Cooke - Subordinate or Insubordinate?
Nicely joined up dots P2; just enough breadcrumbs to get them to ‘fact –city’. It don’t signify of course, not in any way which is of either intrinsic or practical value; well, not according to the tote board at least. Hot favourite is the ‘Carmody roll-off-the top’ – pick up some speed, back stick, into the loop and at the top, roll out, come out level – pointing the other way. As the great fatigue duck floats over the still waters of parliamentary indifference.
![[Image: Big_duck.jpg]](http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Big_duck.jpg)
The betting runs thus: the decisions of the then DAS will be upheld and it will be stated that he acted correctly – at the time – and those decisions have withstood the Senate examination; therefore – discussion over.
There is money for the ‘new approach’ supported by a ‘tiger team’ and independent assessment simply ignoring the history – and the vast sums expended. But there are no takers, at any odds, for the simple adoption of any existing ICAO compliant system.
But ‘fatigue’ is a serious problem and strongly conflicted. Associations and unions want as much as possible for their members, for the least amount and see this as a way to create employment. Companies want quite the reverse; maximum hours for as little cost as possible. These are ‘acceptable’ reconcilable positions – history shows that eventually some sort of compromise is reached and life goes on. This does not address the core issues; that of ‘fatigue’; which IMO is a very personal and individual thing; a state which can be increased or decreased by many factors. There is, I believe, little that legislation can do about a sick child keeping the house awake all night, or a car alarm going off during the day – it is up to the individual then to decide if they are fatigued and cannot safely do their days work.
The area which intrigues me is ‘task related’ fatigue; which presents a good argument for individual company ‘fatigue’ rules to be set according to the fatigue level of a task requirement. Say, for example, your rota has you signing on at 0800, airborne by 0900, four sectors; back at base by 1700, free of duty by 1730. You may, after five days of this be a little tired and looking forward to a weekend off – but ‘fatigue’ is not anywhere near a matter for concern. Then look to the other end of it – say a RFDS pilot on night call out; sleep pattern interrupted, night landing on a remote strip, no instrument approach, kerosene soaked toilet rolls for a flare path; a seriously damaged patient to transport; then back to base and the next flight is urgent, so off they go again. This crew is absolutely knackered at the end of the shift and must now try to relax, get some sleep during daylight hours and do it all again the same night. There is a good case right there for genuine task induced ‘fatigue’ to be a safety factor. One rough night, acceptable fatigue, two in row, marginal: three in row - is looking for trouble. I won’t bang on too much more about this – you can dream up your own examples. What I am trying to say is that perhaps some consideration should be given to the notion of individual companies, negotiating and tailoring ‘task’ specific fatigue rules, which encompass all the pertinent factors leading to real ‘fatigue’ becoming a real safety issue. Inflexible, prescriptive, black letter rules cannot cover all the bases. Perhaps Ben Cook can solve the riddle – given the chance.
Oh, I have digressed – rambled even; no matter, I know where my knitting is and I shall return to my corner directly.
Toot toot.
Nicely joined up dots P2; just enough breadcrumbs to get them to ‘fact –city’. It don’t signify of course, not in any way which is of either intrinsic or practical value; well, not according to the tote board at least. Hot favourite is the ‘Carmody roll-off-the top’ – pick up some speed, back stick, into the loop and at the top, roll out, come out level – pointing the other way. As the great fatigue duck floats over the still waters of parliamentary indifference.
The betting runs thus: the decisions of the then DAS will be upheld and it will be stated that he acted correctly – at the time – and those decisions have withstood the Senate examination; therefore – discussion over.
There is money for the ‘new approach’ supported by a ‘tiger team’ and independent assessment simply ignoring the history – and the vast sums expended. But there are no takers, at any odds, for the simple adoption of any existing ICAO compliant system.
But ‘fatigue’ is a serious problem and strongly conflicted. Associations and unions want as much as possible for their members, for the least amount and see this as a way to create employment. Companies want quite the reverse; maximum hours for as little cost as possible. These are ‘acceptable’ reconcilable positions – history shows that eventually some sort of compromise is reached and life goes on. This does not address the core issues; that of ‘fatigue’; which IMO is a very personal and individual thing; a state which can be increased or decreased by many factors. There is, I believe, little that legislation can do about a sick child keeping the house awake all night, or a car alarm going off during the day – it is up to the individual then to decide if they are fatigued and cannot safely do their days work.
The area which intrigues me is ‘task related’ fatigue; which presents a good argument for individual company ‘fatigue’ rules to be set according to the fatigue level of a task requirement. Say, for example, your rota has you signing on at 0800, airborne by 0900, four sectors; back at base by 1700, free of duty by 1730. You may, after five days of this be a little tired and looking forward to a weekend off – but ‘fatigue’ is not anywhere near a matter for concern. Then look to the other end of it – say a RFDS pilot on night call out; sleep pattern interrupted, night landing on a remote strip, no instrument approach, kerosene soaked toilet rolls for a flare path; a seriously damaged patient to transport; then back to base and the next flight is urgent, so off they go again. This crew is absolutely knackered at the end of the shift and must now try to relax, get some sleep during daylight hours and do it all again the same night. There is a good case right there for genuine task induced ‘fatigue’ to be a safety factor. One rough night, acceptable fatigue, two in row, marginal: three in row - is looking for trouble. I won’t bang on too much more about this – you can dream up your own examples. What I am trying to say is that perhaps some consideration should be given to the notion of individual companies, negotiating and tailoring ‘task’ specific fatigue rules, which encompass all the pertinent factors leading to real ‘fatigue’ becoming a real safety issue. Inflexible, prescriptive, black letter rules cannot cover all the bases. Perhaps Ben Cook can solve the riddle – given the chance.
Oh, I have digressed – rambled even; no matter, I know where my knitting is and I shall return to my corner directly.
Toot toot.