Fatigue risk management is about to become an established way of coping, globally, with one of the major causes of modern accidents. And about time too.
In March 2011 the International Civil Aviation Organisation's Council will examine the draft standards and recommended practices for fatigue risk management systems, with a view to approving a standard. If the council adopts the standard, by November 2011 states will have to consider how they are going to put the theory into practice in their jurisdictions.
States, according to the present draft, will have several choices: they can create a mandatory, one-size-fits-all flight time limitations regulation; they can require all operators to set up an approved fatigue risk management system according to the new recommended standard: or they can set up a flight time limitation regime as the minimum standard for compliance, and give operators the choice of using an approved fatigue risk management system to manage their rosters.
Airlines have a duty to manage risk. If the national aviation authority sees evidence that an airline is not fulfilling that obligation, they withdraw its operator's certificate. That might be for failing to manage the risk of technical malfunction by ignoring minimum equipment list requirements. In future it might be for failing to assess and monitor a schedule for fatigue risk. Why should there be a difference? There shouldn't be.
Source: Flight International
