FATIGUE RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PANEL – Meeting Minutes

DATE:

Friday 12 December 2014

LOCATION:

Civil Aviation Authority, Level 15, Asteron Centre, 55 Featherston Street, Wellington, Room 15.04

TIME:

1000-1400

INVITED PANEL: Airways - Paul Fallow, Lew Jenkins, Kim Smith Air New Zealand - Bruce Aberhart, Errol Burtenshaw, Dr David Powell Airwork - Claude Alviani, Martin Peters Aviation Security – Sarah Fifield CAA - Mark Boyle, Catherine de Montalk, Dr Rajib Ghosh, Steve Kern, Andy McKay, Allan MacLean, Desrae Martin (scribe), Steve Moore, Christopher Nicholls, Jeff Rees, Andrew Schlup, Grant Twaddle, Justin Vincent, Dr Dougal Watson HNZ – Denis Laird, Lyal Mudford, Roger Shugrue Jetconnect – Shelly Musk, Dr Jon Nelson, Murray Stratford, Jenny Warnock, Massey University – Professor Philippa Gander, Dr Leigh Signal NZALPA - Herwin Bongers, Greg Fallow, Rob Torenvlied, Tim Whitehead NZ AAA & NZ Helicopter Assn. – Alan Beck, John Sinclair Otago University/ACC – Dr Rob Griffiths APOLOGIES: Alan Beck, Herwin Bongers, Sarah Fifield, Paul Fallow, Denis Laird, Andy McKay, Jon Nelson, Roger Shugrue, Murray Stratford, Dr Dougal Watson

Page | 1

FATIGUE RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PANEL – Meeting Minutes

AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introduction, Purpose and Background of the Fatigue Risk Management System Panel John McKinlay John welcomed attendees to this inaugural meeting establishing the Panel. He summarized that a lack of rules and guidance surrounding the prevention of fatigue in the aviation industry was an outcome from discussions with industry. Over the years a lack of compliance has been identified with ICAO SARPS. CAA is committed to review AC-119-2 and the Panel would be discussing what would best suit the needs of the industry, in its various capacities (employers, employees, pilots, engineering, cabin crew, helicopter, Ag, scientific, medical and ATC) going forward. He stated that this is a blank canvas in which Rule development is the likely outcome. The Panel had identified a need for educational material and fatigue systems to be implemented. John McKinlay outlined to the Panel the various documents that were contained in the packs that they had received. These items included the Agenda, Issue Assessment Paper and draft Terms of Reference. 2. Graeme Harris Graeme welcomed the Panel and commented on the expertise in aviation the gathering presented. The varied team comprising of medical and scientific experts in fatigue, aviation business and technical backgrounds will provide valuable guidance within the sector. CAA need to maximise the benefits of these meetings with solid outcomes; actions, timelines, targets and milestones. Work on Fatigue Management started in early to mid 1990’s, our aim is to not reinvent the wheel while achieving some solid outcomes. He thanked the Panel for their input and appreciated the time (and expense) they had taken to attend. 3. Terms of Reference This document was created to provide a framework as well the need for processes to be open, transparent and communicated well. He advised that there is a need to identify priorities and common areas and that all viewpoints will be welcomed and discussed. John stated that feedback is needed from this Group in order to clarify the contents of the proposed Terms of Reference document. Membership has altered and will be replaced to reflect the Agenda invited panel list. A recommendation was received to add Cabin Crew, Maintenance Engineers and Fixed Wing 125 New Action Item (1) Desrae to update the TOR membership (update ACC member to Rob Griffiths), incorporate Cabin Crew, maintenance engineers and Fixed Wing 125 It was discussed by David Powell the importance of accessing documentation and resources for collaboration, as outlined in the Objectives. John McKinlay confirmed that the panel has a mandate for 119-2 (Certification of Air Transport Operators), and a mandate to provide input

Page | 2

FATIGUE RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PANEL – Meeting Minutes into the policy. CAA will develop a website with links to existing documentation and where resources and documentation can be added. New Action Item (2) A link will be sent out with the finalised minutes (CAA website), where documentation for FRMSP can be added. This will contain the presentation from this meeting also Lew Jenkins suggested a governance structure that needs to be more descriptive. The scope is wide in aviation FRMS and regulations cannot be left to interpretation. Philippa Gander drew on her experience on being on the ICAO Task Force and writing the IATA Guidance material as well as being the Chief Scientist for Delta’s first approved FRMS. She advised the process is to Regulations first incorporating guidance or a parallel process. Some is prescriptive, some not. Catherine de Montalk advised that the Policy Project would tackle balancing the prescriptive and non-prescriptive aspects.

4. Presentation by Dr Rajib Ghosh, Overview of ICAO Requirements and International Comparisons Rajib introduced himself to the Panel. He outlined the Principles of what other regulators are doing, the focus is situational awareness. He acknowledged that there were true domain experts in the audience. CAAs intent was to manage fatigue openly and not very prescribed, to relook at the AC, not just pilot or commercial Ops, but all the others. Together as a team. FRMS is a system for managing the risk associated with fatigue. Subtle cognitive incapacitation is an issue - feeling sleepy. We cannot have a prescriptive system to apply to all areas of aviation and need to let industry apply their own process systems. EASA - authority approved, proportionate, Operators responsible for Fatigue management, training mandatory. CASA - cabin crew is in development and therefore still in a transition period. NB The language used in the slides was taken from the specified Regulator. There was some discussion on changing words if the Panel was to adopt any documentation. The broad overview covered EASA, CASA, FAA, FAA Singapore and CAA NZ. Below are the Panels comments. Philippa Gander – Every operation has an SMS, the FRMS is continuing these rules. EASA is complex and not very practical. Fatigue management needs a data driven approach and an FRMS which goes beyond prescription. Greg Fallow – CASA had identified that operators need a good understanding of FRMS. The application process has altered to achieve this. They meet with the applicant at no cost, prior to application. Philippa commented that the US is looking at the CASA model to enhance dialogue and create better application forms. CASA has an excellent website for Operators. FAA have a Fatigue Risk Management Plan – “A mechanism to manage fatigue” Leigh Signal reiterated that ATC matters are important.

Page | 3

FATIGUE RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PANEL – Meeting Minutes 5. Presentation by Catherine de Montalk, Overview of the Issue Paper In 2006 there was an ICAO audit which led to this Issue Assessment process. External resources were sought and the problems identified were that CAA was too prescriptive and not inclusive of the whole aviation industry. Below are the Panels comments. Philippa and Greg commented that the ‘must haves’ for rules and AC development, need to be included and that there is no conflict with ICAO. For example, no conflict with the standards for fatigue management contained in ICAO Annex 6 Part I section 4-10 and accompanying Standards in Appendix 7 to Annex 6 which specifies minimum requirements for FRMS. Guidance material on how the Standards can be complied with, are contained in separate documents (ICAO Doc 9966, and the ICAO/IATA/IFALPA Implementation guide for Operators). Bruce Aberhart talked about the challenge for small operators who have SMS processes established. They need to incorporate HSE legislation, logs and now FRMS. Errol Burtenshaw reiterated that Pilots and Cabin Crew need inclusion, as in the ICAO documentation. Philippa outlined that the obligations are specific in that fatigue is a hazard – it is explicit. It has been identified that shift work is a cause of fatigue and regulations around this hold management responsible. Excessive workload is another explicit cause of fatigue. 6. Presentation by Andrew Schlup, HSE Fatigue was brought into the 2002 HSE Amendment Act. The focus for CAA was on 135/137 operations (helicopter, fixed wing, fertiliser and VTA work). CAA provide information and guidance, the operators need to understand their obligations thoroughly. CAAs experience is that fatigue is better communicated within smaller operations, perhaps signs may be more visible with closer networking. Documentation is critical when investigating. 7. Actions Discussion NZALPA – suggested that a skilled Facilitator is needed to help move the Panel forward. The ICAO meeting in Montreal should have representation by Airways, Union and the Regulator. CASA is quite a good model with excellent resources. Consider the Australian three-tier approach (basic, fatigue management and FRMS with accompanying appendices and operator obligations). There would be benefit in CAA and CASA communicating together regarding CASA’s experience. ICAO references are valuable and should be purchased if necessary to enhance education. Greg offered a paper to place on the CAA website. AIRWAYS – the emphasis in the past has been on flight and cabin crew, ATS will be a new addition. An effective system from a business point of view, aware of the different demands in the different areas of business. Structure is important with elements contained. We need to contribute and learn. Where does Part 171 sit? OTAGO UNIVERSITY/ACC – a tripartite approach is needed with the Regulator. A suggestion was made to look at the CASA website and offer data from an operational perspective. This team has experience in the Antarctica utility ops which was very varied. Another resource is the Australian branch of the FRMS manual to the ICAO standard. The goal is to share and contribute. A suggestion was made to add a night flight representative for the Panel.

Page | 4

FATIGUE RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PANEL – Meeting Minutes MASSEY UNIVERSITY –are very experienced in implementation from a scientific perspective with the Regulatory industries. It’s exciting to have this initiative in New Zealand after all the international work they have completed. The panel needs a smart approach to risk. This team has access to large data sets on long haul and are happy to participate. This should be a concerted effort to produce strong outcomes, education and simple and easy to use resources. SMART + EASY = MANAGABLE. The greatest fear is losing information (previous guidance material was lost within CAA), the panel need to make this real. NZAAA/HELICOPTER Assn – The Helicopter Assn believe there is no evidence of fatigue causing an accident. Both groups are different to Airlines and have no interest in spending time on Airline issues. The industry is at the mercy of the weather and the relevance of this is not mentioned. Flexibility will be needed to meet work demands when the weather is good. There is definitely a requirement for further education in the Symptoms of Fatigue. Remember one size doesn’t fit all. AIR NEW ZEALAND – A tiered approach is imperative. There is a need to draw on the resources of this Panel and share systems. We need to ask ourselves – What does success look like? And develop a plan to get there. AC119-2 requires a prescriptive limit of flight time of 35 hours in any 7 consecutive days should become 36.5 hours in any 7 consecutive days, Air NZ experience shows that on one specific tour of duty over two sectors the flight time would provide a less fatiguing duty if it was 36.5 hours in any 7 consecutive days. Fatigue is an issue in the relationship between ATC and pilots regarding flight duty limits. Training material needs to be passed on (leaving no room for loss from staff attrition). The system needs to reflect the New Zealand industry. The panel needs to learn from mistakes and use their collective wisdom to create simple rules with simple guidance. Philippa added that Air New Zealand is a leader in FRMS. QANTAS GROUP –have CASA guideline experience in a tiered system. There is a need to challenge traditional thinking. Acknowledge that fatigue risk varies from person, industry and organisation. Highlight the shared responsibility of both organisations and individuals. Acknowledge that the support structures around the flight crews and engineers, are also a risk. It would benefit the panel to lead and participate in international forums. CAA – we don’t have the expertise here to develop this on our own and it is great to see this expertise within the Panel. In the Flight Ops area CAA acknowledge this as a serious issue which needs to be done properly. There is a real emphasis to change the norm. WHAT DOES SUCCESS LOOK LIKE? A Regulatory Approach which needs to be well supported, evidence based incorporating guidance material and education (Philippa) This will mean an upskilling of Regulators as well as Operators It needs to be flexible in that it works well with the industry, at an acceptable level of risk Provide Minimum Requirements and document NZ Regulations for internal auditing of FRMS (use ICAO requirements as CAA Singapore have done) It will align with HSE requirements, if it is done correctly. Cannot contract out HSE. The Terms Fatigue and Fatigue Risk Management System should be defined in the Rules and AC (use ICAO definitions)

Page | 5

FATIGUE RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PANEL – Meeting Minutes Meet the diverse needs of the industry. It would have the ability to downscale to smaller operators. Define the structure – start where other Regulators have left off and create the best system for New Zealand. – What are we trying to cover here? Could we identify operator types within New Zealand (an outline of operators)? AC Development; AC119-2 scope and set boundaries, set baseline criteria. Air Transport could be used as a template for others AC development volunteers; Air NZ , NZALPA, Jet Connect, Airwork and HNZ. A discussion was held on using existing NZ Military, FAA and RAF, although some documentation will be mission specific New action Item (3) Project Steering Committee – Call for Volunteers to create Working Group streams and scope work New Action Item (4) Look carefully at the CASA model for your industry – Project Steering Committee and Panel to review documentation A system that focuses on physiological and operational aspects of fatigue Flexibility and resources Future meetings –Notice three to four months in advance to allow for travel requirements and the ability to have some remote meetings. New Action Item (5) Meeting Timetable to be established What has worked for CASA, what hasn’t? New Action Item (6) CAA to request input from CASA New Action Item (7) CAA to create a website for posting documentation Resource from the Regulator – collaborative accreditation process not tick boxes The Panel will develop the AC first and the rules will come later, legal input is needed from CAA New Action Item (8) CAA to request Legal unit input

Page | 6

FATIGUE RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PANEL – Meeting Minutes

8. Actions Sheet WHO

WHAT

WHEN

OTHER INFORMATION

1. Panel

Proposed additions to this Group: night flight, cabin crew, engineering, Part 135 fixed wing, ATC Rep

ASAP

Panel members to send contact information to [email protected]

2. Panel

The Draft Terms of Reference to be finalised with these changes incorporated

ASAP

Additions added from above

3. Panel

Establish a Steering Committee (see below additional information)

Prior to February

Establish Working Groups to scope discrete pieces of work and Facilitators for these groups

Seek a volunteer Facilitator for the Steering Committee 4. Panel specialists and Steering Committee 5. CAA

Define a Work Plan for the Group

Review CASA documents Prior and minutes 2015

Meeting timetable

to

February

ASAP

Steering Committee 26 February 2015 Panel Meeting 21 April 2015 TBC

6. CAA

Seek CASA expert (Mark Boyle to arrange)

End of January

Explore the possibility of a CASA expert to attend the next meeting or two

7. CAA

Set up a website including links and documents provided by the Panel

By early February 2014

[email protected]

Panel

8. CAA

Document control – please send to the above email address

Send documents and permissions for placing on CAA website Legal advice on the scope of the AC in order to set boundaries

Early 2015

John Parnell

Page | 7

FATIGUE RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PANEL – Meeting Minutes

Additional information sent in post meeting. Adapted from the information provided by Shelley Musk and Greg Fallow on a potential Governance Structure and actions ·

Project Governance. I think we need to get clarity on this one, to ensure the Project achieves the outcome and maintains momentum. In terms of a proposed governance structure perhaps considerations should be the following: o

Project Sponsor – Chris Ford

o

Project Leader - John McKinlay

o

Project Steering Committee –Two Representatives from NZALPA (Pilot and ATC), one from each operator (e.g. Air New Zealand, Jetconnect), GA representative, Airways, Research, CAANZ, Medical, Engineering

o

Project Working Group – Given the scope we believe consideration needs to be given to creating sub working group which are made up from representatives from the key industry stakeholders. Such working groups could include: §

Policy development need for regulation

§

Education and training. Determine and discuss appropriate Fatigue Education/Training Requirements for the various sectors of the Industry

§

Provision of guidance and advisory material to develop a three stage generic Advisory Circular (AC)

§

Communication and data analysis

Effectively these working Groups become the SMEs on the ‘streams of work’

Suggested Action Items: ·

Given the healthy discussion regarding the regulatory model/framework, we were wondering if the best benefit would be to invite CASA to talk through at the Steering Committee level experiences, learnings and mistakes made. Then potentially invite an Operator working within the CASA model to understand how they have applied the framework. Qantas (Australian AOC team) may be happy to share their experiences given the number of different AOCs held in Australia. See Action Item (6)

·

Review and Revise to better reflect scientific knowledge and understanding for regulation of Flight Time/Flight Duty period and rest period limitations for commercial air operations (see CAP371) See Action Item (4)

·

Provision for Fatigue Management for Air Traffic Controllers. CAR 172.55 prevention of fatigue currently remains reserved. NZALPA proposed to review and discuss ICAO State Letter for proposed new SARPs for fatigue management of air traffic controllers (early 2015). A proposed Working Group consisting of CAA, Airways, NZALPA ATC reps, Leigh Signal (ideally attend ICAO FRMS Symposium launch for Annex 11.) See action Item (3) Page | 8