2 Man Ultra Long Range
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Observing
At the end of the day what boils down to in a court of law in reference to any agreement is what the intent of the agreement is. Any wording is open to interpretation, but what was it trying to achieve? Remember the recent interpretation to the Basing Policy agreement?
So what is the AFTL trying to achieve, well the objective of the scheme is clear; "...will enable them to operate to a satisfactory level of efficiency and safety in all normal and abnormal situations." and "concerned solely with the prevention of fatigue and the maintenance of vigilance in flight".Amongst other factors it then considers "The effect of consecutive transmeridian flights."
Circadian rhythm and crossing multiple time zones was a defining factor in the definition of ULH and the need to have additional crew, this we can all agree on. Therefore, and this is just my opinion, you woud have a very difficult time to show the court that the intent of the AFTL was to always allow 2 crew to operate through multiple time zones unrestricted.
That's my take on it, regardless, we need to get this clarified ASAP.
Jed,
Not sure if he ever said that a 7hr flight requires 3 crew. I believe he is saying that his interpretation of the definition of ULH will ensure that 2 crew cannot be used to operate trips like the ones previously mentioned.
What I am surprised with, is his intrepretation offers the most protection, and yet many of you so called AoA members are quick to pounce to the benefit of the company. Hence the reason why I left the AoA!
All I am sold on is what is written in PART A.
Not what’s on the discretion report and most definitely not what I read on pprune.
Not what’s on the discretion report and most definitely not what I read on pprune.
So what is the AFTL trying to achieve, well the objective of the scheme is clear; "...will enable them to operate to a satisfactory level of efficiency and safety in all normal and abnormal situations." and "concerned solely with the prevention of fatigue and the maintenance of vigilance in flight".Amongst other factors it then considers "The effect of consecutive transmeridian flights."
Circadian rhythm and crossing multiple time zones was a defining factor in the definition of ULH and the need to have additional crew, this we can all agree on. Therefore, and this is just my opinion, you woud have a very difficult time to show the court that the intent of the AFTL was to always allow 2 crew to operate through multiple time zones unrestricted.
That's my take on it, regardless, we need to get this clarified ASAP.
Jed,
Not sure if he ever said that a 7hr flight requires 3 crew. I believe he is saying that his interpretation of the definition of ULH will ensure that 2 crew cannot be used to operate trips like the ones previously mentioned.
What I am surprised with, is his intrepretation offers the most protection, and yet many of you so called AoA members are quick to pounce to the benefit of the company. Hence the reason why I left the AoA!
Last edited by Dragon69; 23rd Jul 2010 at 03:04.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Western Hemisphere
Age: 41
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"An operation by a Two Crew Aircraft requiring three or more pilots involving a time difference of six hours or more between the places where the Duty Period starts and finishes"? (Please note the absence of the word "or" in that sentence).
and not simply
"An operation involving a time difference of six hours or more between the places where the Duty Period starts and finishes."
and not simply
"An operation involving a time difference of six hours or more between the places where the Duty Period starts and finishes."
Just out of curiosity, anyone know if the definition was different while the Classic was around? Because based upon that defition, a Classic could never be ULR...
An operation by a Two Crew Aircraft requiring three or more pilots involving a time difference of six hours or more between the places where the Duty Period starts and finishes.
The question is "requiring 3 or more pilots" describing ultra long range (in section 16, 3 or more pilots are required) or is it a condition to be met to categorized as ULR.
Because until I know which type it is (Normal or ULR) I don't know how many crew are required. Some say well go to table A/B to find out, but then you have to make the assumption its Normal Ops and not ULR.
At the end of the day, I'm sure its safe, but perhaps an issue to look at in the next RP and AFTLs.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because until I know which type it is (Normal or ULR) I don't know how many crew are required. Some say well go to table A/B to find out, but then you have to make the assumption its Normal Ops and not ULR.
It's unbelievable, many here have become so fixated and hung up on the wording that they fail to see the BIG picture. Almost like tunnel vision!
Some have gone as far as to discount the commander's discretion form or put very little importance to it. It is a legal document that follows exactly the same logical format and sequence as the aftl. It is THE form that you submit to the CAD.
Some have gone as far as to pretend that we were always legal to fly 2 crew east or west, cross a number of time zones using max fdp.
We protested to no end when CAD approved two crew middle of the night sector from Aus, to the point where we had SCMP write an article of how dangerous and unsafe it was, and now you'll happily accept a HKG.CTS.ANC in one duty period with 13+ hr fdp????? Honestly have you guys become that stupid!!!
Anyway it is no use, you guys are befitting of the term button pushers, because it is obvious that you cannot apply any lateral thought.
SMOC you thought you were being smug with your example, didn't seem so funny when dragon pointed out what could happen.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
We recently were granted variation to the AFTL, specifically for ORD/AMS. The variation allows crossing of more than 12 time zones from home base.
The only section where there is a limit to maximum time zone crossed in any one duty cycle is in section 16.1, the first item under section 16 ULTRA LONG RANGE OPS.
If you stubborn chaps are so adamant that ORD/AMS is not a ULR OPS, why would there have been a need to appply for a variation???? If ORD/AMS meets the definition of Normal OPS then section 16.1 would not apply.
The fact that they have applied variation to 16.1 for ORD/AMS should without a doubt prove that it is a ULR OPS. Now question is, how can they crew it 2 crew without a further variation?????
We recently were granted variation to the AFTL, specifically for ORD/AMS. The variation allows crossing of more than 12 time zones from home base.
The only section where there is a limit to maximum time zone crossed in any one duty cycle is in section 16.1, the first item under section 16 ULTRA LONG RANGE OPS.
If you stubborn chaps are so adamant that ORD/AMS is not a ULR OPS, why would there have been a need to appply for a variation???? If ORD/AMS meets the definition of Normal OPS then section 16.1 would not apply.
The fact that they have applied variation to 16.1 for ORD/AMS should without a doubt prove that it is a ULR OPS. Now question is, how can they crew it 2 crew without a further variation?????
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
didn't seem so funny when dragon pointed out what could happen
Dragon's example is easy compared to some of the crap CXFs fly already. CX -400Fs are flying 2 and 3 sectors up to max FDP all over the place, and where it's fallen over because of delays and crews not going into discretion they roster a leg stretch. ie. MIA-IAH-ANC which used to be 2 crew.
Other shockers on our back door.
HKG-KIX-ICN-HKG px last sector.
HKG-DAC-HAN-HKG px last sector.
HKG-CGK-SGN-HKG px last sector. I got called out on reserve for this, was a casual 17:30 duty !!!!!!!
The point is the whole time zone thing is flawed as the further north and south of the equator you fly (in an east/west direction) the more time zones you are able to cross in a single FDP.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dragon good point, however what about a ORD based crew? They won't hit the 12 time zones limit till they leave Dubai on the way to HK? and they will have to go ULR from HKG to ANC/YVR/SFO, which they would be unable to do with the 12 time zone rule.
Have any HK crew been rostered for it? Could it be the HKG-ANC ULR pattern within the duty cycle that the 12 hour dispensation was required?
I think it points to how poorly written the AFTLs are, to much grey for CX to maneuver in.
Have any HK crew been rostered for it? Could it be the HKG-ANC ULR pattern within the duty cycle that the 12 hour dispensation was required?
I think it points to how poorly written the AFTLs are, to much grey for CX to maneuver in.
Last edited by SMOC; 23rd Jul 2010 at 13:42.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAHAHAHA.........****!ing good one Dragon. Would love to see how they'll twist this one around.
All these guys are now scrambling to delete their posts, and no surprise that not ONE has been man enough to come and admit that they were wrong! Hey SQ what was it that you said to me??? "but you just can't see it even though it's as clear as dog's bollox" I guess you must have a chiwawa, because your dog's bollox obviously aint that visible!
And to your idiotic comment about "Lots of people have taken the time to straighten you". Just because you have more people on a forum that argue a point DOESN'T make the point correct.
And last but not least....HEY ADAM you out there???? Your pie is ready, and guess what, Mrs Miggins is away, MISTER Miggins is waiting for you to serve it with style.
To all those dumb asses that just would not listen to me and kept arguing through stupid logic I have one thing to say to you;
All these guys are now scrambling to delete their posts, and no surprise that not ONE has been man enough to come and admit that they were wrong! Hey SQ what was it that you said to me??? "but you just can't see it even though it's as clear as dog's bollox" I guess you must have a chiwawa, because your dog's bollox obviously aint that visible!
And to your idiotic comment about "Lots of people have taken the time to straighten you". Just because you have more people on a forum that argue a point DOESN'T make the point correct.
And last but not least....HEY ADAM you out there???? Your pie is ready, and guess what, Mrs Miggins is away, MISTER Miggins is waiting for you to serve it with style.
To all those dumb asses that just would not listen to me and kept arguing through stupid logic I have one thing to say to you;
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F10 I thought you were just a bit dim but you're obviously just a troll stirring the pot for the fun of it. Nothing that has been said on this thread changes what I and several others pointed out earlier on. The variation is not needed for a particular sector but for any crew proceeding around the world when that crew eventually crosses 12 time zones in the same duty cycle. You do not need three crew to operate a single 7 hour sector regardless of how many time zones you cross. Nobody has said you can operate HKG-CTS-ANC - I pointed out that the FDP allowed was not long enough - you sarcastically suggested I was using a Turboprop disregarding the fact that the sectors could not be flown legally. Nobody would ever use discretion in a situation like so I'm very surprised you even mentioned it.
If the flight is long enough to require 3 or more crew and crosses more than six time zones it is defined as ULR.
If it crosses more than six time zones but isn't long enough to require three or more crew it isn’t.
If you need to check the legality of the rostered duty you check in Para 15 and if it requires a third crew member you can check Para 12 and Para 13 but if it needs 3 or more crew and crosses 6 time zones you look in Para 16 – easy right!
That's what it says and no amount of wishful thinking, re-interpretation of what was originally meant or bull**** such as you spout is going to change that. They may well amend the document and change one or two things such as moving 16.1 into a paragraph of its own as it applies to a single duty pattern not a particular sector which is why someone posting earlier got confused. Is 16.1 actually required anyway? Once you’ve passed 12 time zones you’re now on the way back to where you started from – so does it really matter if you proceed in the same direction or turn around and go back the way you came - any thoughts?
Incidentally this is not about supporting/not supporting management as some suggest but just pointing out the obvious to some who refuse to see it.
If the flight is long enough to require 3 or more crew and crosses more than six time zones it is defined as ULR.
If it crosses more than six time zones but isn't long enough to require three or more crew it isn’t.
If you need to check the legality of the rostered duty you check in Para 15 and if it requires a third crew member you can check Para 12 and Para 13 but if it needs 3 or more crew and crosses 6 time zones you look in Para 16 – easy right!
That's what it says and no amount of wishful thinking, re-interpretation of what was originally meant or bull**** such as you spout is going to change that. They may well amend the document and change one or two things such as moving 16.1 into a paragraph of its own as it applies to a single duty pattern not a particular sector which is why someone posting earlier got confused. Is 16.1 actually required anyway? Once you’ve passed 12 time zones you’re now on the way back to where you started from – so does it really matter if you proceed in the same direction or turn around and go back the way you came - any thoughts?
Incidentally this is not about supporting/not supporting management as some suggest but just pointing out the obvious to some who refuse to see it.
Last edited by SQC7991; 24th Jul 2010 at 11:47. Reason: Add final sentence
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody has said you can operate HKG-CTS-ANC - I pointed out that the FDP allowed was not long enough
Someone previously asked where in AFTL does it state that you need 3 pilots for a 7 hour flight. It doesn't, that's just it! You are arguing as if there is something spefically written in the AFTL that says a 7 hour flight must be flown with 2 pilots it doesn't! It is perfectally legal with 3, but flying a ULR with 2 pilots is most certainly illegal.
Nobody would ever use discretion in a situation like so I'm very surprised you even mentioned it.
The variation is not needed for a particular sector
If it was a carte blanche variation there would have been an amendment to section 16.
They may well amend the document and change one or two things such as moving 16.1 into a paragraph of its own as it applies to a single duty pattern not a particular sector which is why someone posting earlier got confused
You can argue to your heart's content, but I am afraid Peter and F10 were correct all along
I am pulling the pin before I get drawn further into this vortex. SMOC man you have some rough patterns
.
Last edited by Dragon69; 24th Jul 2010 at 12:42.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your reply also belated thanks to F10 for showing us a piccie of his wife.
You may be reading into the FTL exactly what you wish to but it doesn't change what is actually stated which, at the risk of flogging a dead horse, you do not need three or more crew for a flight which crosses more than six time zones unless the sector length is such that three or more crew are required. Only then do you need the extra crew and the rest facilities as defined in Para 12. By your interpretation we couldn't operate an A330 between ORD-AMS because it doesn't have bunks which is clearly absurd. The entire reasoning behind the 3 or more crew and crossing 6 time zones is that a sector length which requires extending the FDP by in-flight rest can only be done on an aircraft fitted with bunks. Are you telling us that we can't fly a 7 hour sector in an aircraft not fitted with bunks? The drafters of the FTL's have taken all this into account and have come up with a pretty good set of rules which some people are now saying are ambiguous which they are not.
The dispensation cannot apply to a sector as Para 16.1 refers to a single duty cycle not a sector. If it be a HKG based crew operating ORD-AMS then the 12 hour zone will be crossed on that sector. However a Chicago based crew won't get there until DXB-HKG so your reasoning is flawed. I do admit though that the variation contains the wording Chicargo (sic)-Amsterdam and this is obviously a mistake. The position where 12 time zones will be crossed depends on where the crew are based and not on a particular sector. Maybe someone should be sorting this out if they are going to continue using USA based crew on this pattern.
You may be reading into the FTL exactly what you wish to but it doesn't change what is actually stated which, at the risk of flogging a dead horse, you do not need three or more crew for a flight which crosses more than six time zones unless the sector length is such that three or more crew are required. Only then do you need the extra crew and the rest facilities as defined in Para 12. By your interpretation we couldn't operate an A330 between ORD-AMS because it doesn't have bunks which is clearly absurd. The entire reasoning behind the 3 or more crew and crossing 6 time zones is that a sector length which requires extending the FDP by in-flight rest can only be done on an aircraft fitted with bunks. Are you telling us that we can't fly a 7 hour sector in an aircraft not fitted with bunks? The drafters of the FTL's have taken all this into account and have come up with a pretty good set of rules which some people are now saying are ambiguous which they are not.
The dispensation cannot apply to a sector as Para 16.1 refers to a single duty cycle not a sector. If it be a HKG based crew operating ORD-AMS then the 12 hour zone will be crossed on that sector. However a Chicago based crew won't get there until DXB-HKG so your reasoning is flawed. I do admit though that the variation contains the wording Chicargo (sic)-Amsterdam and this is obviously a mistake. The position where 12 time zones will be crossed depends on where the crew are based and not on a particular sector. Maybe someone should be sorting this out if they are going to continue using USA based crew on this pattern.
Last edited by SQC7991; 24th Jul 2010 at 13:37.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you telling us that we can't fly a 7 hour sector in an aircraft not fitted with bunks?
By your interpretation we couldn't operate an A330 between ORD-AMS because it doesn't have bunks which is clearly absurd.
The dispensation cannot apply to a sector as Para 16.1 refers to a single duty period not a sector.
This debate has run its course SQ, it is clear that both sides won't budge or persuade the other that they are correct. You are extremely confident of your interpretation, good for you! Follow your own advice and on your line check you shouldn't have any problems answering AFTL questions.
Go ahead have the last say and yes she is a real beauty
Last edited by Dragon69; 24th Jul 2010 at 13:38.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I amended my post to clarify what it actually says in the dispensation which seems to be a mistake as US based crews will be crossing 12 time zones but not on the ORD-AMS sector.
The intent is clear though which is to waive the 12 time zone rule which is why I originally stated the actual sector where this happens is not terribly relevant. It's almost bed time in ANC for my HKG body so goodnight.
The intent is clear though which is to waive the 12 time zone rule which is why I originally stated the actual sector where this happens is not terribly relevant. It's almost bed time in ANC for my HKG body so goodnight.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQC I reckon you're right - it seems pretty clear to me that the 3 or more crew and more than 6 time zone requirements both have to be met before a sector can be defined as ULR. ULR means 3 crew for a 13hr FDP or 4 crew for an 18 hr FDP and the aircraft must have bunks so pretty obvious that a 7 hour sector doesn't fit into this definition despite crossing more than 6 time zones.
The first ORD-AMS was done by a N American based captain so he didn't require a dispensation to cross more than 12 time zones on the ORDAMS sector. He would have crossed 12 time zones on the DXBHKG sector so was there a screw up somewhere? Will they re-issue the dispensation to reflect what is happening or can they get away with saying the dispensation applies to all sectors on the rotation which includes the ORDAMS sector?
The first ORD-AMS was done by a N American based captain so he didn't require a dispensation to cross more than 12 time zones on the ORDAMS sector. He would have crossed 12 time zones on the DXBHKG sector so was there a screw up somewhere? Will they re-issue the dispensation to reflect what is happening or can they get away with saying the dispensation applies to all sectors on the rotation which includes the ORDAMS sector?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So after 5 pages of debate, the only thing that needed to get the point across was the use of big font! How silly of me!
It is obvious with your exceptional knowledge of the AFTL, and in particular section 24, that we are at a complete disadvantage when it comes to arguing AFTL issues with you.
Thanks for the input, really!
SQ and 747-8
So your main justification that ORD/AMS cannot be ULR, is the fact that it is simply absurd for a 7hrs flight, regardless of time zone crossings, to be deemed ULR. (It is absurd and therefore cannot be). But what you are completely oblivious to is the fact that if there had been a return sector (AMS/ORD), the flight would have had a sector of 8hrs (night flight) and hence requiring 3 pilots (check the archived CFPs and the average tail-wind component). Even by your own interpretation and admission of the definition of ULR, the flight would be deemed as ULR and therefore requiring all the criterias as specified in section 12 (A BUNK).
Interesting that what you perceive as absurd, and not absurd is separated by a mere 1 hour. Same sector eastbound is Normal Ops and Westbound is ULR Ops. Now THAT is completely ABSURD!
You are right Peter, sad to say but I am arguing with a bunch of amateurs. I should have done what you did and ignored them right from the start.
Good luck explaining that one to CAD........Discretion out of HK????
Thanks for the input, really!
SQ and 747-8
So your main justification that ORD/AMS cannot be ULR, is the fact that it is simply absurd for a 7hrs flight, regardless of time zone crossings, to be deemed ULR. (It is absurd and therefore cannot be). But what you are completely oblivious to is the fact that if there had been a return sector (AMS/ORD), the flight would have had a sector of 8hrs (night flight) and hence requiring 3 pilots (check the archived CFPs and the average tail-wind component). Even by your own interpretation and admission of the definition of ULR, the flight would be deemed as ULR and therefore requiring all the criterias as specified in section 12 (A BUNK).
Interesting that what you perceive as absurd, and not absurd is separated by a mere 1 hour. Same sector eastbound is Normal Ops and Westbound is ULR Ops. Now THAT is completely ABSURD!
You are right Peter, sad to say but I am arguing with a bunch of amateurs. I should have done what you did and ignored them right from the start.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I am not trying to justify anything merely pointing out what is stated in the FTL's. Crossing 6 time zones AND a sector length requiring 3 or more crew = ULR whereas crossing 6 time zones on a short sector which requires just 2 crew is not ULR. The penny now appears to have dropped as you have described exactly how the FTL's work with your return sector example. You are hooked up on time zones which are not a problem on short sectors as the rules require physiological rest to be given if 6 time zones are crossed. The fact you think we need a third crew member as well is just plain dumb.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Secret
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F10.
Do you need a 3-man crew to fly an FDP of about 8.5 hours (ignore the time zones) ? NO
Ultra Long Range Operation
"An operation by a Two Crew Aircraft requiring three or more pilots involving a time difference of six hours or more between the places where the Duty Period starts and finishes."
Therefore ORD-AMS (about 8.5 hours?) is not ULR, is it?
Storm, tea-cup, etc.
The dispensation was about crews covering more than 12 time zones in a Duty Cycle, by the way (they want the one crew to go all the way around the globe!).
Adam.
Do you need a 3-man crew to fly an FDP of about 8.5 hours (ignore the time zones) ? NO
Ultra Long Range Operation
"An operation by a Two Crew Aircraft requiring three or more pilots involving a time difference of six hours or more between the places where the Duty Period starts and finishes."
Therefore ORD-AMS (about 8.5 hours?) is not ULR, is it?
Storm, tea-cup, etc.
The dispensation was about crews covering more than 12 time zones in a Duty Cycle, by the way (they want the one crew to go all the way around the globe!).
Adam.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: ASIA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW- a simple way to solve the problem and stop the insults:
Email the CAD for an interpretation. Then it's known if it's legal or not and a paper trail is in existence on this particular FTL facet.
Stay awake!
Email the CAD for an interpretation. Then it's known if it's legal or not and a paper trail is in existence on this particular FTL facet.
Stay awake!
