War casualty flights shunned by union
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
capstan
You may not give a XXXX for the FTL,s but it also shows that you dont give a XXXX for the safety of your passengers and crew.
Much scientific reserch and consideration has gone into the FTL,s and so to dis-regard them with so little consideration is foolish to say the least.
The idea is to get the unfortunate casualtys home without further injury and a macho "I can fly without regard to the FTL,s" puts this at risk.
No pilot that I know would not go well past the normal FTL limits if lives were in danger and there is a get out clause to enable you to do that but I will not put an aircraft and its passengers at undue risk just to save a quid or two for the goverment.
Much scientific reserch and consideration has gone into the FTL,s and so to dis-regard them with so little consideration is foolish to say the least.
The idea is to get the unfortunate casualtys home without further injury and a macho "I can fly without regard to the FTL,s" puts this at risk.
No pilot that I know would not go well past the normal FTL limits if lives were in danger and there is a get out clause to enable you to do that but I will not put an aircraft and its passengers at undue risk just to save a quid or two for the goverment.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Man
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it seems that these gung-ho contributors willing to exeed the FTLs have something in common with our man in No10..spineless.
Maybe they might actually take notice of the union when at a later date revised FTLs are on the agenda..they might even join a union then?
Maybe they might actually take notice of the union when at a later date revised FTLs are on the agenda..they might even join a union then?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grobelling through the murk to the sunshine above.
Age: 60
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a military man, who has exceeded (military) FTLs several times, for various reasons, could someone please explain the current civil FTLs.
Reading these posts, I am assuming that they do not contain any sort of exemption clause that gives the responsibility to the Captain, is that correct?
Reading these posts, I am assuming that they do not contain any sort of exemption clause that gives the responsibility to the Captain, is that correct?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
capstan
You said "if we are at war I dont give a XXXX for the FTL and will do what ever I,m asked ".
That sounds like dis- regarding the FTL to me.
I am quite ready to go well past the limits of the FTL if the life of a passenger is at risk and the balance between the crews ability to fly due to fatigue and the risk to the passenger is favorable to the passenger.
What I wont do is dis-regard the FLT just so the goverment can save a quid or two , it is the interests of the people who have been unfortunate enough to become casualtys that I wish to protect not the goverment beancounters budgets.
That sounds like dis- regarding the FTL to me.
I am quite ready to go well past the limits of the FTL if the life of a passenger is at risk and the balance between the crews ability to fly due to fatigue and the risk to the passenger is favorable to the passenger.
What I wont do is dis-regard the FLT just so the goverment can save a quid or two , it is the interests of the people who have been unfortunate enough to become casualtys that I wish to protect not the goverment beancounters budgets.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For 'Pub user':
The UK FTL scheme is designed to protect crews from fatigue on a regular day to day basis, ie it is judged that they can fly up to the maximum limit every working day without risk of fatigue (nb NOT tiredness - there is a difference).
This means that airlines CAN roster crews up to the maximum every working day although the CAA 'expects' companies NOT to use the 'limits' in this way. Some airlines have been 'economical' with their observation of this request, BTW. You will note that these limits apply to the whole working life of crew, which can be 40 years or more!
On top of that is 'Captain's discretion', which allows the aircraft commander to extend these limits by up to 3 hours if he judges it safe so to do. This too can be exercised on a 'regular' basis, although its application IS monitored by the CAA.
So far we have talked about 'normal' REGULAR operations only, including those which 'go off the rails' due to tech problems, ATC strikes etc.
Finally, and this is what we cannot seem to get across to some of the posters on this thread, there is ALREADY IN PLACE the right for the a/c commander to extend BEYOND the 3 hours (NB NO LIMIT TO THIS EXTENSION) in an 'emergency' (as defined in the scheme, and this could cover a casevac that went wrong).
In my opinion, and others seem to agree, there is NO need for any changes. Commanders have (and I'm sure will use) the power to do what they judge to be safe and necessary, and I wish to see it left at that, as, I assume, do BALPA. It is perfectly possible to PLAN these flights within the existing scheme, and leave it to crews to sort it out 'on the day'.
For the benefit of OTHER posters on this thread, there are a LOT of ex-military crews (including myself) in our seats, and we KNOW what operations are, and we do NOT turn into flag-waving 'won't -do's' the day we leave HM Forces!
The UK FTL scheme is designed to protect crews from fatigue on a regular day to day basis, ie it is judged that they can fly up to the maximum limit every working day without risk of fatigue (nb NOT tiredness - there is a difference).
This means that airlines CAN roster crews up to the maximum every working day although the CAA 'expects' companies NOT to use the 'limits' in this way. Some airlines have been 'economical' with their observation of this request, BTW. You will note that these limits apply to the whole working life of crew, which can be 40 years or more!
On top of that is 'Captain's discretion', which allows the aircraft commander to extend these limits by up to 3 hours if he judges it safe so to do. This too can be exercised on a 'regular' basis, although its application IS monitored by the CAA.
So far we have talked about 'normal' REGULAR operations only, including those which 'go off the rails' due to tech problems, ATC strikes etc.
Finally, and this is what we cannot seem to get across to some of the posters on this thread, there is ALREADY IN PLACE the right for the a/c commander to extend BEYOND the 3 hours (NB NO LIMIT TO THIS EXTENSION) in an 'emergency' (as defined in the scheme, and this could cover a casevac that went wrong).
In my opinion, and others seem to agree, there is NO need for any changes. Commanders have (and I'm sure will use) the power to do what they judge to be safe and necessary, and I wish to see it left at that, as, I assume, do BALPA. It is perfectly possible to PLAN these flights within the existing scheme, and leave it to crews to sort it out 'on the day'.
For the benefit of OTHER posters on this thread, there are a LOT of ex-military crews (including myself) in our seats, and we KNOW what operations are, and we do NOT turn into flag-waving 'won't -do's' the day we leave HM Forces!
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basil: I trust your news is accurate?
"'nuff said." - not quite!
"I think you will find that five pages of discussion have been wasted. " - a stimulating 'discussion' is rarely wasted - and where else could we have 5 pages?!
"'nuff said." - not quite!
"I think you will find that five pages of discussion have been wasted. " - a stimulating 'discussion' is rarely wasted - and where else could we have 5 pages?!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: U.K
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
night_fr8
Page 1
Well said!!!!!
If our lads and lasses who are fighting in this war (voluntarily I might add) have to put their necks on the chopping block. We should do whatever we can to help them.
Hiding behind FTL's, your just a bunch of wimps!!!!!!!
CFA
Page 1
Well said!!!!!
If our lads and lasses who are fighting in this war (voluntarily I might add) have to put their necks on the chopping block. We should do whatever we can to help them.
Hiding behind FTL's, your just a bunch of wimps!!!!!!!
CFA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CFA, nobody was "hiding" behind FTLs and if you would read the posts properly you would know that.
What I find disturbing in this thread is what a gung-ho attitude says about one's ability to make well-informed and safe command decisions when push comes to shove. Especially if these persons would have allowed themselves to become fatigued beforehand by accepting extended duty times.
So I agree, no pages wasted here on an interesting discussion, but I would hesitate to share the cockpit with some of the posters. No doubt that the feeling would be mutual..
What I find disturbing in this thread is what a gung-ho attitude says about one's ability to make well-informed and safe command decisions when push comes to shove. Especially if these persons would have allowed themselves to become fatigued beforehand by accepting extended duty times.
So I agree, no pages wasted here on an interesting discussion, but I would hesitate to share the cockpit with some of the posters. No doubt that the feeling would be mutual..
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
corp F/A
And just how much help is it to the injured servicemen to end up in a crew fatigue induced accident back in the UK.
None what so ever !.
Please read before posting as you will see that the vast majority of pilots will do every thing in there power to aid the casualtys if the war starts , but most of us see that there is nothing in the FLT to stop normal flight dutys from being exceeded if life is in danger.
This is not hiding behind the FTL,s it is looking after the interests of the passengers and not letting safety become the victim of a goverment beancounters wish to save money .
Ask yourself is your macho attitude the proper and safe way to help these people or should it be done in the considered way that BOAC and others posting above have outlined.
None what so ever !.
Please read before posting as you will see that the vast majority of pilots will do every thing in there power to aid the casualtys if the war starts , but most of us see that there is nothing in the FLT to stop normal flight dutys from being exceeded if life is in danger.
This is not hiding behind the FTL,s it is looking after the interests of the passengers and not letting safety become the victim of a goverment beancounters wish to save money .
Ask yourself is your macho attitude the proper and safe way to help these people or should it be done in the considered way that BOAC and others posting above have outlined.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grobelling through the murk to the sunshine above.
Age: 60
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
Thanks for your comprehensive reply. The key thing I was looking for is the 'ultimate' discretion clause, wherebya capatin can exceed limits in an emergency situation.
It's intriguing to know what the authorities were after when they suggested the amendment. I suspect the majority here are correct in their assertion that it's a money-saving exercise. It would be relatively simple (but expensive) to pre-position sufficient crews to keep them all inside their FTLs.
If the brown-stuff really hit the fan, and people were in grave danger, then I cannot believe that any captain would not exceed FTLs to get the aircraft, crew and (already injured) passengers away from the area. Legislative changes would not be required.
I'm on BALPA's side here. Let the government spend a bit extra on civil charters, someone's got to at the moment!
Thanks for your comprehensive reply. The key thing I was looking for is the 'ultimate' discretion clause, wherebya capatin can exceed limits in an emergency situation.
It's intriguing to know what the authorities were after when they suggested the amendment. I suspect the majority here are correct in their assertion that it's a money-saving exercise. It would be relatively simple (but expensive) to pre-position sufficient crews to keep them all inside their FTLs.
If the brown-stuff really hit the fan, and people were in grave danger, then I cannot believe that any captain would not exceed FTLs to get the aircraft, crew and (already injured) passengers away from the area. Legislative changes would not be required.
I'm on BALPA's side here. Let the government spend a bit extra on civil charters, someone's got to at the moment!
