Definition

[Farside]

I hope this topic doesn't end up in another P... match but I would like to know what the real difference is ( legal if possible) between "inflight rest" and "inflight relief".
Opinions are appreciated especially from Gladiator since his 3 man crew write up made a lot of sense. For the rest I wish all you out there (Pro's and Con's!!) a very happy Christmas and New Year and keep the blue side up!!!

[Kaptin M]

Inflight rest, is when you can mentally, and physically, disassociate yourself from the surrounding environ and return to duty refreshed.

Inflight relief, is when you feel a pressing urge to release tension, and the Singapore Girl obliges :).....sorry F-side, but that's how I'd define it!

[Gladiator]

Farside I do not think there is any difference between the two. The bottom line should be safety of flight. Optimum would only be achieved by the use of the bunk. Afterall that is what it is for.

Kaptin M, funny. That would be hell of a treat would it not?

[Kaptin M]

On the serious side, Farside,

rest means exactly that - being able to rest, recline if you desire, and sleep, if you so wish. Thus you would need a replacement to occupy your seat, as it is obviously NOT possible to achieve rest while confined to a flight deck seat.

relief means taking some form of relief from your duty - whether it be simply reading, pushing the seat back and taking a few zzzz's , or taking a walk through the cabin, or a visit to the loo.

There is a big difference between the two. [i]Rest obviously being of such time, as to require another similarly qualified pilot to carry out any duties required during your absence [eg. fuel monitoring and x-feeding, weather avoidance decisions, level changes,ATC restrictions, handling of unruly pax, crew incapacitation, or/and emergency procedures with associated decision making].

[Farside]

Thanks Gentleman, appreciate your input. As I understand it it means that although it is labbeled Inflight Relief, you are as a commander not allowed to leave your seat during all phases of flight, if there is no qualified licensed person available to take the your seat. This means in the 3 man cockpit concept in SQ that the captain in real time is limmited to 2 man crew hours. Do I see this correct or do I miss something??? Does the 2 man actual stick time limit come in play here?? Believe it or not there is no guidance on this subject from the authorities (Surprised??)

[Kaptin M]

Farside, you must be able to leave your seat - even if only on a 30 minute sector - if the physiological need arises, and that could mean a quick 3 minute slash, or a 5 minute stand, to prevent thomboses forming.That is inflight relief..think about it in a 2-crew scenario...one Capt & one F/O.

If, because of duty time, or the effects of Circadian rythm, the crew requires rest, THEN you will NEED at least 2 Captains, in a one on/one off role.

Personally, on the "heavy crews", I believe there should be 2 Captains' names shown on the ATC lodged flight plan. That would stop any shenanigans on the companies' part!

[grusome]

KM,
Sorry, but I find myself at some variance with your definitions, as follows:

1. I am in broad agreement wrt "rest".From an Australian perspective, there is no doubt (latterly subject of course to the CASA Director's whim) that "rest" involves vacating the seat and making use of the "bunks or berths of a type approved by CASA". Although you might like to draw the implication that there must therefore be a replacement pilot, I think that from a legal perspective that issue is covered in diverse other places ranging from the Company Ops Manual to the rules for use of oxy masks.

2. However, the term "in-flight relief" is recognised in quite a different way from that you espouse. As I think it is not yet defined in a regulatory sense, the dictionary definition is a guide. Three successive definitions from the World Book Dictionary give us: "freedom from a post of duty, often by the coming of a substitute"; "a change of persons on duty"; and "a person or persons who relieve others from duty". That is to say, "in flight relief" is the process whereby one is replaced in the chair.
As far as I am concerned, this is the other part of the picture, and if you would take a look at the draft Part 121, at Appendix 1 to 121A.940, you will see the proposed rules for in-flight relief. Amongst other things, it calls up "another suitably qualified flight crew member", and further spells out certain requirements for relief of Captains, and so on.

It may be, of course, that in some far-away land, some regulator has allowed (or has been over-ridden by vested interests) the definition of "relief" in some other way. If that is the case in your employment, you have my sympathy.
Xmas Wishes
Gru

[Gladiator]

Kaptin M are those definitions written somewhere in a regulations book, etc?

Not sure about the appendix to 121. However the FARAIM does not differentiate between rest/relief.

121.543 deals with this issue and is very clear. One goes and is replaced by another. Two condition, ATPL/ATP and a Type Rating (Pilot-in-command). Will come back with details on 121.543.

[Farside]

Gentleman Thanks a lot for your opinions, it will defenitely help me to form my own opinion on how to tackle my next 3man crew operation. Especially the view that "relief" means that the vacant seat should be manned by a "qualified" crewmember during all phases of flight. As I stated before there is no guidance here and it will take some "brave" soul to test the waters. I view it very simple: 3 man crew is for the captain the same as 2 man crew and as such 2 man crew limitations should apply. Thanks again, this is PPRUNE at its best!!! I'll keep you informed and for the rest I wish you all a very merry Christmas and happy new year.
I have to go to my neighbour with peace offerings since my dog yesterday evening found out that the "idiot" had put his Turkey outside for cooling purposes. I wondered why my mut was so quit during the later part of the evening. Found out soon. Turkey gone with trimmings and all, dog sick and overeaten!!!

[Gladiator]

Farside for reference take a look at 121.543 which deals with the issue at hand.

Sec. 121.543 Flight crewmembers at controls.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each required
flight crewmember on flight deck duty must remain at the assigned duty
station with seat belt fastened while the aircraft is taking off or landing,
and while it is en route.
(b) A required flight crewmember may leave the assigned duty station--
(1) If the crewmember's absence is necessary for the performance of duties
in connection with the operation of the aircraft;
(2) If the crewmember's absence is in connection with physiological needs;
or
(3) If the crewmember is taking a rest period, and relief is provided--
(i) In the case of the assigned pilot in command during the en route cruise
portion of the flight, by a pilot who holds an airline transport pilot
certificate and an appropriate type rating, is currently qualified as pilot
in command or second in command, and is qualified as pilot in command of that
aircraft during the en route cruise portion of the flight.

First look at how paragraph (3) below is worded. This would lead me to come to the conclusion that rest/relief are one of the same.

(3) If the crewmember is taking a rest period, and relief is provided--

Second, to my opinion in this regards, the CAAS (CAA) system is flawed. Take a look at paragraph (3)(i) below:

(i) In the case of the assigned pilot in command during the en route cruise
portion of the flight, by a pilot who holds an airline transport pilot
certificate and an appropriate type rating,

The flaw is that the word "Type Rating" does not interface between the FAA and CAAS (CAA).

FAA and Type Rating.

A Type Rating on a pilot certificate means that the pilot took a CHECKRIDE from the LEFT HAND SEAT and is licensed as pilot-in-command on that aircraft.

A Type Rating can be issued on an ATP or Commercial certificate (In case of non airline operations but an Instrument Rating is required).

There is no such thing as a Type Rating for a co-pilot (P2 equal of CAA). A carrier trains a pilot as a co-pilot and so will his records indicate. However there is no notation on his or her pilot certificate.

CAAS (CAA) and Type Ratings.

A carrier trains a pilot as co-pilot. His CPL will indicate, co-pilot (P2) priviledges. As soon as this pilot passes the ATPL exams and gains the necessary hours, his ATPL license will indicate, Pilot-in-command (P1) priviledges.

Do you see the difference? In the FAA system the pilot has to be trained and checked in the LHS to obtain PIC priviledges. The CAAS (CAA) system does not.

I am not saying that the FAA system is better. But the word "Type Rating" has a different meaning.

What do you think?

[Farside]

Hi Gladiator. Excellent piece of info, I am running out of the door now for a trip but will look into your suggestions and let you know wht I came up with. It needs a lot of reading for me before I can fully understand all the ramifications. I got myself a Part 121 and take it with me although I realize that the SQ CAAS is more mirrored towards the JAA regs. Thanks for the trouble and Merry Christmas

[grusome]

Farside,
As a matter of interest, the (Australian) Draft Part 121 I quoted above is derived from the JARs.
Cheers
Gru