MEL to HKG 2 MAN CREW
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: I go, therefore I am there!
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MEL to HKG 2 MAN CREW
- On 27th February 2008, CX 168 operated overnight MEL-HKG with a two-man crew. The AFTLS requires that three crew members must be boarded for this flight.
- CPA FOPS management asked the CAD Duty Flight Ops Inspector for, and was granted, “dispensation” from the AFTLS so that the flight could operate with only two pilots.
- When the HKAOA found out about this flight, the matter was raised at the monthly Joint Rostering Committee. There was some apparent confusion over just how the “dispensation” was granted so the HKAOA wrote to the CAD seeking clarification.
- Correspondence with the CAD continued for several weeks, with the CAD eventually stating that DGCA had power under section 95 of the Air Navigation Order to “...exempt from any of the provisions of this Order...or any regulations made there under, any aircraft or persons or classes of aircraft or persons, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit.”
- The HKAOA GC found this response entirely unsatisfactory, as did their legal advisers. If the DGCA does have such powers it means he could approve any request, for any variation, for any reason as long as he sees fit. It would undermine any or all of the requirements of the AFTLS, making the document meaningless in the protections it provides to crews and to the flying public.
- The flight in question was of 8 hours and 38 minutes duration and undertaken through the crew members' WOCL.
Given that 168 departs at around 0100L in Feb and arrives after 0900 Mel time (0600 HKG time) is "B." not applicable i.e. 8 hours rather than 9 ?
Last edited by LapSap; 28th Aug 2008 at 11:49. Reason: Hmmm. Previous post this was referring to was deleted.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloudcuckooland
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Vol 2 Part 2,Dispensations DO NOT APPLY for;-
-ANO's,
-Flight manuals,
-CDL,
-Training programmes,
-AFTLS(legal requirements),
-Limitations,
-Specialized means of Navigation,
-Aerodrome Operating Minima.
This time the colusion between CX & CAD has actually broken the letter of the law.
Something to bear in mind is that if that aircraft had had an accident or incident the insurance would not have paid,everyone would be trying to pin it on the crew for accepting an illegal duty,cx would have to foot the bill,& it would have come straight off the profit figures(but not the directors bonuses) & the employees would by default pick up the tab.
If the crew had refused to do the flight I am quite certain that they would have suffered disciplinary action.
-ANO's,
-Flight manuals,
-CDL,
-Training programmes,
-AFTLS(legal requirements),
-Limitations,
-Specialized means of Navigation,
-Aerodrome Operating Minima.
This time the colusion between CX & CAD has actually broken the letter of the law.
Something to bear in mind is that if that aircraft had had an accident or incident the insurance would not have paid,everyone would be trying to pin it on the crew for accepting an illegal duty,cx would have to foot the bill,& it would have come straight off the profit figures(but not the directors bonuses) & the employees would by default pick up the tab.
If the crew had refused to do the flight I am quite certain that they would have suffered disciplinary action.
This time the collusion between CX & CAD has actually broken the letter of the law.
The AFTLS is an agreed scheme between the company and the HKCAD to satisfy the requirements of the AN(HK)O regarding fatigue. HKCAD approved the AFTLS, so they obviously believe they have the authority to grant a dispensation against that scheme. The purpose of the judicial review is to decide whether or not they had that authority.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 29th Aug 2008 at 03:24.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True Buzzy.
What i think they are getting at is, can the CAD just willy nilly dispo any regulation, taking into account these regs are there for protection of fatigue etc etc. Years of study has gone into them, so can a CAD lad just say,"no probs Kim Jong Phil, make it happen, see ya at golf next week!"
Me thinks not!!!!
What i think they are getting at is, can the CAD just willy nilly dispo any regulation, taking into account these regs are there for protection of fatigue etc etc. Years of study has gone into them, so can a CAD lad just say,"no probs Kim Jong Phil, make it happen, see ya at golf next week!"
Me thinks not!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8hrs and 38 mins is hardly arduous for a two man crew is it? It is less duty time than a EGCC/Teneriffe turn around, that is 2 sectors and still under the UK FTLs.
I appreciate you are talking adherence to agreements etc. but it shouldn't be too difficult to get an exemption to operate two crew, one sector for under nine hours block time, should it?
I appreciate you are talking adherence to agreements etc. but it shouldn't be too difficult to get an exemption to operate two crew, one sector for under nine hours block time, should it?
End Result:--
1/ It was a back of the clock operation
2/ It was rostered for 3 crew, the 2 crew that did operate had an expectation of some rest on the flight which they obviously didn't get.
3/ The 2 operating crew did not get an opportunity to plan for this before duty.
A flight safety hazzard.
And they would have been the ones wearing any accident/incident. CX would wash their hands and say "you should not have accepted the duty if you weren't rested enough, we put safety first here at CX"
1/ It was a back of the clock operation
2/ It was rostered for 3 crew, the 2 crew that did operate had an expectation of some rest on the flight which they obviously didn't get.
3/ The 2 operating crew did not get an opportunity to plan for this before duty.
A flight safety hazzard.
And they would have been the ones wearing any accident/incident. CX would wash their hands and say "you should not have accepted the duty if you weren't rested enough, we put safety first here at CX"
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Page 5 of Appendix A refers to the “Commander requesting the Dispensation”, why did the commander accept it?
It also states “the commander is responsible for the aircraft for the intended flight”. He will get the shaft if something happens? Why take that responsibility for CX. They will hang you like the Chief Pilot on the 777.
Seems the commander had an opportunity not to do the flight but decided to do it.
All they had to say was “I didn’t get any sleep in the afternoon and I am too tired to complete the duty with two crew”. Seems very simple to me but we don’t want to strand 300 passengers for CX mess ups now do we?
As for disciplinary action, well it’s that fear thingy again. The day we start bending the rules out of fear of disciplinary action is the day we should hang the aircraft keys on the door and leave. You cannot operate like that.
What happened to “I’m too tired”?
It also states “the commander is responsible for the aircraft for the intended flight”. He will get the shaft if something happens? Why take that responsibility for CX. They will hang you like the Chief Pilot on the 777.
Seems the commander had an opportunity not to do the flight but decided to do it.
All they had to say was “I didn’t get any sleep in the afternoon and I am too tired to complete the duty with two crew”. Seems very simple to me but we don’t want to strand 300 passengers for CX mess ups now do we?
As for disciplinary action, well it’s that fear thingy again. The day we start bending the rules out of fear of disciplinary action is the day we should hang the aircraft keys on the door and leave. You cannot operate like that.
What happened to “I’m too tired”?
Last edited by Mr. Bloggs; 29th Aug 2008 at 13:43.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The next time it will be 10 hours, the time after that 11 hours" It can never be more that the CAD FTLs allow can it? Isn't the dispensation a dispensation between the company's filed FTLs and the CAD's maximum FTLs? I don't see it as the thin edge of a wedge, more a utilisation of the difference between what the company has agreed with it's pilots and what the CAD will allow, only to be used by the company in one-off and unforeseen circumstances, doesn't your association agreement with the company cover that?
ACMS - Call time 23.30? Be it two or three crew are you suggesting that they didn't meet for lunch and then retire until call time?
If you are going to attack the company over dispensations then I earnestly suggest you pick much stronger ground that this particular flight.
ACMS - Call time 23.30? Be it two or three crew are you suggesting that they didn't meet for lunch and then retire until call time?
If you are going to attack the company over dispensations then I earnestly suggest you pick much stronger ground that this particular flight.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Endresult
I can't tell from your posting history if you are CX or not; suspect by your use of the Man /Teneriffe comparison the answer is not.
Assuming you are not; Firstly, are you saying the UK Charter World views on fatigue are the standard we should all aspire to? Secondly, in your operation to Teneriffe were the AFTLs you operated under written to cater for the fact that one or more pilots may be based on a different continent from the others?
If you are a Cx pilot.......WTF ?????
Assuming you are not; Firstly, are you saying the UK Charter World views on fatigue are the standard we should all aspire to? Secondly, in your operation to Teneriffe were the AFTLs you operated under written to cater for the fact that one or more pilots may be based on a different continent from the others?
If you are a Cx pilot.......WTF ?????
If I'm rosterered to operate a flight where I'd expect to achieve about 2 and half to 3 hrs rest as opposed to a flight where I was rostered to achieve ZERO rest this would cause me to approach the pre-flt rest time a little differently.
I don't care who you are, operating at 0500 to 0600 body clock is not a good time regardless of how much pre-flt rest you got. The Approved FTL's are supposed to cater for that by providing a 3rd Pilot to give you RELIEF.
Otherwise why bother with 3 Pilot's ever? You can't be half pregnant can you.
End of story.
I don't care who you are, operating at 0500 to 0600 body clock is not a good time regardless of how much pre-flt rest you got. The Approved FTL's are supposed to cater for that by providing a 3rd Pilot to give you RELIEF.
Otherwise why bother with 3 Pilot's ever? You can't be half pregnant can you.
End of story.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southeast Asia
Age: 53
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, a classic example of Cathay Pacific Airways manipulating the CAD. The Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department is not there to enforce safety. It is there to cater to Cathay Pacific's needs.
Quite pathetic.
Some of us need to call the local newspapers and get this shiet published!!
Quite pathetic.
Some of us need to call the local newspapers and get this shiet published!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: I go, therefore I am there!
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flight could have been legally operated with two crew if they had made a “tech stop” somewhere along the way; for example in Darwin. Not very efficient, but legal! This has been used in the past when operating two man crew back from the Middle East i.e. Bahrain to Hong Kong, with a “tech stop” in Dubai to cover the AFTLs.
A pure guess, but perhaps the company offered this option OR, ... “if you like we have a dispensation for you to go direct? What would you like to do?”
Either way, good to see the AOA challenging this!
A pure guess, but perhaps the company offered this option OR, ... “if you like we have a dispensation for you to go direct? What would you like to do?”
Either way, good to see the AOA challenging this!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pilipines
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could someone also perhaps enlighten me as to how the company could argue the breach in the time on task limit?
Not very familiar with the specifics of this flight but it does not seem that the FDP was extended. Think the only (and very valid) argument here is regarding the late night period and thus the need for 3 man due to the flight being over 8 hours.
The time on task only applies "On Normal Operations when the Standard FDP is extended by the use of In-Flight Relief, and on Ultra
Long Range Operations".
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam and others.
No , never CX but Middle and Far East long haul schedule.
I do appreciate the different points being made, if I was going into bat I would just prefer a stronger case, that's all. I was just passing comment as someone interested but as it is potentially a serious issue for you guys I'll butt out after this!
I haven't flown charter for a long time but used the MAN/TRF example as two four hour plus sectors, an hour turn-around and all at night, two nights in a row followed by a short Palma turn around! Two crew but I would have welcomed a bit of in flight relief, for sure.
In the days of the classic 747 I was a pax HKG/MEL and was fairly sure the crew was just one Capt, one FO and one FE, don't think you employed SOs in those days! I am now butting out!
I do appreciate the different points being made, if I was going into bat I would just prefer a stronger case, that's all. I was just passing comment as someone interested but as it is potentially a serious issue for you guys I'll butt out after this!
I haven't flown charter for a long time but used the MAN/TRF example as two four hour plus sectors, an hour turn-around and all at night, two nights in a row followed by a short Palma turn around! Two crew but I would have welcomed a bit of in flight relief, for sure.
In the days of the classic 747 I was a pax HKG/MEL and was fairly sure the crew was just one Capt, one FO and one FE, don't think you employed SOs in those days! I am now butting out!
two four hour plus sectors, an hour turn-around and all at night, two nights in a row followed by a short Palma turn around!