FC5351 - Length of duty
Initial Report
Our operation often operates flights of 14+ hours with 1 augmented crew, when industry practice is to operate such flights with 4 crew. I operated a 2 sector [UK-Europe-Mid USA] reporting at 2030Z, landing at 1055Z in [Mid USA]. What is a very fatiguing duty (to start a 5-day rotation) flying through the WOCL, multiple sectors, only to obtain 24 hours of rest before operating another 12+ hours flight, again with 1 augmented crew. To make the matters worse, we had 6 dead-heading crew for both sectors. Despite requests to enable a 4th crew member, the Company denied it. The same happened to me on my previous block of work a week and a half ago, when we operated [Japan-Mid USA] (12+ hours) with two dead-heading crew, and we were declined the use of a 4th crew member.
Upon chatting with fellow colleagues, we appear to be averaging 500-600 hours per year, so hours doesn’t seem to be a factor. Crew have tried to explain to management and Crewing that an extra crew member on augmented operations can increase the in-flight rest by up to 50% on some of our routes and help to reduce fatigue. Yet the response is always no, as it only allows for an extra hour on the FTL, disregarding Fatigue and Crew’s welfare completely, for no apparent reason.
It reminds me of a recent CHIRP article which sums up my operation: “It’s Legal”.
comments
Company Comment
Our long-haul trip combinations are modelled by [specialist fatigue organisation], with predicted KSS scores provided along with advice for managing sleep during the trip. Individuals are also asked to participate in acti-watch studies, to allow [specialist fatigue organisation] to compare the predicted to the actual KSS score – studies have found that many predictions are extremely accurate. However participation and KSS reporting remains low for the 777 fleet, which is currently averaging between 29-43%, compared to 91% for the 767 and 79% for the 757.
Based on previous modelling and discussions with our [safety group], we have identified 2 flights currently being operated, where it is deemed necessary to increase the augmented compliment from 3 to 4 crew. For our other rotations planned with 3 crew, the allowable FDP is in by 1 hour 35 minutes, discretion levels are low and the current average KSS does not highlight a requirement to monitor or change this pairing.
A monthly KSS update is provided by [specialist fatigue organisation], to allow us to monitor the average for each sector/combination and highlight those flights scoring towards the top of the KSS chart. These results are reviewed during a monthly meeting with [specialist fatigue organisation], Safety and Head of Crewing. They are also discussed in our FSAG meetings, which take place three times a year and is attended by [specialist fatigue organisation], Safety, Crewing and Rostering, Pilot Management and pilot representatives. Currently all 777 sectors average out at an acceptable level.
With regards to providing an additional crew member when we have crew positioning. This was previously denied due to inexperienced pilots flying together, crew hours during the early stages of operating the 777 and the lack of KSS data on these flights with 3 crew. Arbitrarily increasing from 3 to 4 crew on sectors requiring 3 crew, dilutes the already small dataset of KSS scoring which is designed to identify which routes are most deserving of additional augmentation.
However, we have recently agreed with our [safety group], that we are now in a position to change crew to operate as the 4th member, if they are already planned to dead-head on the flight. A new procedure has been put in place for our Crewing team to manage this and change crew where FTL allows us to do so.
KSS and fatigue reports continue to be monitored. Should a specific trip combination identify a requirement to increase the compliment from 3 to 4 crew on a planned basis, this would be reviewed.
CHIRP Comment
We’re grateful for the company’s pro-active response which provides a comprehensive background about their associated FRMS processes and relevant recent rostering changes. The report was mostly about augmented flights for long duties, with the nub of the reporter’s concerns being about the use of 3 crew versus 4 crew on some sectors. The ultra long 5-10 day trips were fairly new to the company, and they may still have been finding their way somewhat when modelling and rostering them such that associated sleep patterns might not have been fully understood by either them or the crews. However, it’s clear that the company have adopted an appropriate learning culture with a willingness to engage on fatigue concerns such as those highlighted by the reporter.
Alongside the crew complement debate, the company were also basing fatigue modelling on remaining acclimatised to UK time during the duty so that each sector on a trip was based on beginning as “fully recovered”. The WOCL flying on these trips, and alternating between night/day duties (relative to UK time), means that it is difficult to stick rigidly to a UK sleep schedule over such multi-day events and we understand that the company are also now adopting processes that account for cumulative effects during the entire trip.