flight deck.
[quote]At the end of the day it is the operator that is going to try to prevent the crew member being given the chance to become fatigued. <hr></blockquote>
Please enlighten us as to which planet you fly from. The operators milk every last second of duty from FTLs. If they had the moral conscience that you appear to suggest then they would be increasing seat pitch as well.
Your analogy to other airport workers is fundamentally flawed. They are not hurtling around at seven or eight miles per minute in a three-dimensional environment. May I be so bold as to suggest that falling asleep adjacent to the baggage belt is potentially far less catastrophic than nodding off in the flight deck.
Thread Starter
>>there is every chance 'tweeking' the rules will make the problem a whole lot worse.<<
Well not really; The amendments seek to close a loophole which the CAA never imagined any operator would seek to exploit in the first case. Scientific research has illuminated a problem which many of us had already been concerned about.
>>The CAA, as the regulator, needs to learn that regulation should be a last resort.<<
I too would hope that regulation is a last resort in preventing fatigue in airline pilots. However, airlines use CAP 371 as a work target so the regulation needs to reflect that limits are used as a day to day working practices.
Well not really; The amendments seek to close a loophole which the CAA never imagined any operator would seek to exploit in the first case. Scientific research has illuminated a problem which many of us had already been concerned about.
>>The CAA, as the regulator, needs to learn that regulation should be a last resort.<<
I too would hope that regulation is a last resort in preventing fatigue in airline pilots. However, airlines use CAP 371 as a work target so the regulation needs to reflect that limits are used as a day to day working practices.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moodymoosey
Nothing personal old chap you understand.....but for £$%£s sake GET A LIFE!! Why do those of us in this business who love flying aeroplanes (just like you I presume) but who would also like to see our wives and children while remaining awake once in a while, have to put up with your wishy washy drivel that apparently implies that I have to take anything that rostering comes up with just because I happen to like flying aeroplanes?
If I had a pound for the number of people I've flown with over the years who've given me the same argument.......
Don't you realise the bottom line is money? Work us as hard as the rules allow and the profits increase, and some rich businessman buys a new yacht......if we let ourselves be worked like this we've only ourselves to blame.
Do you honestly think that many other workers with our level of responsibility would put up with the odd starting times, long hours, and difficult working conditions that we put up with?
And excuse me, but to compare us with baggage handlers or duty managers is illogical in the extreme. If they suddenly walk off the job due to fatigue, does anyone get killed? I think not. I'm a trainer, and it really gets my back up when people don't stand up for themselves and realise that the job we do is actually VERY SKILLED. You really realise this when you're training new, inexperienced people in this environment for the first time. The potential to make life-threatening mistakes is enormous. YOU NEED TO BE FULLY AWAKE TO BE SAFE. GETTING UP AT FOUR IN THE MORNING, FOR SOMETIMES WEEKS ON END DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO FLIGHT SAFETY. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. AND COMPANIES CONTINUE TO GET AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE THEY'VE DONE THE RISK/REWARD ASSESSMENT AND THEY THINK THEY CAN. And people like you tell them to go right ahead........
Nothing personal old chap you understand.....but for £$%£s sake GET A LIFE!! Why do those of us in this business who love flying aeroplanes (just like you I presume) but who would also like to see our wives and children while remaining awake once in a while, have to put up with your wishy washy drivel that apparently implies that I have to take anything that rostering comes up with just because I happen to like flying aeroplanes?
If I had a pound for the number of people I've flown with over the years who've given me the same argument.......
Don't you realise the bottom line is money? Work us as hard as the rules allow and the profits increase, and some rich businessman buys a new yacht......if we let ourselves be worked like this we've only ourselves to blame.
Do you honestly think that many other workers with our level of responsibility would put up with the odd starting times, long hours, and difficult working conditions that we put up with?
And excuse me, but to compare us with baggage handlers or duty managers is illogical in the extreme. If they suddenly walk off the job due to fatigue, does anyone get killed? I think not. I'm a trainer, and it really gets my back up when people don't stand up for themselves and realise that the job we do is actually VERY SKILLED. You really realise this when you're training new, inexperienced people in this environment for the first time. The potential to make life-threatening mistakes is enormous. YOU NEED TO BE FULLY AWAKE TO BE SAFE. GETTING UP AT FOUR IN THE MORNING, FOR SOMETIMES WEEKS ON END DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO FLIGHT SAFETY. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. AND COMPANIES CONTINUE TO GET AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE THEY'VE DONE THE RISK/REWARD ASSESSMENT AND THEY THINK THEY CAN. And people like you tell them to go right ahead........
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Blackburn
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moodymoosey: I have most definitley NOT forgotten why I got into this industry...., it is precisely the reason I would also like and even playing field. I was not moaning as you so tactfully put it, if you read my post you would have noticed that it was more or less a question as to why in fact there is no level playing field.
Airlines depend on every employee working together to keep it going, I understand it, respect it and actually really enjoy it. As you pointed out, many ground staff work much longer hours than we do, and some of them much, much more physically demanding, however HASAWA DOES apply to them. Whether or not their employer pays any attention to it is not the point. HASAWA was put together to empower and protect employees from ruthless employers running a "sweat shop". My point is that I do not believe that CAP371 does the same, it simply points out the maximum allowed to the individual airlines, who then submit their responses and interpretations, based on that maximum.
I agree that operators, unions and consultation bodies must try to work harder to get better conditions for flying staff, and also understand that the ground staff dealing with 12 hour delayed pax don't just walk off when their break is due, the point is though that they can !!
You say that. . "Furthermore, we should all remember that CAP371 is a publication aimed at reducing the instances of fatigue in aircrew.....not a labour agreement"
Is the HASAWA a labour agreement? <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Airlines depend on every employee working together to keep it going, I understand it, respect it and actually really enjoy it. As you pointed out, many ground staff work much longer hours than we do, and some of them much, much more physically demanding, however HASAWA DOES apply to them. Whether or not their employer pays any attention to it is not the point. HASAWA was put together to empower and protect employees from ruthless employers running a "sweat shop". My point is that I do not believe that CAP371 does the same, it simply points out the maximum allowed to the individual airlines, who then submit their responses and interpretations, based on that maximum.
I agree that operators, unions and consultation bodies must try to work harder to get better conditions for flying staff, and also understand that the ground staff dealing with 12 hour delayed pax don't just walk off when their break is due, the point is though that they can !!
You say that. . "Furthermore, we should all remember that CAP371 is a publication aimed at reducing the instances of fatigue in aircrew.....not a labour agreement"
Is the HASAWA a labour agreement? <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Guest
Posts: n/a
I really do hope the CAA show stand firm on the amendment. Being fatigued is one thing. Rather more problematic is flying with someone who is fatigued.
A while ago I recovered to London late in the evening with a young lad whose performance in the cockpit became less than sparkling. A very capable fellow he stopped responding to requests and procedure and frankly acted like his battery had suddenly gone flat. A few enquiries elicited that this was the final sector of a six day shift. Starting on earlies and ending on lates he had succumbed to fatigue.
I brought the aircraft home on my own basically; however, we had a minor tech snag on finals (no auto speedbrake) and he perked up enough to make a useful input. Otherwise he was pretty much spent.
Now, 'ANO says . . .'
The problem was that he was not only being worked too hard but the roster was poorly thought out in the first place.
Any loopholes which the CAA discover in safety regulation need to be plugged, and quickly. It is no excuse that certain airlines complain of the cost of employing a few more pilots.
My personal guess is that JAR OPS FTL's will be considerably more lax than CAP 371 making the profession less atractive to the quality people it needs.
A while ago I recovered to London late in the evening with a young lad whose performance in the cockpit became less than sparkling. A very capable fellow he stopped responding to requests and procedure and frankly acted like his battery had suddenly gone flat. A few enquiries elicited that this was the final sector of a six day shift. Starting on earlies and ending on lates he had succumbed to fatigue.
I brought the aircraft home on my own basically; however, we had a minor tech snag on finals (no auto speedbrake) and he perked up enough to make a useful input. Otherwise he was pretty much spent.
Now, 'ANO says . . .'
The problem was that he was not only being worked too hard but the roster was poorly thought out in the first place.
Any loopholes which the CAA discover in safety regulation need to be plugged, and quickly. It is no excuse that certain airlines complain of the cost of employing a few more pilots.
My personal guess is that JAR OPS FTL's will be considerably more lax than CAP 371 making the profession less atractive to the quality people it needs.