SCMP - Flight did not require a third pilot, aviation body tells court

[CRWCRW]

Flight did not require a third pilot, aviation body tells court



Joyce Man
Updated on Jun 16, 2009 A Cathay Pacific flight that a pilots' union has claimed was short-staffed was certified to fly with only two pilots and did not require a backup crew member, the director general of the Civil Aviation Department stated yesterday.

The director general, represented by Anthony Ismail, was responding to a summons at the Court of First Instance brought by the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers' Association.

The union accused the department of breaching aviation rules that determine the number of crew that should be on a flight.
One pilot rostered for the Melbourne to Hong Kong flight on February 27 last year fell ill, so two pilots made the flight instead of the three usually required. According to department policy, if two pilots are scheduled to fly for more than eight hours from 2am to 5.59am, according to the time of origin, the airline must provide a third crew member.
The department waived the requirement at Cathay's request. The trip lasted eight hours and 36 minutes, and the pilots were on duty for nine hours and 26 minutes, the court heard.

Mr Ismail argued that even if one pilot was suddenly incapacitated the flight would have no problems because the aircraft was designed to operate with two crew members. He also noted that a computer flight plan was to be used.

In Europe two pilots could fly for more than eight hours and there had never been a worldwide ban on two pilots operating flights for even 10 hours at night, he said.

The captain and the first officer who piloted the Cathay flight had rested for three and six days, respectively, before the flight, he said.

Mr Ismail argued that the rules were merely department policy, not legislation, and hence did not have the force of law.

Earlier, John Scott, representing the union, said that while the Cathay flight had arrived safely, it did so with a lower margin of safety. A third crew member could allow the others to rest and monitor takeoff and landing.
The union was seeking clarification on whether the department had acted improperly.


The union has noted that other crew were available but Cathay did not call them to replace the ill pilot.

[Arcla]

"Mr Ismail argued that the rules[flight time limitations] were merely department policy, not legislation, and hence did not have the force of law. "

I think this statement is outrageous. In other words - what we have written is subject to change without warning. We may change our policy when, where and how we choose without any oversight or review.

[Frogman1484]

Thats cool , so from now on I do not need to follow FTL's I can do what I want as it is not law and only departmental policy:ok:

[rick.shaw]

Typical CAD arrogance. Goes hand in hand with the Company's....

[ALPHA FLOOR]

I think that our own Kevin Quinn wrote that script for the CAD with his pen given him from NR.

AFL

[Ex Cathedra]

Typical CAD arrogance. Goes hand in hand with the Company's....


Hand in hand, in bed and all over the kitchen floor.

At a time when civil aviation authorities in many developed countries are taking an inquisitive look at flight time limitations and the conscequences of fatigue on safety, it's refreshing to see that the HKCAD and their good buddies CX are kickin' it old school...

:hmm:

[Near Miss]

Mr Ismail argued that even if one pilot was suddenly incapacitated the flight would have no problems because the aircraft was designed to operate with two crew members.

Err leaves MEL with two crew members, then one becomes suddenly incapacitated, doesn't that leave one crew member to operate an aircraft designed for two??? Or do I need to go and get my CAD calculator? :confused:

So just how far will they adjust their "policy" when asked? Perhaps two crew back from LHR? YVR? JFK??? :mad:

[broadband circuit]

The director general, represented by Anthony Ismail, was responding to a summons at the Court of First Instance brought by the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers' Association.

So, is this Mr Ismail a flight ops staff member of CAD, or the retained solicitor/barrister?

[Sleeve_of_Wizard]

Maybe the Captain should have nipped the flight in the bud

[I'mbatman]

I agree.....why did they even launch?

[hongkongfooey]

Ex Cathedra, it worked in WW2 so why change it :ugh:

[8driver]

Mr Ismail argued that even if one pilot was suddenly incapacitated the flight would have no problems because the aircraft was designed to operate with two crew members. He also noted that a computer flight plan was to be used.

Which ignores the fact that the third pilot was there based on FTLs not aircraft certification. Based on this logic we could fly just about anywhere with two pilot crews once all the classics have been retired and ignore length of duty day. I love the part about the CFP. What has that got to do with anything? If one of the other pilots became incapacitated was the CFP going to assume PM duties?

[411A]

The department waived the requirement at Cathay's request.

It would appear that from the above statement that dispensation was requested beforehand.
In this particular case it would appear that this was a one-off scenario, so quite frankly I fail to see the problem.:rolleyes:
The question then remains...is this done in other countries and with their respective regulatory authorities (one-off)?

Yup, been known to happen, a time or three.

NB>
If involved in this sort of scenario, the Commander had better be sure he /she has written authorization...IE: CYA.

AOA...again.
At least...peanuts were not involved.
Again.:rolleyes::}

[BusyB]

411A

If it was as simple as you suggest it wouldn't have gone to court:ok:

[411A]

If it was as simple as you suggest it wouldn't have gone to court



And, the court turned it aside, finding otherwise.
(Apparently)

Case closed.:}

ROFL

[CokeZero]

A pilot on a Continental Airlines plane died in mid-flight, leaving two co-pilots to land the plane safely in New York.

Continental flight 61 from Brussels landed at Newark Liberty International Airport, according to Continental's website.

Passengers weren't told of the pilot's death in flight. During the flight, an announcement was made asking if any doctors were aboard and several passengers approached the cockpit.

"The captain of Continental flight 61, which was en route from Brussels to Newark, died in flight, apparently of natural causes," Continental said in a statement.

"The crew on this flight included an additional relief pilot who took the place of the deceased pilot. The flight continued safely with two pilots at the controls," it said.

The plane was a Boeing 777 with 247 passengers on board. As a precaution, the airport's emergency crews were sent to meet the plane.

The pilot, 60, was based in Newark and had worked for Continental for 32 years, the airline said. Continental has one flight daily between Brussels and Newark.

In 2007, another Continental pilot died at the controls after becoming ill during a flight from Houston to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. It landed safely with a co-pilot at the controls after being diverted to McAllen-Miller International Airport.

- Reuters

[TheHKAOA]

And, the court turned it aside, finding otherwise.
(Apparently)



Apparently not. The judge has gone away to consider and will give his findings in due course.

But what is apparently true is that the CAD FOI who [authorised the flight and who was in court was wearing a CX badge on his suit lapel.

[anthraCX]

CokeZero, hopefully the judge will make the same link. If pilots are the flight safety goalkeepers and you lose one through incapacitation, do you really want your other one to be so knackered he can barely keep his eyes open?
FTLs are there to increase the safety margin and if you're going to have them, you also need independent, legally responsible oversight.
Yes the flight may have been legal in Europe, but it would also have been legal in Africa. Who's rules are we following, or are we setting out the rules to cover our own set of circumstances here in CX, based in Hong Kong? I would suggest that if we have rules governing our operations here then we need to stick to them, and not have the option to telephone our mate at the regulators to rubber stamp any changes when the rules seem inconvenient

[cxorcist]

Right on, Anthracx. All this about other places, other times are irrelevant. We have flight time limitations in HKG made by the CAD. If they are just going to waive them because they are commercially inconvenient, why have them in the first place? Over 8 hours in the seat with no rest is way too much, especially when you start in the middle of the night. The rule is there for a reason, and I don't think it is so it can be waived when there is a crewing problem.

[Sqwak7700]

"The captain of Continental flight 61, which was en route from Brussels to Newark, died in flight, apparently of natural causes," Continental said in a statement.

Now that is sad!

You've all pondered, how you would like to go. At home in bed with your family, or eating a big steak dinner, or maybe even having sex in Thailand.

Can you imagine if your last moments of your life are spent on the cockpit floor of a Cathay wide-body, staring at two teenage Chinese cabin crew trying to figure out the english phrase for "gweylo on floor not breathing", speaking through a swine-flu mask with a medlink doctor from central Texas that doesn't speak a word of Ching-lish?

Really puts into perspective this whole age 65 thing... :hmm: Somethings are just not worth it. :D

[Sleeve_of_Wizard]

So imagine turning up for work at midnight, finding out you have no required third crew member, and that CX has just got an approval to operate the flight. As the Captain, wouldn't you just refuse on the grounds of the stupidity of the Approval?? Or does the Dispensation negate the captain's judgement?
Considering he's 99% either based in HK or Australia ( they don't sensibly roster to normal body clocks), he probably didnt sleep for the whole day, and was shagged ( TIRED, FATIGUED ) anyway. In my Opinion, he should have just refused.

[mephisto88]

Or does the Dispensation negate the captain's judgement?


In words of one syllable - NO!

Just because a circumstance is presented to you, that you are told is now legal because of "blah blah whatever...", there is still the onus on the skipper to ensure that the proposed course of action is also prudent.

I'm sure we all know, just because something is legal, doesn't necessarily make it sensible and prudent. Amongst other things, we are also paid to exercise good judgement, so that we can avoid, where possible, having to use our skills to dig ourselves out of holes later, that we wish we hadn't gotten ourselves into, either willingly or through coercion.

Standing up and defending your position is however another question.
Some do it without batting an eyelid, some others are more easily led.
Remember, our passengers pay to get there safely.
If they are on time, well thats just an added bonus.:ok:

[411A]

Over 8 hours in the seat with no rest is way too much...

Keep on dreaming...:rolleyes:

Considering he's 99% either based in HK or Australia ( they don't sensibly roster to normal body clocks), he probably didnt sleep for the whole day, and was shagged anyway. In my Opinion, he should have just refused.

Shagged anyway?:rolleyes:
Does NOT belong at the pointy end, considering proper rest was originally scheduled.
HOTAC is designed for rest...not shagging until your eyes are crossed.
Contrary to popular opinion.

A wake up call is needed for such crew that think they can get away with just...any old ideas.
Shape up...or ship out.
I'm sure the airline won't care.

[kmagyoyo]

If you substitute the word 'fatigued' for 'Shagged' the previous post might make sense to you 411A, bit of Aussie slang going around.

[BuzzBox]

A problem with FTLs is that they assume human beings are machines that can be switched OFF and ON as required during rostered rest periods. That's obviously not the case and I personally find it very difficult to get enough rest during the day before an overnight flight. Circadian rhythms make it difficult for many pilots to sleep properly during the day; at home there's the pressure of family life, while down route we have the problem of cheap, noisy crew hotels. Complaints to management don't get very far.

That said, I don't have a problem with the regulator granting temporary variations, provided suitable safeguards are in place (eg adequate notice to the crew, etc). I do find some of the provisions of the FTLs a bit ludicrous, however. An overnight flight with one sector from MEL-HKG requires 3 crew, but an overnight pattern with two sectors from HKG-DPS vv and a longer duty period doesn't. Which one is more fatiguing?

[crewsunite]

Picture this:

The F/O is HK based did not get a decent sleep for the last two nights and is completely stressed out. (Ie Divorce or what ever)

They have a technical problem in route (What ever) which stresses an elder CMD out, to the extent that he passes away as did a continental CMD recently.

Now you have a possibly low time experienced and completely fatigued / stressed out F/O in charge of a plane with a technical problem.

Lets hope he has plenty of fuel or the weather is gin clear in HK.

(Yes I know its silly example)

What I'm trying to say is. We should be fully rested & crewed not only for normal run of the mill days but rather for days when things go wrong. This is when our grey matter is really required & why passengers on CX pay top dollar for tickets. If we are not going to do this then we are playing with fire.

We also fly airbus through the ITCZ like AF447 so lets have some Res man power under our belts.

If there were pilots in Aussie able to fly on that said day then the CAD should have insisted on that rather than issue a Dispensation.

Thus I think it is worthy of an appeal.

[CokeZero]

FTL's are a limit and if we are being rostered flying to the limit of these then we have serious problems.

Do we fly our aircraft at 1 degree less than Max EGT for T/O constantly?
Do we fly at MMO constantly?

Doing this degrades the performance of not only the aircraft but our ability to fix a problem if something goes wrong.

SO Why roster to the max of the FTL's?

[Baywatcher]

Because they can and will continue to!

[gliderboy]

Why Roster to the Max of the FTL's?

Mate in HKG (and only HKG I might add), the CAD (and therefore KA and CX) deem the CAD document to be a "working document!" That means you can (and should) roster to these limits. No buffering need be applied.

I kid you not....from the FTL manager in KA....so don't hold your breath for any common sense.

What I love is that the very people who decide on the interpretations are the very people who don't have to go out and "do" the flight.

Gliderboy :(

[arse]

Pilots see FTL as limits.

Managers see FTL as targets.

[Thunderbird4]

The F/O is HK based did not get a decent sleep for the last two nights and is completely stressed out. (Ie Divorce or what ever)

They have a technical problem in route (What ever) which stresses an elder CMD out, to the extent that he passes away as did a continental CMD recently.

Now you have a possibly low time experienced and completely fatigued / stressed out F/O in charge of a plane with a technical problem.

Lets hope he has plenty of fuel or the weather is gin clear in HK.

crewsunite, you forgot the one important detail that makes such a flight a non event. The all important computer flight plan!! With such a document you can show up for work in any state and the flight will proceed as predicted according to the plan. Here says the CAD. :ugh:

[Humber10]

Does that mean we should use our sick days to the limit as well? Like CC always say "it's legal"! :}

[rick.shaw]

Humber. What a grand idea. I feel some PRA's coming on already! Cough, cough......

[CokeZero]

Hey Humber10

i always use my sidestick to the limit.

Back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. And then we land.... he he he

[Humber10]

me too, and then I come up to the cockpit....:}

[Lowkoon]

If you waive your rights to the protection of FTL's by accepting the dispensation, where do you stand of you have a fatigue related incident? My understanding is that you cant plead 'fatigue' as a contributing factor, as you chose to accept all responsibility for fatigue issues, and to 'dispense' with any protection that the so called regs afford you? (Yes I use the term protection loosely). Would be nice to have some legal advice on this, just not from a swires/cx sponsored court system.

TheHKAOA, the cx lapel badge helped identify who to give the 'lai see' to.

[hongkongpilot]

Recently, one MEL flight was operated by 2 pilots but stopped at MNL for crew change. They must forget to ask CAD for dispensation.:confused:

[mcdude]

From RTHK newsearlier today;

"The Cathay Pacific pilots' union has lost a legal challenge against a decision by the Civil Aviation Department to let a long-haul flight go ahead, despite being one pilot short of what safety regulations required. The union argued that the department did not have the power to make the decision, or alternatively, its decision was irrational. But in dismissing the union's case, the judge ruled that the department did have the power to permit one-off variations of the requirement for a three-man crew"

win some, lose some..?

[goathead]

Just proves that the HKCAD are a completely inept , behind the times and totally useless governmental organization.They are the backstop net, and yet they behave like this, AND get away with it .How much does the safety of 250+ pax cost ?.
AOA don't waist your time fighting this one ......

[ALPHA FLOOR]

Does this mean that KJP gets his office back?

CX's hefty tax payment to the HKSAR last year certainly seems to have been rewarded.

The words of our masters "Cathay Pacific rewards loyalty with loyalty".

AFL

[CRWCRW]

Department cleared over two-pilot flight



Peter Brieger
Updated on Jul 07, 2009 The Civil Aviation Department did not break its own rules when it allowed Cathay Pacific to fly a plane between Hong Kong and Melbourne with only two pilots, a Court of First Instance judge ruled yesterday.
In a written ruling, Mr Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung said the aviation regulator had the right to let Cathay run the nine-hour flight without a third pilot on February 27 last year.
Nothing in international aviation rules barred such a move, he added, dismissing an application for judicial review filed by the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association.
The pilots' union argued that the aviation regulator had jeopardised passenger safety and said it was worried the one-time event could become standard practice.
One pilot rostered for the flight on February 27 last year fell ill, so two pilots made the flight instead of the three usually required. The department waived the requirement at Cathay's request. The trip lasted eight hours and 36 minutes. The captain and the first officer had rested for three and six days, respectively.
Under department policy, if two pilots are scheduled to fly for more than eight hours from 2am to 5.59am, according to the time of origin, there must be a third crew member. In Europe, two pilots can fly for more than eight hours and there has never been a worldwide ban on two pilots operating flights for even 10 hours at night.

[Wobblywonker]

How utterly ridiculous to put safety ahead of commercial decisions.

The commander of the flight should be severly disciplined for acceting the flight knowing that it will compromise the safety of all his passengers and fellow crew members.

He or she is obviously incapable of making safe command decisions.

The buck stops with him.

[404 Titan]

Wobblywonker

If you knew the Captain concerned and the circumstances surrounding the flight, you wouldn’t be making that hugely inaccurate statement.

[Wobblywonker]

404T

My apologies, I perhaps was under the impression that the Commander always had the last say.

I suppose, in CX, the Commander does not. I apologies for my statement :ok:

[Dragon69]

Wobblywonker,

Bearing in mind that we now have some new patterns on the Airbus such as HKG-CGK-HKG and DXB-BOM-HKG, two sectors, two crew, with a total duty time of 12hrs, that starts at 0100 and which is completely within FTLMs, and not to mention the occasional two crew HKG-DXB in the winter that have a longer flying time than MEL-HKG, the captain would have been in a difficult position to refuse the flight.

[broadband circuit]

In Europe, two pilots can fly for more than eight hours and there has never been a worldwide ban on two pilots operating flights for even 10 hours at night.

Yes true, but how about you publish all of the facts, such as the time limitation depends on the starting time, and the fact that these FTLS "in Europe" provide protection in other areas where ours don't, such as down route recovery periods and recovery at home port.

[Striker58]

Wobblywonker.

I guess one day you will become a Cathay commander but you are obviously not there just yet. :confused:

[Guava Tree]

Paper Tigers class 1 : Captains down the route. They will be punished for making "stupid decisions".
Paper Tiger class 2 : Hong Kong CAD

[oceancrosser]

Any verdict yet in this matter?

[Just an other number]

The full decision is here -Judgment (http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=66537&currpage=T)

And I'm with 404 Titan on the integrity of the Captain.

[Wobblywonker]

dragon69

so what are you sayin?? the Capt accepted a flight that was not safe??

Was the flight safe or was'nt it?

If it was then why the fuss, if it was'nt then why did the Capt accept it?

Surely, if he had the final say, he should have exercised his discretion accodingly.

Perhaps he did evaluate the situation and considered it safe, so now why cry wolf over safety?

If he thouht it unsafe and yet felt compelled to operate, then he should not be in command of any aircraft

Pretty clear cut situation really.

Integrity or lack thereof does not even come into it :ugh:

[Dragon69]

Wobblywonker,

Actually it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

For one thing the principle issue in this lawsuit was whether the CAD had the right to authorize a flight outside the FTLMs, regardless whether the flight was safe or not. It would be sort of like calling Airbus where the janitor answers the call, and asking him if it would be okay to operate the airplane this one time at FL 450, and him having 30sec to think about it, and approving it based on absolutely nothing, which is exactly what happened with CAD, and which is the real safety concern.

Yes the airplane can fly at FL450 above its max altitude from point A to point B, but what if it encounters severe turbulence, or loses an engine, or has a rapid depres, have all of these factors been taken into account before the authorization????

The FTLM is a document based on industry standard guidelines, which has taken years to put together by various well informed, and well educated organizations. To quote the FTLM " The provisions set out in this scheme are therefore concerned solely with the prevention of fatigue and the maintenance of vigilance in flight. They are not intended to take account of commercial circumstances, social considerations and lifestyle."

So what sort of education and research has this CAD schmuck done on fatigue to make a quick decision and allow an airplane to operated outside the scope of the FTLM???

Was the flight safe or was'nt it?

Come on, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the scenario isn't as black and white as safe or unsafe. It's not exactly as if he was attempting to take off with one engine missing. No Captain would accept a flight if it is clearly unsafe.

Going back to my previous post, there are some patterns that are extremely fatiguing, but that doesn't necessarily make them unsafe right from the start. However, it is a dynamic environment, and a combination of situations that are outside your control ie: weather, system failure, etc, could potentially make them unsafe if you are unable to cope with them properly because of fatigue.

Flying is inherently risky. Every take off is potentially unsafe if an engine explodes at the worst possible moment. Following your logic we should just forget flying!!! :ugh::ugh:

The name of the game in this profession is to minimize the threats and risks. Cathay IMO is doing just the opposite with these ridiculous patterns.

[Wobblywonker]

dragon69

I think we're in agreement on most points of your last post.

The principle issue is indeed wheter the CAD had the authority of approve the flight outside the FTLM. The safe conduct of the flight was never in doubt by either the Capt, the Company, or the CAD. The crew were well rested, and there would have been at least 8 airports within a hour or three of each other enroute with company support should a diversion be required for any reason. All things considered, safety was NOT an issue.

I however, disagree with your analogy of the janitor and the Airbus. To equate an experienced FOI with a janitor is a disservice. Bear in mind, on any given day, we all operate to rules and regulations approved by this FOI and his team so to now comapre his decisions to that of a janitor in Airbus, while giving impact to your views, is contentious at best and smacks of selective bias.

The FTLM is indeed a document based on years of experience and industry best practices but here again your arguments seems selective. By your own admission, there are patterns that are extremely fatiguing, and yet we choose to pick on this one off flight rather than those operated on a daily scheduled basis to drive home the safety argument. I cannot comprehend why this particular flight should be more an issue than those other ones.

Last but not least, back to the principle issue, does the CAD have the right to approve a one off against the FTLM? This is a legal argument. Safety does not come into it. The Capt accepted the flight based on his years of experience and conducted it to the highest standards given the circumstances. Period.

From a legal argument perspective, in all jurisdictions, rules and regulations are enacted to constrain undesirable behaviours. There is clear purpose and a method to this apparent madness that allow the world, as we know it, to function unhindered. Accordingly, when a situation arises that does not contradict the purpose, deviations are permissible. The test of reasonableness is applied as it was in this case.

As fellow professionals in aviation, we should all resist the temptation to use the safety argument to futher agends that have little or no bearing on the principle issues at hand. If we do this often enough, it will loose its meaning and may well come back to bite us in the end (no pun intended) :}

[SMOC]

I wonder if when CX gives it's AOC and accompanying documents to foreign states for approval does it have in the small print "by the way with a phone call to the HK CAD we can waive our FTLs" :=

If the HK government / CAD / CX don't care about the breach, maybe some foreign states might care!

[moon11]

Dear all,
Could someone send me a link or information regarding HKG FTLM,please?
Many thanks,
moon11

[Thunderbird4]

There is this handy web site called google, you might have heard of it???

From there you can type in Hong Kong CAD and follow the links.... or search the site.
:ugh:

[moon11]

Thanks for your brilliant advice, thunderbird!
I already did that and only was able to find AN(HK) Order 1995 and on my surprise flight time limit was only on less then a page:




Flight times—responsibilities of flight crew
56. A person shall not act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in Hong Kong if at the beginning of the flight the aggregate of all his previous flight times:—
(a) during the period of 28 consecutive days expiring at the end of the day on which the flight begins exceeds 100 hours; or

(b) during the period of 12 months expiring at the end of the previous month exceeds 900 hours.

Provided that this Article shall not apply to a flight made—
(i) in an aircraft of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed 1,600 kg and which is not flying for the purposes of public transport or aerial work; or

(ii) in an aircraft not flying for the purpose of public transport nor operated by an air transport undertaking, if at the time when the flight begins the aggregate of all the flight times of the aforesaid person since he was last medically examined and found fit by a person approved by the Governor for the purpose of Article 20(7) does not exceed 25 hours.

[freightdog188]

Flight Time Limitation Scheme CAD site:hk


try feeding that into google... :ok:
it's all about the right words

[mr Q]

If a third pilot was available (earlier in the thread it was stated one was available) why was he/she not asked to operate the flight before seeking the dispensation from CAD ??
testing the waters maybe for future reference>??

[mr Q]

" This brings me to a side issue, namely, the clarifications or explanations given by Captain Davis and the Director-General regarding the source of their power to make the above decision. It cannot be denied that rather confusing answers were given at various times to justify the decision. This has generated some debate at the hearing regarding whether the Director-General can go back on his reasons for the decision."( Legal Ruling)
seems like the CAD made a decision without knowing at the time the source of their discretion

[moon11]

Many thanks freightdog,that was exactly what I needed:ok:

I strongly recommend to every pilot in Hong Kong to reed it (CAD371)

Take care,folks:)

[Mr. Bloggs]

No need to read CAD 371 as CX nor the CAD adhere to it. It is open for interpretation by Crew Control, Scheduling and the General Manager Aircrew……..but I must say it is entertaining when one knows of all the violations that are occurring.:= I stopped reading after section 3.:*

[moon11]

"No need to read CAD 371"

I smell a ROSTERING rat here....very,very fearful of jail.....

moon

[Obama57]

A flight that does not transit 6 times zones is considered a local flight and can exceed 8 hours with two pilots, or so I was informed by CC on a long ago JFK-ANC freighter flight. All of the long haul/ULH regulations do not apply on north-south marathons then? Block to block was 8+15 on the CFP and we took off around midnight as I recall. It was not great fun blasting across non-radar Canada with over an hour between some positon reports. I don't remember much of that flight but I'm sure I was awake for most of it.

[buggaluggs]

Yes but as 'we' interpret it, it was 'legal' ........ and after all, that is the primary consideration! :ugh: