Alan's next war. Approaching a terminal near you.
One, the 155 planning divisor is the companies (company's) for planning the numbers of pilots they should have.
To put it another way. How many pilots do we need to do a 155 hour divisor with the planned flying? If the flying increases the pilots just work harder.
Last edited by C441; 24th Feb 2017 at 05:19.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suspect CASA only cares about the rest meeting the CAO requirements. If the argument is about an industrial issue that is over and above the CAO requirement then why would CASA care? CASA enforces the regs not the EBA. I don't know if the 787 rest is CAO compliant though? Assuming that it is.
...and that is my point. Do CASA believe the crew rest is adequate for a 19+ hour tour-of-duty? At the moment that planned ToD would not be allowable so the acceptability of the crew rest must be part of CASA approving the revised CAO's allowing extended tours-of-duty.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: AUS
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me for being slow but why is the planned TOD not allowable? Not allowed by who? I thought under EX60/14 CASA allowed us to go to 20?
The 787 has been on the order books for years and everyone has known it can fly that far, yet CASA have not introduced any revised rules about new rest standards to my knowledge.
The 787 has been on the order books for years and everyone has known it can fly that far, yet CASA have not introduced any revised rules about new rest standards to my knowledge.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Turner2
Forgive me for being slow but why is the planned TOD not allowable? Not allowed by who? I thought under EX60/14 CASA allowed us to go to 20?
The 787 transcends these previous types commercial limitations. In addition, will have to at least consider recent ICAO FRMS guidelines published in 2012 that seem to at least have some evidence based component, rather than simply pencilling in a larger number as new type range increased.
How many current pre-planned patterns on existing types have a 19 hour TOD? Because that is likely to be the norm form many crew on the 787, will CASA be justified in simply adding 787 to the next instrument?
Last edited by CurtainTwitcher; 24th Feb 2017 at 05:16.
From a rest/risk perspective, let's not forget the other airlines also have 2 capts and 2 fo's who are current....Qantas will have only 2 current/qualified pilots who can land, and two SO's who while no doubt could get the job done if need be, will have spent all their time in the seat above FL200. With TOD's this long, surely adequate rest is something that must be considered. Rest doesn't necessarily mean sleeping either.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So has casa approved per lhr ops or have QF just announced without it?
Whereas, the search link substituting 747 finds the EX60/14 instrument successfully. Draw tour your own conclusions.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From todays West Australian Battle on over airport alternative
It would seem that the crew duty time + diversion (67nm) & subsequent required extension (no obvious pressure to extend) is right on the margin of the anticipated CASA Flight & Duty time exception.
h/t to Capt Bloogs, on the other thread post #39 Cunderdin Ticks All YPPH alternate boxes
Great Circle Mapper
“For us, Cunderdin makes far more sense because it’s so close to Perth and gives us the opportunity of returning to Perth before our crew are over their duty time hours and that is critical.”
h/t to Capt Bloogs, on the other thread post #39 Cunderdin Ticks All YPPH alternate boxes
Great Circle Mapper
