Pilot fatigue...a victory, of sorts
 

Very interesting, and well done to anyone who stands up for themselves.

I am concerned that I did not know about the case, as it could affect other UK pilots.

Where publicity is appropriate, we need to know about this sort of thing, so:-

- support can be offered;

- the behaviour of employers is know to employees.

If only we had a resource whereby such case information is shared for us all to benefit.

How would such a thing be facilitated, I wonder ...........

Although the company have been totally discredited, the payout is unlikely to be adequate compensation for the loss of his position, and future difficulty in explaining his situation to any prospective employer.

In the meantime the company have managed to achieve a convincing demonstration of "pour encourager les autres " for a relatively small forfeit (I imagine ) & will never have another fatigue report /refusal to extend for the foreseeable.

Whilst admirable in itself, it is a hopeless gesture in the grand scheme of things if no action is taken against the company by the relevant authority charged with oversight, and that ain't gonna happen any time soon . . . too many "old boys club" / funny handshakes around for that to be a risk. :mad:

Well, maybe; it was certainly a factor a decade or two ago and for all I know still is.

But the most likely reason in 2016 is the mixture of aeronautical incompetence, bureaucracy, and time-serving laziness that has taken over at the UK CAA, where anyone who might have had the balls to confront and face down the operational management of a major operator on a safety issue left the building a long time ago.

Every time you get Ill because of fatigue, report it as an industrial injury. Then things will change.

I think you will find that the payout will be very much more than adequate.
This tale has been very long in the telling as has a fair way to go yet.

Oh my. The company produced a duty schedule beyond permissible max FDP and told court it would be legal for CMD to use discretion to make their plan happen!

Genuine question, is this how UK CAA interprets the rules? Here's ours, I believe bog standard, OM-A wording (my bolding ):
(caveat: the above issue is not the crux of the argument at court as I understand it, and was completely avoided in the judgement)

One of the dissapointing things here is that BALPA did not give their support until this was well down the road, given the importance of this to ALL members I would say this should have been supported right from the start!

Just a shame that the F word is being used so much when the S word Sleepiness is more appropriate in this case.

Anyone know how to download and save the judgement? My efforts so far lose the formatting in PDF.

PC Windows 10.......don't ask!

So far, I cannot read beyond the bottom of page 25.

Starbear,

Try "print to file".

After the tram crash in Croydon there are a few cases coming to light of the drivers being 'sleepy' at the controls. Pax taking photos of a nodding off driver last week. Now I understand the real reason for a locked cockpit door and no visits.

Disgusted is too lame a word (if as reported ) BALPA didn't support this from Day 1 . . . . . where are this Unions Balls ?

Oh, I know . . . down at the local lodge, where they always hold balls. . . . .


I know you think I have some sort of obsession with this, but, having been a victim of it in 1996, when the 2 guys on the opposite side of the table were in fact being helped, rather than challenged, by my "support" on my side of the table (who, of course went on to become part of the Flt Ops management ) I don't believe it has changed measurably.

Ask your CC member directly . . . do you drink in the same lodge as the management ? go on, ask him !

Mr Angry....care to elaborate?

Senior Management,and Corporate Leaders should face prison terms should their organisation be found culpable or complicit in, fatigue-producing rosters or work practices, should that be found to be a causal factor in an accident.

The fish rots at the head, and these pricks should not just take the credit for profits.

Anything that affects the cognitive capability of a pilot is a safety issue. I've heard the argument between the F and S word and it's total BS.

The case which the court solved seems clear. Company was found to had acted illegaly in persecuting the pilot after his fatigued call and refusal of duty.
a) he did operate beyond the normally allowed FDP the day before
b) he genuinely felt unfit (personal remark: the term fatigue is normally associated with a different type of un-fitness)
c) moreover, the court explains that because of B he was not legal to operate anyhow.

Had the verdict been opposite, the whole idea of managing fatigue-associated risks (not the individual implemented systems = companies' procedures, but the concept in general ) would have been shred to pieces. So quite simple in this respect.

The narrative of the first day is what I find interesting. At the duty start, the plan was beyond the max permissible FDP. Are you allowed to commence a duty which requires discretion to complete?

Ask a certain Eastern European low cost Airbus operator who regularly rostered duties that were planned to go into discretion. Two such days in a row were not uncommon.

Right way up.

I too, would be intrigued to hear how Mr Angry's own personal experience has coloured his opinion. :)