ATTENTION all 702 703 Operators!

[Pine needle]

You need to fully be aware and understand how the proposed Flight Duty Times NPA will affect/restrict your operation and business. They are very different than the current regulations.

October 3, 2014 is the deadline to express your concerns. Please educate yourself and if you have concerns, please contact your industry representatives or email your concerns directly.

http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/n ... 3&lang=eng

Some of the restrictive highlights for charter operations are, duty days depended on sectors and start times, required published pilot schedules of duty times in advance, and minimum 12 hours of rest at your home base, etc. VFR Helicopters ops are exempt from sector restrictions, however VFR float, charter ops, are NOT.

I personally think these restrictions are "way out to lunch" for 702/703 charter operators, however I feel the noise coming from those affected the most is very low. Either most are not aware, or simply feel that their voice wont be heard and feel there is nothing they can do. If you do not like any part of these new proposed regulations, please voice your concern! Now is the time.

[flyinhigh]

You are correct Pine Needle, this NPA has the effect of actually shutting down some operators.
Most associations are all over this to fight it, alot of companies I know are as well. It was great of you to post the link, as typical TC introduced this without advertising it. Bunch of PR&$KS!!

[Treehawk]

Yes people get on it. Time is running out to have your say. Nothing will change if people don't have the guts to take a stance for some positive change in the industry. Feel free to question why there is no talk of changes to being on 24/7 Reserve. This is a huge grey area of contention with the pilots in these operators...and an area that needs to be addressed! So stop complaining amongst yourselves, and direct it to the right people...they are listening.

[Redneck_pilot86]

Has anyone more articulate than I am taken the time to write up a nice letter that I could attach my name to? I am more than willing to add my voice against these ridiculous changes, but haven't got the time to figure out a way to say it in a way that would be beneficial. Please post it here or pm me if anyone has done this.

[Heliian]

Looks good to me. Put it through.

It seems to be bringing us in line with the rest of the world and it will reduce fatigue.

Yes, there will be an adjustment period but I think you'll find that it's not really that big of a deal. The aviation industry will not implode. If you are relying on super long duty days and tired pilots to keep afloat then I'm sorry to say you are shit out of luck.

I've read this through only once and will re-read it a few more times and I suggest everyone do the same to fully understand the terminology and scope of the proposed amendment.

AS ALWAYS, there are exceptions and exemptions for everything so don't panic, maybe even try to be proactive now to adjust to the proposed regs.

[TG]

If you are relying on super long duty days and tired pilots to keep afloat then I'm sorry to say you are shit out of luck.

+1

[CFR]

You are correct Pine Needle, this NPA has the effect of actually shutting down some operators.
Most associations are all over this to fight it, alot of companies I know are as well. It was great of you to post the link, as typical TC introduced this without advertising it. Bunch of PR&$KS!!

Not here to defend TC, however if you are in the business it is in your best interests to know how these things change and where they are published. Following the link takes you to the TC site which lists the process

• NPA
• Tech Comm
• CARC
• Legal Editing
• Canada Gazette, Part I
• Canada Gazette, Part II
• Final Version
• CARs Publication

Currently it is at the NPA stage. Based on feedback it may go back to the Tech Committee for re-work and perhaps back out as an NPA again.
Once past that it goes to the Civil Aviation Regulatory Committee (CARC) for review/comment
Next it goes to legal to see if what is being proposed is in keeping with Canadian and/or international law.
Once it clears all those hurdles it is published in the Canada Gazette Part I as a proposed regulation for public comment.
If no comments or if the comments are not valid, then it is published in Part II as a reg and then Part III when proclaimed.
And finally it will appear in CARS

Some of the above can be fast tracked and/or skipped but not the Gazette.

I learned a long time ago that if you work in a business/department affected by government regulation, reading the Gazette each week is in your best interest.

[Redneck_pilot86]

I'm looking at the chart on page 16. If I start my duty day at 530 am, with 2 flights (4 sectors) booked, I am only allowed to have a maximum duty day of 11 hours (ending by 1630). But if I have 4 flights booked (8 legs), I can only work until 1500. So if I go to work for the initial plan of 2 flights in the day, and I get a call at 1430 for a one hour flight, am I allowed to do the trip? Do I have to carry a copy of these regs on board so I can figure out if I can do a trip when Joe at some mine asks me to drop him off at his buddys mine on the way home, thus adding 1 sector and reducing my allowable duty day?

These regs are way too complicated for the average charter operator, who doesn't know what he will be doing all day when he wakes up in the morning. I get a phone call, I go flying. I don't really have a problem with reducing duty times, but this is nonsense. I can currently work a 14 hour day. You want to reduce that, tell me I can only work a 12 hour day. Or a 10 hour day. Don't create a manual that I need to spend half an hour of my duty day studying in order to determine whether I can do a trip or not.

[bob99]

I'm looking at the chart on page 16. If I start my duty day at 530 am, with 2 flights (4 sectors) booked, I am only allowed to have a maximum duty day of 11 hours (ending by 1630). But if I have 4 flights booked (8 legs), I can only work until 1500. So if I go to work for the initial plan of 2 flights in the day, and I get a call at 1430 for a one hour flight, am I allowed to do the trip? Do I have to carry a copy of these regs on board so I can figure out if I can do a trip when Joe at some mine asks me to drop him off at his buddys mine on the way home, thus adding 1 sector and reducing my allowable duty day?

These regs are way too complicated for the average charter operator, who doesn't know what he will be doing all day when he wakes up in the morning. I get a phone call, I go flying. I don't really have a problem with reducing duty times, but this is nonsense. I can currently work a 14 hour day. You want to reduce that, tell me I can only work a 12 hour day. Or a 10 hour day. Don't create a manual that I need to spend half an hour of my duty day studying in order to determine whether I can do a trip or not.

I'm not sure what you find complicated. You line up the sectors with duty start time. It hardly takes 30 minutes of studying, or a manual to figure out.

[Ki-ll]

We carry approach ban, take off minima and a lot of other things on board all the time. What is wrong with adding another chart and referencing it when required?
These changes are definitely in a positive direction.
Before it was legal to start your on call day at 0800, stay awake all day, then get a call just as you are going to bed around 11 pm for a full 15 hour duty day. That will involve staying awake for 30 hours. How is that better than the proposed changes which will limit you to 14 hours of standby, 10 hours of rest between periods of standby and maximum duty time if you get called during those 14 hours to 18 hours(which include whatever time you were on standby as duty)?

[TailwheelPilot]

And of course this is why some 702/3 operations will be screwed. It works for me, why shouldn't it work for you?

The standby duty period rules help the medevac operators, but does nothing for others. At my job I expect we will just not do anything early in the morning and delay flights until a 7+ sector FDP ends at the same time as good daylight. Kind of a pain since we will be tight for time and having minimal breaks regularly rather than having leisurely days, normally with a few hours off at some point, and long meal breaks.

I agree the Canadian duty time regulations need work, I just cannot understand how TC could put out that NPA with so many contradictions in it or why we need a maximum FDP structure that is more complicated and generally less restrictive than the US, EU, UK, Australia, and India. And exemptions that do not seem to make sense such as having sectors not affect non-scheduled VFR helicopter pilots but they do affect non-scheduled VFR aeroplane pilots.

Contradictions
"The science suggests a maximum FDP of 12 hours would be effective in managing flight crew fatigue." (NPA, p.3) So why does the NPA then go on to allow 13 hour days and not limit them at 12 hours? Shortly after that quote they go on about increases in accident likelihood. "A near two-fold increase in likelihood of incident or accident has been found following 10 hours compared to 8 hours on shift." (NPA, p.3) That is a large increase, so why limit FDPs at 13 hours and not 8 hours?

"Studies that looked at overnight operations, reached the conclusion that the duty period should be restricted to no more than 10 hours through the night." (NPA, p.3) Why can I start at 2030 and work 11 hours until 0530 when they are referencing studies that conclude the FDP should be no more than 10 hours?

"One study found that the increase from one to a 4-sector duty was equivalent to the effect of an additional 2.77 hours duty or approximately 55 minutes duty per sector."

First question is what type of operations were studied? Airlines? Single-pilot IFR? VFR Float operations? IFR helicopters? VFR helicopters? Aerial application?

Was the fatigue due to the number sectors flown (ie take off, approach, and landing), or the length of the sectors flown? What differences were there between 15 minute VFR flights and 2 hour VFR flights? 30 minute IFR sectors and 4 hour IFR sectors? 15 minute VFR flights and 4 hour IFR flights?

Ultimately, what differences, if any, are there between the different sectors of aviation?

My second question regarding sectors is why are the FDPs reduced by 0.5 hours per sector flown above three and less than eight rather than by 0.9 hours, as supported by the studies (NPA, p.3), or 1.0 hours to make it simpler?

Did the studies conclude that the first three sectors have no effect on fatigue, or were they not studied? Did the studies conclude that once you have flown 7 sectors you no longer become more fatigued with each sector flown? Did the studies conclude that non-scheduled VFR helicopter pilots do not become more fatigued with every sector as the exemption for them suggests? Did the studies conclude that the aforementioned pilots are physiologically superior to non-schedule VFR aeroplane pilots to not become fatigued? How does this amazing physiological difference affect pilots who are rated for both helicopters and aeroplanes?

But again - the study says it has the effect of 55 minutes, so why does TC only pretend it fatigues us as much as an extra 30 minutes duty if they start off talking about all the support they have from scientific studies for these changes?

Why do you not become more fatigued flying sectors 6+ when you start at 2300 and finish at 0800? Why does the seventh sector not fatigue you if you start between 0430-0459 or 2100-2259 and work for nine hours, but the seventh sector does fatigue you if you start from 0500-2059?

Complicated...
No, determining your FDP is not complicated, especially if you have a schedule in advance. I feel it is unnecessarily complicated. Why? There are twelve FDP start periods, a few being 30 minutes long. Are the short ones really necessary? Just looking at TC's graph (NPA, p.6) it shows the proposed change is far more complicated than everyone else's limits except the EU, and even then they are still more complicated, just not by much.

They say "the graph below demonstrates how Canada's current and proposed flight and duty time and period regulations compare to the recommended limits." (NPA, p.5) presumably so we feel all warm and fuzy, that these are scientifically-supported limits determined by NASA. Unfortunately the graph demonstrates that Canada's current and proposed regulations, as well as the regulations in the USA, India, EU all exceed the scientific study, all of the time. In what world do any of those duty time regulations reflect the latest fatigue science?

Why are they even referencing the NASA study? The flight duty limits are not safe according to the NASA study (which is the goal of aviation regulations, right?), and the regulators of those countries should be held in-part responsible for any and all accidents or incidents where fatigue is a factor due to the length of the duty day. TC was even nice enough to make a graph for all the lawyers to use in court illustrating these unsafe regulations.

Only Australia and the UK have more restrictive (and presumably safer) flight duty limits than the scientific NASA study, although only from 1700-0800 and 1300-1400 in Australia and from 2230-0830 in the UK (times approximate and taken from the graph). At other times even Australia and the UK have flight duty limits that exceed the recommended limits.

Why are we making new duty limits that go against the best available information? If TC is bothering to make new limits, why not align with the best available information and make them SAFE and by NOT ignoring those scientific studies of fatigue science?

Oh wait! From the NPA:
"The new ICAO Standards required TC to review the current FDT requirements to determine if they reflected the latest fatigue science."
"The November 2009 changes to the ICAO SARPs require that fatigue management regulations reflect the available fatigue science." (NPA, p.5)
"The [Working Group] Report found that many of the elements of the current FDT requirements do not reflect today’s fatigue science and included recommendations to correct these deficiencies."

The NPA states it wants to reflect the latest fatigue science numerous times. They present scientific studies that say this is the maximum duty period that it acceptable. This many legs causes fatigue equivalent to that many duty hours. Then it is IGNORED.

The NPA does NOT reflect the latest fatigue science and therefore does NOT meet that requirement of the ICAO SARPs (as per the NPA). This amendment to the regulations seems to be numbers picked to suit someone's purposes rather than those suggested by the scientific studies referenced or to have a marked effect on safety.

[flyinhigh]

One a separate note, I love how they quoted "medical interns found fatigue".

No kidding, as I was reading this my wife just worked a 6 day rotation in the NICU. During this 6 day rotation, she essentially worked a 9 day rotation as she ended up doing 16 hour days, 5 hour sleep, than back.

I told her about these studies and what TC was purposing. She now thinks us pilots are essentially wussies, and should try doing what they do.

[fish4life]

There is a reason why doctors and nurses are making mistakes and they are actually looking to aviation to improve there safety record actually. Second all 702/703 operators have to follow the regs so it's not like one business will be unfairly punished so I can't see the complaints. Who knows maybe in the long run less fatigue will end up being less crashes and cheaper insurance and 10 years from now those operators are going to be thinking wow I wish we did this a long time ago.

[iflyforpie]

All this is going to mean is that some operators will just have to fudge the books a little more. That's all it is, is a paperwork rearrangement....

[MrWings]

I think this is Harper's silent greenhouse reduction plan.

Between shorter duty days and closing of airports, there's gunna be a whole less flying going on!

[swordfish]

Huh...?

After being on standby for 2 days, you get called for an all-nighter to Pelly Bay at 10:30 pm, you get back at 6:30 am, and told you'll be "FRESH" at 4:30 pm.

Repeat if necessary.

You get called at noon for a trip to Fort Smith, and get back at 2:30 pm. They say: We're going to put you to bed now, so you'll be "FRESH" again at 00:30 am.

"FRESH" isn't very well defined in CARs.

Or you go on some "routine" drop-off to Edmonton, and it ends up being a 14-hour day with the cluster-fucks in organization, communications, weather, unscheduled holds...no restaurant or coffee shop within 3 miles, no transportation, perpetual unexplained delays, sitting around with your thumb up your ass....ad nauseum.

I can't wait till these NPAs become the law!!

[Krimson]

I just cannot understand how TC could put out that NPA with so many contradictions in it or why we need a maximum FDP structure that is more complicated and generally less restrictive than the US, EU, UK, Australia, and India. And exemptions that do not seem to make sense such as having sectors not affect non-scheduled VFR helicopter pilots but they do affect non-scheduled VFR aeroplane pilots.

Instead let's have FDPs that are grossly less restrictive than the US, EU, UK, etc? This is a step in the right direction and it will take time to sort out the issues; which is also what this comment period is for. Instead of trying to scrap the whole thing, put forward corrections to the contradictions and get on board. TC embarrassed themselves by posting this chart



As mentioned earlier, 702/703 operators should not be relying on fatigued crews to complete a job. Where 4 pilots were needed before will now require 6 to do the task. More jobs, less fatigue. Looks like a win to everyone who isn't worried about loosing their work-mules.

[swordfish]

I remember when the "new" CARs flight & duty time regs were inaugurated (1997, was it...?) and all the 703 operators cried themselves to death in their cereals, saying "we're all gonna die a cruel death" or "now we need more crew to do the same job as we did with fewer crew". All the loudest shrieks came from the Twin Otter seasonal operators. Did they all die and go to heaven?

No. They simply employed more pilots and improved the employment status of the industry about 3-fold. More pilots got jobs, new pilots got a start, structure was evident in many company's crewing, and things progressed "semi-normally".

Look around you, internationally. Where these FDT limitations are concerned, Canada is one of the most permissive, abusive regulators in the WORLD. It's long overdue for TC to get with the program.

You ever hear of fatigue complaints in a JAA crew? No. their biggest headache is having to wait 15 minutes for the crew bus to take them to the Hilton.

[bobcaygeon]

If you think it is going to be complicated just download the APP.
They already exist with FAA regs so we will use it.

[swordfish]

If you think it is going to be complicated just download the APP.
They already exist with FAA regs so we will use it.

Oh it will be complicated all right (from reading parts of the NPA). Time for another improvement in the system: Computerized or electronic scheduling.