global report on pilot flight duty times

[pushyboss]

Under Federal Labor Law transportation related business's can apply for an exemption to the 40 hourweek/2200 hour year. Even under fedral regulations overtime must be paid out should an individual work more tham 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week. There is an exemption called "continuous service". Any transportation company can apply for this continuous service exemption. This allows a company to "average" the work hours over a 12 month period. So working 80 hours one week and 0 hours the next week would not trigger overtime. A company must apply for this exemption however and prove that they have a legitimate need.

['79K20driver]

This averaging hours thing, I think, is designed for seasonal type operators like many of the northern operations that shut down or slow to a crawl in the winter. It seems like a reasonable thing for them to make use of, however, I think there are many companies who misrepresent the extent of their seasonal fluctuations when applying for this policy. Such operations, on the west coast for instance, operate year round and therefore have far less in the way of seasonal fluctuations than a northern operator. Harbour Air, to their credit, has addressed this and has basically a monthly averaging system which is much better than the annual averaging system as it properly represents the seasonal fluctuations that they experience. On the other hand, the annual averaging system used at West Coast Air has been a thorn in the side of their employees for years (other than maintenance, they get OT).

Annual averaging policies should be banned for companies that operate year round. Since TC isn't going to do anything about 14 hour duty days, maybe Labour Canada can help out by improving their OT policy and doing a little research into some of the companies out there that may be abusing their OT payout privileges. If it starts to cost companies a little more in pay then maybe they'll reduce the 14 hour days.

[bezerker]

Liquid Charlie: You may not have noticed, but I was talking about the Canada Labour Code in my post and I believe I mentioned it a few times. The only time provincial code comes into play is when determining minimum wage, AFAIK.

I understand the concept of averaging, however it seems to me that anyone who has a regular schedule is not eligable for it. It is covered fairly well on this site:

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/lp/lo/opd-ipg/ipg/053.shtml

Even if you are under a company averaging plan, you still can not work beyond the 40 hour work week over how many weeks the averaging period is based on. I have yet to see an approved averaging plan posted at any 703/704 operation. If anyone has one, I would be interested in hearing about it.

So, as I interpret the Canada Labour Code, anything over approximately 2000 hrs a year is overtime. And as I mentioned before, I would like to think that duty time is counted as hours of work.

[pushyboss]

Lot's of 703/704 operators have averaging plans in place with Labor Canada. We do.

[bezerker]

pushyboss: If you are able to publish it, what is the averaging period (weeks) in the agreement and what is a typical pilot schedule at your company (weekly/monthly)?

I have worked for at least 8 703/704 operators and was not never aware of any averaging program in place, and although the topic of averaging doesn't come up in conversation very often, you are the first to tell me that a company had approved program in place (although they must be a few out there somewhere, or many, as you say). If there have been averaging programs in place, and employees were unaware, it would seem that the employers haven't followed the regulations, as the Canada Labour Code states that employees must be notified of the exact details of the averaging program 30 days prior to it's implementation (I'm not sure how it applies to new employees hired when a program is already in place). But at any rate, it seems that the averaging schedule is supposed to be posted somewhere. If anyone cares, the required schedule is here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr ... anchorsc:4

I understand that averaging could obviously apply and be benificial to seasonal work, where you are only there for 3 to 6 months, but it seems that year round bag run, medevac, or other standby type schedules wouldn't benefit from or be eligable for averaging, as there is no variation in the pilots schedule over long periods of time, even if there is large variations in actual flight hours.

What I am really trying to get at is whether companies make the schedules of pilots (without collective agreements) based on flight hours or on duty hours, regardless of how you are paid (mileage, per flight hour, salary, etc.). Just because you only flew 50 hours in a month, doesn't mean that you only worked 50 hours that month according to the definition of work taken by the HRDC.

As stated before, many jobs have varying monthly/seasonal flight hours, but if you are told that you are on standby (have to be at work within an hour of being called) 14 days out of 17, or if you have a flight 5 days a week that is only 3 or 4 flight hours but covers a 12-14 hour duty day (bag run), it would seem that you are working more than the allowed 40 hous per week and may be eligable for overtime pay.

[pushyboss]

I'll dig it up here shortly. But you are correct that for a "scheduled" operation the averaging is not particularly effective. Also duty hours are what counts, not flight hours. If you fly 2 hours but are on duty for 10 then you have worked 10 hours as far as Labour Canada is concerned.

Most pilots (and operators) are unaware that unless their operation has an approved averaging system, they are entitled to overtime for any work hours in excess of 8 per day. We found this out the hard way......If averaging is in place the overtime is triggered at the 2080 hour mark over 12 consecutive months. So without averaging you could work 12 hours today and nothing for the next three days but be entitled to 4 hours of overtime. With averaging you would not.

[Widow]

I take it you found out the hard way, meaning someone took you to court. How is it that pilots/operators are not aware of the HRDC rules prior to setting up operation/setting off to work?

Is there a problem with the MOU between the Dept. of Labour and the Dept. of Transport?

[trey kule]

Widow,

I was going to ask a similar question...ie..what was hard about it? That you had to pay employees the moeny you rightfully owed them, or that you could not use them as slave labor in the future?

As an employer you should be ashamed that you had to find this out "the hard way." How about your employees who were not getting paid for work done?

[pushyboss]

Widow,

Some things regulated or not defy common sense. We had a situation where our pilots were working a couple of long days per week and a couple of very short days per week with a couple of days off. Average work hours (flight duty not flight time) wouldn't have hit 30 hours per week. So it never occurred to anyone that overtime would be an issue. Does it make sense that a salaried employee who works 10 hours on Monday and 2 hours on Tuesday should be entitled to 2 hours of overtime? Not to me. So we let a poor employee go and they dug up their flight and duty times and nailed us for every day that they exceeded 8 hours of duty. $6,500 later....We implemented averaging which does nothing more than inform the employees that overtime is calculated annually not daily. $5,000 legal bill to implement and God only knows how much Labour Canada spent on our approval. All for what?

Remember safe is not always legal and legal is not always safe.

[pushyboss]

Trey Kule

You have know idea what the situation was, who we are, what we owed, or have any other information relevant to this particular issue, but yet you feel the need to throw out the word slave and that we should feel ashamed. Maybe get the facts before you make that kind of judgement and spew that kind of crap out.

[trey kule]

While my comment was related to your coment that you "found out the hard way"....your point is taken...enlighten us then.
It seems to me, whatever your issue was with the employee, that you owed them money. Am I wrong? And you hard way was that you actually had to pay them...I dont make the rules either, but one of the responibilities of an employer is to know the regulations and operate within them. It should not take an issue like this to bring it to your attention.
In any event, I would be interested in reading the facts here...you might find out I know more about it than you think.

[Widow]

I don't understand how you, as an employer, were not aware that without an averaging plan in place with the Dept. of Labour, you would be required to pay overtime for days with over 8 hours of duty. Doesn't someone somewhere have a responsibility to ensure that operators are aware of the Canada Labour Code?

In such a complicated industry (with jurisdictional oversight and regulation spread amongst so many official bodies), both pilots AND operators should be required to know the Code as it applies to them PRIOR to being commercially licensed.

[pushyboss]

Widow,

Operators usually recruit their management from within their employee ranks. Pilots are not typically schooled in all the subtleties of provincial labor law, federal labor law, and occupational health and safety. It's all most of us can do to keep up with the CAR'S, the CASS, TDG, ACP, SMS, etc...

Should there be a requirement for managers and pilots to be more informed....maybe. But at what cost? And for what benefit. A good employer holds the safety and well being of his customers and his staff as prime importance. But other issues such as this one have no relative bearing on safety and as such they fade from view in light of the other crisis' that brew daily in an air charter operation. Having people like you as an ombudsman (ombudsperson ) can be helpful in shining a light on certain situations. But there is also a limit as to what an operator can do and still see a profit at the end of the day. What you speak of is Utopia. Operators have to make decisions daily as to what is attainable, safe, and (God forbid) profitable. Utopia is not achievable. So we make decisions, some right/some wrong, and try to make it to tomorrow.

I know that this reality will be met with derision from many, but that is the raw truth.

[bezerker]

pushyboss: Thanks for the input. That is the type of example I am looking for. I hear many rumours of companies that have been nailed for various labour infractions, but it is hard to separate the bs from the truth.

I also agree with your description of how management is selected with various operators throughout the industry. The most senior pilot magically becomes management material in many cases. Many are great individuals and talented pilots/trainers, but with no training in HR or other business/accounting aspects, there is obviously potential problems with this type of career progression. The same thing goes for many company owners who are also actively involved in company management. I also believe that growth hasn't helped many companies. What worked for a few buddies that started a company together 20 years ago (such as almost no work policies, except for fly and get a paycheck), no longer applies with a revolving door of enlightened employees in this day and age. I think a big problem is that employees and employers are simply unaware of many of the rules that apply to them.

I don't want to discuss what is right or wrong when it comes to making money with a business, but it seems to me that a good starting point is to follow the law. Whether or not a business will be profitable if it follows all applicable regulations, is a topic for another thread.

This thread is about fatiguing duty times. I believe that if many operators realize that other companies have taken big hits from Labour Canada for only following the CARs, and not following the Labour Code, there could be a change in the duty days scheduled for pilots.

An interesting poll on this board might be to see what monthly duty hours pilots are averaging. Especially if you include standby time (for those that are required to be at work or be airborne in under an hour). I would think that many companies provide ample time off and follow the Labour Code, whether by accident, by force, or by careful planning. I would also guess that many pilots are logging far beyond the 160 hours per month alotted by the Labour Code.

It seems to me that there shouldn't be much to complain about if your schedule only has you working for 40 duty hours per week (although you may complain about your paycheck if you are paid per flight hour or by mileage). Can anyone post a schedule where a 40 hour work week would produce an overly fatiguing situation?

I don't believe that Transport Canada should be responsible for Labour Code infractions. They have enough issues doing the duties already assigned to them. However I could see a benefit to having POI's minimally educated in Federal Labour Law, so that they could inform operators that although their scheduling meets the CAR's, it may violate other enforcable labour regulations.

I do believe that a huge grey area that TC overlooks is pilot scheduling though. There should be clear cut policies on what is and what is not allowed when it comes to aircrew scheduling, as it is fairly murky when it comes to this. Looking at flight and duty time records is almost laughable. It doesn't show if a company counts days of no flying as scheduled days off for a pilot, even if he/she was expected to show up if called, it allows for recycling when on the road, it doesn't naturally count standby time as duty time, after a short flight are you recycling or still on duty, etc, etc. If transport was truly interested in fatigue, it would be quite easy to privately interview employees about a companies work practices and determine if it was legal or not. SMS will take care of these issues, lol.

Anyways, for those still interested that have fatiguing schedules, maybe post an example of your schedule for analysis. It may be interesting to apply the Labour Code to some examples to see what works out.

As I said earlier, most employers that are following illegal schedules according to the Labour Code would quite simply reduce their pay per hour to keep wages in check. But at least then they would be following the law.

[Anti-Ice]

I have been a commercial pilot for near a decade. Charter, medevac, corporate, and scheduled service; all over Western and Northern Canada.

I have to agree that the current flight and duty time limitations fail to ensure Canadian pilots are adequately rested to do a safe job.

When I read that the European flight duty limitations compensate for the difficulty of the flying, as well as the time of the duty period start I was very much in awe. Most pilots would quickly agree that the level of avionics and the time of the duty period "start" greatly effects a pilots fatigue levels. That appears (at first glance) to be a superior and highly evolved regulatory system.....I only wish Canadas rulemakers could produce something equivelant.

Right now I am on day 5 of a pairing, and although I am barely legal I am tired big time. I did my best to rest every night, and I average about 7 hours flight time a day, 12 hours duty. (but the company convieniently finds 1 day at 11:59 hours duty time allowing me to work continuously. I fly a Beech 1900 scheduled passenger service.

The current regulations that require a pilot to "not fly if fatigued" are a load of BS because most employers would quickly dismiss such an employee, if they turned down a trip for fatigue. There are always many more pilots to do the trip after all. Regulations need to ensure that all pilots are protected from fatigue.

I appreciate all the information regarding Federal Labour Laws, sounds like an area worth more research.
Cheers All, Stay Rested.
A/I

[unregistered]

80% of pilots admit flying while too tired....

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/80- ... 2798594.jp

[Zero-Zero]

Amen to the 12 hour duty day. Rest assured,Transport is on top of the situation. Just like the change back to the yearly medical for those over 40 years of age. I think their motto should be:" No one moves, no one gets hurt!"

[Static]

Well, 6 hours of sleep and +2 hours of rest are legally required, even in the commercial industry correct?

Does TC really consider any time off duty as rest time? I dont know about you guys, but if I was in your position and had an hour commute home in YYZ, I certainly wouldnt consider it rest time. And that would make 14 hour days ... nearly impossible.

Dont they have all this 'controlled rest' stuff where you just sleep in the cockpit anyways?

A duty rest consists of the following :
8 hours of SLEEP
time for meals
time for grooming
time for travel

a complete duty rest is required POST flight. Anything after that is up to you. If you want to travel and THEN get a duty rest, that's fine, but it's ultimately your responsibility to complete a duty rest provided the company has given you sufficient time to do so. If you elect to sleep 6 hours then go fly again, you are in violation of CARS.

[foxmoth]

clunkdriver and pushyboss said it well. Pse dont pick on pushy, trey, he is being a good guy and it is tru, nobody in managment can possibly know all this stuff.

catdriver, dont realy think we want TC bosses working 14 hours a day, I mean look at the mess we are in already. God knows what other dumb things they would start up if they were there more time, (and in a fatiged state .
and yes, what about the 40 medical thing? and will we get a refund for all the years past? Hm, 10 times 55 is 550 bucks. minus tax, oh F******** I will owe more than now.

[CYOX]

And with the number of accidents related to fatigue it still surprises me that aviation's normally pro-safety culture is willing to bow to corporate pressures on this one.

What are the figures on this? You seem to be quite sure of this?

[CYOX]

Be careful what you wish for! I met up with a buddy in Montreal a couple of months ago for a beer, he works for IATA and he was with a couple of consultants, one was a Physiology PHD. They were studying fatigue and the factors that contribute to it. Sleep was of course important, however fitness was the most important factor when guaging fatigue, smoker/non-smoker, fat and out of shape. Another contributing factor is what they called the Poison Cockpit, complaining about everything under the sun and working each other into a heightened state, almost like sex, lots of energy then the inevitable crash comes.

It seems that when your union reps stand up and start screaming fatigue is unacceptable, the Carriers will have an extremely comprehensive study done on the effects of eating cheeseburgers, drinking beer and telling war stories all night has on the condition of your ability to perform adequately. I see this thing leading to stricter medicals and people losing there licenses because they lifted there fat ass from their seat and complained that they were unfit to fly.

Like I said, watch out what you wish for.

[Zero-Zero]

Sleep was of course important, however fitness was the most important factor when guaging fatigue, smoker/non-smoker, fat and out of shape.

I see this thing leading to stricter medicals and people losing there licenses because they lifted there fat ass from their seat and complained that they were unfit to fly.

Am I taking this out of context or what??

Great sense of reasoning! (Dripping with sarcasm) Will the experts will say: "If we are in shape and not eating too many cheeseburgers, we should be capable of working a 14 hour duty day". Someone please explain to me where in the hell do we find the time to be active and work out, let alone prepare proper meals, and get adequaite rest, so that we are fit to work these so called acceptable duty days??

Even three, of these Fourteen, hour duty days takes a pretty big bite out of the week, leaving very little disposable time, not only for recreation , but just simply relaxing. I would like to see these PHD's do a little practical research before passing their final conclusions. Anyone who thinks this is reasonable is full of s@#$!

[shinysideup]

8.5 rest on medivacs between 14 hr days is an abuse of the regulations by the operators.

The on-call 24-7 is an abuse by management. You need to allow some allowance for rest.

After a regular nights sleep 9PM to 6AM you do a short flight early in the morning, say up at 6AM. Come back to base at 11AM and your supposed to go back to bed after sleeping all night, but of course you can't because your wide awake. 8.5 hours go by, it's now 9PM at night, you haven't slept or just had a 3 hour nap at the most and you get that call. Now your required to fly a 14 hour day until 11AM the next morning. Now you have had 3 hours rest from 6AM Day 1 to Day 2 11AM. In that 29 hour period you have had 3 hours of sleep (of course there is the occasional rest on a bench in some remote terminal. This doesn't even get into the meals and hygiene part of your day.

This did happen and guess what. Normally it was 8.5 hours of rest after post flight duties for medivacs, I asked for 10.5 hours of rest as the two pilots and the nurse where very tired. The non-pilot manager told me I had sufficient rest acording to the CAR's. I argued and in the end I was sent home half way through my 2 week stint. Granted I had already given my notice, but I was sticking around to help with crew shortage. I guess they didn't want to start a pattern of pilots asking for extra rest when they are over tired.

What's wrong with this picture. This was not the only time something like this has happened. I've seen it first hand with many medivac companies. How can pilots stick up for themselves when they are worried about getting fired?

[WhiteBeacon]

Am I the only pilot with a family? How did that happen? Everybody made good arguements about saftey and money, but how about your family? If you work all this time the wife and kids are going to wonder who the stranger is at the end of the table at supper. Think about it, work to live not live to work.

[W5]

Union Cites Link Between Duty Time and Pilot Fatigue

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080506/20080506006427.html?.v=1