The concern related to how CASA deals with fatigue related issues in the airline community.
The reporter was concerned that the current system allows duties that are fatiguing to pilots to be routinely rostered. They are deemed safe despite a lack of genuine consultation with those that have to operate them. This is supported by the assumption that a duty is safe by virtue of it being legal. A facade has been created by the fatigue management process.
Airlines are able to continually hedge excessive flight duties against the work ethic of pilots wanting to avoid the disruptions and inconvenience that result from a pilot being removed from a duty. A premise exists that suggests that if a pilot is fatigued, then there is something wrong with the pilot and not the duty. Pilots are continually challenged on a routine basis with this conundrum because fatiguing duties are continually rostered.
As a result of the above, compounded by unique sedentary working environments specific to aircraft types, chronic fatigue exists in the pilot work force without being adequately addressed. The reporter advised that the current airline roster which pairs crews to sign-on at 1110 eastern standard time (EST) and fly to Perth return is an example of this. The flight duty period is 12 hours 30 minutes and the actual flight time is 10 hours 10 minutes.
CASA have conducted very in-depth research into fatigue issues over the years but this has been allowed to lend bias towards the operator and does not require feedback be collected from the pilots on a continuous basis to ensure that the rosters in use are not fatiguing over a set period. This has allowed operators to justify not responding to fatigue reporting as it can be construed as an industrial matter. It also does not address the ergonomics of short haul operations or the need for crew rest during long duty periods.
Reporter comment: It is easy to write-off pilot concerns relating to fatigue issues as industrial issues, but it is irresponsible to disqualify pilots’ feedback and concerns regarding any aspect of flying, even more alarming when they are trying to tell the authorities they are exhausted from flying too much. A genuine consultative process is the only way to address this issue.
CASA has reviewed the REPCON and agrees that in the past industry has tended to treat prescriptive limits as the boundary between being safe or unsafe. Nonetheless, paragraph 1.4 of CAO 48.0 states:
Notwithstanding anything contained in these Orders, a flight crew member shall not fly, and an operator shall not require that person to fly if either the flight crew member is suffering from, or, considering the circumstances of the particular flight to be undertaken, is likely to suffer from, fatigue or illness which may affect judgement or performance to the extent that safety may be impaired.
To improve fatigue management generally, CASA made a new fatigue management rule-set, Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 48.1 Instrument 2013, that require operators to identify fatigue hazards and actively manage the risks associated with those hazards, even when still within the limits. An aspect of this requirement of hazard identification is the requirement for a fatigue reporting mechanism. This instrument came into effect on 30 April 2013 with a three year transition period for existing Air Operator Certificate holders.
CASA also agrees that there are structural aspects of the way some operators roster pilots and respond to fatigue reports that can mitigate against fatigue reporting. These are historic and cultural aspects that present a challenge that is being addressed and which will take some time to overcome. One of the ways CASA is working towards making this change is through improved fatigue and fatigue risk management training for pilots and managers. Improving the level of knowledge about fatigue across the industry is expected to raise the awareness of fatigue as a risk factor and improve both operators and pilot responses to increasing levels of fatigue.
There has been a misconception that prescriptive limits are there to manage fatigue risk as well as achieve an acceptable work/life balance. While historically this has been an aspect of the old CAO 48, the new CAO 48.1 has been developed to address flight safety and CASA is promoting this difference. A fatigue report is not the correct forum for addressing work/life balance issues. Through better education CASA is expecting pilots to make fatigue reports on the basis of safety and there is therefore a clear expectation that operators will respond to fatigue reports on that basis. Where reports identify safety issues relating to fatigue, it is expected that the operator will investigate them on this basis and determine whether action needs to be taken.
The new CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013 is based on available science and the new limits should therefore have a material impact on fatigue across the entire Australian aviation industry. The example provided in the REPCON would not be allowed under the new prescriptive limits that apply to a multi-crew air transport operation of that nature. While the flight duty period of 12 hours 30 minutes would be allowed for that start time a maximum flight time of 9 hours 30 minutes (for 1-2 sectors) would apply which is 40 minutes less than the actual flight time in the example.
Airlines may however apply for a Fatigue Risk Management System under the new CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013 and if they were to do so, may be able to substantiate a risk-based case for a limit that does allow this flight duty while maintaining an acceptable level of safety.
The REPCON also indicates concerns in general terms (except for the return Perth pairing) and has stated that CASA has a bias towards operators as they have not collected feedback directly from pilots. The mechanism for pilots to report unsafe operational situations is through the organisation’s Safety Management System (SMS). There are several reasons that can cause fatigue amongst individuals where it is appropriate that a thorough investigation be assessed within the SMS. Further, CASA consulted publicly on CAO 48.1 Instrument 2013, and would have taken any comment by pilots into account.
Many city parings and duty rosters can cause unsatisfactory or excessive fatigue levels if not combined with a holistic approach by an individual towards the management of their fatigue levels. It is appropriate that an assessment of all the elements concerned is done within the SMS facility to measure this.