FC5392 - Company’s expectation of captain’s use of discretion
Initial Report
Report Text (summary): Rostered an E1 extension to Flight Duty Period (FDP). Scheduled on-blocks time 14:00 hrs. The max allowed using E1 extension. Absolutely no “fat” in the planned FDP time before having to consider use of Captain’s Discretion to be able to operate the return flight. The Operational Flight Plan (OFP) for the return leg was only available to us (flight crew) once we arrived in [Airfield]. We arrived at [Airfield] 28 mins ahead of schedule and despite departing 3 mins ahead of schedule both outbound to [Airfield] and 16 mins on the return inbound to [Airfield], as well as flying faster than OFP planned Mach No. we (flight crew) still went into Captain’s Discretion by 5 mins.
Given the planned flight times and STDs this duty was never going to be achievable without the use of Captain’s discretion, even at the planning stage. Whilst 5 mins is minimal, it highlights the preposterous policy currently seemingly in force to plan these flights with an expectation that discretion will be required and granted in order to complete the planned duty. Captain’s discretion is not a given – and should not be planned to be granted – to accommodate poor planning.
Reports filed and sent to the company – no response – hence writing this report to CHIRP.
Additional Correspondence from Reporter: This practice is not uncommon at [Airline] for [Canary Islands route]. We are frequently rostered FDPs close to the max allowable under E1 extension. These duties invariably involve turnaround flights from [UK location] to the Canary Islands and often result in Fatigue Reports / use of Captain’s discretion. In my case it was rostered the max allowable; and my guess is that they knew the planned FDP would exceed 14hrs but of course cannot roster a duty exceeding the AT limit and as such simply published it as 14 hrs to be legal for dispatch.
comments
Airline Comment
Initial Airline Comment:
We have noted a recent confidential report from a pilot raising concerns about rostering practices perceived to push duties close to the maximum allowable limits under E1 extensions, potentially requiring the use of commander’s discretion. We strongly encourage all crew members to continue submitting fatigue reports, as these are critical to enhancing our safety and fatigue management processes. Each report is meticulously reviewed by our Fatigue Risk Management specialists to fully understand the circumstances and ensure appropriate follow-up. This thorough analysis may occasionally result in response times of up to 30 days, as we prioritize a detailed understanding of each case over rushed replies. We value your input and are committed to addressing all concerns while maintaining the highest standards of safety and compliance with EU 965/2012 Annex III ORO.FTL.205. (d).
Additional Airline Comment:
We have decided to send out some of our SMS trainers around the bases to train staff up in fatigue management and safety/fatigue reporting to improve understanding of the regulations and the quantity and quality of reports. This includes [discussing that managing fatigue] is a shared responsibility.
CHIRP Comment
This is an excellent report which is being published to help encourage others to use internal ASR, including Fatigue Reports, to highlight areas where, in the opinion of company flight crew, what is being planned and flown is not as written down in company manuals or in line with the intent of regulation. CHIRP believes that although the reporter raises a clearly valid concern regarding use of Commander’s Discretion, with specific instances in support, there was no mention of fatigue as a result, which is the main safety implication of a company that expects captains to use discretion beyond what is regulated for FDP. Ultimately, Commander’s Discretion is exactly what it indicates, and captains should always feel able to refuse its use if there are good reasons for doing so, such as fatigue or other human performance implications. Use of discretion is an exceptional tool, not for routine use, and requires the commander to consult with the crew to assess their fitness for duty before making the decision. If individual captains do not feel able to do this without fear of retribution, then this is an indication of a toxic culture, where safety decisions are being influenced by concerns of a negative response from management. CHIRP acknowledges the airline’s prompt and proactive response to our enquiry about the report and in particular its decision to instigate a communications effort to inform crews, using base SMS teams, as well as email, of relevant company policy, and to encourage use of fatigue reports to highlight issues arising due to use of Commander’s Discretion.
The following link will take you to an open letter, provided by CAA for use on the CHIRP website, to explain the regulator’s view on Commander’s Discretion, based on the frequency of reports received in recent years – Commander’s Discretion – CHIRP.