FRMS pairings

[Tdicommuter]

I will need someone to rationalize this to me.

Historically when mainline operated yyz-bgi-yyz it became a layover because it exceeded a 14 hour day at least 10 percent of the time through winter months due to... Canadian winter.

Rouge takes the route... Operates it as a turn... Until it exceeds 10 percent of the flights going over a 14 hour day and it becomes a layover.

Duty regulations change from a 14 hour day to a 13 hour day. But if you can use FRMS and prove fatigue has been mitigated then you can operate the flight in excess of 13 hours.

Here is my question.... If that route has only been a layover for the past year what data or science has been used to prove fatigue has been mitigated? WestJet operate(d) it as a layover because 14 hours wasnt long enough. Now we have a 13 hour limit aka a shorter duty limit and without changing anything to the pairing it can operate longer than the limit?

What am I missing? Why isn't our union flipping out over this? If FRMS can be implemented without any prudence than what prevents this from being applied to every pairing?

[altiplano]

602.02, or if you go write a fatigue report.

You should ask Douglas T on the ac forum. He seems the most knowledgeable about these things.

[rudder]

Is the pairing showing as augmented? That buys you extra duty day (1-3 hours) depending on equipment/crew crest facilities.

[ALPApolicy]

I will need someone to rationalize this to me.

Historically when mainline operated yyz-bgi-yyz it became a layover because it exceeded a 14 hour day at least 10 percent of the time through winter months due to... Canadian winter.

Rouge takes the route... Operates it as a turn... Until it exceeds 10 percent of the flights going over a 14 hour day and it becomes a layover.

Duty regulations change from a 14 hour day to a 13 hour day. But if you can use FRMS and prove fatigue has been mitigated then you can operate the flight in excess of 13 hours.

Here is my question.... If that route has only been a layover for the past year what data or science has been used to prove fatigue has been mitigated? WestJet operate(d) it as a layover because 14 hours wasnt long enough. Now we have a 13 hour limit aka a shorter duty limit and without changing anything to the pairing it can operate longer than the limit?

What am I missing? Why isn't our union flipping out over this? If FRMS can be implemented without any prudence than what prevents this from being applied to every pairing?

WJ Flt Ops just released a memo that describes our BGI layovers. The ONLY reason you can legally leave your hotel room is for a smoke break (and I suppose a fire alarm) in which case you will be escorted by a hotel employee. I wonder if that’s why ACPA isn’t flipping out? I’d rather do a turn...

[yycflyguy]

I will need someone to rationalize this to me.

Historically when mainline operated yyz-bgi-yyz it became a layover because it exceeded a 14 hour day at least 10 percent of the time through winter months due to... Canadian winter.

Rouge takes the route... Operates it as a turn... Until it exceeds 10 percent of the flights going over a 14 hour day and it becomes a layover.

Duty regulations change from a 14 hour day to a 13 hour day. But if you can use FRMS and prove fatigue has been mitigated then you can operate the flight in excess of 13 hours.

Here is my question.... If that route has only been a layover for the past year what data or science has been used to prove fatigue has been mitigated? WestJet operate(d) it as a layover because 14 hours wasnt long enough. Now we have a 13 hour limit aka a shorter duty limit and without changing anything to the pairing it can operate longer than the limit?

What am I missing? Why isn't our union flipping out over this? If FRMS can be implemented without any prudence than what prevents this from being applied to every pairing?

WJ Flt Ops just released a memo that describes our BGI layovers. The ONLY reason you can legally leave your hotel room is for a smoke break (and I suppose a fire alarm) in which case you will be escorted by a hotel employee. I wonder if that’s why ACPA isn’t flipping out? I’d rather do a turn...

Until you bend metal at the end of a 14 hour day and the tribunal/company wants to know why it was safe to fly home.... then you'd rather have stayed for an inconvenient layover.

[ALPApolicy]

I will need someone to rationalize this to me.

Historically when mainline operated yyz-bgi-yyz it became a layover because it exceeded a 14 hour day at least 10 percent of the time through winter months due to... Canadian winter.

Rouge takes the route... Operates it as a turn... Until it exceeds 10 percent of the flights going over a 14 hour day and it becomes a layover.

Duty regulations change from a 14 hour day to a 13 hour day. But if you can use FRMS and prove fatigue has been mitigated then you can operate the flight in excess of 13 hours.

Here is my question.... If that route has only been a layover for the past year what data or science has been used to prove fatigue has been mitigated? WestJet operate(d) it as a layover because 14 hours wasnt long enough. Now we have a 13 hour limit aka a shorter duty limit and without changing anything to the pairing it can operate longer than the limit?

What am I missing? Why isn't our union flipping out over this? If FRMS can be implemented without any prudence than what prevents this from being applied to every pairing?

WJ Flt Ops just released a memo that describes our BGI layovers. The ONLY reason you can legally leave your hotel room is for a smoke break (and I suppose a fire alarm) in which case you will be escorted by a hotel employee. I wonder if that’s why ACPA isn’t flipping out? I’d rather do a turn...

Until you bend metal at the end of a 14 hour day and the tribunal/company wants to know why it was safe to fly home.... then you'd rather have stayed for an inconvenient layover.

Ah, no. A day time turn of13.5 hours of duty is something I can do without running off a runway due to fatigue. You might be different, in which case feel free to conduct yourself accordingly. I had no problems with the previous fatigue regs.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The good news is that TC has made proving the FRMS case pretty difficult. The process is so onerous there has not been much take up except for the 2 majors and the company owns the result. If there was a fatigue related serious incident/accident with an extended duty time the FRMS safety case will be gone over with a fine tooth comb. The liability for the company if they played fast and lose on the safety case is significant.

To me the bigger issue is augmented crews on narrow bodies to allow a turn instead of a RON. Personally I don't see how anybody can get any effective rest in a seat in the cabin, so you just get 3 tired crew instead of 2 tired crew by the end of the flight but the augments makes it legal under the prescriptive rules, no FRMS needed.

Bottom line: Fatigue management is a dual responsibility. The company has to schedule in accordance with the regs and pilots have to show up fit for duty and set the park brake if they are too tired to continue down range.

[ZBBYLW]

BGI at rouge was mainly done as a turn on the airbus and a layover (for the pilots) on the 767. Reason being is the 767 took longer to turn than a 319 (and sometimes 321) and I imagine a canceled 280 seat airplane would be more expensive than a 200-136 seat jet. I did a number of them, never went over 14 hours on a BGI. Last winter some routes were operated as a layover to reduce the risk of the plane not coming back if there was a long de ice etc.. in YYZ

You can not augment a ML or Rouge 320 to extend the duty day because the J class seats do not count as a Class 3 rest facility (40 degree include and leg rests).

My two cents is doing a 13-14 hour (UVF, GND, BGI, PTY, SVD etc..) turn during the day is much easier and safer than doing a 5 hour red eye. But thats just me. I bid to avoid night flying and am better because of it.

[rudder]

I have done many planned 13.5hrs (extended to 14+ hrs due IRROPS) 2 sectors/2 crew under old rules. I have done a few narrow body/3 crew scheduled to 15 hrs and extended. The biggest issue was not duty day length but check in time. Front side of the clock was fine. Back side of the clock was brutal.

New rules seem to factor that in (WOCL). Not sure that FRMS reporting waives the WOCL consideration.

[yycflyguy]

WJ Flt Ops just released a memo that describes our BGI layovers. The ONLY reason you can legally leave your hotel room is for a smoke break (and I suppose a fire alarm) in which case you will be escorted by a hotel employee. I wonder if that’s why ACPA isn’t flipping out? I’d rather do a turn...

Until you bend metal at the end of a 14 hour day and the tribunal/company wants to know why it was safe to fly home.... then you'd rather have stayed for an inconvenient layover.

Ah, no. A day time turn of13.5 hours of duty is something I can do without running off a runway due to fatigue. You might be different, in which case feel free to conduct yourself accordingly. I had no problems with the previous fatigue regs.

Must be nice to be closer to machine than human.

[ALPApolicy]

Until you bend metal at the end of a 14 hour day and the tribunal/company wants to know why it was safe to fly home.... then you'd rather have stayed for an inconvenient layover.

Ah, no. A day time turn of13.5 hours of duty is something I can do without running off a runway due to fatigue. You might be different, in which case feel free to conduct yourself accordingly. I had no problems with the previous fatigue regs.

Must be nice to be closer to machine than human.

Seriously? A daytime turn in a jet? That’s two legs. It’s not banging along in a Navajo in and out of the shit doing 5 legs and doing the loading yourself. If we are talking a red eye, well, that’s a different story. But as long as you show up rested for your 6 am report time, why can’t you do two legs? You can even legally do controlled rest in the flight deck. Where’s the problem?

[NotDirty!]

Ah, no. A day time turn of13.5 hours of duty is something I can do without running off a runway due to fatigue. You might be different, in which case feel free to conduct yourself accordingly. I had no problems with the previous fatigue regs.

Must be nice to be closer to machine than human.

Seriously? A daytime turn in a jet? That’s two legs. It’s not banging along in a Navajo in and out of the shit doing 5 legs and doing the loading yourself. If we are talking a red eye, well, that’s a different story. But as long as you show up rested for your 6 am report time, why can’t you do two legs? You can even legally do controlled rest in the flight deck. Where’s the problem?

I have to agree... I have done my fair share of long turns, many close to 14 hours of duty, and they are not as fatiguing as a 5 hour red eye! Landing at 8 PM, after 10 plus hours in the seat, with a few trips to the back to stretch your legs, and a couple of hot meals, is definitely not the most fatiguing flying I have done. That being said, some days are more fatiguing than others, and if you are spending hours trying to get through to New York on HF because you are deviating all over the sky, and dealing with marginal weather, deteriorating runway conditions, alternates crapping out, potential diversions, disgruntled passengers, etc., it makes any day longer!

In the long run, I support the new duty times, but I don't think I can call someone doing a BGI turn without fatigue closer to machine than human.

When it's not COVID, I can see real advantages to layovers down south in the middle of winter, but in the current environment, it would just be a cruel tease!

[FL030]

Is Air Canada still doing un-augmented overnight Atlantic crossings under the new regs? If so, are they under the FRMS system?

[Tdicommuter]

I think that is the point here, and the reason for having a regulatory body setting limits is to remove the ability to try and negotiate personal bias into the safety discussion.

No doubt a bgi turn with zero delays is not inherently the most dangerous thing in aviation. The issue is we can't control though are delays, emergencies, or weather deviations ahead of time. That is the point.

In our profession we do not get paid to say yes to everything that is asked of us. We get paid to be able to judge the situation, make a risk assessment, and know when to say no.

At air Canada we brief emergencies on the first leg of a pairing... Why is that? Because historically rejected take offs can't happen on the third leg of the third day? No, it is because 99 percent of the time nothing bad happens, until it does. Briefing emergencies is an attempt to address the fact that occasionally things go wrong and we don't know when. Days over 13 hours are an unnecessary risk.

We go to sim every four months because guys were tired and made a mistake that almost led to the worst aviation disaster in history. I don't see us going back to a six month training plan so why are we considering tempting fate with fatigue?