24hours is ok if you get a good amount of time at home...Most of the Boeing guys are doing 90+ hours a month, every month still!! Sorry, but those of you that think that is it safe and sustainable let alone healthy you are out of your minds.... United's layover out of IAD in DXB is 28hours and that is short for them, however they like it because unlike EK once they hit the 70-80 hour mark they're done. So, for them its 3 dxb trips=9 days of work= 21 days off! If we did it like that here then nobody would have a problem with 24hr layovers. Anyway, not a rant just comparing apples to oranges. The fact is EK doesn't give a hoot about our rest or well being its all about maximum efficiency here which they make abundantly clearer by the year. A day less on a ULR or shorter layover's in general (look at the amount less than 24 on the cargo side this month) just means they can insert a day extra of work somewhere else...... Fly safe fella's
And remember, augmenting "bunk time" is not calculated into one's monthly hours. So if one flies two ULRs a month, you won't be credited for anywhere from 12-15 hours. Think what might be added to one's roster.
Its blocked more than an hour longer than JFK, its shorter then SEA, which is a two day layover
You are at a hotel where if you wake up at 11pm, unlike JFK where you are in Manhattan, you can take a walk, maybe grab a bite to eat, tire yourself out, then catch some zzzz's before your show. You can't do that in IAD. Plus, your time actually spent at the hotel (I'm told) is like 21 hrs.
Don't you find this unacceptable? For this long a flight? And this is without delays, mx, wx.
A block time in excess of 14.5 hours to KIAD. This involves about a duty day in excess of 18 hours. For that you get about 18.5 hours to try eat then rest once you get in the front door of the hotel. There after you do a 14 hour flight to Dubai. Legal it may be, but thats about all it is.
the mideast airline i flew for stayed in the same hotel in Tysons Corner and did 33 hour layovers block to block in IAD. it was difficult even when i was a younger age. Good luck. it's a nice hotel. and easy to walk around the area and to the nearby mall.
I thought the short IAD layover (the end result being insufficient rest) was a valid reason to write an ASR......unless am damned helen Needless to say i get the feeling we're both batting for the same team
I've now done a couple of these. I still remain a bit unconvinced. They're certainly not great. But, 'unsafe'? I'm sceptical. The 5231 is significantly better than the alternative, if you have the option. The cabin crew are definitely up in arms and the vast majority filled out fatigue reports- on both flights. However, these were the same crew that spent the day we arrived out sightseeing. Both flights. The problem, as I see it, is precedent. Had a look at the number of Fatigue ASRs generated from JFK? Seattle is similar timing but three extra time zones and a 'normal' sign on time. I certainly would appreciate another 24 hours but I'm not convinced it's a necessity and not a desire.......
. But, 'unsafe'? I'm sceptical. The 5231 is significantly better than the alternative, if you have the option. The cabin crew are definitely up in arms and the vast majority filled out fatigue reports- on both flights.
The question I have is, why you didn't think it necessary to file an ASR for both pairings you have flown stating that the majority of the cabin crew were fatigued on your flight? That's a safety issue in itself warranting such a report, no?
Regarding the length of the layover, its a case of horses for courses.
Macrohard Good question The answer can most probably be found in the different departure times of both flights and how we cope with adjustments to our body mass clock. Theres a lot of research and papers written on the subject. I can't imagine that there is a conspiracy on behalf of crews to extend a layover in IAD. It is a very tiring rotation, whether operating or augmenting.
Three differences I see to IAD. GRU gets four more hours. Doesn't seem like much on paper, but can make a HUGE difference when you have trouble sleeping, need to get yourslf up in the middle of a rest, tire yourself out again, then catch some more zzzz's. Two, it departs at a good time for the operating crew outbound. Three, its a closer timezone to Dubai, and I think (sorry cannot remember exactly) that in winter the sun doesnt set at 4:30p like I know it does in DC...that will knacker your sleep pattern as well. And people did complain about GRU, they changed the timings awhile back to avoid the traffic and it made a difference.
And that post regarding precedent vs safety....wow. That thinking is mind boggling. What's next, Atlanta? Miami?
I'm done with this thread. We are our worst enemy. I want to be fresh and safe for my 15-18 hrs duty. Thats not too much to ask.
Last edited by The Turtle; 20th Oct 2012 at 07:19.
Don't abandon us Sr. Terrapin. This rotation is not flown in a vacuum. If we were flying only 70-80 hours ( as a few f/o'sare doing), it might not be so awful. But with many capt's flying over 90 hrs, this ULR can be exhausting. It's the cumulative affect on the circadian rythym. And as I have stated before, those hours will not include augmenting nonflying "flight time". Can someone enlighten me if other airlines apply this policy?
The simple fact is that it is a night departure out of Dubai (so you wake up before midnight) with almost 15 hrs flt time to DC (about 1:15 longer than JFK).
You arrive at the hotel mid morning and have about 21 hours before pick up.
So you have been awake almost 20 hours less the bit of rest (won't call it sleep) you had in the bunk and you have a decision to make!!
You want to sleep, but if you do you'll be up in 8 or 9 hours with 10-11 hours till pick up time - in order to operate another ULR back to DXB.
Or you can attempt to stay awake (and traipze around playing tourist as one poster criticized the crew for doing) for as long as possible so that you can sleep adequately for the flight back.
While doing this you are 8 hours out of your time zone. So in this block you have missed one goods night sleep (the departing night) and you lose the 2nd good night by trying to prepare for the next flight.
If you stay up at arrival and attempt to stay awake so that you can rest for 8 hours or so before wake up you flip to the back side of your time zone again and, like most crew seem to do, you wake up 3 or 4 hours before call time since it is day/wake time in DXB.
Either way you are tired.
Combine this with 90 hours months and I am sorry, but fatigue is an issue. It is not rocket science and basic logic should show it is a difficult flight.
This idea that GRU & JFK are not causing fatigue is rubbish.
The difference was that when we started operating the pairings we were flying 75-78 per month with the ability to get 5+ consecutive block days off to achieve recovery. This is no longer the case.
If we were to start the GRU/JFK ASRs now recognizing the punitive nature mgt react to those not towing the line - then we could be putting ourselves into a tricky situation.
We all know what happened with GIG-EZE... A widely quoted and reported meeting took place where a certain dept said: "let's try the shuttle and see how they react". Thankfully we reacted.
Now if an incident/accident were to occur as a result of fatigue on the IAD pairing and we as pilots did not register our concern (assuming they are legit - have not done it yet)... Then to a point - we are somewhat covered.
If we do nothing and the event occurs on your watch and you cry: "fatigue!" cue the response from mgt "This pairing has had no reports of fatigue - so that's not the issue here"
To quote a wise Dutch politician : "Thus far, but no further"
Because when Philly, Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta & Miami come - Boston out because of JFK precedent - we better have the line drawn on safety or someone is going to get hurt