ryanair pilots do pushbacks [Archive]

-8AS

17th Aug 2006, 12:00

Not just FR, other airlines also following suit. Its a new JAR ops requirement (amendment 7 of JAR Ops 1) for a fuel supervisor to be in attendance during fueling.

"A two way communication shall be established and sall remain available by the aeroplane's intercommunication system or other suitable means between the ground crew supervising the refuelling and the qualified personnel on board the aeroplane".

I guess all operators will have to implement procedures to comply with the regulation.

tewkesbury

17th Aug 2006, 12:31

I know you could re-employ engineers to do the transit checks, and he could do the fuel at the same time. Just like the old days.:D

flugholm

17th Aug 2006, 12:32

"other suitable means" meant "open cockpit window and someone knowledgeable on the flight deck" so far. Guess this is just not highttech enough. And maybe someone can fill in a piece of paper, to be countersigned by someone else everytime the headset is plugged in. And again when it's plugged out... :ugh:

spannersatcx

17th Aug 2006, 13:36

Nothing new in that, it's been like it for years!:eek:

Loose rivets

17th Aug 2006, 18:02

Curiouser and curiouser.....and where does the luckless pilot stand when it's hissing down with freezing rain?

RAT 5

17th Aug 2006, 18:10

Always thought the re-fuelling chappie was a fuelling supervisor. Give him a headset. Next it will be bakc to the good old KGB days of having a supervisor for the supervisor etc. etc. And there was always some shadowy figure in dark trench coat, collar turned up, in the corners watching everyone.

Having said that; what has prompted this? Surely the JAA has more important things to think about; real safety issues.

Best foot forward

17th Aug 2006, 18:19

Probably prompted by the hundreds of fueling mishaps that occur every day:ugh:

It couldn't possibly be some blunt in a office making work for him/her (equal opourtunity hiss take) self.:8

jester42

17th Aug 2006, 18:49

Back in the good old days of CAP 360 there was a requirement to have someone nominated as the 'Fuel Overseer' for every uplift. No one paid any attention to it though.
Properly because then you didn't have to get your headset out and look important!

Halfnut

17th Aug 2006, 18:49

So what happened to make the JAA change procedures? How much does this new fueling procedure enhance safety? How many aircraft and lives dose the JAA expect to save with this new procedure? How does the Flight Deck provide a safety enhancement during the fueling while doing cockpit duties with a quick turnaround? Does the Flight Deck crew get any additional training in the new fueling procedures or do you just clamp on a headset and try to look smart in a blowing snow storm?

Inquiring minds want to know!

GreatCircle

17th Aug 2006, 21:00

Its a JAR requirement...not a wind-up...

Do you think Brussels has a clue about the real issues here....?

I agree with someone knowing what they're doing when pumping gas - but having drivers standing there, yacking into a headset ?

captjns

17th Aug 2006, 22:19

The boys in black are roving the ramps and spot checking crews to make sure they are in compliance with this procedure... so beware one and all for you never know what evil lurks in the corners:\ .

keel beam

17th Aug 2006, 23:14

How will this impact on quick turnarounds? Paperwork, cockpit setup, briefings etc etc still need to be done........but only one pilot is available, for the duration of the refuelling. Will this be a problem?

This is where the headset comes in. The really proactive pilot will have his paperwork with him whilst on the headset ...

Clandestino

17th Aug 2006, 23:26

And it better be printed on waterproof paper!

Seriously, are there any procedures and tecniques prescribed for refuelling superviser or it's just the case of JAA saying : "You need to have someone supervising the refuelling and his duties and responsibilities are for you to devise, dear aeroplane operator."?

HELL FIRE

18th Aug 2006, 01:33

thats to do with the new fueling reg's that have now been introduced.pilots have now to oversee the refueling of the a/c.Thats why you see them with the headset on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bamse01

18th Aug 2006, 02:13

So if the inbound crew gets off the jet, the fueling cannot begin
until the outbound crew has arrived in the cockpit?

con-pilot

18th Aug 2006, 02:33

and where does the luckless pilot stand when it's hissing down with freezing rain?

Er, under the wing?

Or, better yet, cancel the blasted flight due to freezing rain and go to the bar.:ok:

Okay, on a serious note, anytime (in the corporate ops) when we were at a strange airport I aways mandated that someone supervised the refueling.

This came from from very serious fueling screw ups.

madherb

18th Aug 2006, 05:02

Okay, on a serious note, anytime (in the corporate ops) when we were at a strange airport I aways mandated that someone supervised the refueling.

This came from from very serious fueling screw ups.
Maybe this is the crux of the matter - any comments from crews who have had a fuelling situation FUBAR which could have been prevented by a (long-suffering) airframe driver fastening his eagle eyes on the process? A certain 767 incident comes to mind...........

If on the other hand there have been very few incidents, and given that refuelling personnel are SUPPOSED to be trained properly, is this going to die another natural death?

mutley320

18th Aug 2006, 06:41

I trust this procedure is only required if fueling while pax boarding.

Rivet gun

18th Aug 2006, 07:17

I trust this procedure is only required if fueling while pax boarding.

Yes, comes from Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.305, of course it includes any pax on board including boarding or disembarking.

SIC

18th Aug 2006, 10:16

This is great - just give me a damn blue coverall and let me check and fill oil hydralic fluid and tire pressure - if i am good at that then you can let me in on the secrets of cleaning up the cabin and offloading the baggage - soon after i am sure some rule will require i do the pushback myself - then a short step to makin me wash the aircraft on longer stops - and as soon as the whizz engineers figure out how to make the plane fly all by itself blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah... the transformation of pilot from white collar to blue collar labourer will be colmplete.

PS sure the flight schools will love this - now they can charge me another
20 000 euro for all the extra courses.

tewkesbury

18th Aug 2006, 10:26

Oh dear, when did you last see an engineer in overalls?;)

moosp

18th Aug 2006, 10:47

As Spanners has pointed out, this is nothing new, the requirement has been there for years.

Note the wording, "A two way communication shall be established and shall remain available..." This has been interpreted as meaning that you establish communications, then leave the headset available for the "responsible person" (in our case so called) to use if necessary.

I suggest that someone in management is trying to wind up the pilots by insisting that they stand there wearing the headset - there is no legal requirement. If management say there is, get a legal opinion organised by your union. (Oh, no union?)

Faire d'income

18th Aug 2006, 13:21

Page two before anyone identified the real issue.:ugh:

Mutley pointed out that it only applies for refueling with Pax on board and this has always been the case everywhere in every company except guess who? And guess which regulator?

It is obvious the early posters here have only worked in one company which is very worrying.

Glad to see the safety shortcut has been sealed off.:D

Globaliser

18th Aug 2006, 16:52

ryanair pilots do pushbacksAm I the only person who had mental images of fine upstanding FR pilots scrumming down around the nosewheel, ready to give the aircraft a good heave away from the gate? :)

computer jockey

18th Aug 2006, 17:06

Am I the only person who had mental images of fine upstanding FR pilots scrumming down around the nosewheel, ready to give the aircraft a good heave away from the gate?

And I thought it was another cost-cutting measure to avoid paying a tug!
:)

chiglet

18th Aug 2006, 17:10

You pay for a Tug :E
watp,iktch

HELL FIRE

19th Aug 2006, 02:15

refueling can be done if there is a engineer at the a/c at the change over of crews otherwise it has to be the f/o or the cpt, and that goes for turnarounds as well,that might slow things down for them!!!!!!!!

411A

19th Aug 2006, 06:22

What the FR boys (and girls) need is...ah, well, a proper Flight Engineer.:}

powdermonkey

19th Aug 2006, 08:59

Why are the ramp agents not doing this role for you? I spend six months on the ramp during my ATPL's and often was required to stand there with the headsets on while the plane was being refuelled. I had no special training but all I was required to do was observe the upload and contact the flight deck if anything unusual happened, I didn't work for FR, but assumed that Ryanair ground crew would do the same job? Is the pilot supposed to verify the quantity of fuel uploaded? I have often stood there for a LONG time in the freezing rain, as fuelling can take for what seems to be forever, so I really don't think it is flight crew who should be standing out there when cockpit checks should be done instead. Am I missing something?

tightcircuit

19th Aug 2006, 18:45

Here is what JAR OPS say so you can all see it for yourselves;
SECTION 1 JAR-OPS 1 Subpart D
01.09.04 1-D-16 Amendment 7
Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.305
Refuelling/defuelling with passengers
embarking, on board or disembarking
(a) An operator must establish operational
procedures for re/defuelling with passengers
embarking, on board or disembarking to ensure the
following precautions are taken:
(1) One qualified person must remain at a
specified location during fuelling operations with
passengers on board. This qualified person must
be capable of handling emergency procedures
concerning fire protection and fire-fighting,
handling communications and initiating and
directing an evacuation;
(2) [A two-way communication shall be
established and shall remain available by the
aeroplane’s inter-communication system or other
suitable means between the ground crew
supervising the refuelling and the qualified
personnel on board the aeroplane;]
([3]) Crew, staff and passengers must be
warned that re/defuelling will take place;
([4]) ‘Fasten Seat Belts’ signs must be off;
([5]) ‘NO SMOKING’ signs must be on,
together with interior lighting to enable
emergency exits to be identified;
([6]) Passengers must be instructed to
unfasten their seat belts and refrain from
smoking;
([7]) Sufficient qualified personnel must be
on board and be prepared for an immediate
emergency evacuation;
([8]) If the presence of fuel vapour is
detected inside the aeroplane, or any other hazard
arises during re/defuelling, fuelling must be
stopped immediately;
([9]) The ground area beneath the exits
intended for emergency evacuation and slide
deployment areas must be kept clear; and
([10]) Provision is made for a safe and rapid
evacuation.
[Amdt. 7, 01.09.04]

Mega

20th Aug 2006, 00:18

How about the first flight of the day, for example.
Almost everywere you pass on the fuelnumbers long before you arrive to the aircraft and the a/c gets the fuel in some way. It can be empty,it can be cleaners or engineers onboard. Nobody gives a fxxx.
/M

SIDSTAR

20th Aug 2006, 03:21

Ref Item 7 - sufficient qualified personnel mustg be on board to evacuate passengers if required.

Will this stop the LCC's from sending a stewardess to the gate to help with boarding? Will they need to have a full complelent of cabin crew on board -ie one per fifty installed seats ?

Waggon rut

20th Aug 2006, 08:46

Some places require a pilot to operate the fuel switches under the wing. So how does the new rules work with that.!

stiffnuts

20th Aug 2006, 10:19

Curiouser and curiouser.....and where does the luckless pilot stand when it's hissing down with freezing rain?

Try becoming a luckless Engineer & you will find out!!

Dream Land

21st Aug 2006, 03:31

How much extra salary do they make for this duty? :} :E

DoNotFeed

21st Aug 2006, 06:43

Is the fellow put through another screening process when entering the plane?:E

coopervane

21st Aug 2006, 08:45

In reply to your comment......where does the luckless pilot stand in the pouring rain?

Well he stands where his engineers normally stand while he is sipping his tea and pointing at his watch!

Maybe he could invest in a waterproof coat from his big wedge???

Bless his cotton socks!

Coop & been there Bear:ok:

Pilot Pete

21st Aug 2006, 08:49

Ref Item 7 - sufficient qualified personnel mustg be on board to evacuate passengers if required. Well if they don't have minimum crew on board when boarding is taking place they are breaking the law, unless they have some agreement from the relevant authority.

PP

captjns

21st Aug 2006, 20:31

Well if they don't have minimum crew on board when boarding is taking place they are breaking the law, unless they have some agreement from the relevant authority.PP

With 3 F/A's on board, they can board up to 150 pax during the fueling process, that is if the 4th F/A is assisting the gate agent in the collection of boarding passes.

Again this applies only during boarding and deplaning. I'm sure crews will exercise proper judgment during inclement weather conditions.

Dream Land

22nd Aug 2006, 05:32

How do pilots decide which one goes outside to monitor fueling, and which one helps clean out the seat pockets. :}

FS-chick

22nd Aug 2006, 06:26

How do pilots decide which one goes outside to monitor fueling, and which one helps clean out the seat pockets. :}

On a sunny day the capt. is outside monitoring, if it's raining or in case of $hitty weather FO does the job. :cool: :p

PK-KAR

22nd Aug 2006, 07:45

Oh, new JAR procedures?
I thought they were trying to emulate another airline with a person's name and a similar logo (albeit different colours)... Adam Air...

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j290/lhakokbisa/Adam%20Bengkulu/dorong_yuk.jpg

PK-KKN being pushed by humans after HYD A failure where it then landed on the destination airport which doesn't have a towtruck...

Or was it an exercise of cost cutting for pushing back? Both LCCs with guys names, and similar kind of logo...

:=

PK-KAR

j_davey

23rd Aug 2006, 14:13

interesting that the despatcher or a ramp agent doesn`t put the headset on?:confused:

spannersatcx

23rd Aug 2006, 14:20

interesting that the despatcher or a ramp agent doesn`t put the headset on?:confused:

That's because you don't have to, it has to be there, and connected up so that

"A two way communication shall be established and shall remain available by the aeroplane's intercommunication system or other suitable means between the ground crew supervising the refuelling and the qualified personnel on board the aeroplane".

If the crew need to talk then they either put the beacons on or sound the horn or whatever the SOP is for the operator.

This has been in force for longer than I can remember, it's nothing new at all.:eek:

misterblue

23rd Aug 2006, 17:33

You will need;
2 yoghurt cartons (empty)
1 length of string
1 open window
I think you can work out how to assemble the device yourselves.
Procedures
Emergency whilst refuelling
Either party pulls string hard
Lost Comms Procedure
String goes very slack - revert to voice procedures
It would appear that this system fully complies with the regulations and means that flight crew can remain on flight deck. Go on, give it a go!

TURIN

25th Aug 2006, 10:20

This may seem like a silly question but does this only apply to EU registered a/c and operators or just within the EU?

I only ask as several non EU reg a/c often never have flt deck occupied during refuelling whilst pax on board. Certainly in my experience only one operator ever asks to speak to the refuelling operative (eng) while fuelling continues.

So what gives? Is the Shell/BP chap required to don a headset? Does the engineer chap need to stop his routine or ad-hoc maintenance just to stand around with the refueller?

I am confused.:confused:

Dream Land

25th Aug 2006, 15:16

I believe it's an industry standard, just seems like common sense to me, as far as using the flight deck crew to do ground crew ops is totally bizarre, why would they swallow this? :confused:

stadis450

25th Aug 2006, 17:15

The general rule is that a responsible person, flight deck, engineer or handling agent should make themselves known to the refueller as the "overseer", whom the refueller can go to in case of any problems, many refuellers operate the switches through experiance while some airlines provide a switching policy which involes a small amount of training, the biggest problems tends to be tug drivers driving under the fuel vents while fuelling is in progress this is a big NO NO. The refeullers I've come across get well trained and continue to be re trained in all fuelling tasks. Some problems arise when pilots start to get involved in operating the fuel panel as many of them dont have a bloody clue on what does what, leave it to the professionals...........that would be the refuellers:ok:

spannersatcx

25th Aug 2006, 18:53

leave it to the professionals...........that would be the Engineers and not the bowser drivers.:eek:

JW411

25th Aug 2006, 19:08

"Leave it to the professionals......that would be the refuellers"

You have obviously never been to Shannon. Most of them insist on one of the pilots setting up the refuel panel before they will start to pump fuel.

They have also been known to throw the red emergency switch on the refuel panel "just to see what it does"!

For the edification of those of you out there who don't know what it does, it shuts the APU down, kills all the electrics and leaves the entire aircraft in darkness.

AVIONIQUE

25th Aug 2006, 21:27

Perhaps if we are to keep our short turnrounds and maximise a/c utilisation but remain as safe as possible we can have an engineer attend each turnaround again.It seemed to be asking a lot of flight deck to prepare for the next sector/have a pee/carry out a walkround/brief all in twenty minutes.I have seen some REALLY swift walkrounds and some non existent ones(particulary in inclement weather).I have also seen some BIG defects missed.I think to have an engineer there to carry out a PDI who knows what to look for,is dressed for the weather,has rags/bulbs/tools/oils to hand and can oversee the fuelling is a sensible move back.We also enjoy a chat to the crew and bollocking heavy handed baggage handlers so we all win!

CR-ASC

26th Aug 2006, 21:03

:ugh: Once again JAR OPS is a mess, for sure written by same lawyers without a clue regarding operation of an aincraft.:ugh:
As a pilot, if I am required to be out of the aircraft while refueling (specially in an Airbus series where this is an automatic procedure) I do have less time to prepare my flight during a turnaround, but it looks that all the operations around an aircraft are very important just flying it is of no importance at all.
I cannot recal the myriad of signatures that I have to do before closing the doors all vey important pieces of useless paper.:bored:
I do not see where safety is improved by this procedure as per any evacuation procedure both pilots are supose to be in the cockpit when it starts, performing and confirming the required actions.
Soon we will have the pilots loading the aircraft as well because there might be same problem with what goes into the cargo hold.
After working all over the world and in same countries of the so called 3rd world I do find JAA a big flop.

RAT 5

26th Aug 2006, 21:31

Strikes me as a prelude to the classic cock-up waiting to happen. Everyone's arses has been covered; rules have been written: the inevitable happens. Rushed departure to keep on time, as per company philosophy. Rushed due to all the extranious duties that have been thrust upon the crews during an already pit-stop turn round. Something is missed; prang! = Pilot error. Everyone's hand are clean but for the stupid flight crew!

And so the circle turns!

GGV

26th Aug 2006, 21:54

CR-ASC these procedures are there for a reason. Just like SOPs and rules for licensing and medicals. There are methods for making an input if you think they are bad rules. Complaining about safety related rules is missing the point.

Now, before you get hot and bothered about that response, may I suggest that you look at the title of this thread: "Ryanair pilots do pushbacks". In reality Ryanair pilots have been required to do certain things by their management - not by the JAA, the IAA, etc. What seems to have happened is that the IAA no longer is turning a "blind eye" towards a necessary safety procedure that was ignored.

Now, Ryanair being Ryanair, every corner than can be cut, every job that can be eliminated, etc. will have been transferred to pilots, cabin crew, dispatchers, etc. And that is where the pressure will now come to bear.

RAT 5 gets closer to the real problem with his observation "Rushed departure to keep on time, as per company philosophy." Except that this is not the company philosophy. For it is written nowhere. Now you may say "but everybody knows it". But when the "tire hits the road" and something goes wrong it will be .... the pilot(s) who are in trouble .... because "but everybody knows it" does not count for getting you out of the merde.

Surely this is the problem of the moment in most Low Cost Carriers and some others too? Whose job is it to shout STOP? I'll wager that few Ryanair pilots are delaying their flights due to the lack of flight planning, eating, refuelling, etc. time. So where does this all come to roost: the authority? (nope, we set out the rules, the operator and the pilots have responsibility for conformance), the airline? (nope, we have excellent procedures and expect our pilots to obey them) ..... so then it is the pilot? (nope, err .... I can expalin ... is this not a bit unfair, you know what I have to do to stay out of trouble ... ).

Unfair!?!? Is that the word?

LegsUpLucy

28th Aug 2006, 12:03

It the most absurd request i have come across,particularly when we are uplifting a lot of fuel you can be standing outside for 20mins with only 5 mins to complete checks,briefs,clearances,loo,etc. where is the line going to be drawn its bloody ridiculous and the pilots get the blame for being late,lets get real!!!!
If everybody complies with this they are endangering the saftey of thier operation and comprimsing thier profession for sure!!!!:=

the grim repa

28th Aug 2006, 13:42

The question is whether you do not comply and risk losing your job or you comply with the directive and enforce it to the letter of the law.Then let the company accept any loss of time/revenue which results.Again we see that there is no concensus of opinion on what the group decision should be.Why?because we have no leadership and no representation.

CR-ASC

31st Aug 2006, 10:38

CR-ASC

31st Aug 2006, 10:54

For so many years refuelling was done without the intervention of the pilots, except selecting the fuel quantity to be delivered, but now sudenly all these procedures have to revert to the pilots. Once again I do keep to my idea everybody covers themselves and the ultimate responsable is the pilot, where in this procedure is safety increased to me is unknow but I am sure that safety INFLIGHT is severely impaired by the pilots having to perform another task outside their cockpit duties during turnarounds.:mad:
I do not work for a low cost, and worked mostly to charter companies and flag carries and even with these companies it is not unusual to refuel without having a mechanic on station, so it was never a case having less people employed by the airlines.
This recalls me another JAA brilliant idea like the authorisation to perform a walk around, another ridiculous piece of paper because since the dawn of aviation pilots were performing walkarounds without the necessity of an "authorisation".
A pilot, that does not know how to perform a proper walkaround simply should not be allowed to fly as this is a basic procedure and safety issue, not needing a piece of paper to allow him to perform such procedure.

stator vane

31st Aug 2006, 11:54

we at ryan were just blessed with an illuminating time chart for the turn-around event divided to each minute.

remarkably efficient.

no time for stopping in the toilet, so we must do that whilst in flight.

MNBluestater

31st Aug 2006, 13:44

I know you could re-employ engineers to do the transit checks, and he could do the fuel at the same time. Just like the old days.:D

why not just have the pilots do lav service and catering while they're down there too, for heaven's sake. :*:*:*

Port Strobe

4th Sep 2006, 08:21

Since this has come to the fore by virtue of a JAR OPS ammendment can I confirm it's this part that was the subject of the ammendment?

(2) A two-way communication shall be
established and shall remain available by the
aeroplane’s inter-communication system or other
suitable means between the ground crew
supervising the refuelling and the qualified
personnel on board the aeroplane

Fair D'Income seems to make a point that this has always been the case and so which part has actually been revised if (s)he is correct?

I understand that a higher level of risk appears to be acceptable when there are no passengers on board or in the process of arriving/leaving the aircraft but when there are what's to stop the refuelling staff adopting the role of "ground crew supervising the refuelling" if given suitable means to communicate with "the qualified personnel on board the aeroplane"?
(misterblue Yoghurt pots doesn't seem a bad idea :ok: )

Is this limited to operators registered in a JAR state or does this apply to all operators who happen to be refuelling in a JAR state?
Cheers

Danasutra

4th Sep 2006, 09:10

CR-ASC
RAT 5 gets closer to the real problem with his observation "Rushed departure to keep on time, as per company philosophy." Except that this is not the company philosophy. For it is written nowhere. Now you may say "but everybody knows it". But when the "tire hits the road" and something goes wrong it will be .... the pilot(s) who are in trouble .... because "but everybody knows it" does not count for getting you out of the merde.

Surely this is the problem of the moment in most Low Cost Carriers and some others too? Whose job is it to shout STOP? I'll wager that few Ryanair pilots are delaying their flights due to the lack of flight planning, eating, refuelling, etc. time. So where does this all come to roost: the authority?
[/I]

Well, if you are a professional, you don't do RUSHED DEPARTURES....:=
ie if the extra procedure takes extra time, this leads to delay and delay costs the COMPANY money...We'll see how this ends....Safety first, then the rest.

And haven't you been to the smaller French airport yet? Setting up the fuelling-panel is standard there! At least now I have warm ears! :hmm:
As is quoted before this allready was a requirement with fuelling and boarding, but you won't see the big boys doing it because THEY are in the hotel-bar for their daylong turnaround!

Just do the BL£$%^&* job like you are supposed to, stop the whining and we'll see if this procedure is efficient enough to maintain

Danasutra

4th Sep 2006, 09:13

Hobbit

4th Sep 2006, 09:17

We need some PPRUNE hi vis vests that say
I'M DOING THIS TO COVER SOMEBODY ELSES ARSE
Distribute them throughout avaition to pilots everywhere! :D

1800-how'smyflying

4th Sep 2006, 09:24

Could the capt not just tell the boarding staff to wait until after refueling to board the pax. No need for the FO to stand in the lashing rain and smell like a wet dog for the rest of the day, pilots get their preflight duties out of the way and pax come on, doors close and immediate pushback, planning is done properly and hopefully no delays if the passengers are quick!

bogdandmn

4th Sep 2006, 15:16

Why the FO?
All airlines have employees on their target airports... Why can't they supervise this? Im mean, it's idiotic! What is his role being there? To watch the gasboy pumping gas? To tell him jokes and help past the time?

CR-ASC

5th Sep 2006, 11:01

[QUOTE=Danasutra;2823638]Well, if you are a professional, you don't do RUSHED DEPARTURES....:=
That looks nice in a paper not in real life, tell me that in your life you never did a rushed departure?
I would like to work in such a company, where there are no slots , no problems with cargo ,pax, lugage , technical ,etc.No duty limitations, etc, as I can remember one of the causes of the major acident in aviation the tenerife one was caused by concerns regarding exceeding the duty time.
Of course there is a limit to where you can expedite departure, up to a certain level, but do not tell me that a professional do not do rushed departures, you have to adapt acording the time frame you have, or you can do it or not.
Regarding the fueling procedure:
Again I stick to the idea of this procedure being a flop, so what is doing the fireman truck in front of me when I am refueling with pax on board?
As well if a pilot is outside whow is the emergency evacuation of the airplane performed?
there is a serious flaw in this situation as per sop of airbus, boeing , etc emergency evacuation is performed by the 2 crewmembers acting and checking, not one outside the aircraft!
The lawyers of JAA just lost the plot in this situation!

spannersatcx

5th Sep 2006, 15:04

For those that can't read - A two-way communication shall be established and shall remain available by the aeroplane’s inter-communication system or other suitable means between the ground crew supervising the refuelling and the qualified personnel on board the aeroplane
That's the Ground Crew supervising the refuel, not the pilot or First Officer but the Ground Crew who will establish 2 way .... with the qualified personnel on board the aeroplane that's the Captain or First Officer.
The person doing the refuelling be it an Engineer, bowser driver etc etc is the one outside.

captplaystation

5th Sep 2006, 15:15

CR-ASC has hit the nail exactly on the head, Boeing non-normal drill for pax evac is written for the participation of BOTH pilots, although I'm sure they would argue in Ryanair , and many other companies ,that it can be performed adequately by one, otherwise how do you do a walkround with pax on board/boarding ,as ,of course, an APU fire or whatever could happen at any moment.This of course fails to take into account that a "Ryanair" walkround ( ha bloody ha ) only takes 2 mins , whereas refuelling can take up to 16min, according to our esteemed STN base Capt/ Deputy Dog or whatever he is this week.Plus, of course, the risk is perceived to be higher during fuelling so shouldn't you keep all your cockpit resources available , not hanging around on the apron.Try explaining that one away in court when you are accused Dear Captain, with failing to command / orchestrate a successful evacuation coz u was chewing the cud with Essex's finest gas pumpers. . . Mate.Hmn methinks just forgetting fuelling with pax onboard until this sorry mess is tidied up is possibly the most legal option, even if it incurs the wrath of the Dark Side

TooL8

5th Sep 2006, 17:35

I just don't get it (like Spannercatcx). Who interpretted SECTION 1 JAR-OPS 1 Subpart D 01.09.04 1-D-16 Amendment 7 Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 1.305 to mean that either the Cpt or F/O has to be outside the acft?

I have read and re-read the above mentioned JAR-OPS and I just cannot see why Ryaniar (and others?) have taken this to mean that a member of the flt crew MUST go outside the acft to supervise the re/de fueling.

(a)(1) One qualified person must remain at a specified location during fuelling operations with passengers on board. This qualified person must be capable of handling emergency procedures concerning fire protection and fire-fighting, handling communications and initiating and directing an evacuation
That'll be either the Cpt of F/O on the flight deck then.

(a)(2) A two-way communication shall be established and shall remain available by the aeroplane’s inter-communication system or other suitable means between the ground crew supervising the refuelling and the qualified personnel on board the aeroplane
Is the refueller not a 'member of the ground crew' who is 'supervising' the re/defuelling? S/he establishes 2-way comms with the flt crew and then gets on with the job. If there's a problem they inform the 'qualified personnel on board' who initiate [emergency] procedures.

Exactly what can a 'time-compromised' F/O see that the re/defueller can't?

Christ .. if this thing really is compromising safety (as some suggest), why doesn't someone question the airline SOPs, and instead of worrying about being reported for NOT being outside the acft worry about be being reported for NOT being INSIDE doing 'the job'.

Blacksheep

6th Sep 2006, 04:43

Supervising the refuel.

Is it the right type of fuel? Is it the right refueller (I've been caught out by this when it came to signing the invoice and he couldn't accept our carnet) Have the caps been refitted? Is the refuelling panel door closed properly. It ain't rocket science but why the headset?

"I say old chap, there's a fire raging out here, you'd better evacuate the aircraft ...and don't forget to tell the cabin crew."

As to why flight crew are doing this, its simple. Low Cost Carriers (e.g. Ryanair about whom this topic began) cut costs everywhere they can. Including ground handling contracts. When we had an LCC negotiating a ground handling contract with us they didn't want any maintenance services except for

1. A marshaller to wave it in and put the chocks in and
2. A mechanic on headset for the engine start/chocks away.
3. Four baggage handlers to get the bags off and on.

They didn't want to use the airbridge as that meant paying the airport and also needed a tractor and team to push the aircraft back. They just wanted to taxi up to a remote stand - straight in and straight out again. (The reason why Stansted has both airbridges and stairways at some gates, with a parallel parking option?)

The mechanic for start up could have supervised the refuel but that would have meant paying for an additional 0.5 manhours (US$25) Their local agent couldn't do it as they supervise the deplaning/enplaning which goes on continuously while the aircraft is on its 25 minute turn-round. Passengers are already boarding while fuel is still being pumped. - which is why the JAR-OPS supervision procedure is required in the first place. So...

4. Flight crew have to do the transit, including the refuel.
5. Cabin crew do the cleaning/toilet service during the extremely short time between one lot of passengers leaving and the next lot boarding. (I hope they wash their hands afterwards)
6. No catering. (Ah! Forget about the hand washing then...)

As to having their own ground crew at every station - what exactly would they be doing in between transits?

BTW, despite what they wanted, they didn't get it. The airport operator is also the airworthiness regulator and they have to do a normal transit just like all the other aircraft operators who pass through here. On the airbridge, no refuelling with pax aboard. Flight crew do the transit though and cabin crew do the cleaning - and no, I don't know if they wash their hands.

GGV

6th Sep 2006, 06:04

Tool8 I think your question "Is the refueller not a 'member of the ground crew'" is the key question to which the answer "no" undermines your efforts at deconstruction. The "refueller" may just be a fancy name for the guy who drives the truck with the fuel on board. The fact that he might help you out should not be confused with his position (and a minority even refuse to even open the refuelling panel).

You seem to take it for granted that the JAA requirement is not sensibly based. (If you use your imagination you might think it an appropriate precaution in circumstances where nobody else is around to take responsibility when large numbers are on board the aircraft). It is for you to produce arguments why it is not, since it was agreed to be a requirement by a majority of Aviation Authorities, has been there for some time and has been implemented procedureally by many airlines. The key issue, of course, is that not many airlines load a large percentage of their pax numbers as a matter of course while refuelling.

Low cost carriers are an increasing exception. Which is why we are discussing the matter here. (And BTW, Ryanair certainly will not "have taken this to mean that a crew member MUST go outside" to supervise refuelling. It has instead all the smell of an unfollowed requirement that has been forcibly drawn to their attention.).

TooL8

6th Sep 2006, 08:38

GGV, it's not that I don't believe it is sensibly based, it's rather that I don't think it will have the desired effect i.e. ensure safety of pax and crew.

As an attempt to ensure that refuelling is carried out safely during a rapid turnaround with pax dis/embarking, OK a vigilant crew member is likely to spot the problem and prevent the accident. Stood under the nose cone fiddling with the connector trying to get the damn thing to work; not so effective.

It just strikes me that this 'solution' has too many compounding elements e.g. less time to prepare in cockpit to be the correct solution.

So what is the answer? Slow Down, perhaps. Safety should be the primary concern of JAA, economics second. And as Blacksheep notes, we could be talking about c. £20 here to have someone competent do this job; with just 100 pax that's 20p each!!

captjns

6th Sep 2006, 20:26

[quote=Danasutra;2823638]I can remember one of the causes of the major acident in aviation the tenerife one was caused by concerns regarding exceeding the duty time.

:= Your memory is bad... the primary causes were language, communication, poor CRM and arrogance.

ChristiaanJ

6th Sep 2006, 20:57

Let me toss another handgrenade...

This looks like enough of a shambles to have all the potential for another nasty accident.

When we are sorting through the smoking remains of an A320 at MPL, I won't need to say "told you so".

LegsUpLucy

6th Sep 2006, 21:40

Well hey ,while we are outside why dont we supervise all of the baggage loading to make sure that they are in the correct position and perhaps supervise the toilet servicing to make sure all the waste has been removed oh and maybe whilst we have a few more minutes to spare we could put some oil in the engine............give me a break.........enough is enough!!!:ugh:

Blacksheep

7th Sep 2006, 02:16

captjns

7th Sep 2006, 10:39

My sister-in-law flew low-cost recently. I asked her what she thought of the experience. Her reply?

"Well, you get what you pay for."

... lower salaries and reduced safety levels

I think if you look at the statistics you will find that LCC have an overall excellent safety record. Don't confuse the purchasing of food on board with arriving at your destination in one piece.

The statement is true, you get what you pay for. If you want a limosine you pay top dollar. If you want to take the bus, you pay pences... or what ever. There are no suprises to the consumer as to what they are to be instore for on the extremem low cost carriers... 1 and only 1 seat, and that's it! But the consumer has options... pay more and get a free coke or coffee. Pay a bit more... get a crappy meal with your coke.

mrjet

7th Sep 2006, 10:48

My sister-in-law flew low-cost recently. I asked her what she thought of the experience. Her reply?
"Well, you get what you pay for."
That about sums it up. De-regulation, cheap fares, lower salaries and reduced safety levels. How about the politicians' promises of benefits to the travelling public? Consumer satisfaction? Not much sign of that in SIL's comment.

Complete BS on the safety analyses. There was a study in the US recently where the LCC's where found to have a better safety record than the Majors. An article on the matter was published in Flight International. Doing things efficiently does not equal lower safety.