Be careful out there

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Incident: Canada A320 at San Francisco on Jul 7th 2017, lined up with taxiway for landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=4ab79f58&opt=0)

Reading the above one avherald, I was struck with the potential for a similar event to be repeated here. See the NTSB investigator's comments on the NOTAM package and fatigue.


.

[777boyo]

If I read the reports observation about the fatigue factor correctly, it notes that the while the crew were compliant with Canadian FTL's, they would not have been compliant with the FAR's.
Does anyone know whether compliance with UAE GCAA FTL's (or EASA FTL's for that matter) also ensures compliance with FAR FTL's?
Just curious, thinking about possible crew liability in a litigious area such as the US.
7B

[Mr Angry from Purley]

777
I can only comment on EASA FTL and state that reporting at certain times in the afternoon the limits are more restrictive than the old UK CAP371 which many a Pilot will tell you was "safe"
This is because you'll be landing in the WOCL - This suggests to me (and many a pilot will tell me i'm talking rubbish) that EASA applied some science when coming up with their numbers.
UAE GCAA or EASA FTL are not compliant with FAR FTL's - you might find that FAR are more flexible sorry...

[Smoke mountain]

Same
https://onemileatatime.com/air-arabia-pilot-takeoff-mistake/