Page 13 - 2018-Issue2

“All In”

FRMS is a Three-Way Endeavour

BY STUART BEVERIDGE

Stuart Beveridge, BAv, MScTech, MRAeS, is a First Officer on the Boeing
737. He is Vice-Chair of AusALPA’s HUPER and AAP committees and
is an IFALPA Accredited Accident Investigator. He has been involved in
FRMS, serving in various crew and association FSAG representative posi-
tions for 8 years. He has also worked in the development of fatigue mitiga-
tion in industrial work rules and policies, including augmented crew provi-
sions. He has undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in aviation human
factors and has recently published research in the journal of Aviation
Psychology & Applied Human Factors. Stuart is a member of the Austra-
lian Aviation Psychology Association and the Royal Aeronautical Society.

As the full incarnation, or at least the the FRMS we can see there are many opportuni- example, a single report might represent a
background concept, of FRMS continues to ties for pilot input to enhance the operation of typical experience of crew not otherwise
spread around the globe, it is worth highlight- an FRMS. reflected or flagged in other identification
ing a crucial part of FRMS operation, tripartite IDENTIFICATION processes, justifying further investigation or
3
collaboration. This means FRMS as a joint The three iterations of hazard identification – action.
project of the airline, the regulator, and the predictive, proactive, and reactive – can all MITIGATION
pilots’ association to reduce or mitigate the benefit from direct pilot representative input. In The next step of mitigation can also benefit
hazards to air safety posed by crew fatigue. This predictive identification, previous experience is from crew representative input. This would
is an idea that should be at the heart of any perhaps the most obvious opportunity. This is likely be advising the airline what is or isn’t
IFALPA MA’s safety activity. where crew can advise of the actual fatigue being taken up by the line pilots, or feedback on
It is an area in which we, as pilots and picture of upcoming pairings and rosters not what may or may not work practically. Good
associations, can provide our input into otherwise apparent to those preparing the protocols and procedures around controlled
something that directly affects us. When an schedules, and others. This can also be extended rest, crew removing themselves from duty,
operator involves the pilots’ association it to the use of bio-mathematical models, where obtaining transport home, or hotel rest are all
provides an important feature of FRMS realistic assumptions and validation of outputs best implemented with representative input.
operation, buy-in. The inclusion of pilots as can be assisted by crew review. ASSURANCE
stakeholders projects an essential image when In proactive identification – looking at the An airline’s internal assurance processes will be
promoting the FRMS to pilots. This will in turn current operation as it is running – pilot checking the safety performance of the FRMS,
inspire their engagement with the processes in representatives should be involved in any but the pilots’ association involvement provides
areas like reporting. Pilots are more likely to attempt to measure crew fatigue, either actively an additional and ongoing external audit of the
participate in a process in which they feel they or passively. Representative input should be performance. The pilots’ association will often
have genuine influence. provided in the design of fatigue reporting and be much more acutely aware of crew
The tripartite ICAO/IATA/IFALPA survey interfaces, the commissioning of specific engagement and trust levels, and likely also have
1
documents for operators and regulators sleep or alertness studies, and the use and a better appreciation of effectiveness of any
2
mention in several places that representatives of analysis of this data. This ensures that the mitigation action that might be in place.
crew should to be involved in the Fatigue Safety measurement methods are optimised for the PROMOTION
Action Group (FSAG) (note that your airline best return rate and quality, and the necessary The pilots’ association is also an important
may use different terminology). How would level of trust is retained. player in the promotion of the FRMS. They can
this look in practice? Is just the one forum Reactive identification, (the review of reports, champion its aims and principles, encourage
intended to coordinate the FRMS operation audits, incidents, and FDAP/FOQA data) can crew to use resources available to them when
with other airline stakeholders enough to be also be enhanced by crew input. Similar to fatigued, and push them to engage in reporting,
truly effective? If we go through the processes of predictive, representatives are better placed to studies, and other inputs. The pilots’ association
provide context to any ‘flags’ in this process. For is uniquely and powerfully placed to provide the
1. ICAO, Fatigue Management Guide for Airline Operators. 2015:
Montreal, Canada. credibility and engagement FRMS needs to
2. ICAO, Doc 9966 Manual for the Oversight of Fatigue Management 3. ICAO, Annex 6: Operation of Aircraft (Part 1, Appendix 7). 2001: operate effectively.
Approaches. 2016: Montreal, Canada. Montreal, Canada.
ISSUE 2 | 2018 InterPilot | The Safety and Technical Journal of IFALPA