All of our aircraft are approved to operate with a minimum of 2 pilots. The addition of a 3^rd pilot on certain routes/aircraft types is for FTL compliance. This flight would likely have operated on a get-home basis with a plan in place after discussion with the OCC, potentially a medical representative and both operating pilots in agreement on factors such as break duration and if any discretion was required.

This report is an example of where effective communication between Flight Crew/OCC and Cabin Crew is essential to ensure that Cabin Crew have all the facts and are reassured during IROP events. Cabin Crew should feel confident and empowered to express any safety concerns with their SCCM and/or Flight Crew before or during the flight if required.

The commander may elect to operate a flight with minimum crew provided the operator has established procedures for this. Communication is essential during flight operations to maintain a safe and effective working environment, in this instance better communication may have helped to alleviate the crew member’s concerns.

The SEP Manual states.

Each crewmember is responsible for ensuring that they do not perform duties on an aircraft or whilst attending training:

(1) When under the influence of psychoactive substances or alcohol; or when unfit due to injury, fatigue, medication, sickness or other similar causes.

(2) Until a reasonable time period has elapsed after deep water diving or following blood donation. (See below).

(3) If applicable medical requirements are not fulfilled.

(4) If they are in any doubt of being able to accomplish their assigned duties.

(5) If they know or suspect that they are suffering from fatigue or feel otherwise unfit, to the extent that the flight could be endangered.

Point 4 would have been applicable to the reporter. If you are not fit to operate then you should not report for duty, and the reporter has the responsibility to report for flight duties in accordance with the Ops Manual Part B (SEP Manual).

Crewing are not there to offer advice, they will record a crewmember sick or fatigued. The reporter should have contacted the crew manager available at crew check-in or by contacting the crew support team. We run a non-punitive calling fatigued policy and we train all members of crewing in the areas of fatigue that are relevant to their role so they should be fully aware of the process. If reporting Fatigued, crewing will remove the Cabin Crew member from the flight and annotate their roster with a dedicated roster code. They will also notify the relevant management team and the FRM Team. The FRM Team and respective management teams will commence a roster review process which would consider any likely contributory factors.

Operators have to demonstrate understanding of how fatigue could affect a crew member’s alertness and performance, how fatigue does or could occur within the working environment and the need to manage it effectively for continued safe operation.

It is also important that flight and cabin crew are actively encouraged to report fatigue related occurrences and issues relating to current and ongoing changes to the operation and operational environment. All crew members must be able to self-declare that they are fatigued and potentially unfit to fly within an open reporting and just culture principles as defined in EU 376/2014 without fear of punitive action.

For this report, and in any instance where equipment is inoperative, the correct procedure was followed, and engineering were contacted. The sliding window, although stiffer than usual to operate, could be opened and the aircraft operated safety.

However, it’s important to reaffirm that our operational processes do not involve assigning or selecting crew members based on perceived physical strength. This is neither a measurable nor appropriate principle in a professional environment. Describing colleagues in such terms would be both inaccurate and inconsistent with our values. All crew members must be treated with dignity and respect.

The commander has the authority to decide if they will accept an aircraft. With unserviceable equipment, they must decide this based on the information within the configuration deviation list (CDL) or the minimum equipment list (MEL). Any unrectified defects should be discussed during the pre-flight briefing and the decision to accept these would be made on the commander’s authority CAT.GEN.MPA.105 (11) If a cabin crew is unsure or has a concern about any unserviceable equipment, they should discuss this with the flight crew.

Base teams do use discretion wherever necessary, including in cases of infrastructure disruption, and this has been taken into account previously. We do have a system for contracts, which exists to ensure fairness both to individuals and to their colleagues. This system provides a clear and consistent structure so that we can measure performance objectively and select the right candidates for permanent roles, while remaining fair to those they are competing against.

Following recent feedback, we have reviewed this process and removed absence levels from the scoring system. It is important to stress that this framework is not used as a form of punishment for colleagues who take fatigue-related absences or who experience lateness. Rather, it is also designed to protect those who have consistently met the criteria throughout the season.

Lateness is taken into account to support all colleagues and to ensure fairness to those who have made it to work on time. Without clear measures in place, there is a risk that permanent crew could be placed under additional pressure if colleagues were awarded permanent contracts without meeting the expected standards, potentially resulting in others having to cover flights due to frequent lateness or performance issues.

That said, base teams use discretion. For example, when infrastructure issues or car park transport problems affect a wider group, teams may choose not to issue late reports, understanding the broader context. In this case, however, a late report form is issued solely for monitoring and feedback to the airport authority, aiming to minimise disruption. Conversations with crew should focus on this purpose and make it clear that, although a report has been issued, this reason will not impact the scoring process.

All fatigue absences are reported directly to the fatigue team. Non-roster-related absences are shared with base teams, for welfare purposes and to allow for support from a team that the colleague is more familiar with. These meetings are intended to understand any underlying issues and to identify whether additional support may be required.

It would be wrong for the business not to have a structure in place, and each situation is considered on a case by case basis. We take the welfare of our crew very seriously and remain committed to supporting colleagues wherever necessary.

The Fatigue Safety Team monitors multiple factors contributing to fatigue, including airport infrastructure and crew commute times. When commute is cited in a fatigue report, we collect if the crew reported it exceeded the regulated 90-minute limit.

The main theme: crew report needing to arrive early due to transfer time from staff car park to crew room via staff buses. Each case where this specific issue was raised, it was addressed individually through manager discussions and written feedback.

Although not always formally reported, we recognise that bases requiring third-party bus transfers can contribute to fatigue and create feelings of unfairness. Fatigue management is a shared responsibility, and we remain committed to supporting crew.

This issue is being discussed industry-wide at the Flight Operations Liaison Group (FOLG) fatigue subsection and internally at the Fatigue Safety Action Group (FSAG) for ongoing monitoring, particularly at bases with car park bus transfers.

Ultimately, the 90 minute commute allowance covers the entire journey from home to work. If crew cannot meet this, temporary accommodation closer to base should be considered. Contracts specify living within 90 minutes (or less subject to contract date), and regulations clearly define responsibility.

Cabin crew have a responsibility to ensure they do not operate when unfit and it is a regulatory requirement that crew members shall not perform duties on an aircraft when unfit due to fatigue, sickness or other similar causes.  Most operators have a sickness policy to monitor crew welfare, however the policy should not be in contradiction to a just culture or encourage cabin crew members to report for a duty when unfit to operate.

The reporter has noted a number of issues such as staff parking and clearing security that may be a contributing factor to fatigue in crew members. It is important to report these concerns through the operator’s reporting system, which ensures the operator receives the feedback in the appropriate manner, allowing for an investigation and the introduction of any necessary mitigations.

The Communication issued by our colleague was in response to concerns raised by many other colleagues.  We had received reports that negative engagement – by a very small number – was creating a distraction during pre-flight preparation / briefings; with the potential for diminishing the focus on safe operations.  The Communication was issued as ion was to encourage issues to be raised in an appropriate manner, at appropriate times and such that no adverse effect was had upon their colleagues’ ability to undertake duties in a safe manner.   

Our colleagues play a vital role in safety, security and compliance and, we encourage – regularly – reporting through the various available channels (including confidential and, as occasionally has been the case, by telephone to a member of the Safety Team).  We have very strict procedures in place to guarantee confidentiality.  Every non-confidential (i.e.  open) report is reviewed by the entire management team (i.e.  including the Accountable Manager), classified and actions raised / assigned accordingly.  We place considerable emphasis upon the provision of feedback, on both individual events and on the collective use to which certain reports have been put. 

All reporting options are set out in our Management System Manual and are included in both initial and recurrent training for all employees.  We publicise the CHIRP newsletters and, moreover, have written permission to re-use – internally – any of the material published therein.  Finally, we promote the option of the CAA’s various confidential reporting options (available to all personnel) and, cooperate both fully and openly if and when such reporting channels are used.  

We are passionately committed to providing a safe working environment for all. 

Effective communication and safety promotion are seen as important factors in maintaining crew engagement and driving continuous safety improvement. The aviation safety regulations require operators to establish voluntary and mandatory occurrence reporting systems, as well as reactive and proactive schemes for hazard identification. These provide the formal means of collecting, recording, analysing, acting on and generating feedback about hazards and the associated risks, and are therefore the preferred methods for crew members to provide feedback. There are many means of collecting feedback from crew members (e.g. informal meetings, safety studies and safety surveys) but whichever method is used, it is critical that operators adopt a just culture to encourage individuals to contribute openly and report safety-related information.