Flight Duty Time Limitations In Other Jurisdictions

[chopper_guy]

Kudos to Harmonic_Vibe for one of the most intelligent and practical analyses of the Flight/Duty time conundrum. The TC and airline attempts to ram this through are very reminiscent of the rediculous SMS and self-policing policy of last year. Fred Lewis' comments are non productive. Just because some other juristictions have more restrictive regulations, Who Cares? The reasons for their regs may have nothing to do with safety or any physiological processes. The requirements in Chile allow for fewer hours flying and a maximum of 30 days worked before 13 days off must be taken. This! in a country with even a shorter busy(fire) season. Most of the pilots and administrators are ex military and have no experience with production flying and are very accustomed to a relaxed, in peacetime, work schedule. The good doctors views on 8 hours sleep with 14 hours duty days sure seems to make sense to me and I'm sure to any other conscientious pilot who has worked weeks of 14 hour days and got his 8 hours rest every night. Just because we would all be happy to only work for 11 duty hours doesn't mean it is a worthwile idea, or practical, or any safer.

[Hiller Highwater]

kjw57, what if we compromise and combine prescriptive limits with technological advances? For starters, we will only need the probe if we start work before 6! Now it'll suck even more to be a spray pilot! Ha ha ha!

[oil pressure]

Good post HV, lots of good info and insight from a different angle or two. I would agree you are not a sissy, anyone who sticks their neck out with that much information on a forum which usually does not accommodate discussion is quite brave indeed.

It seems that in this format one generally provides a viewpoint or opinion and then you check back a few hours later , not to see if there was any professional or educational (and heaven forbid, respectable) replies, but rather to see how bad your head was ripped off and spit out, and how unbelievably stupid your post was.

Fortunately there are some professional souls on here that show incredible patience and believe in the good of the forums and the benefit of constructive conversation.

 

Kudos to all who dont fall into the inevitable "pissing matches" and continue providing feedback or argument in their professional and respectful manner!

[Darksidelogger]

Anyone have any current stats as to how many accidents have even contributing factors that include fatigue every year.

Just wondering what were all really chasing here is it 100 per year or 2

 

I apologize if it was posted and I missed it and its not to imply that even 2 incidents is acceptable.

 

D.S.L.

[Icewind]

:punk: Thank you HV for one of the best posts ever written on this forum !!! :up:

[hybrid]

HV I thought that was a good post too. We all don't have to agree on the outcome of the FDT changes, but it could possibly be the most important issue to the industry in recent history. Hopefully we can keep this thread from going down hill like so many of the others.

 

So are these changes imminent, and if so when will they be implemented? Are the changes that Fred Lewis posted going to be the new parameters?

 

P5, besides venting regularly on this forum about your bitterness towards the operators and managers, what is your solution to getting pilot representation? Seriously. Hepac was a bust, I don't think pilots and AME's are interested in joining an association to represent us, it seems that the majority would rather represent themselves.

[MedMan]

A quick google for results using the terms transport canada flight duty time limits or transport canada flight duty time limits working group should get much of the information anyone wants on the Working Group's mandate and activity to date.

 

I found an interesting quote in this document, as follows:

 

Due to limited pilot representation on the Minister's Advisory Committee an Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC) was issued soliciting response to the Committee's recommendations from the general pilot population. The responses were relatively few in number and with one exception all were opposed to the recommendations. - Commercial Air Service Operations Technical Committee (Part VII)

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/affairs-carac-technical-caso-wg-flight-dutytime-89.htm

 

That documented lack of interest in participation in the Working Group on the part of helicopter aviators answers all of my questions concerning proposed legislation/regulations and their implementation. It's extremely unfortunate that there is no association of helicopter pilots to represent the interests of the professionals in the business.

 

Good luck. You're all going to need it.

[cab driver]

Note that MedMan's link above refers to a working group whose final report was issued in 1994.

[MedMan]

@cab driver:

 

I'm not ignorant of the dates mentioned in the link. That quote may well have been released in a report dated in 1994, but if you notice at the bottom left corner of the linked page, the page was modified on 2010-03-31. That would appear to indicate to me that the conclusion is still true and continues to be granted some measure of ongoing validity.

 

It's kind of sad, really.

[Icewind]

@cab driver:

 

I'm not ignorant of the dates mentioned in the link. That quote may well have been released in a report dated in 1994, but if you notice at the bottom left corner of the linked page, the page was modified on 2010-03-31. That would appear to indicate to me that the conclusion is still true and continues to be granted some measure of ongoing validity.

 

It's kind of sad, really.

 

The page in question is only the "Terms of Reference" for the creation of the 1994 group. The 'Date modified' reference could mean anything about the page, it certainly doesn't appear to refer to anything new in the content of the document. There is nothing new here, and it doesn't have any of the conclusions or recommendations that were actually created by the 1994 'Working Group'.

 

The essence of this discussion is that the current Canadian standards that were the result of that process have been deemed to be inadequate by our international partners and the process is being repeated.