So you need a new fleet Leigh?
I have seen a study that showed medical diversion increased significantly when the sector length exceeded 13hrs. Airlines spend a lot of money on in-flight medical support to help prevent this where safe to do so. Being crammed in a can ain't a healthy way to live life.
The "study" to which you refer was in advance of the inaugural Perth London flight, during which data would be collected from "selected passengers".
As has been alluded to before, this was a joint study with the support of AIPA.
The data collection was completed recently and is now being analysed. Whilst the hope is it will provide some significant recommendations useful to Sunrise planning, it was not exclusively designed with that in mind. Hopefully it will provide a range of recommendations for all of our ULR operations - including (among other things) appropriate crew complements for operations in excess of 20 hours…..
I cannot believe the whining on here!
As I’ve stated repeatedly, I knew people who flew the original longest sector on the A340... The ones I knew loved it. Has anyone spoken to the current SQ drivers of EWR? No not 21/23 hours but very close.
Yet again Aussies wanting to recreate the wheel.
22 hours each way... 44 hours return... 2 trips a month...
Ahhhhh toooooooo much time at home will be the issue?
Seriously WTF!
As I’ve stated repeatedly, I knew people who flew the original longest sector on the A340... The ones I knew loved it. Has anyone spoken to the current SQ drivers of EWR? No not 21/23 hours but very close.
Yet again Aussies wanting to recreate the wheel.
22 hours each way... 44 hours return... 2 trips a month...
Ahhhhh toooooooo much time at home will be the issue?
Seriously WTF!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: adelaide
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot believe the whining on here!
As I’ve stated repeatedly, I knew people who flew the original longest sector on the A340... The ones I knew loved it. Has anyone spoken to the current SQ drivers of EWR? No not 21/23 hours but very close.
Yet again Aussies wanting to recreate the wheel.
22 hours each way... 44 hours return... 2 trips a month...
Ahhhhh toooooooo much time at home will be the issue?
Seriously WTF!
As I’ve stated repeatedly, I knew people who flew the original longest sector on the A340... The ones I knew loved it. Has anyone spoken to the current SQ drivers of EWR? No not 21/23 hours but very close.
Yet again Aussies wanting to recreate the wheel.
22 hours each way... 44 hours return... 2 trips a month...
Ahhhhh toooooooo much time at home will be the issue?
Seriously WTF!
Thats 144 hours hours for 3 trips in 8 weeks. With divisors currently sitting around 140 - 150 hours, I would be quite happy with 3 trips every 8 weeks!
You don’t get paid for the duty period only scheduled block time.
Yep, I agree with Global Aviator. I’m glad some of the whingers on here don’t run the airline. I’d much rather see new aircraft bought to open up new and exclusive routes rather than sit back and watch other carriers do it so we can study them for a few years to achieve a study the Rated De would find satisfactory.
As C441 posted above and I have previously, there already is a study being conducted on our ULR pilots by experts with input from both Qantas and AIPA.
For people who go on and on about wanting a new fleet you are pretty quick to try and rubbish a plan for where such a fleet would be used.
As C441 posted above and I have previously, there already is a study being conducted on our ULR pilots by experts with input from both Qantas and AIPA.
For people who go on and on about wanting a new fleet you are pretty quick to try and rubbish a plan for where such a fleet would be used.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, I agree with Global Aviator. I’m glad some of the whingers on here don’t run the airline. I’d much rather see new aircraft bought to open up new and exclusive routes rather than sit back and watch other carriers do it so we can study them for a few years to achieve a study the Rated De would find satisfactory.
As C441 posted above and I have previously, there already is a study being conducted on our ULR pilots by experts with input from both Qantas and AIPA.
For people who go on and on about wanting a new fleet you are pretty quick to try and rubbish a plan for where such a fleet would be used.
As C441 posted above and I have previously, there already is a study being conducted on our ULR pilots by experts with input from both Qantas and AIPA.
For people who go on and on about wanting a new fleet you are pretty quick to try and rubbish a plan for where such a fleet would be used.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the 'study' to which Maggie Island and FightDeck refer is in fact a Monash university study conducted primarily on MEL-LAX-MEL and PER-LHR-PER flights initially amongst A380 and 787 Captains and F/O's and then amongst S/O's as well, collecting data from a few days before departure through to 3 or 4 days after return to their base. The data collected included sleep diary info, psychomotor testing at various stages of the duty and acti-graph data.
As has been alluded to before, this was a joint study with the support of AIPA.
The data collection was completed recently and is now being analysed. Whilst the hope is it will provide some significant recommendations useful to Sunrise planning, it was not exclusively designed with that in mind. Hopefully it will provide a range of recommendations for all of our ULR operations - including (among other things) appropriate crew complements for operations in excess of 20 hours…..
As has been alluded to before, this was a joint study with the support of AIPA.
The data collection was completed recently and is now being analysed. Whilst the hope is it will provide some significant recommendations useful to Sunrise planning, it was not exclusively designed with that in mind. Hopefully it will provide a range of recommendations for all of our ULR operations - including (among other things) appropriate crew complements for operations in excess of 20 hours…..
How many observations?
Of what duration is the longitudinal study?
Does AIPA have a statistician?
The problem obvious to anyone familiar with statistical modelling, is any attempt to model/extrapolate from a short duration small sample size "study" is that any result has very limited inference.
Incorrectly specifying the representative sample, too few people in the sample, too few observations for too short a period means the "results" have little application other than as a consulting project.
If health outcomes are what is being "modelled" then this sort of falls well short of benchmark statistical models. Health effects on crew are not linear.
Meaningful inferences are difficult to draw with a limited sample size, few observations and only making observations on a short term basis.
As fatigue is cumulative this "research" ignores the benefit of long term repeated observation.
It looks far more like a consulting project, rather than solid research design.
If the airline and "representatives" really want more solid data, the study would be involve far more observations. Simply put the health outcomes need monitoring for an extended period.
Out of interest, how many pilots and cabin crew does Qantas have Long term sick?
What are the most common diseases?
If the company and representatives really desire a robust study, they could study the long term health outcomes for their crew, versus those of the general population.
With a far larger sample size, years of data, and a general population with which to compare, statistical inferences would actually mean something.
This data exists in all airlines at present, for pilots and cabin crew, but perhaps health outcomes for those involved are not really the focus.
Ignoring the impact long term of cumulative fatigue, which according to the relevant literature is very important when considering long term health, the study itself (given its very short duration) ignores perhaps the most important correlated risk factor for health outcomes: deprivation of quality sleep for extended periods.
Qantas needed a new fleet a long time ago.
Management have no trouble committing billions to JQ fleet renewal, why all the fuss for the parent?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree entirely.
Also the SIN A350 crews that currently fly this sector do very few of them. Some don’t do any.
They have lots of short range destinations in Asia such as KUL,BKK,HND,HKG and Jakarta. Mumbai in India.
Lots to Australia PER,ADL,MEL,BNE and NZ AKL CHC.
Shorter stuff to Europe Like Moscow and A bit more to Spain BCN, Rome, AMS
So it’s nothing like doing exclusively 23 hours back of the clock 12 time zones out with project all night in Qantas.
Ultra range flights(Shorter than Sunrise) are only around 1/20th of Singapores route structure as opposed to 100% for QF.
Not anti the aircraft however what Qantas want to do will be hard flying on the body. If you think 23 hour work days leaving at night is easy then your viewpoint disagrees with the science otherwise it would be legal. Regardless No one has flown it so anyone that says it’s easy is full of S$&*.
If your potentially flying this kind of operation for many years consecutively, potentially to 65 and beyond it needs to be safe and sustainable. I believe CASA are of the viewpoint it’s not safe as other countries don’t allow it. They also won’t allow common endorsements with A330 or 787 so you won’t be able to mix the flying.
Also the SIN A350 crews that currently fly this sector do very few of them. Some don’t do any.
They have lots of short range destinations in Asia such as KUL,BKK,HND,HKG and Jakarta. Mumbai in India.
Lots to Australia PER,ADL,MEL,BNE and NZ AKL CHC.
Shorter stuff to Europe Like Moscow and A bit more to Spain BCN, Rome, AMS
So it’s nothing like doing exclusively 23 hours back of the clock 12 time zones out with project all night in Qantas.
Ultra range flights(Shorter than Sunrise) are only around 1/20th of Singapores route structure as opposed to 100% for QF.
Not anti the aircraft however what Qantas want to do will be hard flying on the body. If you think 23 hour work days leaving at night is easy then your viewpoint disagrees with the science otherwise it would be legal. Regardless No one has flown it so anyone that says it’s easy is full of S$&*.
If your potentially flying this kind of operation for many years consecutively, potentially to 65 and beyond it needs to be safe and sustainable. I believe CASA are of the viewpoint it’s not safe as other countries don’t allow it. They also won’t allow common endorsements with A330 or 787 so you won’t be able to mix the flying.
Ok go back to my other point, as yes it’s a different world now.
The original longest route by SQ on the A340, a lot of expat guys in the grand days.
Now ask them if they liked it, I think and I maybe wrong but they were pretty much exclusively on that route. The biggest issue was landing recency.
If you mix in other flying then my theory of minimal work does not add up.
However in saying that even with FRMS, new studies, blah blah blah, your FDP will no doubt be more favourable than other regions.
Yes to clarify I have not spoken to any of the current 350 drivers.
What would be interesting would be to see an SQ ULH rooster, now EK that’s a different bowl of fish...
The original longest route by SQ on the A340, a lot of expat guys in the grand days.
Now ask them if they liked it, I think and I maybe wrong but they were pretty much exclusively on that route. The biggest issue was landing recency.
If you mix in other flying then my theory of minimal work does not add up.
However in saying that even with FRMS, new studies, blah blah blah, your FDP will no doubt be more favourable than other regions.
Yes to clarify I have not spoken to any of the current 350 drivers.
What would be interesting would be to see an SQ ULH rooster, now EK that’s a different bowl of fish...
From what I’ve heard CASA will not allow mixed fleet flying and it is very unlikely.
Regardless as it stands currently sunrise is planed to fly 23 hour TOD departing Australia at night.
That’s what is proposed and must be sustainable and safe.
From many accounts the aircraft may not be operationally capable of doing it anyway.
Regardless as it stands currently sunrise is planed to fly 23 hour TOD departing Australia at night.
That’s what is proposed and must be sustainable and safe.
From many accounts the aircraft may not be operationally capable of doing it anyway.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SYD
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SYD
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
