SQ Augmented Crew rule change!

[CaptSensible]

Singapore Airlines has modified its operating procedures after the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore instructed the carrier to discontinue its practice of allowing a first officer to occupy the captain’s seat under certain conditions during the cruise portion of long-haul flights.

The new regulation affects so-called “three pilot” crews, which comprise a captain and two first officers and are assigned to certain flights that are too long to be operated by a standard two-man crew. The rule effectively requires the captain to remain on duty for the entire flight.

Under the previous rules a first officer was allowed to take over the left hand seat for part of the cruise if the captain left the cockpit.

Unaffected by the CAAS directive are “augmented” crews which comprise two captains and a single first officer, because captains remain qualified to operate from either the right or the left hand seat. The longest flights are operated by a “double” crew which includes two captains and two first officers.

The regulation banning co-pilots from the left hand seat was implemented in November but has not previously been revealed.

CAAS says in a statement to ATI: “At one of the dialogue meetings between the CAAS and SIA’s flight operations held in April 2000, a decision was taken to discontinue the practice of allowing the third pilot to temporarily occupy the left hand seat, under certain conditions, when the captain has vacated his seat for physiological reasons during the cruise phase of the flight.

“This revision was done as part of the routine review/update of flight operations procedures.”

The regulator is expected to review its ruling if SIA provides additional training for its co-pilots to familiarise them with handling emergency situations from the left hand seat.

SIA spokesman Rick Clements confirms that the airline “has implemented the rule change” but declines to comment further.

The Singapore Air Line Pilots Association says it is in discussions with SIA over how to address the resulting extended duty requirements for captains flying as part of a three pilot crew. The Singapore flag-carrier recently announced it was looking to recruit an additional 120 pilots.

The practice of allowing relief co-pilots to occupy the captain’s seat during the cruise portion of long-haul flights is widespread among international carriers.


[Source: Air Transport Intelligence].

[EasyGo-Lucky?]

The rule has been good and bad. Good for the 2 First Officers with each one now working only half the flight and resting the other half. Bad for the Captain who must now occupy his seat for the entire flight, upto a maximum of 16 hours if the flight is delayed or disrupted. SIA in the meantime will continue to drag its feet whilst it enjoys the cost savings.

[Comet]

As far as I know that is why LH has senior first officers!

[PILOST]

To save on cost Comet? :rolleyes:

[whalecapt]

From CaptSensible's post...
"Under the previous rules a first officer was allowed to take over the left hand seat for part of the cruise if the captain left the cockpit."

To clarify the point, under the previous SQ rules, the captain was required to remain on the flight deck at all times (comfort stops excepted, as with a two-pilot crew).

The supplementary first officer was to occupy the LHS to provide relief while the captain took a break - on the flight deck. More often than not though, the captain - and locals in particular, would disappear to the crew bunk.

This situation could well end with two very inexperienced, low-hours pilots being 'in charge'. The present proposal is therefore long overdue.

[wonderbusdriver]

LH has the "senior-first-officer" - a licence for PIC in cruise flight.

Let´s face it guys, it´s a cheap way of getting a second "captain" for the price (plus a few DMs) of an FO.

If they do it with three guys, they should do it with two captains (who may occupy the RHS in cruise!!) and an FO. (FOs don´t forget that´s an extra captains position for us!)

Why should the "commander" be worn out during the flight?...

Gimme a break!!

Show a minimum of common sense and knowledge of the physiological effects of long-haul flights through time zones, you bean counters.

[This message has been edited by wonderbusdriver (edited 27 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by wonderbusdriver (edited 27 April 2001).]

[Keg]

Qantas F/Os have command endorsements on the aircraft and are authorised to be 'in command' from the RHS when the captain is on a break.

A Second officer occupies the LHS during this time but the F/O is the official 'pilot on watch'.

It works pretty well as there are no 'low time' F/Os as all have been Second Officers for a couple of years previously and thus have not just checked to line in the RHS with no prior exposure to long haul operations.

Yes, it saves a motza on crewing as you don't need a second captain, or even a second first officer for that matter. Two second officers carried for flight times >12 hours. Captain or F/O always on the flight deck.

All second officers have co-pilot endorsements on the aircraft.

------------------
Nunc est bibendum

[turbosheep]

Keg,
For Qantas, what happens when the F/O is in the loo, the Captain sound asleep in the bunk and an emergency occurs ?
Is the S/O qualified or trained to handle the situation sitting on the LH seat ?

This is no spam, just curious as to the "fine print" of the operations.
Thanks.

[aviator]

I fail to see SQ's logic behind giving the F/O rest and not the Captain.

United Airlines gives all F/O's a type rating on aircraft flying in augmented operations (heavy crew). The "real" Captain is always in command, even when on a break, and brought back in the loop as soon as any irregularities have been dealt with. There are guidelines to follow as well as a briefing before each shift change.

[Keg]

Gday Turbo, the second officer is trained to handle all emergencies as pilot flying- from both seats.

The exact wording of the Flight Admin Manual can be interpereted one of two ways.

"Under normal circumstances, two pilots, including either the Captain or First Officer, shall remain at the controls at the controls with the following exceptions:
-personal relief visits to the toilet facilities
-..or public relations visits..cruise..due consideration of weather and flight deck workload."

The two lines of thought is that the exception is where the Captain of F/O is going to the loo or that the exception is to the 'two pilots' bit and that the Captain or F/O must always be there. Technically, the seond option means that the F/O or skipper has to be called back from a break for the other to go to the loo.

In real life, I don't think it's ever been an issue for the 767 drivers at QF. The longest break we get is about two hours and so it generally isn't a problem.

Part of me doesn't want the ambiguity in it cleared up as otherwise it may be cleared up in a way that I don't like and I may have to call the skipper back from being asleep if ever going to the loo becomes an issue.

------------------
Nunc est bibendum

[Gladiator]

This is not a new topic. Nevertheless I will help to beat up the dead horse.

Posted Dec 8th 2000 by Gladiator, Far East Forum.

The problem with SIA 3-pilot crew operation.

On long haul flights, B747-400, A-340, etc, it is normal and accepted practice for a carrier to use a pilot other than the Captain (pilot-in-command) as relief for the Captain during cruise only. However, common sense dictates that the relief pilot MUST meet pilot-in-command qualifications. The qualifications are not limited to the number of stripes or the rank of Captain; it is based on two criteria.

First, the relief pilot must meet the license requirement as pilot-in-command. This is a non-ambiguous clear-cut area; the relief pilot must hold an ATPL (frozen ATPL does not qualify).

Second, the relief pilot MUST receive training from the pilot-in-command duty station, the LHS. The training must include unusual attitude training as well as non-normal and emergency procedures.

In regards to long haul flights, the design of the Boeing B747-400 cockpit crew bunkroom was not intended for operation with only one qualified pilot-in-command. The reason is that the oxygen system in the crew bunkroom is the same as the passenger oxygen system. Therefore in the event of depressurization the crewmember in the bunkroom will be incapacitated and not considered fit to perform crewmember duties.

In regards to the B747-400 systems, the primary duty station is the LHS. Therefore, in certain non-normal situations (standby bus) both A/Ps as well as the RHS duty station instruments will be unusable. This situation would require the crewmember in the LHS duty station to manually fly the aircraft.

I would like to make reference to SIA’s own 1993 incident of the A-310 (yes, the famous Bay of Bengal acrobat) that lost control of the aircraft. If this were to happen with the pilot-in-command in the bunkroom, would the pilot-in-command be able to come out and exchange seats with the unqualified pilot in the LHS?
The answer is a big NO.

In regards to relief pilot operations (3-pilot crew), SIA operated the largest B747-400 fleet in the world opposite the design philosophy of the aircraft thus seriously breaching passenger and cabin crew safety.

Passenger and cabin crew safety was breached when:

1) SIA replaced the Captain (pilot-in-command) during Captain relief period, with a pilot only holding a CPL (commercial pilot license) as opposed to the required ATPL (Airline Transport Pilot License).

2) The pilots occupying the Captain (pilot-in-command) duty station, the LHS, received no training whatsoever in the LHS.

There is no possible explanation SIA, CAAS and ALPA-Singapore can give to explain why the above was allowed to continue for over 10 years.

The only explanation is that it was cheaper to replace a Captain during Captain relief period with a co-pilot. It was further cheaper to not train the co-pilot in the LHS.

To make the argument stick SIA, CAAS and ALPA-Singapore came up with some unclear and muddy explanation of co-pilots trained to (Part1) the same standard as the Captain. The 3-pilot crew operation policy from day one was a conspiracy.

There was never a written policy in this regard. The only policy was a verbal policy that went something like this, “First, this time period is not ‘rest’ period, it is ‘relief’ period. Second, during this relief period the Captain will stay in the cockpit and seated in the observer’s seat.”

In reality during this period the Captain would rest in the bunkroom (97% of the Captain would do this). This would be considered true rest/relief and the intended purpose of the cockpit crew bunkroom.

Please note below SIA’s only written policy in regards to 3-pilot crew operation,

FLIGHT ADMINISTRATION MANUAL, LINE OPERATIONS

Cockpit seats/A340 Crew Rest Facility Seats

Operating Crew

For take-off and landing, the required operating crew members of the minimum crew complement shall be in their assigned seats. In all other phases of flight, both pilot’s seats and, if applicable, the flight engineer’s seat must be manned by the operating crew except when:-

1. a crew member’s absence is necessary for the performance of duties in connection with the operation of the flight; or
2. a crew member’s absence is in connection with physiological needs.

In a 3-pilot crew operation, the third pilot may, at the Commander’s discretion, occupy either the left hand seat or the first observer’s seat during cruise, when the Commander is taking inflight relief. When the third pilot is in the left hand seat, the designated first officer must be in the right hand seat. In the event of an emergency, the third pilot, if he is in the left hand seat, shall be the pilot not flying. End.

Now please note the ALPA-Singapore policy,

Page 90

3. Inflight relief and rest facilities on board –

(2) In the case of the “3-pilot” crew, the additional pilot allows in-flight relief from duty for each of the pilots. Rest facilities need not be provided for such a crew complement. End.

How do you like the last paragraph where it says, “need not be provided?”

In reality, the crew bunkroom is there, SIA replenishes the bed sheets, pillow covers, and blankets at every station, but hey, MUMS the word. Who is going to tell? No co-pilot in the right mind would tell, otherwise no promotion ever.

In the legal case Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator (refer to PPRuNe search Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator Parts 1, 2, and 3), SIA faced a big black hole.

SIA’s Flight Administration Manual not only was at best ambiguous in the 3-pilot crew policy, but the section; ‘Line Operations’ contradicted ‘Administration’,
creating a legal mine field that left several SIA lawyers without legs.

Please note the following,

FLIGHT ADMINISTRATION MANUAL, LINE OPERATIONS

First Officer Route Flying

After taking all factors (such as airplane technical status, airport and environmental conditions, pilot experience, etc.) into consideration, a commander may at his absolute discretion permit First Officers to carry out route flying under his supervision, provided that the commander:-

1. occupies the left-hand seat during all phases of flight;
2. complies with the operations manual policy on the delegation of pilot-flying duties to the First Officer.

The Commander and First officer must ensure that the route flying is properly recorded in the Voyage Record, utilizing the appropriate codes, and in the flying log book. End.

Point number 1 contradicts the 3-pilot crew policy above when the First Officer is P1(U/S). It gets even worst on the last paragraph above where it states, “utilizing the appropriate codes” (logging of hours/Sectors).

Please note the following,

FLIGHT ADMINISTRATION MANUAL, ADMINISTRATION

Logging of Hours/Sectors

1. Commanders

P1 - when flying in command, under line check or when part of a 5-man crew.
P1(U/S) – when under training.
P2 – when flying as co-pilot

2. First Officers

P1(U/S) – when operating a sector under supervision.
P2 – when operating as a co-pilot in right hand seat or when operating as a Supervisory First Officer or when assisting the Training Captain who is in the right-hand seat checking or training a Captain in the left-hand seat.
P3 – when under training and occupying the jump seat with a Training Captain or Supervisory First Officer in the right-hand seat. End.

There are no codes or provisions to explain the capacity of a First Officer (co-pilot) occupying the Captain (pilot-in-command) duty station, the LHS.

In the case Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator, the deficiencies in the SIA 3-pilot crew operation was presented as a counterclaim as follows:

“deny that the CPL license issued to XXX qualified him to: (a) act as a flight crewmember on the B747-400 aircraft in any capacity; (b) act as inflight relief for the pilot-in-command in the left pilot seat; and (c) be delegated responsibility for the operation and safety of the aircraft by performing the duties of Pilot-in-Command without supervision.”

SIA repeatedly denied the defendants counterclaim as, “non-factual”.

These facts were brought to the attention of ICAO and FAA. Behind the curtain both organizations were outraged. In February 2000, at the request of Gladiator, FAA summoned CAAS to explain SIA’s operation in this regard. ICAO conducted an audit of CAAS in July/September 2000.

The bottom line is that in November 2000, CAAS, SIA and ALPA-Singapore finally stopped this 3-ring circus.

The outcome and agreement of Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator case will never be made public and will forever remain a secret. However justice was served.

The SIA B747-412 Flight Staff Instruction, No: 00-14 (744 TCC 712M) will be framed and displayed in my study as a trophy.

End.

Since this posting in December 2000, I have had dozens of e-mails from SIA first Officers. A good percentage of SIA Captains are continuing to expect the F/O to occupy the LHS. I can not really blame them, they too need rest.

The system at SIA needs serious reform. However reform and doing it right means money. As long as SIA passengers are not aware that they are not being short changed in the safety area, SIA will continue this monkey business.

Real change may come about one day, but the day will not arrive unless another SQ006 tragedy forces change.

[whalecapt]

from Gladiator's post, and the quote from the FLIGHT ADMINISTRATION MANUAL, LINE OPERATIONS......

"In a 3-pilot crew operation, the third pilot may, at the Commander’s discretion, occupy either the left hand seat or the first observer’s seat during cruise, when the Commander is taking inflight relief. When the third pilot is in the left hand seat, the designated first officer must be in the right hand seat. In the event of an emergency, the third pilot, if he is in the left hand seat, shall be the pilot not flying."

This is a very plain acknowledgement by SIA that, in their view, it is quite acceptable that the third pilot is not required to be LHS qualified. Since the 'designated' first officer is appointed by the rostering system (and there have been frequent arguments over this point), nor he would he necessarily be the more experienced.

[wonderbusdriver]

Complacency

on the part of management!

That comes to my mind reading "regulations" like that.
The "problem" is that modern age airliners (the aircraft!!) are much too reliable.(?)

Beancounters only associate "probabilities" with costs or "insurance premiums" - that´s what all this boils down to.

Question: "What would immediatly come to your mind if that aircraft you see just departing, suddenly went crashing into the woods?"

Answer: "Damn! The insurance premium will go up."

A true conversation...(I´ve become rather cynical lately, sorry.)



[This message has been edited by wonderbusdriver (edited 30 April 2001).]