Victory for Gladiator/ SIA 3-pilot operations

[Gladiator]

B747-412 Flight Staff Intstruction

No: 00-14
Date Nov, 7, 2000
To: All 744 Crew
From: Vice President/Chief Pilot 744
Subject: 3-pilot crew operation
Reason: To comply with CAAS requirements

The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore has withdrawn the approval for the 3rd pilot of a 3-pilot crew to occupy the left-hand seat while the commander is taking in-flight relief during cruise.

The FAM will be amended in due course. Please be guided accordingly.

Captain Axx Cxx
for Vice President/Chief Pilot B744

End.

More on this subject tommorow.

[Gladiator]

This document has been scanned in it's original form and is available by e-mail.

[Gladiator]

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 stipes 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.

[Kaptin M]

Glad, let me be the first to congratulate you, if you believe that it is through your input, this has been achieved....and I don't have any reason to doubt it.

[A Few Good Men]

Congrats Gladiator you're gonna cost SIA millions in policy change.So how now hire more commanders or make the buggers sit there the whole flight.

[Contrails]

Hey Gladiator, how can I get more information about A310 incident that you described above?
Thanks.

[Kaptin M]

Having only read this several hours ago - after 4 days away - and now being able to relax a little more, my money says SQ will probably go the way of EVA Air......"Cruise Captains".

Whaddya reckon, Glad?

[Gladiator]

I agree Kaptin M.

[Hypoxia999]

Gladie,

Though many of your postings regarding SQ are biased and personal, this one is worthy of praise. Hope to see more useful stuffs. Well done.

[747400CA]

May I add my appreciation of your work on this issue.

In addition to your efforts, I believe ALPA-US has been researching the desired level of qualifications and experience of relief pilots on long-range aircraft for some time.

In particular, a joint management-pilot study at UAL has been at work for several years, including a survey and analysis of the practices of major operators worldwide.

Additional information and comment are appreciated.

Thanks to all.

[Farside]

As I stated before I disagree on a lot of points with Gladiator, but I have to admit that this posting is an excellent piece of "research" and totally factual. I am sad to have to admit this since I am one of the "idiots" who like the job in SQ. I hope and believe that somthing positive comes out of this. Gladiator has done us a service here!

[addinfurnightem]

Received a notice to crew today that clearly states that even though the F/O may not sit in the LHS nothing has changed regarding rest etc. We are supposed to take our "in flight relief" sitting in our designated seats, well, Captains, anyway.
Major step forward don't you think?

[A Few Good Men]

Just did freighter trip and commander helped himself to the bunk.Just want all 744 commanders to know that I will report you to management.Do what you get paid to do.

[Whiskery]

P.S. Nobody likes Whistleblowers!

[addinfurnightem]

AFGM - if you want to make threats suggest you do it at the next Fleet Meeting or at least in public at Crew Reporting. (PPRuNe is anonymous you see??).

[This message has been edited by addinfurnightem (edited 16 December 2000).]

[Highlander744]

I understand both Whiskery's and addinfurnightum's comments and, to a point agree; however, with respect to 'AFGM' he has the right to express his discontent - afterall, if the Commander disobeys an FSI then he causes his fellow subordinate colleagues to also disobey a Company mandate - that gentlemen is compromising the subordinate ( is that fair ? Especially in the SQ context where the FO's will definitely be held accountable and accordingly reprimanded !! ). Possibly, on a freighter flight, one may turn a ' blind eye ' in the interest of safety or CRM (especially as there are no witnesses - though that doesn't make it right !) But on a pax flight it is a different story, ie. the Cabin Crew may report the Captain for being in the bunk or the FO being in the left hand seat ( or both ) despite whatever the flight deck crew may have or agreed, or disagreed, upon.

Bottom line is - until this matter can be finally resolved the Commander should OBEY the FSI ( whether or not it makes sense ), in addition he MUST NOT compromise his subordinate crew - that would be an abuse of his authority.

On a personal note - the problem in question has affected me directly, and I too have been compromised; I am willing to stand by my convictions if held accountable but would have preferred the Commander not to have placed me in such a predicament in the first place. Personally I consider that the Commander should, on 3 Pilot Ops, fly to single crew limitations until this matter is properly finalised - because as it stands the ops are neither satisfactory or practical and the envelope of safety is definitely being pushed. It is time for Captains to excercise their judgement and discretion in the interest of SAFETY, that is why, gentlemen, ( and I hate to use the $ as a lever, but.... ) they pay you a higher Salary and IFA !!

------------------
Highlander744 - In the end there will only be ONE.

[A Few Good Men]

Thank you H744.Again to all 744 commanders please be professional and follow company policy.

[titan]

addinfurnightem:

Pot calling the kettle black! Maybe you could start by leading the honesty & openness brigade by publishing your real identity here, I mean to say, a LHS 744 humble Captain shouldn't have any skeletons to hide - right?

PS you are only addinfurnightem until you retire.

[addinfurnightem]

Titan - I doubt if you would know what honesty and openess was even if they got up and bit you. You stated recently that I was continuously trying to "blame SQ06 on somone else". Totally untrue, if you had bothered to read or comprehend my post on that subject. All I have ever said was that if a second party, (the airport authority in this case) could be shown to be at fault as well then, from the insurance point of view, the underwriters would have to fight it out as to who paid what amount.
Unlike yourself I have never offered an opinion as to the cause etc.
As far as identifying myself here, well, you should know that one of your good friends has already done just that, printed my full name, roster of the day and my usernames(s).
(and got banned for his trouble).
No skeletons to hide, one trip to the DCP's office abut eight years ago, thats all

And quite what was the meaning of your Post Script, some kind of threat perhaps?


[This message has been edited by addinfurnightem (edited 18 December 2000).]

[This message has been edited by addinfurnightem (edited 18 December 2000).]

[This message has been edited by addinfurnightem (edited 18 December 2000).]

[titan]

addinfurnightem:
Okay, I'll help you work it out. As your previous posts have shown, you are most inspired by your own position in the LHS of the 744. The glow of power within which you baske will only last until the day you retire. You will then wake up the next day to find out that you are just ordinary, like the rest of us. This power you wield now is artificial. Real power is when people listen and follow because they respect you; and not because they are paid to so.

As I have said to you before, I know why I am here and what I am fighting for. Can you say the same?

[Gladiator]

addinfur at the risk of getting into a pi$$ing match, are you still sore about Skeltor because he blew your cover? I told you before stop being a baby about it. My name has been flashed a dozen times.

The loud ones on PPRuNe including myself can never stay anonymous. You are no less loud than titan and or Skeltor.

Furthermore, you are one of the B747-400 Captains that has more than once breached the 3-pilot rest issue. Skeltor would have testified to this effect in court (previous PPRuNe volley).

If you are concerned about your identity I suggest you tone down.

Here on PPRuNe if you want to play, somewhere along the way you have to pay.