REPCON number
RA2023-00092
Date reported
Published date
Mode
Affected operation/industry
Concern subject type
Reporter's deidentified concern

The reporter has raised a safety concern regarding [Operator's] Fatigue Risk Management (FRMS) Manual.

The reporter states that there are inconsistencies when compared to Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 48.1 and also with what is documented in the FRMS and the actual application of procedures as set out.

The reporter states that [Operator] consider the retrospective rostering of a standby period, on which duty was not activated, to a 36-hour off‑duty period for cumulative fatigue recovery to satisfy compliance as an acceptable practise. However, the reporter believes that the standby period does not meet the definition criteria of an off-duty period as laid out in the definition sections of both CAO 48.1 and [Operator's] FRMS.

When a standby period that is not activated to flight duty it is deemed an off-duty period, and a pilot can then be required to conduct a flight duty period at the exact end of said standby. The reporter believes that in such a case, the requirements of CAO 48.1 (appendix 3, section 1) and [Operator] FRMS Manual [section 3.4.1 (sleep opportunity before an FDP or standby period)] are not satisfied. The reporter states that the potential for flight crew fatigue is significantly increased, and in no way improves safety when audited against the previous rules.

The reporter advised that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has been consulted on the concern raised, and one section of CASA (guidance delivery) advised that standby period could not be counted as an off-duty period, and another section of CASA (regulatory oversight) advised it is acceptable. The reporter is concerned that [Operator's] and CASA's interpretation of definitions seems to contradict the intent of the latest CAO 48.1, being enhancement to flight safety.

In addition, [Operator's] Work Practice (number), which forms part of the FRMS manual and has no duty limits can still be used in the same 'duty period' as flying an actual aircraft. In practical terms this can mean a pilot travels to Europe (27-hour travel across multiple time zones), has one day off and then completes 3 x 8 hours of ground/sim training and returns to base (27-hour travel). Flight crews are given 90 hours stand down time (4 days off) to compensate for the travel acclimatisation; however, the 24 hours worked in the sim and the time spent travelling is not included towards duty time, and in theory, flight crews can commence 100 hours duty time in the next 30 days upon their 4-day break.

The reporter is seeking clarification from [Operator] and CASA as to whether standby period being assigned as off-duty period retrospectively has the potential to increase flight crew fatigue.

Named party's response

[Operator] have no further comment. The CASA Human Performance team are well aware of this issue and have heard from us in a previous meeting we had with CASA and the pilot representatives.

Regulator's response

CASA met with [Operator] and their pilot representatives on 26 April 2023 where the same points were raised and were addressed.

It has been explained to the pilot’s representatives that the operator's FRMS is currently acceptable. If the representatives have been provided alternate advice than that from the meeting of 26 April 2023, then CASA states that the substance of the CASA, [Operator] and pilots' representative meeting be relied upon.