So you need a new fleet Leigh?
How can they meet the requirements when there isn’t one and it doesn’t say how the inspection is to be done? I have never heard of retrospective signing off on an AD?
A primary reason for AD's is that Service Bulletins - even Alert SBs - are not mandatory So some operators don't bother unless it gets AD'ed.
I believe there is not even a service bulletin issued yet so to me the question still remains valid.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Sydney
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first line of the required actions in the AD says "unless accomplished previously" - i.e. if an airline had already undertaken the required inspection (and any corrective action) then it isn't required to do so again, until the second inspection period falls due.
The first line of the required actions in the AD says "unless accomplished previously" - i.e. if an airline had already undertaken the required inspection (and any corrective action) then it isn't required to do so again, until the second inspection period falls due.
Further, if a SB is going to be the subject of an AD, the release process once it's finalized takes much longer than for a routine S/B because the regulating authority has to review and approve everything. Routine SBs can be approved by a DER and the release takes a couple days - an AD'd SB approval takes weeks or months.
One of my biggest complaints about the process before I retired was that the greater the safety implications of a change, the longer it took to get it out to the field. The longest flow for a routine SB was actually drafting it up - once it was done I could review and sign it off and it was ready to release. If it was safety related and I expected it to be AD'd (which safety related stuff nearly always was), then I needed to create a cert plan (~week), get it approved by the Boeing Regulatory Authority (~2 weeks), which then forwarded it to the FAA for approval (~2 weeks), then after confirmation the FAA had approved the cert plan, I could "recommend approve" the SB (big No-No to sign the recommend approve before you had an approved cert plan) - after which it went the same route (with the same flow times) as the cert plan. And of course if something got rejected anywhere along the line, it was back to square one and start over again (I once had a 'recommend approve' rejected because under the affected models it said "747-SP" where as the TCDS says "747SP", and a Cert Plan rejected for EGT as an undefined acronym
).
A380 officially rejected from Haneda by the Japanese, anyone know what plan B is?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All far easier than actually planning for and running an airline.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another critical element to pressing the go button is achieving a deal with the carrier’s pilots. At present, cockpit crew cannot be on duty for longer than 20 hours, which is less than the 23 hours, including time before and after the flight, required for Sydney-London flights.
Regulators will need to be convinced crewing rosters will not lead to pilot fatigue and therefore be a threat to safety. “We are saying the current arrangement [with pilots] does not work so we need an efficiency change,” Joyce said.
“These aircraft will create a huge amount of promotions. A first officer typically is paid 55% of a captain’s salary and the biggest thing a pilot can want is growth of an airline.
“Sunrise means massive growth for us and it would create a very fast promotional opportunity for a lot of pilots. They have to look at how they will miss that opportunity if they don’t give the productivity needed on the aircraft.
“The best thing we can all do for the success of Qantas long term is to have a pilot agreement, the manufacturers to give the right price and do to this.
Regulators will need to be convinced crewing rosters will not lead to pilot fatigue and therefore be a threat to safety. “We are saying the current arrangement [with pilots] does not work so we need an efficiency change,” Joyce said.
“These aircraft will create a huge amount of promotions. A first officer typically is paid 55% of a captain’s salary and the biggest thing a pilot can want is growth of an airline.
“Sunrise means massive growth for us and it would create a very fast promotional opportunity for a lot of pilots. They have to look at how they will miss that opportunity if they don’t give the productivity needed on the aircraft.
“The best thing we can all do for the success of Qantas long term is to have a pilot agreement, the manufacturers to give the right price and do to this.
In other words bend over no soap it’s for your own good just like the 787 contract. Yea, sure?
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: DeShire
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry who else does close to 24 hour Tours of Duty leaving at night? You’ll be up all day then do 23-24 hours at work to end up 12 hours out of your time zone in London.
Thats all you’ll do.
Strange that every other airline just orders aircraft.
Never seen pilot EAs as the stumbling block.
If you want to do something that’s currently not legal because it’s unsafe and illegal you can’t expect an exemption AND worse conditions to do more hazardous work.
Whats Alan and the executive team doing to get this over the line.
Not their multi million dollar bonuses.
He can go and shove it. Order it or don’t but stop crying wolf whilst you make billions and pay yourself millions.
Thats all you’ll do.
Strange that every other airline just orders aircraft.
Never seen pilot EAs as the stumbling block.
If you want to do something that’s currently not legal because it’s unsafe and illegal you can’t expect an exemption AND worse conditions to do more hazardous work.
Whats Alan and the executive team doing to get this over the line.
Not their multi million dollar bonuses.
He can go and shove it. Order it or don’t but stop crying wolf whilst you make billions and pay yourself millions.
sorry who else does close to 24 hour tours of duty leaving at night? You’ll be up all day then do 23-24 hours at work to end up 12 hours out of your time zone in london.
Thats all you’ll do.
Strange that every other airline just orders aircraft.
Never seen pilot eas as the stumbling block.
If you want to do something that’s currently not legal because it’s unsafe and illegal you can’t expect an exemption and worse conditions to do more hazardous work.
Whats alan and the executive team doing to get this over the line.
Not their multi million dollar bonuses.
He can go and shove it. Order it or don’t but stop crying wolf whilst you make billions and pay yourself millions.
Thats all you’ll do.
Strange that every other airline just orders aircraft.
Never seen pilot eas as the stumbling block.
If you want to do something that’s currently not legal because it’s unsafe and illegal you can’t expect an exemption and worse conditions to do more hazardous work.
Whats alan and the executive team doing to get this over the line.
Not their multi million dollar bonuses.
He can go and shove it. Order it or don’t but stop crying wolf whilst you make billions and pay yourself millions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regulators will need to be convinced crewing rosters will not lead to pilot fatigue and therefore be a threat to safety. “We are saying the current arrangement [with pilots] does not work so we need an efficiency change,” Joyce said.
The current regulations limit TOD for reasons of health and safety.
Preceding any attempt to deem the process safe, a longitudinal study of extended duration would be needed to scientifically validate the safety or otherwise of extending TOD limits.
That no such study is proposed is a tell. Given the past President of AIPA enjoys his IR negotiator status, why not try the same thing again on another junior pilot with stars in his eyes?
A little implied threat here, bully there and use the media to harass employee groups and carry the message.
Something that the airline industry's most 'inclusive' leader excels at.
A 4 foot 10 inch bully.
Last edited by Rated De; 18th Jul 2019 at 12:37.
Not saying that AJs looking after anyone here, just want to know if theres any word from this??
The issue that Rated D mentions is that there is NO study of SYD/MEL flights leaving at night flying for 23 hour plus Tours of Duty to London.
A lot of the Monash study was on MEL-LAX a much shorter tour of duty, only 5 hours time zone change and both sectors left day time body clock.
Scientifically it’s not valid or of very poor validity.
No study has been done as it’s been considered to be unsafe, unwise and hence illegal.
Any study has to be of an equivalent tour of duty AND be long lasting. You may have to do it for many years.
Joyce shouldn’t be able to do it period. Let alone do it with worse protections for crews health.
A lot of the Monash study was on MEL-LAX a much shorter tour of duty, only 5 hours time zone change and both sectors left day time body clock.
Scientifically it’s not valid or of very poor validity.
No study has been done as it’s been considered to be unsafe, unwise and hence illegal.
Any study has to be of an equivalent tour of duty AND be long lasting. You may have to do it for many years.
Joyce shouldn’t be able to do it period. Let alone do it with worse protections for crews health.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Research design requires very specific sampling techniques.
This does not meet the benchmark.
A select group of passengers will wear medical research grade and clinically approved wearable devices that contain algorithms that record physical activity/sleep and posture changes. The devices will collect data throughout the entire flight.
Also, in order to understand sample bias, it is pertinent to actually research before and after flight for an extended period.
Note that the crew are not included.
Note also that Little Napoleon wants longer TOD, yet it cannot be assumed that jet lag and long term health outcomes for operating crew are linear, they are not.
Qantas in "partnership" with the University is a simple code for "Qantas paid for this research"
As Sir Humphrey Appleby wisely lamented (paraphrasing) " One only has an enquiry, when it knows in advance what the answers will be"
https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/n...rtnership.html
Qantas need a new fleet.
