Duty hours? weight and balance? you're avin a larf! [Archive]

martiniman

13th Jun 2004, 07:02

My company frequently ask (expect!) me to.........................

Fiddle duty hours

Fly overweight

leave out defects in the tech log

give up days off

work bank hols with no substitute

take off when the destination forecast is well below minima

...............the list goes on..............

If I complain then I am reminded of the fact that 'there are plenty of pilots out willing to take your job' !

Am I the only one?
Am I just being too naieve?

MM

Bumz_Rush

13th Jun 2004, 07:23

I can not vouch for the airlines, but 90% of all corportate and charter fligths are illegal in one way or another.

The tech log is only filled in on delivery to mtce.

Overweight, is a regular situation.

Duty times are normally completed after the days work, even mult sectors, as is the journey log, (seperate).

Take off, with dest minina low......well it can only get better.

Stan Woolley

13th Jun 2004, 08:40

martiniman

I strongly disagree with bumzrushs' casual acceptance of such practices but I'm not at all surprised.

Just proves all those 'important' people think they are in safe hands paying all that money for a bizjet when in reality it is often as GASH as GASH can be!

From personal experience I can assure you that although some of the things you mention are not unheard of, they are not accepted as 'the norm' in the better airlines.

Don't forget that although you may be legal you won't be a 'real' pilot in many corporate guys opinion. :rolleyes:

Get another job or just say no - it's your licence!

dickon

13th Jun 2004, 09:10

You're the pilot and it's your decision!

there's is no point in dieing over the job!

If you say no, and they say they are gonna get a new pilot just make sure that that pilot knows the score, and you'll probably find the job is still yours.

May be an optimistic view from and un-employed pilot but don't forget that you are endangering others around you aswell, not just you and your plane.

Be strong mate!!

Good luck.

Miles Magister

13th Jun 2004, 11:20

MiM

There are everal issues in your post, some are more valid than others. Most companies play it straight.

We work very stricktly to duty hours and do not take jobs which can not be done legally. However I do expect the team to log their hours accurately and if they hang around using the office for personal admin etc they must log off duty first.

It is important to do accurate load sheets. If you dont one day you will find out why the hard way.

As regards to days off, this depends on your contract. You have to help the company make the business work. I expect the chaps to fly on what were scheduled days off when we need to. No one can afford to turn away the customers. We just make sure they stay within the legal number of days off for FTL. If you are going to complain about rosta changes in the corporate world you are in the wrong job.

Crews have to take off with the destinations out of limits sometimes or the job will not get done. The Captain must make a sensible decision based on the forecast, trend, diversions etc.

You must have a stake in makings things work while staying legal and safe. If the business does not work then you will be out of a job anyway.

Bumz_Rush

13th Jun 2004, 17:03

You might not like it, I do not like it, but it happens.

MM is talking about management, and perhaps charter.

I would argue that an accurate load sheet is vital to the paper work chain, but after a while, becomes rather repetitive.

I have seen an entire journey log been recreated to eliminate "errors".

Stan: As mentioned above I have been in corporate and executive charter all my life....long and distinguished, and only ONE company (a charter) actually complied with 99.9% of all CAA AOC requirements.
The one that often escaped was the leaving of a copy of the load sheet with a competent person on the ground. There are stories of these being removed from the port tail surface upon completion of the post flight inspection. Never on my watch you understand.

Whenever deviation from the AOC were reported to the CAA they response was always ..........

bacardi walla

13th Jun 2004, 17:31

martiniman do you work for XXX ?

Sorry, too sensitive. Feel free to ask your question by PM. 4HP

Fair point. :ok:

martiniman

14th Jun 2004, 11:14

A few diverse replies.............thank you.

You will see from my post that I am a 'recent' user. Well under the name 'martiniman' yes, but I have been on PPRUNE under other names since 1998.

The problem of course is that I can not be too specific about details for the fear of being traced by my company.

I am all for the company being successful and staying in business (no company..........no job!) but the way that we (me and the other pilots) are being treated beggars belief.

My final sanction of course will be to spill the beans bigtime to the CAA if or when I do get the ultimate threat of being sacked.

It is true to say that I could leave, but what also worries me is that if I did get another job elsewhere it is likely to be 'same sh*t, different bucket'!

I believe that jobs are still as rare as hens teeth, and the type that I fly are only operated by a (very) small number of operators.

This is not a satisfactory situation, I am just curious to know if there are other pilots out there feeling the same.

Oh well, must go, I have to 'lose' 200 kg's to make the next flight 'legal'

MM :ok:

publius

14th Jun 2004, 13:12

Martiniman.......This company doesn't happen to be based in the land of Chistopher Columbus by any chance does it??

LordyLordy

16th Jun 2004, 08:34

What you mean - Italy :p

StressFree

17th Jun 2004, 08:29

Bumz,

"90% of all corporate and charter is illegal".

Utter balls. I've been in corporate for the last 15 years and I agree that there is some bending of rules occasionally but never 90% of the time................
Where I'm now working we are suffering more rules, regulation and paperwork than most airlines AND we're on an offshore registry!!!!!!!! We cannot move without checking compliance with the rules as any deviation is quickly discovered and letters soon follow. The days of being able to do what you like in corporate are over.

:uhoh:

Blu2

17th Jun 2004, 19:02

I have to agree with MM. I have only ever worked in GA but see the 'rules' bent constantly. Can't see me still having a job if every single flight I did was 100% legit so I guess for now, at least, its back to work and carry on fiddeling!!!!:ooh:

livinginspain

18th Jun 2004, 04:32

1451 Born in Genoa, the son of a wool merchant and weaver.
1476 Swims ashore when his ship is sunk in a battle off Portugal.
1476 Joins his brother Bartholomew, a cartographer, in Lisbon.

Amazing how some people arrive in Lisbon.............

and even more amazing how some people leave..........

Bumz_Rush

26th Jun 2004, 06:47

I repeat a vast mumber of all "corporate" flights are not operated in compliance with the JAA / FAA regulations. Many crews are not in compliance with FCL. Many aircraft are not in compliance with the M/MEL.
Perhaps I can put it another way. I last operated a fully legal, (IMHO), with a UK charter company on a PA31. over 5000 hrs ago.

Please don't tell me to phone the CAA/FAA/BBC.
A total waste of time.
Been there done that. even got the T shirt.

I know many of the "ppruners" on this thread, and they would all agree with me, we have flown together at various times....

Back to my sand pit.....

727 exec

26th Jun 2004, 08:07

I know that in Corporate there are real pressures to 'keep the show on the road'...weather / technical / knackered crew - none of these sufficient to stop the trip (I've arrived in my hotel too tired to fall asleep in the soup! - some years ago thankfully).

Things are changing - Pilots are having some success in utilising the M/MEL newly fitted to some aircraft, and we certainly plan our trips in accordance with FTL.

But, BR has a point - it's not all of us who can relax when the 'Man from The Ministry' shows up on the ramp.

BBC BR? Thought it was The Shopping Channel...

Sorry - an afterthought. Not sure that I've met anybody operating in/out of Moscow who has had much luck with saying 'nyet' to their Owner (talking pure corporate here).

Bumz_Rush

26th Jun 2004, 09:35

I tried this once, we had been in aircraft on ground in VNO for 6 hours, and gave the pax an ultimatum, we either depart in 2 hrs, to comply with FTL, or return to hotel, and take our rest. Fully corporate. phoned chief pilot, whose response was " whats the problem " (english accent). When pax did arrive exactly on the dead line, they said "whats the problem" (russian business mand accent).

So 727, you are 101% correct. except it is Discovery wings...gives you strength......

Similar with Middle East. No names here either, but same situation.

Only another 10 years then I can retire......and clean the sand from my ears.....for good....

BBCapt

4th Jul 2004, 12:00

I said 'nyet' to my Russian owner.....so he stopped paying the bills and I left pronto! I think they are still flying, but the Captains rotate through like a conveyor belt.

Many attempts by owners to manipulate the Corporate system stems from ignorance ( either real or feigned ) and I guess we have to try and educate them...if we can!

I've been in this world too for the last 20 years or so and it can certainly be easier to fall between the regulatory cracks if not vigilant and ( errrr ) insistant sometimes.

kilroy

13th Jul 2004, 22:26

westwind crash in panama was probably a result of out of balance and or fuel imbalance..... if u do the math on this you can see they were atleast a thousand pounds over weight and an aft cg that goes of the scale

con-pilot

14th Jul 2004, 22:36

Kilroy, could you please back up your statement with a few facts please. As I have nearly 4,000 hours in Westwinds I really have a very hard time understanding how they could have had an C-G problem. The biggest C-G problem one faces in a Westwind is a forward C-G especially with only the crew on board and full fuel unless the aux. fuel tank installed and filled. If in fact that particular Westwind had that option, the removable aux. tank was only standard on the Westwind II. If my memory serves me correctly the aux. tank held a little over 100 US gallons, about 700 pounds in all.

Now if the aft baggage compartment (the smaller baggage compartment aft of the engines) were filled with gold ingots I guess you could have an aft C-G problem, however that seems unlikely. However the gold ingots would possibly explain why the aircraft was a 1000 pounds overweight. How many people were on board?

The Westwind II I flew we could carry 3 passengers with baggage with full fuel including the aux. tank. We were well
within C-G.

Thank you.

CP

Forgot to add that it has been about 15 years since I flew Westwinds so I could be wrong, but that's what I remember.

CP

AA717driver

15th Jul 2004, 01:35

Like I'm going to suck O2 for 11 hours at FL430...:rolleyes: TC

con-pilot

15th Jul 2004, 03:20

Dear AA717driver, would you mind telling me why you think the rules are different in regards to O2 in the corporate world than 121.

Also please let me know what corporate aircraft you think you will have to fly on that you will need to be on O2 for 11 bloody hours?

Thanks

CP

A former Boeing 727 Captain.

His dudeness

18th Jul 2004, 09:10

Kishna:
what I think is annoying, is the fact that most Flightduty regs have been done with HUGE influence of AIRLINE Pilots interest groups like say BALPA or VC (Germany).
When these rules are in force after ignoring the fact that they cannot suit for Exec/coorporate work, the same people (AIRLINE PILOTS) start to complain about the nonadhering bloody coorporate/exec lowlifes. I tried to join VC years ago and was told that they don´t have any interrest in no AIRLINE pilots.
(Fair enough, they are an airline pilots association)

I personally have no problem whatsoever, to be on Duty for 18 hours, if I had good rest before and if don´t have to do it permanently. One should not miss the point, that our work is completely different to Airline work.

All these rules can be followed pretty easily IF there is a fixed schedule (Bus drivers). Now, if there is no schedule (Taxi drivers), those rules cannot be followed all the time, unless you are willing to put yourself out of business.

Bumz_Rush

18th Jul 2004, 17:32

however until we can have seperate regulations, for "scheduled" and "non scheduled" operations, us in GA, either as private of charter, are suffering from excessive regulation.

Bumz.

Miles Magister

19th Jul 2004, 11:06

I stand to be corrected, but I think the Campaign Against Aviation have a working group loking at corporate/charter FTLS with a view to publishing a separate set of regs.

MM

Bumz_Rush

19th Jul 2004, 16:50

You are correct they are moving, as is the JAA, but rapid movement is contry to the belief in the grey box.

kilroy

21st Jul 2004, 14:04

CON-PILOT

On this particular flight they were going from Lima, Peru to Milan ,Italy. Having flown for this company I can asure you the luggage for 6 people , medical equipment required for this trip is alot. So the locker tank was full both baggage compartments filled to capacity pretty much as much as you can fit in the baggage with no thought of weight. then in the cabin most everything is stowed to the rear. Now take in mind the crew did not monitor the fueling ..Possibly the left switch was bumped off resulting in a huge imbalance. So now you have all that weight to the rear and no fuel in the left tip tank . I just done a weight and balance for this flight. the are off the scale aft cg.

con-pilot

21st Jul 2004, 14:46

OK I have the picture now, thanks.

The dual refueling switches was/is a big, big problem to me with the Westwind. Having one of the switches accidentally turned off happened to me a couple of times. Once in the Caribbean after I had turned on both switches myself the refuel truck driver managed to somehow turn off one of the switches. I barely, and I mean barely caught it in time to be able to turn off the heavy wing switch.

I am sure if they had 4 paxs with baggage and the locker tank there is little doubt that they were over gross. However I can’t believe that they tried to takeoff with one empty tip tank. Now I’m not saying they didn’t, just that I can’t believe anybody would do such a thing.

Thanks!

CP

PS. It was a 1124, not a Westwind II right?

kilroy

21st Jul 2004, 16:45

CON-PILOT

According to line guy in Panama both pilots were sitting 100 yards away smoking while under a tree. No one checked the fuel load or the amount they bought. If they did they would have realized that 601 gallons was not enough to fly a 5 hr leg. On top of that they airplane was leaning right. Then on take off roll captain is heard saying " More left rudder, I need More left rudder" seconds latter the co-pilot reamrks "WOW" then they crashed. Once again a a series of mistakes killing inocent people. So if you do the math for a 5 hr leg with pax, luggage, medical supplies and enougth fuel for 1900 lbs reserve the were 1000 lbs over gross. And atleast 2000 lbs over weight for the day.

GULF69

26th Jul 2004, 15:00

Howz this for bad... I know air crew (2 pilots, 1 F/A) og a private Gulfstream V that in the past OFTEN flew from Luton (EGGW) to Cape Town (FACT) non-stop, arrive in FACT in the moring (approx. 08:00) and then at bout 17:00 the same crew have to fly the pax back to Luton... utter madness... and If you complain, you get the "if you're not happy go elsewhere"....until something happens, that is...

GULF69