Emirates, Safety, Air Services and Journos
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates, Safety, Air Services and Journos
It seems to me that airlines like Emirates have a virtual free hand in their exploitation of the Australian market. Not only are they government backed for all intents and purposes, they also have the commercial advantage of not having to deal with legitimate and strong air safety regulators. Without this handicap they are virtually free to set whatever crew duty times they like because the Dubai CAA will comply with any of their wishes.
Emirates crew duty times allow an augmented crew of four pilots up to 150 hours a month and three crew 130 hours or so. This will have a significant impact on safety as well as being commercially positive for their company. So where Oz companies are bound by Oz regulations that ensure our public safety the overseas operators are delivered a commercial advantage that reduces safety margins.
I thought I'd write and ask why this was so. I got a formal reply from the CAA declaring that the Dubai CAA was declared competent by ICAO and was therefore acceptable to ASA. They didn't comment on why Emirates could use crew duty limits quite different to any other operator that I'd heard of. The media isn't interested at all. Crikey, SMH and Australian Aviation didn't reply. John Anderson's office didn't reply.
I guess in the global economy we're quick to hand our advantage of skilled crews and ok regulations to any one for a cheap ticket and some support of our footy clubs.
Emirates crew duty times allow an augmented crew of four pilots up to 150 hours a month and three crew 130 hours or so. This will have a significant impact on safety as well as being commercially positive for their company. So where Oz companies are bound by Oz regulations that ensure our public safety the overseas operators are delivered a commercial advantage that reduces safety margins.
I thought I'd write and ask why this was so. I got a formal reply from the CAA declaring that the Dubai CAA was declared competent by ICAO and was therefore acceptable to ASA. They didn't comment on why Emirates could use crew duty limits quite different to any other operator that I'd heard of. The media isn't interested at all. Crikey, SMH and Australian Aviation didn't reply. John Anderson's office didn't reply.
I guess in the global economy we're quick to hand our advantage of skilled crews and ok regulations to any one for a cheap ticket and some support of our footy clubs.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates crew duty times allow an augmented crew of four pilots up to 150 hours a month and three crew 130 hours or so.
Wish I could do that little
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: some dive
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
w_krr
Well said.
Cyclops,
Stick with your bad breath, shiny buildings and false plastic way of life as it is in the third world. No doubt you have even entered into the EMAAR way of life.
Well said.
Cyclops,
Stick with your bad breath, shiny buildings and false plastic way of life as it is in the third world. No doubt you have even entered into the EMAAR way of life.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Tin Can
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that I really care Woomera but given that Emirates is a major competitor to many of the local carriers Downunder, the issue of how they compete is totally relevent.
Your decision to arbitrarily move this post from the downunder forum is to say the least bizarre.
Your decision to arbitrarily move this post from the downunder forum is to say the least bizarre.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How an ICAO member soverign state other than Australia manages it's regulatory function is not an issue Dunnunda.
I would suggest if you feel the carrier nominated in w_krr's first post represents a safety issue, you really haven't looked at a number of other Australian on line international carriers, or haven't travelled much?
After all, the foreign carrier in question must have an Australian AOC.... Has w_krr raised his serious and grave concerns with CASA or the Minister?
If you don't really care, then moving the thread to an appropriate forum is not an issue. Moderation of the thread is now a matter for my Moderator colleague in the Far East Forum, who I can assure you is far better qualified to address these matters.
I left a link in Dunnunda for those interested in the moved thread.
Woomera
I would suggest if you feel the carrier nominated in w_krr's first post represents a safety issue, you really haven't looked at a number of other Australian on line international carriers, or haven't travelled much?
After all, the foreign carrier in question must have an Australian AOC.... Has w_krr raised his serious and grave concerns with CASA or the Minister?
If you don't really care, then moving the thread to an appropriate forum is not an issue. Moderation of the thread is now a matter for my Moderator colleague in the Far East Forum, who I can assure you is far better qualified to address these matters.
I left a link in Dunnunda for those interested in the moved thread.
Woomera
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Bit nosey aren't you
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ek's flight time rules are more conservative than the ones the Italians are working to at the moment. Are they another Third World country?!?
Sadly, try and prove to anyone that a 4 crew operation reduces safety! Were the whole months flying to be augmented it would mean that they spent 75 hours at the controls and 75 hours in the bunk. I guarantee you that most of us feel worse (and less sharp) at the end of a 91/2hr trip back from Manilla unaugmented than a mate does after 14 hours to Sydney with a couple of trips to the bunk. It would seem to me that 2 full crew has to beat a Second Officer augmentation system. My question would be about the long term fatigue effect. There is no doubt though, that Quantas would be first to change the rules (to fly more hours) if they could. As far as competition, I am not sure it would effect the sitch in Aus anyway. More important are EK's lower costs for everyone from the bog cleaner to the Captain.
The fact is that the FAA and CAA must have approved EK's operation to allow them to operate in their airspace so I think you are shovelling sh1t uphill.
Ghost
Sadly, try and prove to anyone that a 4 crew operation reduces safety! Were the whole months flying to be augmented it would mean that they spent 75 hours at the controls and 75 hours in the bunk. I guarantee you that most of us feel worse (and less sharp) at the end of a 91/2hr trip back from Manilla unaugmented than a mate does after 14 hours to Sydney with a couple of trips to the bunk. It would seem to me that 2 full crew has to beat a Second Officer augmentation system. My question would be about the long term fatigue effect. There is no doubt though, that Quantas would be first to change the rules (to fly more hours) if they could. As far as competition, I am not sure it would effect the sitch in Aus anyway. More important are EK's lower costs for everyone from the bog cleaner to the Captain.
The fact is that the FAA and CAA must have approved EK's operation to allow them to operate in their airspace so I think you are shovelling sh1t uphill.
Ghost
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Tin Can
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ghostflyer me thinks you speak with fork tongue...... to quote you on a previous post:
As we know, FTL's are not limits merely targets.
Cheers.
We have a couple of guys that have been trying to escape the 340 but it is a black hole that never lets you out once you have qualified. The augmented credit rules means that some guys are doing well over 100 hours a month and are turning into zombies.
Cheers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: sydney
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera, you behave in the exactly the same way as all the agencies mentioned in my initial post by shoving this away from the Dunnunda forum. I'm interested in why Australian agencies, ASA and the like, allow Emirates to behave differently from their own carriers, understanding that they are recognised by ICAO based on an audit every couple of years.
You didn't read the initial post. I wrote to Mr Anderson, the Minister for Transport, ASA and a couple of media outlets and didn't receive a reply of substance.
Emirates may have a more conservative flight time and duty policy than Alitalia but I'm not concerned immediately with the Italian travelling public who must be at some risk themselves if what Ghost says is true.
You didn't read the initial post. I wrote to Mr Anderson, the Minister for Transport, ASA and a couple of media outlets and didn't receive a reply of substance.
Emirates may have a more conservative flight time and duty policy than Alitalia but I'm not concerned immediately with the Italian travelling public who must be at some risk themselves if what Ghost says is true.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Down the river
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
w_krr, I think it's a relevant issue you raise
To me the idea that with four crew only 66% of the duty time counts towards your monthly totals seems absurd
The idea of FTL's is to reduce fatigue to commercially acceptable safe levels. With this factoring you are essentially saying that being stuck in a dark bunk at some random time of the day (when you may or may not be able to sleep) doesn't REALLY count towards cumulative fatigue
Personally I find it ALOT less tiring two crew up the front with all time on board the aircraft counting
To me the idea that with four crew only 66% of the duty time counts towards your monthly totals seems absurd
The idea of FTL's is to reduce fatigue to commercially acceptable safe levels. With this factoring you are essentially saying that being stuck in a dark bunk at some random time of the day (when you may or may not be able to sleep) doesn't REALLY count towards cumulative fatigue
Personally I find it ALOT less tiring two crew up the front with all time on board the aircraft counting
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Bit nosey aren't you
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Radnav,
Fair call! I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed but wanted to inject some realism. If I could fly 1 hr/month for a couple of mil I would. The points I was trying to make were as follows:
1. The fatigue relating to an operation varies from individual to individual. Some guys can get 10 minutes sleep between LGW and LHR others none between SIN and JFK. The long term fatigue question is the biggie!
2. The DGCAA are audited and the CAA/FAA have accepted their operation.
3. Historically, the legislators blow off pilot's safety concerns until it is too late. We just get to say 'told you so'. They say prove it; how do we? Where do you draw the line and why is an Aus or UK line better than the Italians, Dubai's or anyone else's?
4. W_krr seemed more worried about competition than safety. I don't think a more stringent interpretation of the FTL would significantly effect the cost base of EK's Aus operation. EK just doesn't have the same social costs as an Aus operator. Lots of operators around the world have different interpretations of the rules. Aus managers try to get away with whatever they can too.
None of the above makes it right or fair!
Sorry, fell asleep, this typing is bloody tiring.
Ghost
Fair call! I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed but wanted to inject some realism. If I could fly 1 hr/month for a couple of mil I would. The points I was trying to make were as follows:
1. The fatigue relating to an operation varies from individual to individual. Some guys can get 10 minutes sleep between LGW and LHR others none between SIN and JFK. The long term fatigue question is the biggie!
2. The DGCAA are audited and the CAA/FAA have accepted their operation.
3. Historically, the legislators blow off pilot's safety concerns until it is too late. We just get to say 'told you so'. They say prove it; how do we? Where do you draw the line and why is an Aus or UK line better than the Italians, Dubai's or anyone else's?
4. W_krr seemed more worried about competition than safety. I don't think a more stringent interpretation of the FTL would significantly effect the cost base of EK's Aus operation. EK just doesn't have the same social costs as an Aus operator. Lots of operators around the world have different interpretations of the rules. Aus managers try to get away with whatever they can too.
None of the above makes it right or fair!
Sorry, fell asleep, this typing is bloody tiring. Ghost
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Tin Can
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear what your saying Ghostflyer, and all good points.
Unlike Emirates, quite a number of the International flag carriers have pilot unions or associations who manage to put a slightly more humane restriction on the "government regulated absolute limits". Very few constantly "push the envelope"....so to speak.
Is this what in reality happens in Alitalia/Italy, which lets face it is pretty well unionised. If not I sure would be interested to hear what draconian limits they fly to there. Aren't they JAA/JAR compliant??
It is said by some sources that Emirates even removed the much hyped fatigue model and monitoring from the new bid system so as not to restrict their competitivity in any way.
Sleep well.
Unlike Emirates, quite a number of the International flag carriers have pilot unions or associations who manage to put a slightly more humane restriction on the "government regulated absolute limits". Very few constantly "push the envelope"....so to speak.
Is this what in reality happens in Alitalia/Italy, which lets face it is pretty well unionised. If not I sure would be interested to hear what draconian limits they fly to there. Aren't they JAA/JAR compliant??
It is said by some sources that Emirates even removed the much hyped fatigue model and monitoring from the new bid system so as not to restrict their competitivity in any way.
Sleep well.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Bit nosey aren't you
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Radnav you are right I think,
Allegedly, the fatigue model was removed 'to be introduced later'. So the rumours go, they ran the new bidding system and it failed!
Basically it needed more crew to crunch the rosters for everyone and threw a wobbly. The system needed flex and EK manning gave none. The solution was to add a few phantoms like 'General Accident' and 'Major Disaster' and run the system again. Then the phantom's rosters were manually distributed amongst the remaining crew. This invalidated the 'heart factor bit' (as you can see I'm well up to speed on the technical banter....not) and so it has not been included.
But at least, EK do have a doc with the responsibility for fatigue management. Mind you, he probably just says 'I'd recommend you get more sleep'.....
Allegedly, the fatigue model was removed 'to be introduced later'. So the rumours go, they ran the new bidding system and it failed!
Basically it needed more crew to crunch the rosters for everyone and threw a wobbly. The system needed flex and EK manning gave none. The solution was to add a few phantoms like 'General Accident' and 'Major Disaster' and run the system again. Then the phantom's rosters were manually distributed amongst the remaining crew. This invalidated the 'heart factor bit' (as you can see I'm well up to speed on the technical banter....not) and so it has not been included.
But at least, EK do have a doc with the responsibility for fatigue management. Mind you, he probably just says 'I'd recommend you get more sleep'.....
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: home
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
according to you, it is ok for the ozs to dominate and monoplize the entire pacific regions's aviation industry. but now come comes a real challenge, it is the end of the world. my suggestion to you is for you to join Emrates airlines.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wish I Knew
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me alot of people seem confused between "Duty Time" and and Flying Duty Period, they have different definitions and differant limits.
Duty Time is :-
"Any Continuous Period During which a crew member is required to carry out any task associated with an Air Operator" ie sim reserve, office duties etc.
Flying Duty Period
"Any time when a person operates an aircraft as a memeber of its crew. It starts when the crew member is required by an operator to report for a flight, and finishes at on-chocks or engines off, or rotors stopped, on the final sector"
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP371.PDF
Duty Time is :-
"Any Continuous Period During which a crew member is required to carry out any task associated with an Air Operator" ie sim reserve, office duties etc.
Flying Duty Period
"Any time when a person operates an aircraft as a memeber of its crew. It starts when the crew member is required by an operator to report for a flight, and finishes at on-chocks or engines off, or rotors stopped, on the final sector"
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP371.PDF
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough, they are talking about flight duty period ie that bit of time your bum is attached to an aeroplane. In other words under the DGCAs interpretation of this reg you can be in an aeroplane for 150 hours a month if you operate all month as part of a four person crew.
