Regards rules/limits.....The same analogy applies to driving down Sk Zed when its foggy - it might be legal to do a 100 but it isnt mandatory! Let alone advisory....same goes for driving pilots to regulatory limits - most of which have been set a long time ago in the days of navigators.FEs etc etc in aircraft with 10 hours max endurance.. not 18!
When you tell someone - non aviation- that you are away on a trip for say 5 days and only spend three nights in a real bed they start to look at you rather strange...
It seems that the because the human component ( be it morale, fatigue etc etc) is so 'variable ' and can't be quantified by a bean counter.... like say MTOW, or tonnes of fuel can .....that it will only be when there is sufficient evidence - be it fatigue 'research' or the 'smoking hole' ,that the regulations will reflect reasonable human limits.
BTW - I note recently in the Gulf news that Doctors in QLD were up in arms about the health department suggesting they should take caffeine supplements to avoid dozing on long shifts etc...the Dr's were - rightly so ... ticked off that this should be suggested by other health professionals...to use drugs to stay awake ( no... I dont think combat soldiers at war is quite the same thing) ....
It seems odd that the same medical profession involved in the creation of our fatigue plans (which in EK's case... have no LINE pilot input to them by the way
( ie use of coffee etc to increase alertness) now seem fit to believe it is inappropriate to extend alertness using the same drug...???
A tired doctor can only kill one person at a time ... not quite the same as a dozey ( or dopey!) driver!
But I digress... the comment about open reporting culture.... are these guys smoking some special shisha not available in DXB....
?
AAR has almost single handedly sent the Flight safety department and reporting culture back thirty years with some of the recent decisions ..
And lastly....
Oh - another thing for EK drivers - I didnt pick this up my self but I see that they have removed the equivalency for a wet runway which is grooved to not be dry ..any more... at least on the B777? ..Is the Bus the same??
So when did the policy change... maybe I have been slack and missed something...?
If I read it right 'wet' now becomes 'slippery wet' and from what I can work out has the potential to reduce MTOW by a significant amount if you are carrying any sort of braking/reverse/spoiler MEL.... is this deliberate risk management to the conservative side, a typo , or just another badly proofed communique??
Given we are increasing the MTOWs and other things to manipulate fees/charges/payload and stuff this latest missive seems to be in the wrong direction...
...and has anyone decided to tell the airport operators that they may as well go fill in the grooves, or not put them in new strips - 'cos as far as we are concerned they dont make any difference?
If I have missed something here then I am really keen to be educated by anyone with more IQ ..??
Braking/ perf expert, any one any one .... bueller??
woodja ( or is it ;whinja?)