PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Emirates A380 pilots find aircraft 'too quiet' to sleep

pool · 5th December 2008, 14:40

I think a lot of people inclusive airline mangers miss the point completely.

Inflight rest is a legal requirement on longhaul flights. It is illegal to fly fatigued, meaning unrested. If a very high percentage of crew report unable to get rest, where does the legislator put airline management when they can get away by simply pretending they consider the rest facility adequate? Are they above the law? Who is entitled to determine the quest by the victims? The legislator, management or the victims? Is there a body that would inquire on that, or is it entirely left to the airlines? If so, where does that put the legislator other than being a fig leaf? A crew en route is caught in the act and cannot pledge fatigued and sit back, unless they put the same strain on their colleagues. They must be able to contest a solution that is inadequate, but today they can’t!

Cockpit access is legally to be restricted to a minimum. With bunks outside of it, this means at least 8 unnecessary openings, easily detectable by bad elements, as each time a pilot passes through the whole cabin, he will be accessing the cockpit very soon. They are nicely marked by either their uniform or their ridiculous pyjamas. This basically runs against safety regulations, as the original bunk solution would avoid it entirely. Any regulator to elaborate on this? Have they even thought about this?

Paying a lot of money, the F and C-class passengers certainly don’t like to be disturbed by the coming and going of crew. In C and Y-class these some 800 meters by cockpit crew per flight are a constant annoyance for the cabin crew, as most of the time they are in the cabin with the trolleys. All this would have been avoided with the original bunk solution. What do passenger service gurus think about this?

The confining of the resting tech crew into the a.. of the aircraft also works against emergency situations. Imagine such a situation with the resting colleagues adjacent to the cockpit and the working PIC would NOT call them for assistance and ending in big trouble. He would be heavily bashed for not working according best practice and optimum use of resources, as lost over the oceans and deserts every hand comes in great when in trouble. Would anyone bash a company for providing rest facilities that hinder such assistance and might end up in a worse situation?

The AOM obliges the Captain to occupy his seat under “certain emergencies”. If he operates with two FOs, what does the regulator say? Is this article of the AOM void, just because an airline chose to put up the resting skipper in a place he will not be able to leave in “certain emergencies”? Would this captain be let off the hook if a decision of his replacing FO-PIC proves wrong and causes havoc? Can you make a FO fully accountable? Are they fully trained for that? Can you make the company accountable for a incident happening due to inadequate rest facility? Or does the Captain remain the one and only being accountable? Has anyone, any serious regulator though about this?

It strikes me that if a crew is not rested and fatigued, he is basically illegal. If a captain is not in his seat during “certain emergencies”, he is illegal. But if these crew criticize the layout of the rest facilities, making them fatigued and unable to access their required seat, they face complete disregard from the company. Where does that leave them?

5th December 2008, 14:40	#38 (permalink)
pool Join Date: May 2008 Location: pit Posts: 200	I think a lot of people inclusive airline mangers miss the point completely. Inflight rest is a legal requirement on longhaul flights. It is illegal to fly fatigued, meaning unrested. If a very high percentage of crew report unable to get rest, where does the legislator put airline management when they can get away by simply pretending they consider the rest facility adequate? Are they above the law? Who is entitled to determine the quest by the victims? The legislator, management or the victims? Is there a body that would inquire on that, or is it entirely left to the airlines? If so, where does that put the legislator other than being a fig leaf? A crew en route is caught in the act and cannot pledge fatigued and sit back, unless they put the same strain on their colleagues. They must be able to contest a solution that is inadequate, but today they can’t! Cockpit access is legally to be restricted to a minimum. With bunks outside of it, this means at least 8 unnecessary openings, easily detectable by bad elements, as each time a pilot passes through the whole cabin, he will be accessing the cockpit very soon. They are nicely marked by either their uniform or their ridiculous pyjamas. This basically runs against safety regulations, as the original bunk solution would avoid it entirely. Any regulator to elaborate on this? Have they even thought about this? Paying a lot of money, the F and C-class passengers certainly don’t like to be disturbed by the coming and going of crew. In C and Y-class these some 800 meters by cockpit crew per flight are a constant annoyance for the cabin crew, as most of the time they are in the cabin with the trolleys. All this would have been avoided with the original bunk solution. What do passenger service gurus think about this? The confining of the resting tech crew into the a.. of the aircraft also works against emergency situations. Imagine such a situation with the resting colleagues adjacent to the cockpit and the working PIC would NOT call them for assistance and ending in big trouble. He would be heavily bashed for not working according best practice and optimum use of resources, as lost over the oceans and deserts every hand comes in great when in trouble. Would anyone bash a company for providing rest facilities that hinder such assistance and might end up in a worse situation? The AOM obliges the Captain to occupy his seat under “certain emergencies”. If he operates with two FOs, what does the regulator say? Is this article of the AOM void, just because an airline chose to put up the resting skipper in a place he will not be able to leave in “certain emergencies”? Would this captain be let off the hook if a decision of his replacing FO-PIC proves wrong and causes havoc? Can you make a FO fully accountable? Are they fully trained for that? Can you make the company accountable for a incident happening due to inadequate rest facility? Or does the Captain remain the one and only being accountable? Has anyone, any serious regulator though about this? It strikes me that if a crew is not rested and fatigued, he is basically illegal. If a captain is not in his seat during “certain emergencies”, he is illegal. But if these crew criticize the layout of the rest facilities, making them fatigued and unable to access their required seat, they face complete disregard from the company. Where does that leave them? Last edited by pool : 5th December 2008 at 15:07.