Augment @ EK
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: i don't know
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, the crew bunk should be placed behind the cockpit with two seats certified for TO + Ldg. This should be mandatory requirement by all regulators, no matter what aluminum it is berthed in.....
Anything else is NOT best practice (as not to say unsafe) - it's as simple as that!
The whole question turns around two factors:
a) How much of a distraction is the augmenting crew with it's presence in the cockpit
b) how much value is the augmenting crew in case of a emergency.
to a) In my view they are a distraction during normal ops on ground, especially with a somewhat assertive augmenting captain. It is imperative that the operating captain can have the cockpit to his team only and therefore some seats must be available for the augmenting crew.
If not, the company bears co-responsibility to more distraction in the flight preparation phase.
to b) my view is, that in any case of added workload, especially with emergencies inflight, the augmenting collegues are of immense value, remember the Sioux-City accident.
Stowing away this asset into the rear of the aircraft or another remote area, effectively making an access to the cockpit impossible in emergencies, is a deliberatly poor set up and very poor sop by the company. They would have to bear some responsibility if an emergency turns ugly and would have possibly been improved by assistance of able bodied additional pilots.
safe flights
GMDS
Anything else is NOT best practice (as not to say unsafe) - it's as simple as that!
The whole question turns around two factors:
a) How much of a distraction is the augmenting crew with it's presence in the cockpit
b) how much value is the augmenting crew in case of a emergency.
to a) In my view they are a distraction during normal ops on ground, especially with a somewhat assertive augmenting captain. It is imperative that the operating captain can have the cockpit to his team only and therefore some seats must be available for the augmenting crew.
If not, the company bears co-responsibility to more distraction in the flight preparation phase.
to b) my view is, that in any case of added workload, especially with emergencies inflight, the augmenting collegues are of immense value, remember the Sioux-City accident.
Stowing away this asset into the rear of the aircraft or another remote area, effectively making an access to the cockpit impossible in emergencies, is a deliberatly poor set up and very poor sop by the company. They would have to bear some responsibility if an emergency turns ugly and would have possibly been improved by assistance of able bodied additional pilots.
safe flights
GMDS
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ummm...back to the drawing board (or Psych 101 textbooks). I don't think "inferiority complex" is the correct term you're looking for. I believe the complex derived from the need to fly a larger aircraft (and be defined by it) is called..."compensation".
Although a 380 is kind of a weird choice for this, an ugly, overweight beast that seems to have a hard time "performing" reliably hardly suggests virility...
I'm just sayin'...
Although a 380 is kind of a weird choice for this, an ugly, overweight beast that seems to have a hard time "performing" reliably hardly suggests virility...
I'm just sayin'...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Post-Pit and Lovin' It.
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heheh I'm only teasing as well...
but why even bring up the A350? Shouldn't the folks from To-Lose try and get one type that can get more than 100 metres from a stand before returning to pull breakers, before inflicting another one on us? I'm not sure either Engineering nor Accounting (not to mention the delayed pax) could stand that much excitement all at once!
I do think it's nice how they load at least one ton of fuel on the 380 for each of it's passengers. A nice touch, perhaps not completely cost-effective but quite prosaic.
But hey it's the BIGGEST!
You're going to have to narrow it down a bit. Which one?!
but why even bring up the A350? Shouldn't the folks from To-Lose try and get one type that can get more than 100 metres from a stand before returning to pull breakers, before inflicting another one on us? I'm not sure either Engineering nor Accounting (not to mention the delayed pax) could stand that much excitement all at once!
I do think it's nice how they load at least one ton of fuel on the 380 for each of it's passengers. A nice touch, perhaps not completely cost-effective but quite prosaic.
But hey it's the BIGGEST!
Ed's arse covering, generalised, non specific, not really saying anything useless message?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think maybe we should rename this thread 'Argument @ EK'.
Seriously gents, let's drop the Bus versus Boeing bull**** and stick with the topic. Anyone who doesn't admit that the 777 had major serviceabilty problems in its first months of service has a very selective memory or wasn't there. The 787 and the A350 will have similar teething problems, and, as with every other type new to service, the tireless engineers will get around them one way or another. The Whale seems to have overcome most of its problems and is becoming quite a hit with the (God, am I really using this 'newspeak' bull**** term?) 'customers'. Most love it, as well they should, when you consider ocean liner proportions of the aluminium that surrounds them when many have paid for little more than the equivalent of a ferry ride.
Back to the subject of the thread: I can't help but feel that if on an ULH flight, company policy forces two extra sets of eyes to be on the flight deck for takeoff and landing, it's patently silly to publish a missive to captains forbidding them from making use of those two extra sets of eyes.
Me myself personally, unless the augmenting captain and FO refuse to co-operate because they feel they must obey company instructions, will be saying those magic words 'non standard' and asking the augmenting crew, tired or not, to consider themselves part of the crew and to speak up loudly and clearly if either of them sees anything they feel isn't as it should be. I'll also offer to do the walkaround if I'm the 'B' captain. If the operating captain feels he can't take me up on that offer, I'll understand completely.
Seriously gents, let's drop the Bus versus Boeing bull**** and stick with the topic. Anyone who doesn't admit that the 777 had major serviceabilty problems in its first months of service has a very selective memory or wasn't there. The 787 and the A350 will have similar teething problems, and, as with every other type new to service, the tireless engineers will get around them one way or another. The Whale seems to have overcome most of its problems and is becoming quite a hit with the (God, am I really using this 'newspeak' bull**** term?) 'customers'. Most love it, as well they should, when you consider ocean liner proportions of the aluminium that surrounds them when many have paid for little more than the equivalent of a ferry ride.
Back to the subject of the thread: I can't help but feel that if on an ULH flight, company policy forces two extra sets of eyes to be on the flight deck for takeoff and landing, it's patently silly to publish a missive to captains forbidding them from making use of those two extra sets of eyes.
Me myself personally, unless the augmenting captain and FO refuse to co-operate because they feel they must obey company instructions, will be saying those magic words 'non standard' and asking the augmenting crew, tired or not, to consider themselves part of the crew and to speak up loudly and clearly if either of them sees anything they feel isn't as it should be. I'll also offer to do the walkaround if I'm the 'B' captain. If the operating captain feels he can't take me up on that offer, I'll understand completely.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dubai
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if the augmenting captain (or f/o for that matter) does the inspection and during taxi out a tyre goes flat? The engineer blames the crew. Tea and biccies for all involved!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not sure now
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whale = Boeing 747
That has been the case for over 30 years.
An A380 should not be referred to as a whale, it's just confusing things and demeaning to a great airplane.
In regards to augmenting crew, I've never found them to be a distraction. Rather, a useful couple of guys who help with the workload during high workload times and who share ideas with the operating crew.
Typhoonpilot
That has been the case for over 30 years.
An A380 should not be referred to as a whale, it's just confusing things and demeaning to a great airplane.
In regards to augmenting crew, I've never found them to be a distraction. Rather, a useful couple of guys who help with the workload during high workload times and who share ideas with the operating crew.
Typhoonpilot
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SSE of smoki
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
cant comment on the Airbus as never flown any of the types.
Regarding the augmenting crew, i think they are a valuable asset to be used, particularly for the walkround if its raining !.
It does not make sense to prevent an augmenting captain from doing a walkround, when in the FTL section of the FOM is says we can have a dispatch crew perform all pre flight duties. After that is done the operating crew board the aircraft and do the flight.
cant comment on the Airbus as never flown any of the types.
Regarding the augmenting crew, i think they are a valuable asset to be used, particularly for the walkround if its raining !.
It does not make sense to prevent an augmenting captain from doing a walkround, when in the FTL section of the FOM is says we can have a dispatch crew perform all pre flight duties. After that is done the operating crew board the aircraft and do the flight.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dark Ages
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm lets see; excerpt from EK FOM
1.4.4.3 Supervision and Co-ordination of Flight Duty
The Commander shall:
a. Co-ordinate and assign at his own discretion, duties to the various crew members with due regard to the composition of the actual crew and their licences.
b. Delegate at his discretion, but in a clear manner, part of his responsibilities on the ground and in the air to the authorised ground staff and/or his crew members.
e. The Commander may delegate duties to other staff members as required, within the limits placed upon him by the FOM and FCOM.
Well the quoted guy above is definitely the one guy in EK who has no clue about aviation and operating aircraft. He has been a failure since he started flying ...or even before .... 
a. Co-ordinate and assign at his own discretion, duties to the various crew members with due regard to the composition of the actual crew and their licences.
b. Delegate at his discretion, but in a clear manner, part of his responsibilities on the ground and in the air to the authorised ground staff and/or his crew members.
e. The Commander may delegate duties to other staff members as required, within the limits placed upon him by the FOM and FCOM.
Straight from CP 380's mouth. eg, (from A Shab), "if the augmenting pilot does the walk around and misses something, then the operating captain is responsible."
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: OZ
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bandit don't get too wound up, firstly it was not an FCI but an email and it does not forbit the use of Augmenting crew doing some duties. The email points out the risks of doing so and suggests it might be ill advised. As much as I hate to admit it the point is valid, however you can still delegate some functions to the second crew, just first consider which functions you choose.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Anywhere there are cats to chase.
Age: 25
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't FCOM have priority over everything except for a current FCI? Do memo's really count?
How can you not trust a guy to do a walk around when you will have to give up control to him at some point over the Indian or Atlantic ocean, the Himalayas or the North Pole?
What a feeling to be going back to your nest in your jammies thinking the guy you couldn't rely on to kick the tires now has the power to get really, really lost, to put the puppy on it's back, or worse.
And if he does mentioned things... it's your fault!
!
Sweet dreams.
T
How can you not trust a guy to do a walk around when you will have to give up control to him at some point over the Indian or Atlantic ocean, the Himalayas or the North Pole?
What a feeling to be going back to your nest in your jammies thinking the guy you couldn't rely on to kick the tires now has the power to get really, really lost, to put the puppy on it's back, or worse.
And if he does mentioned things... it's your fault!
!Sweet dreams.
T
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... especially (on the 777) when the journey from the rest area back to the cockpit is about one and half times the distance of the Wright brothers' first flight(!). You are in fact, relatively close to the cockpit by the time you've stooped your way up in the roof half way back to the front.
Unfortunately, unless you want to quite literally drop onto the head of some hapless passenger - (sorry, 'customer'[!]) - you can only get to the cockpit by stooping all the way down the back first before running the gauntlet through 370+ passengers - all of them.
Unfortunately, unless you want to quite literally drop onto the head of some hapless passenger - (sorry, 'customer'[!]) - you can only get to the cockpit by stooping all the way down the back first before running the gauntlet through 370+ passengers - all of them.
