Refuelling with Pax on Board/Boarding
 

Question for CX guys. In Hong Kong - are you required to have ground crew on the headset for refuelling with Pax on board/boarding?
I realise rules differ between countries - but what about in HKG?

No specific requirement for ground staff, enough cabin crew and available doors is what you will need. But then again depends on what your Operations Manual states as well as what the airport authority authorise your company to do.

Do you work for CX?
I'm asking for CX policy only here.

A headset has to be attached during refueling.

And......? Do you know the answer?
Perhaps not.

Yes - but does someone have to be on the headset to maintain communications during fuelling with pax onboard?
Whats the point of having a headset plugged in and abandoned?
Maybe its unserviceable. Can you assume it will work when/if needed without at least a test call?

If you want regulatory requirements just go to to Air Navigation Order (Hong Kong) 1985 and its later amendments for the specifics and requirements you seek.

@OP

The answer on what is legally required is best found in the applicable regulations, do not you think?

True enough.
Here's an extract from the HKIA AOM Part E Section 5 (On fuel handling procedures)

During fuelling with pax on board/boarding:

5.3.10 Communications shall be maintained by aeroplane intercommunications
system or other suitable means between the refuelling in-charge and the pilot.

What does that mean to you?

I'll put it another way for you.

What if - during refuelling with pax on board - the Captain sees an ECAM Cargo Smoke Warning with firebell and red Master Caution.

What use is the headset if nobody is on it?

What use is the headset if he tries to use it and finds it is unserviceable?

Does MAINTAIN COMMUNICATIONS not mean establish and remain in contact?

OK thanks ACMS.
But in fact the HKIA AOM does say Communications shall be maintained.
There may be debate as to what that actually means. But IMHO, what's the point of plugging in the headset if it's left unmanned and untested? Just for decoration?
If there IS any debate don't you think the SAFEST definition should be accepted? Isn't that what we're supposed to do? Prioritise safety?
Why NOT do it?
Is it a cost issue?

Safety first?

I doubt that. Every time I do a walkaround I see mechanics playing Candy Crush on their phone, or having a snooze in the tug.
And anyway, is cost accepted by the CAD/HKIA as an acceptable reason for not applying the regulations?
Who did the analysis?
The bean counters?

Plugged in and Abandoned
 

I love that line; makes me think of CX management ("leadership") philosophy...

Exactly my point Flex88. Isn't the 'plugged in headset' just another example of 'Safety Theatrics'?
Used to be you had to have the Fire Services standing by at the aircraft during fuelling with pax on board.
Later it became necessary only if an incapacitated passenger was on board.
Then it became merely a request to ATC to 'advise' the Fire Services, but have a crewman on the headset during the whole process.
Now he just plugs in a dodgy headset and walks away.
But is it even legal? I wonder if the CAD/HKIA are aware of this practice and of the apparent conflict with the HKIA AOM?