SCMP - Flight did not require a third pilot, aviation body tells court
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: HKG
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Third world mentality... C(x)AD win again.
Department cleared over two-pilot flight
Peter Brieger
Updated on Jul 07, 2009 The Civil Aviation Department did not break its own rules when it allowed Cathay Pacific to fly a plane between Hong Kong and Melbourne with only two pilots, a Court of First Instance judge ruled yesterday.
In a written ruling, Mr Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung said the aviation regulator had the right to let Cathay run the nine-hour flight without a third pilot on February 27 last year.
Nothing in international aviation rules barred such a move, he added, dismissing an application for judicial review filed by the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association.
The pilots' union argued that the aviation regulator had jeopardised passenger safety and said it was worried the one-time event could become standard practice.
One pilot rostered for the flight on February 27 last year fell ill, so two pilots made the flight instead of the three usually required. The department waived the requirement at Cathay's request. The trip lasted eight hours and 36 minutes. The captain and the first officer had rested for three and six days, respectively.
Under department policy, if two pilots are scheduled to fly for more than eight hours from 2am to 5.59am, according to the time of origin, there must be a third crew member. In Europe, two pilots can fly for more than eight hours and there has never been a worldwide ban on two pilots operating flights for even 10 hours at night.
Peter Brieger
Updated on Jul 07, 2009 The Civil Aviation Department did not break its own rules when it allowed Cathay Pacific to fly a plane between Hong Kong and Melbourne with only two pilots, a Court of First Instance judge ruled yesterday.
In a written ruling, Mr Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung said the aviation regulator had the right to let Cathay run the nine-hour flight without a third pilot on February 27 last year.
Nothing in international aviation rules barred such a move, he added, dismissing an application for judicial review filed by the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association.
The pilots' union argued that the aviation regulator had jeopardised passenger safety and said it was worried the one-time event could become standard practice.
One pilot rostered for the flight on February 27 last year fell ill, so two pilots made the flight instead of the three usually required. The department waived the requirement at Cathay's request. The trip lasted eight hours and 36 minutes. The captain and the first officer had rested for three and six days, respectively.
Under department policy, if two pilots are scheduled to fly for more than eight hours from 2am to 5.59am, according to the time of origin, there must be a third crew member. In Europe, two pilots can fly for more than eight hours and there has never been a worldwide ban on two pilots operating flights for even 10 hours at night.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How utterly ridiculous to put safety ahead of commercial decisions.
The commander of the flight should be severly disciplined for acceting the flight knowing that it will compromise the safety of all his passengers and fellow crew members.
He or she is obviously incapable of making safe command decisions.
The buck stops with him.
The commander of the flight should be severly disciplined for acceting the flight knowing that it will compromise the safety of all his passengers and fellow crew members.
He or she is obviously incapable of making safe command decisions.
The buck stops with him.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wobblywonker,
Bearing in mind that we now have some new patterns on the Airbus such as HKG-CGK-HKG and DXB-BOM-HKG, two sectors, two crew, with a total duty time of 12hrs, that starts at 0100 and which is completely within FTLMs, and not to mention the occasional two crew HKG-DXB in the winter that have a longer flying time than MEL-HKG, the captain would have been in a difficult position to refuse the flight.
Bearing in mind that we now have some new patterns on the Airbus such as HKG-CGK-HKG and DXB-BOM-HKG, two sectors, two crew, with a total duty time of 12hrs, that starts at 0100 and which is completely within FTLMs, and not to mention the occasional two crew HKG-DXB in the winter that have a longer flying time than MEL-HKG, the captain would have been in a difficult position to refuse the flight.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Partial information
In Europe, two pilots can fly for more than eight hours and there has never been a worldwide ban on two pilots operating flights for even 10 hours at night.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dragon69
so what are you sayin?? the Capt accepted a flight that was not safe??
Was the flight safe or was'nt it?
If it was then why the fuss, if it was'nt then why did the Capt accept it?
Surely, if he had the final say, he should have exercised his discretion accodingly.
Perhaps he did evaluate the situation and considered it safe, so now why cry wolf over safety?
If he thouht it unsafe and yet felt compelled to operate, then he should not be in command of any aircraft
Pretty clear cut situation really.
Integrity or lack thereof does not even come into it
so what are you sayin?? the Capt accepted a flight that was not safe??
Was the flight safe or was'nt it?
If it was then why the fuss, if it was'nt then why did the Capt accept it?
Surely, if he had the final say, he should have exercised his discretion accodingly.
Perhaps he did evaluate the situation and considered it safe, so now why cry wolf over safety?
If he thouht it unsafe and yet felt compelled to operate, then he should not be in command of any aircraft
Pretty clear cut situation really.
Integrity or lack thereof does not even come into it
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wobblywonker,
Actually it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
For one thing the principle issue in this lawsuit was whether the CAD had the right to authorize a flight outside the FTLMs, regardless whether the flight was safe or not. It would be sort of like calling Airbus where the janitor answers the call, and asking him if it would be okay to operate the airplane this one time at FL 450, and him having 30sec to think about it, and approving it based on absolutely nothing, which is exactly what happened with CAD, and which is the real safety concern.
Yes the airplane can fly at FL450 above its max altitude from point A to point B, but what if it encounters severe turbulence, or loses an engine, or has a rapid depres, have all of these factors been taken into account before the authorization????
The FTLM is a document based on industry standard guidelines, which has taken years to put together by various well informed, and well educated organizations. To quote the FTLM " The provisions set out in this scheme are therefore concerned solely with the prevention of fatigue and the maintenance of vigilance in flight. They are not intended to take account of commercial circumstances, social considerations and lifestyle."
So what sort of education and research has this CAD schmuck done on fatigue to make a quick decision and allow an airplane to operated outside the scope of the FTLM???
Come on, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the scenario isn't as black and white as safe or unsafe. It's not exactly as if he was attempting to take off with one engine missing. No Captain would accept a flight if it is clearly unsafe.
Going back to my previous post, there are some patterns that are extremely fatiguing, but that doesn't necessarily make them unsafe right from the start. However, it is a dynamic environment, and a combination of situations that are outside your control ie: weather, system failure, etc, could potentially make them unsafe if you are unable to cope with them properly because of fatigue.
Flying is inherently risky. Every take off is potentially unsafe if an engine explodes at the worst possible moment. Following your logic we should just forget flying!!!
The name of the game in this profession is to minimize the threats and risks. Cathay IMO is doing just the opposite with these ridiculous patterns.
Actually it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
For one thing the principle issue in this lawsuit was whether the CAD had the right to authorize a flight outside the FTLMs, regardless whether the flight was safe or not. It would be sort of like calling Airbus where the janitor answers the call, and asking him if it would be okay to operate the airplane this one time at FL 450, and him having 30sec to think about it, and approving it based on absolutely nothing, which is exactly what happened with CAD, and which is the real safety concern.
Yes the airplane can fly at FL450 above its max altitude from point A to point B, but what if it encounters severe turbulence, or loses an engine, or has a rapid depres, have all of these factors been taken into account before the authorization????
The FTLM is a document based on industry standard guidelines, which has taken years to put together by various well informed, and well educated organizations. To quote the FTLM " The provisions set out in this scheme are therefore concerned solely with the prevention of fatigue and the maintenance of vigilance in flight. They are not intended to take account of commercial circumstances, social considerations and lifestyle."
So what sort of education and research has this CAD schmuck done on fatigue to make a quick decision and allow an airplane to operated outside the scope of the FTLM???
Was the flight safe or was'nt it?
Going back to my previous post, there are some patterns that are extremely fatiguing, but that doesn't necessarily make them unsafe right from the start. However, it is a dynamic environment, and a combination of situations that are outside your control ie: weather, system failure, etc, could potentially make them unsafe if you are unable to cope with them properly because of fatigue.
Flying is inherently risky. Every take off is potentially unsafe if an engine explodes at the worst possible moment. Following your logic we should just forget flying!!!
The name of the game in this profession is to minimize the threats and risks. Cathay IMO is doing just the opposite with these ridiculous patterns.
Last edited by Dragon69; 7th Jul 2009 at 20:32.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dragon69
I think we're in agreement on most points of your last post.
The principle issue is indeed wheter the CAD had the authority of approve the flight outside the FTLM. The safe conduct of the flight was never in doubt by either the Capt, the Company, or the CAD. The crew were well rested, and there would have been at least 8 airports within a hour or three of each other enroute with company support should a diversion be required for any reason. All things considered, safety was NOT an issue.
I however, disagree with your analogy of the janitor and the Airbus. To equate an experienced FOI with a janitor is a disservice. Bear in mind, on any given day, we all operate to rules and regulations approved by this FOI and his team so to now comapre his decisions to that of a janitor in Airbus, while giving impact to your views, is contentious at best and smacks of selective bias.
The FTLM is indeed a document based on years of experience and industry best practices but here again your arguments seems selective. By your own admission, there are patterns that are extremely fatiguing, and yet we choose to pick on this one off flight rather than those operated on a daily scheduled basis to drive home the safety argument. I cannot comprehend why this particular flight should be more an issue than those other ones.
Last but not least, back to the principle issue, does the CAD have the right to approve a one off against the FTLM? This is a legal argument. Safety does not come into it. The Capt accepted the flight based on his years of experience and conducted it to the highest standards given the circumstances. Period.
From a legal argument perspective, in all jurisdictions, rules and regulations are enacted to constrain undesirable behaviours. There is clear purpose and a method to this apparent madness that allow the world, as we know it, to function unhindered. Accordingly, when a situation arises that does not contradict the purpose, deviations are permissible. The test of reasonableness is applied as it was in this case.
As fellow professionals in aviation, we should all resist the temptation to use the safety argument to futher agends that have little or no bearing on the principle issues at hand. If we do this often enough, it will loose its meaning and may well come back to bite us in the end (no pun intended)
I think we're in agreement on most points of your last post.
The principle issue is indeed wheter the CAD had the authority of approve the flight outside the FTLM. The safe conduct of the flight was never in doubt by either the Capt, the Company, or the CAD. The crew were well rested, and there would have been at least 8 airports within a hour or three of each other enroute with company support should a diversion be required for any reason. All things considered, safety was NOT an issue.
I however, disagree with your analogy of the janitor and the Airbus. To equate an experienced FOI with a janitor is a disservice. Bear in mind, on any given day, we all operate to rules and regulations approved by this FOI and his team so to now comapre his decisions to that of a janitor in Airbus, while giving impact to your views, is contentious at best and smacks of selective bias.
The FTLM is indeed a document based on years of experience and industry best practices but here again your arguments seems selective. By your own admission, there are patterns that are extremely fatiguing, and yet we choose to pick on this one off flight rather than those operated on a daily scheduled basis to drive home the safety argument. I cannot comprehend why this particular flight should be more an issue than those other ones.
Last but not least, back to the principle issue, does the CAD have the right to approve a one off against the FTLM? This is a legal argument. Safety does not come into it. The Capt accepted the flight based on his years of experience and conducted it to the highest standards given the circumstances. Period.
From a legal argument perspective, in all jurisdictions, rules and regulations are enacted to constrain undesirable behaviours. There is clear purpose and a method to this apparent madness that allow the world, as we know it, to function unhindered. Accordingly, when a situation arises that does not contradict the purpose, deviations are permissible. The test of reasonableness is applied as it was in this case.
As fellow professionals in aviation, we should all resist the temptation to use the safety argument to futher agends that have little or no bearing on the principle issues at hand. If we do this often enough, it will loose its meaning and may well come back to bite us in the end (no pun intended)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if when CX gives it's AOC and accompanying documents to foreign states for approval does it have in the small print "by the way with a phone call to the HK CAD we can waive our FTLs" 
If the HK government / CAD / CX don't care about the breach, maybe some foreign states might care!
If the HK government / CAD / CX don't care about the breach, maybe some foreign states might care!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Costa del Sol
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your brilliant advice, thunderbird!
I already did that and only was able to find AN(HK) Order 1995 and on my surprise flight time limit was only on less then a page:
Flight times—responsibilities of flight crew
56. A person shall not act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in Hong Kong if at the beginning of the flight the aggregate of all his previous flight times:—
(a) during the period of 28 consecutive days expiring at the end of the day on which the flight begins exceeds 100 hours; or
(b) during the period of 12 months expiring at the end of the previous month exceeds 900 hours.
Provided that this Article shall not apply to a flight made—
(i) in an aircraft of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed 1,600 kg and which is not flying for the purposes of public transport or aerial work; or
(ii) in an aircraft not flying for the purpose of public transport nor operated by an air transport undertaking, if at the time when the flight begins the aggregate of all the flight times of the aforesaid person since he was last medically examined and found fit by a person approved by the Governor for the purpose of Article 20(7) does not exceed 25 hours.
I already did that and only was able to find AN(HK) Order 1995 and on my surprise flight time limit was only on less then a page:
Flight times—responsibilities of flight crew
56. A person shall not act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft registered in Hong Kong if at the beginning of the flight the aggregate of all his previous flight times:—
(a) during the period of 28 consecutive days expiring at the end of the day on which the flight begins exceeds 100 hours; or
(b) during the period of 12 months expiring at the end of the previous month exceeds 900 hours.
Provided that this Article shall not apply to a flight made—
(i) in an aircraft of which the maximum total weight authorised does not exceed 1,600 kg and which is not flying for the purposes of public transport or aerial work; or
(ii) in an aircraft not flying for the purpose of public transport nor operated by an air transport undertaking, if at the time when the flight begins the aggregate of all the flight times of the aforesaid person since he was last medically examined and found fit by a person approved by the Governor for the purpose of Article 20(7) does not exceed 25 hours.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: hong kong
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a third pilot was available (earlier in the thread it was stated one was available) why was he/she not asked to operate the flight before seeking the dispensation from CAD ??
testing the waters maybe for future reference>??
testing the waters maybe for future reference>??
Join Date: May 2003
Location: hong kong
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" This brings me to a side issue, namely, the clarifications or explanations given by Captain Davis and the Director-General regarding the source of their power to make the above decision. It cannot be denied that rather confusing answers were given at various times to justify the decision. This has generated some debate at the hearing regarding whether the Director-General can go back on his reasons for the decision."( Legal Ruling)
seems like the CAD made a decision without knowing at the time the source of their discretion
seems like the CAD made a decision without knowing at the time the source of their discretion