EK: What can management give a dispensation for?

[Count Alucard]

As EK pilots are often being 'asked' to operate outside the FOM / FCI's, using the infamous (and unpublished) 'soft rules', or by some other 'our FOM interpretation is different from yours, so you can do it' ruling, would someone please provide me with:

a. A list of what TCAS / Management can legally provide written dispensation to Pilots for.
b. Where this authority to operate outside the rules is written down (sorry, but I can't find the reference in the FOM) :hmm:
c. Is an ACARS message sufficient to 'cover your posterior'?
d. Are these 'dispensations' legal and safe to accept?
e. If you F*** Up using said dispensation, is your a*se toast?

Thanks in advance. Serious and non whinging answer please.:E

[Fart Master]

Please give an example, because I have not met anyboby who has been asked to break the rules/operate outside the FOM etc.

[Muttley Crew]

Working outside the FOM? You mean like not receiving a roster in time? Stuff like that?

I'm not sure what you're talking about, otherwise.c. Is an ACARS message sufficient to 'cover your posterior'?Not anymore. Don't you remember, about two years ago they began the final (?) indignity of ending every ACARS msg with:

"The information contained in this message is not for basing your decisions upon - it's still YOUR ass, so suffer..." or words to that effect.

e. If you F*** Up using said dispensation, is your a*se toast?I think that, deep down, you already know the answer to this question..... :{

[Fart Master]

OK, fair point, I see what you are getting at. Yeah the management break the rules with impunity, no doubt about that.

[Count Alucard]

I'd love to give specific examples, but that always leads to 'defending this' and 'justifying that' tit for tat posts. A bun fight won't answer the question of what Management can dispensate for; the purpose of this post.

Personally i've several examples that (if 'my interpretation' of the FOM is correct), whereby the criteria to operate 'according to the FOM' were not met. Pointing this out has lead 'management' to 'authorising' dispensation to proceed (i.e. dispatch or return a/c to base). I know I'm not the only one that has received such notices.

I just really want to know how much can EK 'legally' change the FOM at ultra short notice, using a fax or ACARS, and where we as Pilots stand should an incident then occur? As you said Mutley, I think I know that answer, but I live in hope....


Cheers

[Ahad Adump]

Mate.
There is no such thing as a dispensation from rules.
As we like to say down-under: "when you are sitting at the end of the long oak table..........."
When things go wrong and there is a court hearing. Do you think the judge will accept TCAS' verbal approval for your deviation?
You are a professional and they will have a field day with you.
If there is any doubt, there is no doubt, throw out.
Apply this to all aspects of life (specially golf) and you will prosper son.
Only 8:25 and words of wisdom are flowing!! Damm that brew is strong!

[Backwater]

For most of 2005 we must have had at least 200 pilots flying 'illegally' over the 900 hour annual limit. The factoring FCI had expired, the FOM had not incorporated factoring, but to get out of the hole they had dug for themselves first EK ignored the problem then they BS'd it. Guys continued to fly due to fear, indifference, ignorance or greed (overtime). Now the situation is thankfully in the past but it shows what they can get away with.:mad:

[ruserious]

Mix together a lack of clarity, a pinch of ambiguity and shedload of missing policy and you have our FOM. Our policies are there to allow the company as much flexibility as it can get past a regulator that has little understanding of why the regulations where originally created (by other regulators).
You think its bad now, wait until you see what they have removed from the FOM in the transition to the JAR OPS Part A manual that Al Shambles still can't get passed by the GCAA.
Operational flexibility, its just a new term for bending rules.

[uplock]

Hey Backwater its ok to fly over 900 hours in your 12th month, very legal and you can do this in the UK with the CAP 371 which is what EK copied for their FTL's.

Its not a running 365 total but 12 month total.

The stipulation though is if you are over the 900 on the last day of the month then you must be given the following month off free of Duty and that includes simm duties, Halas.

The guys who flew out side of hours only have them selves to blame for not taking the time to bone up on the FTL's and keep accurate records and to believe some Bozo from crewing that says its OK to fly.

Have to admit that following the FTLs is not one of EK's strong points and they have bent the law on numourous occassions bending to the whim of the commercial department. Not exactley a State Secret and numourous examples.

You would expect more though from a Airline that has aspirations to be classified as the best airline in the world.

I am not holding my breath any more...just counting hours is bad enough....

[Marooned]

A point for discussion could be a situation that occurred a while ago when we had a great deal of disruption due to fog.

Captains were given 'dispensation' to carry displaced baggage on board their aircraft which had not been screened in direct violation of ICAO regulations. Many commanders queried this request via flight operations to be told that the head of group security had authorised them to carry the baggage regardless of the regulations. Sadly many did, others resisited pending an ACARS confirmation. I heard that a few that stood their ground and refused to carry the baggage and were subsequently hauled into the office.

This 'dispensation' was in clear violation of company and ICAO security protocols but never the less it was done.

The reason that we are all stuck in the desert and not offered basings is, amongst other things, precisely because EK would not be able to enforce their interpretation of the FOM on us. You could I suppose take the matter to the GCAA but you'll still need to find another job.

However, if we have an incident it is us who will be held responsible, perhaps lose our licences or worse... EK will merely be censured.

[ferris]

Don't look to the GCAA to help you.
A few years ago, I took the opportunity to write to my superiors there, pointing out that the roster we were working was illegal under the CARs. The response? An invitation to withdraw the letter and apologise for raising the matter by close of business, or I would be dismissed and deported.

That's one way to make sure the law of the land is applied- make sure nobody reports breaches.

These are the guys that are supposed to police EK!!


Bend with the shamal, or break!:rolleyes: