More (EK bashing) from the Herald Sun
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Todays Flight Intl has a quote from Emirates saying 2000-3000 Cabin Crew had been given unpaid leave as they had got the numbers wrong even before the economic downturn. Yikes !
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 30 West
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As was stated "leader in fatigue management around the world" or words to that affect. My a** Let's see what the FAA requirements are--NO EXCEPTIONS. Over eight hours flight time....augmented crew. Over 12 hours flight time....full augmented crew. Hell, even KAL is abiding by those guidelines. JET BLUE tried to trick F*** the system for a coast to coast and return, with no augmentation... result, FAA shut it down as soon as it found out about it. This is, of course, on a two manned type aircraft.
Flt 584 DXB-DAC-DXB flt time...9:35
Flt 544 DXB-MAA-DXB flt time...8:10
Flt 27 DXB-GLA Flt time...8:05
Flt 105 DXB-ATH-DXB flt time...9:46
Flt 123 DXB-IST-DXB flt time....8:55
Flt 332 DXB-MNL flt time....8:00(Etihad augments?)
Flt 783 DXB-LOS flt time....8:20
Just a sampling. This is just on the Boeing and there are others. What's on the 'bus? Not one of those flights would be approved by the FAA with the current non-augmentation. I am sure there are others. Leader in fatigue managment? No, I don't think so.
Flt 584 DXB-DAC-DXB flt time...9:35
Flt 544 DXB-MAA-DXB flt time...8:10
Flt 27 DXB-GLA Flt time...8:05
Flt 105 DXB-ATH-DXB flt time...9:46
Flt 123 DXB-IST-DXB flt time....8:55
Flt 332 DXB-MNL flt time....8:00(Etihad augments?)
Flt 783 DXB-LOS flt time....8:20
Just a sampling. This is just on the Boeing and there are others. What's on the 'bus? Not one of those flights would be approved by the FAA with the current non-augmentation. I am sure there are others. Leader in fatigue managment? No, I don't think so.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Airplane
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fred,
I don't think that was the point IXNAT was making.
He is disputing the suggestion that EK are so called leaders in fatigue managment. By comparing what we do at EK to what others do, one can see that EK falls short. Unless the goal is to have higher fatigue.
7
I don't think that was the point IXNAT was making.
He is disputing the suggestion that EK are so called leaders in fatigue managment. By comparing what we do at EK to what others do, one can see that EK falls short. Unless the goal is to have higher fatigue.7
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ex UK, now Miami
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IXNAT,
While I agree wholeheartedly that ALL flights longer that 8:00 should have augmented crew, your statement about the FAA requiring an augmented crew with NO EXCEPTIONS is not entirely true.
I flew the DC10 (US based) for several years and could never understand why a B767 or 777 flying a flight longer than 8:00 required an augmented crew but we would regularly fly 12 hour nonstops and even worse, two 6 hour flights back to back with no augmentation. The fact that we had a Flight Engineer on board was irrelevant in my opinion. Our career FEs were not pilots and held only FE certificates.
In the eyes of the FAA, the DC10 was a 3 pilot aircraft, therefore we could fly 12 hours with no augmentation. I see this situation of having a Capt, FO and FE in the cockpit for 12 hours as being no different to a 2 pilot crew flying together for 12 hours.
The new Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking regarding rest requirements by the FAA is proposing that time of day will be taken into account when determining how many hours pilots will be able to fly. If a flight sequence starts between 07:00 and 12:59, a 2 man crew will be legal to fly 9:00, however this is reduced to 7:00 for nighttime duty, making most of the examples you gave above legal per the new rules as long as they are daytime flights.
While I agree wholeheartedly that ALL flights longer that 8:00 should have augmented crew, your statement about the FAA requiring an augmented crew with NO EXCEPTIONS is not entirely true.
I flew the DC10 (US based) for several years and could never understand why a B767 or 777 flying a flight longer than 8:00 required an augmented crew but we would regularly fly 12 hour nonstops and even worse, two 6 hour flights back to back with no augmentation. The fact that we had a Flight Engineer on board was irrelevant in my opinion. Our career FEs were not pilots and held only FE certificates.
In the eyes of the FAA, the DC10 was a 3 pilot aircraft, therefore we could fly 12 hours with no augmentation. I see this situation of having a Capt, FO and FE in the cockpit for 12 hours as being no different to a 2 pilot crew flying together for 12 hours.
The new Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking regarding rest requirements by the FAA is proposing that time of day will be taken into account when determining how many hours pilots will be able to fly. If a flight sequence starts between 07:00 and 12:59, a 2 man crew will be legal to fly 9:00, however this is reduced to 7:00 for nighttime duty, making most of the examples you gave above legal per the new rules as long as they are daytime flights.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 30 West
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mom girls. Try and read between the lines or the lines. What I was trying to convey was, first, EK says they are a world leader in fatigue management. By stating the examples above, I was trying to impart to those here that these pairings would not be allowed at a US carrier. I wasn't trying to say the FAA would impose their restrictions on a GCAA carrier, I mentioned that these were TWO manned aircrew aircraft restictions of the FAA (NOT a DC10, L1011, B747-200, A300, DC-8, B707, B727 etc.)
I was refering to the the FAA. I don't know what the regulations are in other parts of the world. Better or worse, I don't care. I am saying that the GCAA (re, EK) is not world leading when it comes to fatigue management and regulations.
And if you think that flying over nine hours on the backside of the clock doing a turnaround is a world leading safe way to go.....management would love to have you.
The above pairings were just some simple examples. Oh and BTW, you forget that time not in a control seat as the augmenting crew is not counted towards one's monthly/yearly max. Add that into the mix. I wonder if the captain on the ill fated MEL flight, with his 98+ hours had had any factoring in within those 98 hours. Then we would be talking way over 100 hours per month. Know of any carriers in the US (regulated by the FAA) that can allow aircrew not to count inflight time as part of their regulatory max's? And I am not talking deadhead, only operating crew.
So finally my point is, I am sure EK regulated by the GCAA is better than some of the truly third world regulators, but it is NOT world leading as they state. EK would be shut down yesterday if they tried to run under FAA regulations. (and for you simpletons that still don't understand what I am trying to say...yes I know that EK does not have to abide by any FAA duty time limits. BUT if fatigue issues continue to dog the airline, the FAA could rescind EK's Category One certification.)
I was refering to the the FAA. I don't know what the regulations are in other parts of the world. Better or worse, I don't care. I am saying that the GCAA (re, EK) is not world leading when it comes to fatigue management and regulations.
And if you think that flying over nine hours on the backside of the clock doing a turnaround is a world leading safe way to go.....management would love to have you.
The above pairings were just some simple examples. Oh and BTW, you forget that time not in a control seat as the augmenting crew is not counted towards one's monthly/yearly max. Add that into the mix. I wonder if the captain on the ill fated MEL flight, with his 98+ hours had had any factoring in within those 98 hours. Then we would be talking way over 100 hours per month. Know of any carriers in the US (regulated by the FAA) that can allow aircrew not to count inflight time as part of their regulatory max's? And I am not talking deadhead, only operating crew.
So finally my point is, I am sure EK regulated by the GCAA is better than some of the truly third world regulators, but it is NOT world leading as they state. EK would be shut down yesterday if they tried to run under FAA regulations. (and for you simpletons that still don't understand what I am trying to say...yes I know that EK does not have to abide by any FAA duty time limits. BUT if fatigue issues continue to dog the airline, the FAA could rescind EK's Category One certification.)
Last edited by IXNAT; 7th Oct 2009 at 17:15.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fitness.
Well you may think you are fit to operate before signing on for an 18 hour flight. Once the 18 hours are up you may or probably won't be fit to operate, certainly not to effectively handle some sort of emergency.
Well you may think you are fit to operate before signing on for an 18 hour flight. Once the 18 hours are up you may or probably won't be fit to operate, certainly not to effectively handle some sort of emergency.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: nowhere
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The National Article
What are your impressions about the article published by "the national"
regarding "pilot fatigue"?
I am very surprised to read an article like this on a UAE newspaper...
Flare
regarding "pilot fatigue"?
I am very surprised to read an article like this on a UAE newspaper...
Flare
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DXB
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More pilot fatigue in newspapers....Pilots call for tougher rules on fatigue
