MEL to HKG 2 MAN CREW

[arse]

On 27th February 2008, CX 168 operated overnight MEL-HKG with a two-man crew. The AFTLS requires that three crew members must be boarded for this flight.
CPA FOPS management asked the CAD Duty Flight Ops Inspector for, and was granted, “dispensation” from the AFTLS so that the flight could operate with only two pilots.
When the HKAOA found out about this flight, the matter was raised at the monthly Joint Rostering Committee. There was some apparent confusion over just how the “dispensation” was granted so the HKAOA wrote to the CAD seeking clarification.
Correspondence with the CAD continued for several weeks, with the CAD eventually stating that DGCA had power under section 95 of the Air Navigation Order to “...exempt from any of the provisions of this Order...or any regulations made there under, any aircraft or persons or classes of aircraft or persons, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit.”
The HKAOA GC found this response entirely unsatisfactory, as did their legal advisers. If the DGCA does have such powers it means he could approve any request, for any variation, for any reason as long as he sees fit. It would undermine any or all of the requirements of the AFTLS, making the document meaningless in the protections it provides to crews and to the flying public.
The flight in question was of 8 hours and 38 minutes duration and undertaken through the crew members' WOCL.

[LapSap]

Thin end of the wedge.:yuk:

[LapSap]

Given that 168 departs at around 0100L in Feb and arrives after 0900 Mel time (0600 HKG time) is "B." not applicable i.e. 8 hours rather than 9 ?

[1200firm]

According to Vol 2 Part 2,Dispensations DO NOT APPLY for;-
-ANO's,
-Flight manuals,
-CDL,
-Training programmes,
-AFTLS(legal requirements),
-Limitations,
-Specialized means of Navigation,
-Aerodrome Operating Minima.

This time the colusion between CX & CAD has actually broken the letter of the law.

Something to bear in mind is that if that aircraft had had an accident or incident the insurance would not have paid,everyone would be trying to pin it on the crew for accepting an illegal duty,cx would have to foot the bill,& it would have come straight off the profit figures(but not the directors bonuses) & the employees would by default pick up the tab.

If the crew had refused to do the flight I am quite certain that they would have suffered disciplinary action.

[Loiter1]

Ring, ring...Hello crew control here. Hi this is Capt/FO Bloggs, I must have eatten something bad and I am no longer fit to fly.

Its as easy as that.:ok:

[BuzzBox]

This time the collusion between CX & CAD has actually broken the letter of the law.

Maybe, maybe not. An Operations Dispensation is issued by the company as a temporary exemption against an Operations Manual requirement. True, the company doesn't have the authority to grant a dispensation against the legal requirements of the AFTLS, but in this case the dispensation was granted by the HKCAD, not the company.

The AFTLS is an agreed scheme between the company and the HKCAD to satisfy the requirements of the AN(HK)O regarding fatigue. HKCAD approved the AFTLS, so they obviously believe they have the authority to grant a dispensation against that scheme. The purpose of the judicial review is to decide whether or not they had that authority.

[Fenwicksgirl]

True Buzzy.
What i think they are getting at is, can the CAD just willy nilly dispo any regulation, taking into account these regs are there for protection of fatigue etc etc. Years of study has gone into them, so can a CAD lad just say,"no probs Kim Jong Phil, make it happen, see ya at golf next week!"
Me thinks not!!!!

[EndResult]

8hrs and 38 mins is hardly arduous for a two man crew is it? It is less duty time than a EGCC/Teneriffe turn around, that is 2 sectors and still under the UK FTLs.

I appreciate you are talking adherence to agreements etc. but it shouldn't be too difficult to get an exemption to operate two crew, one sector for under nine hours block time, should it?

[ACMS]

End Result:--
1/ It was a back of the clock operation

2/ It was rostered for 3 crew, the 2 crew that did operate had an expectation of some rest on the flight which they obviously didn't get.

3/ The 2 operating crew did not get an opportunity to plan for this before duty.

A flight safety hazzard.

And they would have been the ones wearing any accident/incident. CX would wash their hands and say "you should not have accepted the duty if you weren't rested enough, we put safety first here at CX":=

[Mr. Bloggs]

Page 5 of Appendix A refers to the “Commander requesting the Dispensation”, why did the commander accept it?:confused:

It also states “the commander is responsible for the aircraft for the intended flight”. He will get the shaft if something happens? Why take that responsibility for CX. They will hang you like the Chief Pilot on the 777.:rolleyes:

Seems the commander had an opportunity not to do the flight but decided to do it.:ugh:

All they had to say was “I didn’t get any sleep in the afternoon and I am too tired to complete the duty with two crew”. Seems very simple to me but we don’t want to strand 300 passengers for CX mess ups now do we?:D

As for disciplinary action, well it’s that fear thingy again. The day we start bending the rules out of fear of disciplinary action is the day we should hang the aircraft keys on the door and leave. You cannot operate like that.:*

What happened to “I’m too tired”?:{

[EndResult]

"The next time it will be 10 hours, the time after that 11 hours" It can never be more that the CAD FTLs allow can it? Isn't the dispensation a dispensation between the company's filed FTLs and the CAD's maximum FTLs? I don't see it as the thin edge of a wedge, more a utilisation of the difference between what the company has agreed with it's pilots and what the CAD will allow, only to be used by the company in one-off and unforeseen circumstances, doesn't your association agreement with the company cover that?

ACMS - Call time 23.30? Be it two or three crew are you suggesting that they didn't meet for lunch and then retire until call time?

If you are going to attack the company over dispensations then I earnestly suggest you pick much stronger ground that this particular flight.

[Liam Gallagher]

I can't tell from your posting history if you are CX or not; suspect by your use of the Man /Teneriffe comparison the answer is not.

Assuming you are not; Firstly, are you saying the UK Charter World views on fatigue are the standard we should all aspire to? Secondly, in your operation to Teneriffe were the AFTLs you operated under written to cater for the fact that one or more pilots may be based on a different continent from the others?

If you are a Cx pilot.......WTF ?????

[ACMS]

If I'm rosterered to operate a flight where I'd expect to achieve about 2 and half to 3 hrs rest as opposed to a flight where I was rostered to achieve ZERO rest this would cause me to approach the pre-flt rest time a little differently.

I don't care who you are, operating at 0500 to 0600 body clock is not a good time regardless of how much pre-flt rest you got. The Approved FTL's are supposed to cater for that by providing a 3rd Pilot to give you RELIEF.

Otherwise why bother with 3 Pilot's ever? You can't be half pregnant can you.

End of story.

[Mullah Lite]

Could someone also perhaps enlighten me as to how the company could argue the breach in the time on task limit?

[controlledCHAOS]

Once again, a classic example of Cathay Pacific Airways manipulating the CAD. The Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department is not there to enforce safety. It is there to cater to Cathay Pacific's needs.

Quite pathetic.

Some of us need to call the local newspapers and get this shiet published!!

[Arfur Dent]

Oh I think the Press are watching already. Whatever happened to Reserve coverage??

[arse]

The flight could have been legally operated with two crew if they had made a “tech stop” somewhere along the way; for example in Darwin. Not very efficient, but legal! This has been used in the past when operating two man crew back from the Middle East i.e. Bahrain to Hong Kong, with a “tech stop” in Dubai to cover the AFTLs.

A pure guess, but perhaps the company offered this option OR, ... “if you like we have a dispensation for you to go direct? What would you like to do?”

Either way, good to see the AOA challenging this!

[Ballistic Amah]

Could someone also perhaps enlighten me as to how the company could argue the breach in the time on task limit?

Mullah,

Not very familiar with the specifics of this flight but it does not seem that the FDP was extended. Think the only (and very valid) argument here is regarding the late night period and thus the need for 3 man due to the flight being over 8 hours.

The time on task only applies "On Normal Operations when the Standard FDP is extended by the use of In-Flight Relief, and on Ultra
Long Range Operations".

[EndResult]

No , never CX but Middle and Far East long haul schedule.

I do appreciate the different points being made, if I was going into bat I would just prefer a stronger case, that's all. I was just passing comment as someone interested but as it is potentially a serious issue for you guys I'll butt out after this!

I haven't flown charter for a long time but used the MAN/TRF example as two four hour plus sectors, an hour turn-around and all at night, two nights in a row followed by a short Palma turn around! Two crew but I would have welcomed a bit of in flight relief, for sure.

In the days of the classic 747 I was a pax HKG/MEL and was fairly sure the crew was just one Capt, one FO and one FE, don't think you employed SOs in those days! I am now butting out!:ok:

[BuzzBox]

two four hour plus sectors, an hour turn-around and all at night, two nights in a row followed by a short Palma turn around!

We could fly a similar pattern with two crew under our AFTLS. In this case though, it was a single sector greater than 8 hours which extended through the late night period (0200-0559). According to the AFTLS, an additional crew member must be boarded and legstretch facilities provided. That requirement only applies to Two Crew Aircraft and there is no provision whatsoever within the AFTLS to vary it, hence the fuss!

[2longhk]

If mel hkg sector was 8hr 38min, its highly unlikely it could be done 2 sectors with only 10h15min available. Might work during the day but not overnight.

[bonajet]

but then you can use discretion, which is not available for the 8/9 hr rule.

[dogleg]

While I am sure that the AOA would love to win this particular ruling against the CAD, they are accomplishing a few things nonetheless...

-- The next time the CAD Duty Flight Ops Inspector gets a phone call from CX (or any other local airline for that matter) asking for a FTL "dispensation," I bet he'll think twice before approving it...

-- The filing attempts to fight the impunity that FOP Management have enjoyed recently...

-- It has attracted some positive media attention (last weeks SCMP). During the past, certain members of the CX propaganda machine used the media to make the pilots look like a bunch of overpaid, spoilt babies when they went to the media and quoted massively exaggerated pilot salaries (still not sure who's salary they were quoting -- maybe KJP's?)

Maybe I am being a little too optimistic, but I like the way the new AOA GC is moving...

[Cumguzzler]

-- The next time the CAD Duty Flight Ops Inspector gets a phone call from CX (or any other local airline for that matter) asking for a FTL "dispensation," I bet he'll think twice before approving it...

BINGO, we have a winner!!!!!!

[BlunderBus]

Hi there..I agree that 8 and a bit hours is 'hardly arduous' however this company rosters based and hk home crews multiple daily sectors..often 7 days straight on the absolute limit of duty/rest combination..split duties(11pm start and 4 hours overnight rest) with no allowances are the norm..along with 12-13 hour turn around days followed immediately by either an ultra long haul or melbourne 2 man crew....so your one flight taken out of context is really not that bad...but there is always more to it than a single flight duty.
the 744 crews operate hkg-lax and next day lax-hkg then next day hkg-lax and next day lax-hkg..try that one on for fatigue!nearly 60 hours in 7 days:ouch:

[Drunknsailor]

But you then get 8 days off after the LA W's......

[ACMS]

even worse try a JFK/YYZ W pattern, 64 hrs block in 8 days. AND a 12 hr time change to cope with. ( makes an LA or Europe W look easy )
It's not unusual to arr home from JFK on 831 at 2100 and leave the next arvo on 826 to YYZ at 1300.:=

Then those Aus commuters add another 9 hrs to that total. So that's about 73 hrs in 8 to 9 days with probably only 4 to 5 hrs sleep each day!!!!!!!

They are dangerous in the extreme and how CX can allow that to be rostered is amazing.

Drunknsailor:- yes you get 8 g's after a W, BUT in my experience (and in the experience of a lot of other guys that tried the W ) you need about 6 of those 8 to feel human again............So why bother?

[AnAmusedReader]

Was it a phone call?

The rumour going around is that a couple of CX managers and the CAD inspector were having a drink when the problem in MEL arose so the request was made verbally.

[B747-800]

Looks to me relative legal but on a very thin edge.

[ACMS]

"relative legal" ..........get that term from TV did we? Boston Legal perhaps?

[goathead]

This is brilliant...so brilliant HKCAD & CX so in bed togethor its a joke ...surely there are more examples of this floating around between CX AND HKCAD.One day it will come and bite them in the butt...its only a matter of time.

The HKCAD are another great example of a gloriously outdated white elephant of what you call a Govt Department (jobs for life no need to improve and get better) .When they stuff it up we should absolutely be the first to stand up and point it out.

In my opinion the HKCAD NEEDS AN ICAO AUDIT.Now that would be interesting wouldn't it ?