EK Resignations
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys your surely not surprised by Canadian pilots landing short of fuel, I mean at least these guys had some in the tanks!
I've worked with a quite a few Canadians some very good and some very bad, and quite liberal with the legal stuff.
I've worked with a quite a few Canadians some very good and some very bad, and quite liberal with the legal stuff.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lhr, where can I find the info wrt not leaving DXB in discretion I would really like to see that on paper
unable, funny thing I've flown with some really good and some really bad guys from the UK so does that that make the Canadians tha same as the Brits
unable, funny thing I've flown with some really good and some really bad guys from the UK so does that that make the Canadians tha same as the Brits
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Desert
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you would look at the postings you would find that I did not compare good and bad Canadian pilots. I did however say that I wish the Canadians had a little backbone every now and again. Just because they tripled their salary by coming to EK is no reason to fly over 18 hours just to get to NY and land on fumes.
I don't know where the discretion rules are spelled out but is it common sense not to leave your home base knowing you are going to over the duty time limit? And 18 hours to boot! What was so important that those Canadians had to go to NY?
Answer to your question is yes there are good and bad UK pilots as well.
I don't know where the discretion rules are spelled out but is it common sense not to leave your home base knowing you are going to over the duty time limit? And 18 hours to boot! What was so important that those Canadians had to go to NY?
Answer to your question is yes there are good and bad UK pilots as well.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dubai,UAE
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR
funny I just looked at the crewlist for the flight in question and other than the one Canadian I can see of the four, I do know the other skipper was a former Trainer, a very competant pilot and certainly not from across the other side of the Atlantic.
18 hours is a little ridiculous and having not flown the JFK run for more than a year now, I seem to recall that max duty day has always been a very grey area with the LR Ops.
I do remember every flight that left DXB for JFK was in discretion before you even left the gate, the window for 3 crew was only 20 minutes.
As far as landing on fumes go, what happened did they end up on another NAT Track at the wrong level, we all know that never happens, extensive holding in the terminal area, never happens. Could they have exercised their option to "commit to destination" as per the fuel policy, only they know for sure.
As far as back-bone goes there are many of the Canadians who are far more vocal than you may realize, only it is done directly to the people involved and not here.
Nothing to do with the original post I know but just a couple of Fils worth
Take care
Dooner
funny I just looked at the crewlist for the flight in question and other than the one Canadian I can see of the four, I do know the other skipper was a former Trainer, a very competant pilot and certainly not from across the other side of the Atlantic.
18 hours is a little ridiculous and having not flown the JFK run for more than a year now, I seem to recall that max duty day has always been a very grey area with the LR Ops.
I do remember every flight that left DXB for JFK was in discretion before you even left the gate, the window for 3 crew was only 20 minutes.
As far as landing on fumes go, what happened did they end up on another NAT Track at the wrong level, we all know that never happens, extensive holding in the terminal area, never happens. Could they have exercised their option to "commit to destination" as per the fuel policy, only they know for sure.
As far as back-bone goes there are many of the Canadians who are far more vocal than you may realize, only it is done directly to the people involved and not here.
Nothing to do with the original post I know but just a couple of Fils worth
Take care
Dooner
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: out there somewhere...
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dooner!
As always the voice of reason...seems that the only way to find the facts is to actually look for them, 'cause if you listen to the "rainman" you won't find any!
Cheers and hope to run into you out there one day
LC
As always the voice of reason...seems that the only way to find the facts is to actually look for them, 'cause if you listen to the "rainman" you won't find any!
Cheers and hope to run into you out there one day
LC
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The planet Tharg
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's squash this thing about dispatching into discretion. It's perfectly legal. See FOM, Chap 21 Pg 35 para 18.1. I agree with Menard in that if they went to JFK with 4 pilots it would be reasonable to invoke Annex 5 to the FTL. So long as they complied with all the requirements and departed by 1200 local then discretion is not a player.
Have a nice day
Have a nice day
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The planet Tharg
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EH
Been here for quite a few years now and been into disgression only once, and that was due to an unserviceablility down route. By the way, the Commander can only use his disgression to extend an FDP due to an UNFORESEEN DELAY. A flight that cannot be completed within the allowable FDP, because the flight time is simply too long, has been illegally planned. (FOM Chap 21 Page 5 para 2.2). That's why you saw that undignified scrambling around at late notice to use Annex 2 DUBAI(1) to get flights back from Shanghai when they changed from winter to summer schedule and dropped the 3rd pilot. If the captain was allowed to use disgression in this case they would simply have gone for that. The Company relies a lot on pilots not understanding the FTL and luckily for them a significant number don't. I think it is no coincidence that the interpretive notes in para 18 "Aircraft Commander's Discretion to Extend a Flying Duty Period", still say
"Guidelines - Detailed Guidance to be Added", and have done for over a year.
Vot to do??
Been here for quite a few years now and been into disgression only once, and that was due to an unserviceablility down route. By the way, the Commander can only use his disgression to extend an FDP due to an UNFORESEEN DELAY. A flight that cannot be completed within the allowable FDP, because the flight time is simply too long, has been illegally planned. (FOM Chap 21 Page 5 para 2.2). That's why you saw that undignified scrambling around at late notice to use Annex 2 DUBAI(1) to get flights back from Shanghai when they changed from winter to summer schedule and dropped the 3rd pilot. If the captain was allowed to use disgression in this case they would simply have gone for that. The Company relies a lot on pilots not understanding the FTL and luckily for them a significant number don't. I think it is no coincidence that the interpretive notes in para 18 "Aircraft Commander's Discretion to Extend a Flying Duty Period", still say
"Guidelines - Detailed Guidance to be Added", and have done for over a year.
Vot to do??
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dubai
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FTLS are still a mess in EK
I have to agree that the whole FTL in EK are a mess(deliberatly) with the issue of Discretion and Variations that are applied by our airline.
The end result no one knows whats going on...
The Shanghai example listed above was difficult to understand, as the company told us in an email that it would depend on the actual flight planned time on the day if the variation would be applied....funny I allways thought that the variation was applied to the Sked times but comercial reality dictated otherwise in that case.
Its sobering to remember that Emirates do not issue our Flight Crew Licence (GCAA do) at the end of the day we have to answer to the GCAA not to Emirates for any FTL excursions.
The end result no one knows whats going on...
The Shanghai example listed above was difficult to understand, as the company told us in an email that it would depend on the actual flight planned time on the day if the variation would be applied....funny I allways thought that the variation was applied to the Sked times but comercial reality dictated otherwise in that case.
Its sobering to remember that Emirates do not issue our Flight Crew Licence (GCAA do) at the end of the day we have to answer to the GCAA not to Emirates for any FTL excursions.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The planet Tharg
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Limbo,
I understand English is not your first language, but perhaps you could read the reference: "An aircraft Commander may,at his discretion, AND AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CREW, extend an FDP beyond that permitted in paragragh 13, Tables A or B, provided he is satisfied that the flight can be made safely". It is the Commander's decision, but he should check that the rest of the team are up for it. He would be very unwise to proceed if they were not and anyway, if you're not fit to fly you have a legal obligation to remover yourself from the flight. Now perhaps we can get me on Mastermind....specialist subject - THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS
I understand English is not your first language, but perhaps you could read the reference: "An aircraft Commander may,at his discretion, AND AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CREW, extend an FDP beyond that permitted in paragragh 13, Tables A or B, provided he is satisfied that the flight can be made safely". It is the Commander's decision, but he should check that the rest of the team are up for it. He would be very unwise to proceed if they were not and anyway, if you're not fit to fly you have a legal obligation to remover yourself from the flight. Now perhaps we can get me on Mastermind....specialist subject - THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shitosphere
Age: 57
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heywood,
I is an extremely good point you bring up there and you are absolutely right. Not all CDRs are of the same opinion as you are which I find a bit scary.
I is an extremely good point you bring up there and you are absolutely right. Not all CDRs are of the same opinion as you are which I find a bit scary.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny how some guys are so quick to jump to conclusions!!!!
Immediately assuming that their colleagues are idiots or irresponsible individuals...
Nice professional behavior....
Immediately assuming that their colleagues are idiots or irresponsible individuals...
Nice professional behavior....
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok here goes. These are the facts.
When we left DXB, we were within the FDP limitations as described in the fom ie. using actual cfp flight times. As the flight continued it looked like we would land with 15 minutes to spare.
Then we were put into a hold. This is the reason we went over the 18 hour limit. In my view it was perfectly legal and within the scope of the fom. Also if we felt tired we had the option to give control to the relief crew who had been on duty for 14 hours. This was discussed on the day and we felt it was not required. Hope that settles that "issue."
As for the fuel "issue." During the hold we were given an expect further clearance time of 25 minutes. We had 35 minutes of hold time. No problem. By the way that does not include the 700 kgs of fuel that the fms keeps in the route reserve. Now at the time we prepared for a diversion to Newark just in case. At this time we easily met the requirements for commit to destination (about ten different runways and the weater was cavok). I have no problem landing with final reserve. We at Emirates and indeed all airlines plan on that possibility for every single flight. As it turned out we landed at JFK with enough fuel for the go around and diversion to Newark. What was stated earlier in a post is simply not true. Even if it was, I have no problem with landing with less than alternate fuel as the requirements for commit to destination were fulfilled. That is that "issue".
Now the big "Issue". Should we as pilots depart DXB knowing we will enter discreation? The answer is, it is up to the commander plain and simple. On that day I felt I could do it without comprimising safety. One of the other pilots decided not to do it and I supported him. If you know who it was then just ask him. Now some might feel that not going into discreation will force the company into rethinking The system. Might work I don't know. As for me I don't have agendas along these lines. On the day I will try to do the flight, but if I feel it is unsafe then the buck stops here (that is what I am payed for).
Now for the Canadians with no back bone "issue". You guys have your opinion and I respect that (I am Canadian after all). But if you think "I" would back down from any issue regarding work then you are simply misstaken.
Ps. I guess my identity is comprimised. Oh well.
Crazy.
When we left DXB, we were within the FDP limitations as described in the fom ie. using actual cfp flight times. As the flight continued it looked like we would land with 15 minutes to spare.
Then we were put into a hold. This is the reason we went over the 18 hour limit. In my view it was perfectly legal and within the scope of the fom. Also if we felt tired we had the option to give control to the relief crew who had been on duty for 14 hours. This was discussed on the day and we felt it was not required. Hope that settles that "issue."
As for the fuel "issue." During the hold we were given an expect further clearance time of 25 minutes. We had 35 minutes of hold time. No problem. By the way that does not include the 700 kgs of fuel that the fms keeps in the route reserve. Now at the time we prepared for a diversion to Newark just in case. At this time we easily met the requirements for commit to destination (about ten different runways and the weater was cavok). I have no problem landing with final reserve. We at Emirates and indeed all airlines plan on that possibility for every single flight. As it turned out we landed at JFK with enough fuel for the go around and diversion to Newark. What was stated earlier in a post is simply not true. Even if it was, I have no problem with landing with less than alternate fuel as the requirements for commit to destination were fulfilled. That is that "issue".
Now the big "Issue". Should we as pilots depart DXB knowing we will enter discreation? The answer is, it is up to the commander plain and simple. On that day I felt I could do it without comprimising safety. One of the other pilots decided not to do it and I supported him. If you know who it was then just ask him. Now some might feel that not going into discreation will force the company into rethinking The system. Might work I don't know. As for me I don't have agendas along these lines. On the day I will try to do the flight, but if I feel it is unsafe then the buck stops here (that is what I am payed for).
Now for the Canadians with no back bone "issue". You guys have your opinion and I respect that (I am Canadian after all). But if you think "I" would back down from any issue regarding work then you are simply misstaken.
Ps. I guess my identity is comprimised. Oh well.
Crazy.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here you go LHR rain,
enough said; puts in perspective your credibility.
BTW If I was C Canuck, I would have let you more rope to hang yourself before answering to your assumptions....
enough said; puts in perspective your credibility.
BTW If I was C Canuck, I would have let you more rope to hang yourself before answering to your assumptions....
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: home
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE - By the way that does not include the 700 kgs of fuel that the fms keeps in the route reserve.
Just a side note, with no intention of critisizing (spelling?!) at all. The fuel figure in the FMS prediction page for Reserve, should be input as a percentage not a hard figure (as the uplink loads it.) Hence as the flight gets nearer destination, the reserve fuel remaining unburnt would transfer (figuratively) to the EXTRA figure and the real holding potential is then shown to the crew. Minimum reserve fuel amounts are for dispatch/planning purposes only.
I've noticed that there seems to be a lot of infighting going on in these forums nowadays. Pilots versus cabin crew in other forums and now pilots versus Canadian pilots. I think this is a huge shame. The last thing we want is friction at work because some d***head posts ridiculous comments on these forums about his/her colleagues and then the rest of the group are branded in the same manner. The Canadians are a great bunch of people to work with, and before anyone asks, I'm European.
Crazy Canuck, would strongly recommend you find a new identity on PPrune !!!!
4HP, how difficult would it be to introduce a spell checker on this website??!!!!
Virtually impossible - if appearances are important then cut & paste your submission to something like Word to verify the spelling. Generally speaking there is no requirement to have perfect spelling on this site - as in other forums, what is greatly appreciated is the use of capital’s, where appropriate, the avoidance of using all capital's (shouting) as well as the avoidance of making posts in SMS fashion, using abbreviated spelling. School's out - carry on. 4HP
Just a side note, with no intention of critisizing (spelling?!) at all. The fuel figure in the FMS prediction page for Reserve, should be input as a percentage not a hard figure (as the uplink loads it.) Hence as the flight gets nearer destination, the reserve fuel remaining unburnt would transfer (figuratively) to the EXTRA figure and the real holding potential is then shown to the crew. Minimum reserve fuel amounts are for dispatch/planning purposes only.
I've noticed that there seems to be a lot of infighting going on in these forums nowadays. Pilots versus cabin crew in other forums and now pilots versus Canadian pilots. I think this is a huge shame. The last thing we want is friction at work because some d***head posts ridiculous comments on these forums about his/her colleagues and then the rest of the group are branded in the same manner. The Canadians are a great bunch of people to work with, and before anyone asks, I'm European.
Crazy Canuck, would strongly recommend you find a new identity on PPrune !!!!
4HP, how difficult would it be to introduce a spell checker on this website??!!!!
Virtually impossible - if appearances are important then cut & paste your submission to something like Word to verify the spelling. Generally speaking there is no requirement to have perfect spelling on this site - as in other forums, what is greatly appreciated is the use of capital’s, where appropriate, the avoidance of using all capital's (shouting) as well as the avoidance of making posts in SMS fashion, using abbreviated spelling. School's out - carry on. 4HP
Last edited by 4HolerPoler; 27th Sep 2005 at 14:21.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the 345, when you get closer to destination, and the 5% (or 3% or tonnes) inserted (or uplinked) in the "reserve" field of the "fuel pred." page becomes less than 700 kilos, it defaults to 700 kgs, you cannot overwrite it with a smaller figure...
Not trying to be smart...just a precision...
Menard....
Not trying to be smart...just a precision...
Menard....
Good to work with..