§ 2.36 p.m.
§ THE DUKE OF SUTHERLANDMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of the report of the Court of Investigation into the accident to stratocruiser G-ALSA, which occurred at Prestwick Airport on the 25th of December, 1954, it would not be possible to regulate the leisure and work hours of pilots of civil aircraft so that there was no risk of their suffering undue fatigue through too long hours of duty and thus reducing their mental efficiency and powers of judgment.]
§ THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)My Lords, before answering the Question, I think it is right to point out that the report of the Court of Investigation on the accident to stratocruiser G-ALSA made it quite clear that there was nothing in the tour of duty to cause undue fatigue in this particular case, and accordingly that the element of fatigue cannot be regarded as a causative factor in this accident. The court did, however, express the opinion that B.O.A.C. should consider making regulations which would provide a limit to the period a crew might be on duty apart from their flying hours.
At the present time the current Air Navigation Order places the responsibility—and I suggest quite rightly—on the operating company to establish limitations in the flying times of their crews to ensure that the safety of aircraft is not endangered by fatigue. Over and above this, members of operating crews must have a medical examination if in any consecutive period of thirty days they fly 125 494 hours, and must be passed as fit before they continue on duty.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has, however, had under consideration for more than twelve months the need for more closely controlling the duty, flying and rest periods of civil air crews. Examination of the problem has shown that it is both complex and highly variable in different circumstances and with different people. For that reason it is right that detailed responsibility should continue to rest with airline operators, who alone have the intimate knowledge of conditions of each flight and of the personnel concerned. Without in any way reducing this responsibility, my right honourable friend has decided that the Government should lay down rather more detailed regulations, and these will shortly be laid before Parliament.
§ THE DUKE OF SUTHERLANDMy Lords, I am glad to hear what the noble Earl says. From reading parts of the Report, one would gel the impression that undoubtedly the pilot was fatigued, although it states that he himself said he was not fatigued. It is quite possible for a pilot to say that he is not fatigued when, in fact, he is, and it is right that somebody else— superior officer—should tell him so. Often a pilot does not want to admit his fatigue. The Report says:
The Regulations of B.O.A.C. provide no maximum period of duty for members of the aircraft crew. It is left to the discretion of the Captain to call for a stand-by crew. In our opinion consideration should be given by B.O.A.C. to Regulations providing for on-duty time limitations prior to departure from the airport and in the course of the flight. We were informed that the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation have at present under consideration the question of the tours of duty by air crews.I am very glad to hear the noble Earl say that the matter has now been carried further, and that in future greater care will be taken that pilots do not become fatigued and thus cause accidents in which a large number of people may be killed.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I should point out that the Court of Inquiry were asked this specific question:
Were the whole circumstances attending the tour of duty of the aircraft crew likely to introduce undue fatigue?Arid they gave the simple answer: No.