It's not what they should have, it's the minimum number of pilots they need. When the divisor goes up, that same number of pilots just work harder. In the early days or in the event of a downturn when the pilots are actually doing less than 155, matching the number of pilots to that divisor determines the maximum number they need to pay, even if they aren't achieving those hours.

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.

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.

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.

I feel crook just reading about a 19 hour duty. Glad it won't be me.

EX60/14 is specific to the 747-4 / 330 / 380 /767. When CASA issued the instrument in 2014, it would have been well aware of the inherent commercial range limitations of the airborne time of these specific types as well as established & longstanding operator practice. The 20 hours TOD allows for delays & diversions, rather than an every day normal operating practice.

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?

So.... who'll get the choice of the 1 seat...

Thanks for that info Curtian. Appreciated.
So has casa approved per lhr ops or have QF just announced without it?

Thus far there is nothing on the CASA website as having been approved - hand crafted Google Search Link for "tour of duty" 787 specific to the CASA website

Whereas, the search link substituting 747 finds the EX60/14 instrument successfully. Draw tour your own conclusions.

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

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=YPPH-YCUN...720x360&PM=%2a
Great Circle Mapper