CX256 Diversion to UAAA
 

Yesterday's 256 (3 man crew) diverted to Almaty apparently due to a tragic medical issue with one of the pax.

Rumour is that the Skip elected to use full discretion (to within seconds) to make it back to HK...

Now, before we pick up the pitchforks and torches, any truth to this?

Flight Tracker:

16 Apr 2016
CX256 scheduled dept 1910z (actual 1925z)
Via ALA
17 Apr 2016
CX256 arrival HKG (1833 HKT) 1033z.

Not sure how accurate the data is, and what it means. But quite possibly under the circumstances we would all have done the same thing.
It is the company, and not the Captain who is to blame for making our job that much harder.

There are rules which are being skimmed for profit... Expectations that crew will go the extra mile in abnormal circumstances because that is what we do. It is an admirable quality, and it is being exploited by our management, when they know that we are already pushing up against limits. They are willing, all for the cost of a Second Officer, to put passengers and crew into tighter situations and increase risks for nothing more than a tiny reward which would be less than the cost of a few dollars per ticket (if that).

This situation has happened twice now within the trial. It is clearly indicative of how much extra the tiny expense of a Second Officer greatly increases the benefit for everyone.

So there you have it. Three man does work. Both directions with stops. Such heroes

That's some very tight FDP planning.

We quite possibly would not.

There is a reason for CC:

We don't because.

The message sent here is that CC is effectively not in force and that the company can easily get away with having imposed 3-man to Europe (the reason we are in CC in the first place) as they will now simply expect us to work 16 1/2 hour - 2 sector days with virtually no rest and much less of a squeak.

How would you like to be the burnt-out relief on a day like that?

And the more our own colleagues 'decide' that it is ok and perfectly safe to push the boundaries of human physiology with 300 unsuspecting pax in the back, the more the bonus-collectors will expect us to do so.


It is almost like we are deviating from normal, safe procedures by making these more hazardous conditions seem normal...
I think there's a term for that. It's on the tip of my tongue...
:hmm:

They need to be expelled from the union if this is true. This is completely undermining everything that we're working for.

slam_click,

Can't wait to start hearing the excuses why "this time was different," why it was so important for them to get back to HK, how we weren't there so we don't know... blah blah blah.

I guess we should propose a motion for the aircrew to start using common sense to stop undermining the collective efforts of the AOA? Is that what you are suggesting?

Do you really feel that CX pilots need to be spoon fed every last rule regarding what they can or can't do to help out the cause? Or maybe they can use some common sense and suck it up and realize that CC is going to cause some inconveniences for everyone. That's life and that's what the company has forced us into doing.

But please, I'm looking forward to hearing their special case, and why this was appropriate.

Yes spend the night and trying to arrange plans for 300+ pax in UAAA with a dead baby on board because of cc which only stated we should not use cdr pre departure and cc should not affect the overall operational decisions once the show is on the road.... Real fking common sense there sweep the leg. I am sure if they were all phsiologically burnt alrdy they might decide otherwise. But if they have a plan at hand for a safe op back to hkg why the hell not?

Yeah even better, cyrex, land, keep the dead baby on board and keep going. Yeah, f*cking genius. Why didn't I think of that.

I'm sure the tech crew would have had to single handedly arrange accommodation for all the pax as well, you drama queen. Give it a rest.

Instead, let's go ahead, break the FTL limits either out of stupidity or ignorance and give yourself a pat on the back for completely undermining the rest of the AOA. "Gotta keep the show on the road" at all costs, well done, bravo.

What an absolute joke.

I can see it now too in the next fleet newsletter:

Dear Gus, I thought I'd never have to write to you, but now I have... The Saga of CX256...
...
And I'd like to end it by thanking my cockpit crew who were invaluable, the cabin crew, the ground staff, IOC, and the terrific people of Almaty... couldn't have done it without you...

It's like a warped, sick version of an Oscars acceptance speech.

Pathetic.

Please guys - Almaty is not some CTAF in the Australian Bush or in the Canadian Arctic; it is a major airport with several Western airlines on site.

Things can get done (and obviously did) as long as IOC pays the bills.

hey cyrex, what other rules would you break to keep "the show on the road" as you put it? I see your in the UK... enjoy your 3-man life sentence with your crap reasoning.

Am I unhappy that a 3-man crew extended to the absolute limits of FTL ? Yes. Ultimately, I am having a hard time focusing on this, in light of the fact that some poor woman had her dead child in her lap..... Sometimes context is important. And sometimes there are bigger problems in the world than our own. Right now I am terribly sad for the 'real' tragedy here, not the one we are concocting. I think the evidence to the company is that they have got lucky with two events, and the online outrage that has followed at least lets everyone know (management and other pilots) just how deeply we feel about this issue. Maybe say a small prayer for the mother...

Continue- but why to VHHH FFS
 

A prayer for sure..

While u at it prey for 300 + pax & families
Etc that will one summer be at mercy of chronic fatigue..,

Divert in Beijing or BKK or whatever to get out of UAAA to a online port..

But HK, come on man... What the hell is the point you trying to prove putting everyone at risk. Total suppidy even out of CC this is very narrow minded thinking..

Abit like BT arriving on fumes everywhere he goes..

If it was my airline your such decision would be your second to last you make in such 'heroic' splendour.

Since the captain's photo shows 3 bars, maybe the captain is still a captain-on-probation. What would YOU do in this case if YOU were a captain-on-probation, huh?

There are the AFTLS and then you have Commanders discretion to try and get the A/C and pax to destination for cases like this. Under no circumstance are you suppose to exceed the commanders discretion limit especially in this case with 3 man crew. This is the law! Why wouldn't you stop in Zbaa and change crew? If this is a new Capt what would be the outcome if they were on their 3 or bar check during command course?? We all know the answer to that one!!

At CX, no good deed goes unpunished.

But hey as you were helping out, unaware of any implications of AFTLs, wanting to get back to go home on days off, blissfully ignorant of the safety of the other crew and pax no doubt the CN will be suitably rewarded.

If the CN had insisted that they would not make HKG then IOC would have put a plan in motion to move the ac forward, somewhere, and have a replacement crew avail.

We are certainly putting passing muppets to operate as CNs now. Acceptable divergence and ignoring some limits, then all limits appears to be common practise.

I flew a 3 man 256 sector ONCE !! I will never request another one . I cannot remember being that fatigued on any other trip . I even elected to auto land in good weather as a safety precaution.

What was this. crew thinking?

Add into the is the stress of a diversion, the medical emergency , the tragic loss of a passenger and all the accompanying emotional feelings . The additional paperwork required during the transit and it appears that electing to continue to HKG was a poor choices .
If the decision to extend to the max FTLs was the result of internalized pressure either real or perceived coming from the company ,then we have a serious situation growing.
Giving priority to commercial pressure, over what your common sense is telling you is the safest course of action to take, is deeply troubling . We have seen a number of very similar situations recently where the majority of us have looked at the reported facts . Shook our collective heads and asked the question Why would you do that ? What about safety of the passengers ?

I cannot see how the crew justified the extension with Beijing a very acceptable en route airport where a new crew could have been positioned to take over .
What is also troubling is the fact that there were 3 crew members . did all of them agree to the extension thinking that it was the safest course of action .

Of course the crews decision will never be questioned by the office because it benefited the company in this case BUT had something gone wrong all three would be looking for new jobs

Hard to look for a new job when you lose your license. If you break regulations which results in an accident from which you are subsequently fired, you will most likely not work again.

Negligence is very different from an honest mistake. Hard to claim honest mistake when the Commander's discretion form lays it all out clearly for the investigators.

Well done Anna! You know the pilot body all too well! You knew that prior to the introduction of 3 crew LRO, we would use safety and fatigue as an excuse to cover the real reason for us not wanting to do it, we're spoiled and lazy! You called our bluff very well as you have a poker face second to none. Deep down of course we were aware that we had been riding the gravy train with these 4 crew long haul flights, and of course we are aware that we are capable of much more than simply 3 crew LRO. 2 sectors 16hrs + FDP...no problem at all. We are after all merely button pushers and we can give you more, so long as you give us an opportunity for us to go through the motions of whinging before you implement a change. I am a proud modern Airline pilot!

Flap(s?) 10

I get you, but you are aware of how many people/cultures reading this are of the literal persuasion? Please can you clarify to the world out there your position of irony otherwise people WILL genuinely believe that you are admitting and owning up to the fallacy of "spoiled and lazy..... gravy train..... button pushers etc", instead of postulating the obvious opposite to the truth to dramatically demonstrate a point. I second what I believe to be your opinion, but it worries me to see this out there without clarification (for us Aussies :eek:).

Cheers Mate, Best - White None

777 Picture!!
 

The story is in the Daily Mail. They've chosen a great file pic!

Baby girl dies on Cathay Pacific Airways flight from London to Hong Kong | Daily Mail Online

Sad, very sad and I feel deep sympathy for the parents of the child that DIED.......

Any comments relating to cc and the crews actions should take a back seat to the reasons for the diversion. I for one am glad I wasn't anywhere near that Aircraft.

Under the circumstances I don't judge anyone that day, and neither should you.

There's a time and a place for pointing fingers, puffing up chests regarding this 3 crew operation trial and this ain't it.

This just shows us as insensitive buffoons only interested in one thing....

One word.

Tacky.

We are better than this.

What have we become?

To dissect FDP's and limitations and argue whether the 'cause' is not being helped, in this case, is just shameful.

What would you really do if you had the ability to fly on? Stick to your principles and keep everyone for a night in Almaty or try and help a grieving couple who have lost their child get somewhere they need to be?

I hope none of you are parents; moreso, i hope none of you have lost an infant in their early days of life. It lives with you and scars you forever!

ACMS & HP4, Hear, hear!

Interesting, two points.
First up, a death occurred. Standard international protocol is note the position it happened if inflight. In this case it would appear the baby was alive at touchdown so that would be classed as a death in Kazakstan. Again, protocol requires an autopsy from the authorities certifying the death, Kazakstan. Most unusual to be able to depart with the body onboard. Cause of death has to be determined by the authority where the death occurred. This knowledge comes from experience and exposure to the requirements over 26+ years of doing this. Only once because a special case situation, which was put to the authorities, was a body allowed to stay onboard for further flight and that took several hours of negotiation at senior Government level and a crew change.
Secondly, the FTL calculations and justifications for a second sector to HKG are wrong and ultimately this WILL be classed as an illegal operation. The crew should quite rightly be worried. My understanding is one crew member has already contacted the AOA as he is now very nervous about the situation. What on earth was wrong with either saying "under the circumstances it would inappropriate to continue to HKG" or "we have sufficient duty time available to proceed to XXX" (possibly PEK) were another crew could have been sent expeditiously to recover the operation?
In the previous year I've come across the situation were I've been asked would I consider discretion and the reply "under the circumstances it would inappropriate to continue" has terminated the conversation and we have taken appropriate rest before continuing. It is NOT difficult! Never has it been question. The company also know the rules.

Balus, do you really think that Russia or China are an appropriate place to dump of a recently deceased baby and her grieving parents for an autopsy?... Or would you, if it were legal and at all possible, make every effort to support them, and help them in their devastated state?
...I know I would do everything in my power, and stretch myself as far as legally possible, to make sure that precious baby girl was treated with love and respect.

If you have ever, even for 1 minute gone into discretion (for whatever reason), or have been given a shared rest on a sector where rest was predicated on burning out a relief crew member on paper - and still choose to criticize, (and everyone else here, this counts for you too!) - I call you hypocrites. This is not about CC. This is about doing what we do, and being human, for each other.

I think we all agree we would do as much as we could possibly do to make the best of this very sad day but in the end you can't just go and break the AFTLS limits! Then to go and break past Commanders discretion too???That is the law!! Didn't a KA Capt just do the same thing not that long ago? If you break the AFTLS in any regular country you get violated and lose your license, not sure what the outcome was for the KA Capt involved.

Anotherbusdriver. I hear you and agree completely if the Captain had a choice. I was curious how the exit from Almaty was executed. It is normal for the authorities to prohibit the transportation of a body without the appropriate paperwork which includes a postmortem. The Captain and the airline normally have no say in the matter.

Some of you have as much compassion as our glorious managers.

China is exactly where this couple meant to take their deceased infant. (Changsha)

Going to PEK instead of HKG wouldn't have made this poor baby's last trip any slower or more painful for her parents.

As Balus said, many questions remain unanswered. In fact, the whole thing seems fishier as it unravels.

And no, pulling all the stops, including those which safeguard the safety of the remaining 300 pax, is not a heroic thing to do in the circumstances.
As much as I would not want to spend a second in the shoes of these poor parents, professionalism trumps emotions. For better, and for worse.

Isn't that what command courses are all about?

Morton's Fork: A choice between two dreadfully unpleasant alternatives (in other words, a horrible dilemma). I know which choice I would make in this situation though, and I hold my colleagues in high enough esteem to believe that they too would make the same choice.
Is that not enough?

And "Not a Sailor"... Have you never, ever used a minute of Discretion?... Ever?

Ok, time to calm down everyone. Yes, the principle of 3-man discretion is something we need to focus on and enforce as unworkable in 'most' cases. In this case, the necessity of dealing with an unusual and difficult situation, on balance, seems to favour the decision made. Let's accept we weren't there, and that the correct decision was probably made. Let's move onto the next event, one that will probably be more black and white than this.

I think the problem is here of a crew going over their Commanders Discretion Limits which are limits to protect the other 300 people onboard. That is what most people here have a problem with!

Thats it in a nutshell.

Who could do what, take baby where, grieving parents, countries legalities etc. the very sadness of a loss of a baby in itself Does not excuse you as a professional with the care of 300 other people ....

Your the commander and your responsibility isnt just one family and their loss its everyone elses as well.

So yeah fly on to your legal limit....goto PEK and your done your best. But to exceed those limits your just throwing away your responsibility....and though heartless it may seem the death cant be undone by you exceeding those limits.

Google a three word phrase - "duty of care".

Well done Girls and guys.

Just a curiosity.. How did you guys confirm that the crew had gone beyond discretion and operated illegally to HK? Or you guys just gave your own assumptions?

Many look for a black or white answer in a gray world.

Given the fact that crews and passengers were not allowed to deplane in UAAA, what were the options? Sit on an aircraft for another 18 hours waiting for a rescue?

Sometimes you just have to do what you have to do and other restrictions, guidelines or common practices have to take a backseat to common sense. Most in the left seat would understand this dilemma.:ok: