Full marks to AC for safety!

[Mitch Cronin]

At least one good thing has come out of my recent complaints/plea's/cautions to the big boys... and I owe it to the company to compliment them on their swift and serious investigation of the safety related concerns that I raised.

I met almost immediately with a "safety officer" who interviewed me for over 3 hours. He took my concerns quite seriously and conducted a careful investigation, including interviews with some management. He has concluded that although 3 of the 4 items he/we identified as potential concerns, regarding this "scheduled mandatory overtime", already had sufficient safeguards in place, the 4th item, - that of controls for preventing managers from working people too long, had, as yet, not been addressed, and needed to be.

In his words: "The control of the use of mandatory overtime will require some

clarification to ensure that individuals are protected from possible

cumulative fatigue as a result of the use of this capability." ... "Clarification on

guidelines for the use of mandatory overtime will help to protect the

rights of the individual in a safety concern while assisting individual

managers in their decision making process."

In other words, even though they'll all tell us nobody would have any of us work 30 days in a row, there is nothing as yet in place to prevent that, and there needs to be, so it will be addressed.

I must say that I'm pleased and impressed with the safety related machinery at Air Canada.

Mitch Cronin

[Guest neo]

Air Canada is, by a large margin, the most safety-conscious company I've ever worked for. The number one priority is to do the job safely, and that priority is stressed over and over again. Virtually every message or announcement from my boss, and from the company's CEO, remind us to do our jobs in the safest way possible.

But more to the point, Air Canada expends huge _resources_ on seeing that safety is looked after. They don't just pay lip service to the issue, they spend money on it. If you raise a safety concern, you will generate paper an inch thick over the most minor issue. Substantive concerns will get input from everyone from the top to the janitor.

It doesn't mean that valid safety issues don't arise, they always do and always will in every airline. Safety is an ongoing and dynamic concern because airlines are themselves. And at times when our company has a strong focus on cutting costs, every employee has to be vigilant that safety isn't compromised. I'm sure that our top management would still consider that to be correctly prioritizing our goals.

If there's a suggestion out there that Air Canada isn't committed in the most fundamental way to safety, it's at complete odds with the facts. By all means, raise a safety issue if one arises, but the reasonable thing to do is raise it internally. Because let's give credit where it's due: AC put many resources in our hands to address safety concerns. So use 'em!

Best wishes,

neo

[Guest in_the_sky]

"Air Canada is, by a large margin, the most safety-conscious company I've ever worked for. The number one priority is to do the job safely, and that priority is stressed over and over again"

This is only true in flight Ops until you bring something up that is not safe and then it their decision if it is safe or not.

ie Having a pilot fly the plane with no designated rest period before the flight. He/She can be awake for close to 36hrs by the time he /she lands the plane.

I know use the fatigue excuse. Well I've been there done that and it was easier telling my boss in the north I wasn't going to bust minimums and fly over weight.

I don't really blame the company or ACPA for allowing this but Transport Canada and their Vague and relaxed rules on this compared to the rest of the taxed world.

[Fester]

Over time I believe this will change. Becoming leaner and meaner means cutbacks, and unfortunately, the safety issue will take a back seat, or at least no longer be front row center. A cost-concious organization simply doesn't have the "luxury" of pouring massive resources into programs which don't immediately affect the bottom line. I know, I know, the financial aftershock of just one accident can be devestating, but it takes vision and cash to totally minimize the risk. Very unfortunate indeed, and I hope I'm wrong.

[Guest neo]

"This is only true in flight Ops until you bring something up that is not safe and then it their decision if it is safe or not.

ie Having a pilot fly the plane with no designated rest period before the flight. He/She can be awake for close to 36hrs by the time he /she lands the plane."

!!!

Regarding your first remark, every employee is empowered, and expected, to take the safe, conservative option in the performance of their duty. Yes, you would be expected to justify your choice if it deviated from standard practice, but what other way _could_ it be? Furthermore, of course Flight Operations management makes the final decision on what is the going to be the company-designated safe operating practice. Again, how else could it be? All of us making our own decisions on how things are to be operated? Where would that lead?

If you want to have the final say in every aspect of every safety issue, then the choice is absolutely simple: own and operate your own airline. But if you go to work for someone else, then other than in statutory and contractually-agreed items, they have the final say.

In your example given, could you please detail how a pilot could be in such a situation, contractually or otherwise? In the _least_ onerous scenario, the pilot in your example would have been awake for 24 hours prior to beginning a 12 hour flight to Asia. How would this be possible? Furthermore, what pilot in their right mind would accept such an assignment?

If you acutally know of a situation where this happens, the pilot(s) involved should never have let it happen; and that Flight Operations management would see that it didn't happen in future if the concern was brought to them.

Best wishes,

neo

[Guest neo]

I think your concern is valid, but I don't think that the outcome is necessarily as you fear.

As I mentioned, I do think that it means that all employees must be especially vigilant that safety isn't compromised. But it would be arrogant of us to assume that we are currently doing everything in the most cost-effective safe way possible. Perhaps there will be ways to do some things that are just as safe but cheaper too.

For those employees among us who are rightly considered Safety Professionals... AME's, Flight Attendants, and Pilots... I think that times like these are where we prove that we deserve to be regarded as such. By all means be flexible, but never compromise the company's safety bottom line.

Best wishes,

neo

[Guest in_the_sky]

"could you please detail how a pilot could be in such a situation"

With pleasure.

All reserve pilots at Air Canada are in essence on duty 24hrs a day. Example.

Screw head does not advise you of anything the night before you go to bed. You go to bed at a reasonable hour just incase they call you first thing in the morning ie: go to bed at 9pm in case of a 5am call. No call so you get to sleep in until 9am. No calls all day. Again you go to bed at a reasonable hour 9pm in case you have to go to work at 5am. At 9:15pm just as you get to sleep the phone rings. Got to go to work for an 23:15 report, last guy on list so short call ( can not pass ), CARS says we can do a 12 hour duty day now. example GRU

So lets do the math awake 12 before call plus 2 for the given time allowed to get to the airport plus upto 12 duty time gives me 26hrs with out sleep or augmentation BTW. Sorry 26 not 36. (feels like36)

This DOES happen on a regular basis and no the company does no take it lightly when you say no.

All this for $40,000 a year makes me wonder.

[Guest in_the_sky]

If you read the last comment from my initial post you will see that I blame Transport Canada for this not the company.

Should transport change the rules ie force A and B reserve insted of a 24 hour reserve the company would not be in a position to force the issue on the pilots and the pilots not feeling obligated or put in the position to accept it.

[DEFCON]

Yesterday I read something about a sleeping pilot being video taped by a pax. Everyones investigating and at the end of the day the system will burn the little guy, all an effort to impress the public. TC and the FAA are largely a waste of taxpayer money.

[Guest in_the_sky]

I agree, and much like other issues involving Transport Canada and Air Canada no one is held accountable for their actions and the little guy gets the #$%^ up the @#$%

[dragon]

You guys are hitting a lot of nails on the head today.

Well stated. TC equals a huge waste of money.

[Guest neo]

Ah, OK, you meant 26 hours not 36 hours.

Well, I can't deny that a scenario could be constructed such as you describe. Is it something that actually happens often enough that we need more rules to address it? More rules cut both ways...

In the worst-case scenario you describe, the flight is augmented. This provides an opportunity for the pilots to rest prior to landing. Also, if you're on reserve and in a position to be called at the last minute for a late night long-haul, then take steps to soften the potential blow. Maybe have a nap in the afternoon.

I'm not trying to say you won't be tired. I do nothing but long-haul and fatigue is unavoidable. Does our employer obey the fatigue rules? Yes. Could our employer do more to address fatigue? Yes they could, at a cost. But that's their call, because they and ultimately the customer pays for it. Our job is to work safely within the fatigue rules; and for those occasional times when the rules don't safely address the fatigue we feel, to act independently in accordance with our own needs for rest.

The fatigue issue is one that will always bring at least some contention between employees and management. There is no way to write rules which will cover all situations, and no way to quatifiably assess fatigue in an individual that I'm aware of. But I still maintain that you have all the necessary tools at your disposal to perform your job in a safe manner, and to bring ongoing safety issues to the attention of someone who can do something about them.

neo

[Mitch Cronin]

Re: "By all means, raise a safety issue if one arises, but the reasonable thing to do is raise it internally. Because let's give credit where it's due: AC put many resources in our hands to address safety concerns. So use 'em!"

Hmmmm... Where to start?... I can tell you that I now have an avenue to do exactly that, raise any safety concerns internally, knowing they'll be looked at, to determine if they're valid concerns. However... The only avenue I knew of, a little over a week ago, was to let my concerns fall on the ears of either morons, or people who had their own agenda and could most definitely not be trusted to look at those concerns seriously.

I can say with absolute certainty, that if I'd only left my complaints in the hands of the folks wearing ties, who I had already brought them to, I would never have seen any determination to establish any controls over the maximum number of days in a row I could be made to work.

I'm very pleased with that particular outcome... I'm terrified of what kind of treatment/discipline awaits my return from holidays, I'm extremely dissappointed that our management actually thinks sceduling mandatory overtime will somehow not have any effect on employee morale, and it will actually help them somehow...(did you happen to catch the precious little bit of "new-speak" from Rob Reid: "Contrary to your belief, scheduled mandatory overtime will, in fact, allow us to provide greater predictability of overtime for our employees and thereby hopefully contribute to their ability to coordinate their own personal lives." -he evidently either thinks we're brain-dead, or he's wearing some pretty funny colored glasses! )

...I am not at all sorry I did what I did.

I just wish someone other than the safety folks (and possibly lawyers?) would have had a serious look at the rest of what I said.

Cheers,

Mitch

[Guest neo]

Ah, OK, you meant 26 hours not 36 hours.

Well, I can't deny that a scenario could be constructed such as you describe. Is it something that actually happens often enough that we need more rules to address it? More rules cut both ways...

In the worst-case scenario you describe, the flight is augmented. This provides an opportunity for the pilots to rest prior to landing. Also, if you're on reserve and in a position to be called at the last minute for a late night long-haul, then take steps to soften the potential blow. Maybe have a nap in the afternoon.

I'm not trying to say you won't be tired. I do nothing but long-haul and fatigue is unavoidable. Does our employer obey the fatigue rules? Yes. Could our employer do more to address fatigue? Yes they could, at a cost. But that's their call, because they and ultimately the customer pays for it. Our job is to work safely within the fatigue rules; and for those occasional times when the rules don't safely address the fatigue we feel, to act independently in accordance with our own needs for rest.

The fatigue issue is one that will always bring at least some contention between employees and management. There is no way to write rules which will cover all situations, and no way to quatifiably assess fatigue in an individual that I'm aware of. But I still maintain that you have all the necessary tools at your disposal to perform your job in a safe manner, and to bring ongoing safety issues to the attention of someone who can do something about them.

neo

[dragon]

”In the worst-case scenario you describe, the flight is augmented. This provides an opportunity for the pilots to rest prior to landing.”

To “REST” in an environment similar to dinnertime on Walton’s mountain. Complete with chatter, banging pots, announcements with menu and arrival information and of course, what rest would really be restful without some bright overhead lights shining in your eyes, the elastic of eyeshades wrapped around your head, earplugs and a ‘Bed’ where “Fully reclined” actually only means recline able to about 150 to 160 degrees?

Complaining? No, not really, I just get a kick out of this rest period thing. ACPA should invite Susan Pigg along for an augmented flight on a 67 or one of the 330s now or even better, onto an AT flight.

Susan, where are you?.. Do a story on pilot fatigue, rest and the ATAC lobby please.

[dragon]

and to "what is the cost". What is the cost? And why is a leader in Canadian aviation not signed up? Is AC doing everything reasonably expected of Canada's Flag [please, this is not a post about the merits of 'flag carrier'] Carrier?

720.23 Controlled Rest on the Flight Deck

The standards for compliance with this section require that the air operator's program is outlined in the company operations manual and contains the following elements:

(1) Training

Every flight crew member who participates in the controlled rest on the flight deck program shall have received training in the program as well as training in the general principles of fatigue and fatigue countermeasures.

[dragon]

and, while I'm at it.

DIVISION I - GENERAL 720.01 Definitions

The words and expressions used in these Standards have the same meaning as in General Provisions, Section 101.01 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations and in Division I - General, of the Commercial Air Services, Part VII of the Canadian Aviation Regulations with the following additions:

(amended 2000/06/01; previous version)

"flight relief facility - seat" - means a comfortable, fully reclining seat, separated and screened from the passengers and flight deck, equipped with a call device, sleep restraint, portable oxygen, and not subject to distraction from noise generated in the cabin. (poste de repos - siège)

So, if we require a seat, legally we don't cause your A-OK for up to 17 hours of duty without one, thanks to ATAC and TC, our seat goes 2 for 7.

[Guest in_the_sky]

Yes it does happen on a regular Basis and No it does not require augmentation under CARS. Air canada contract is 10 hours with no augment. Still how comfortable would you feel sending you family on a flight where both pilots have been awake for 24 hours.

"Full marks for safety"

Yes if you know you are going to do the flight yes you can take a nap and I do, But so you nap in the afternoon only to stay up late at night. Get no call to go to work until eary morning while you have been tossing and turning trying to sleep all night due to the nap.

The Solution. A and B reserve. Very simple pilots are allocated either A day or a night reserve schedule so they can arrange a sleep pattern for possible flights. Will the company do this for Safety? Yeah right!

Only when ACPA gets a back bone and stands up to this or Transport Canada changes the regulations will it change. Both I fear will not happen in my career.

Why not do something about it myself you ask? I have, I have written letters and had conversations with people who can change things but as it seems these issuse do not effect them so they are not interested.