EK Melbourne accident: final report?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the crew rest hadn't been removed (by EK) then EK wouldn't have to do so much writing of guidance because (in the case of the B777) the augment crew would be out of the way in the take-off/landing certified roof space CRC.
If we had the CRC as designed by the manufacturers, the whole problem would not have arisen. I even pretend MEL would not have happened (not sure about JNB).
In my previous company the acting captain had the choice of sending the augment crew to their comfortable seats. He had the operational choice of having a professional and calm cockpit with the two crew only in charge.
- Which by the way enabled civilized eating and reading during the 7h rest, not some Houdini-like contortion of my neck to only watch TV, let alone simply eat. Now we have to either starve in the bunk or eat in the cockpit on seats that do not recline a bit and disturb flight operations. -
If the captain needed or wanted help, he simply called for it, at any time help was there in seconds and not creating stress to eating passengers and hard working flight attendant from two hurrying guys making their way through 350 passengers.
The captain had the choice, not imposition. That makes a world of difference.
At EK there is no choice. When you sometimes don't want the p.i.t.a behind you, EK imposes him on you. When you could need every hand on deck, in emergencies, EK has banned help 100 meters away from you with 350 panicking passengers in between.
So much about "use of all resources" and safety gets kicked in the proverbial by greed again.
The acting captain in other carriers doesn't have the two poor supernumeraries breathing down his neck during crucial preparations, in addition to the dispatcher, purser, mechanic, station representative, ATC, SMNC et al.
Distraction comes from each and every body/voice in the cockpit, be they nosey or trying to hide.
No FCI or SOP or any kind of directive can take away a huge chunk of responsibility of TC of adding unnecessary distraction and crowdedness into the preflight phase in the cockpit. They simply added risk and now shove down the unsafe outcome on their crew -- again..
but please, dear colleagues, do not ask for more written drivel by the company in that respect!
The only solution to improve the situation would be a decent and safe CRC, so let's all keep discovering and dreaming.
Over and out.
Last edited by pool; 21st May 2011 at 05:25.
Can't remember the last Sim or LC anyone did with an augment crew.
Most manage to pass without. However there appears there are some that may require them on all flights?
halas
Most manage to pass without. However there appears there are some that may require them on all flights?
halas
Question here from a CC...
Pool, you bring up something which has been bothering me for some time now, concerning the CRC and the ability of the resting crew to access the cockpit in an emergency.
It seems the other airlines with A380 have all kept the manufacturer default location for the CRC however EK chose to move theirs to a less optimal, noisy, and inconvenient location. The reports have been going on for ages and the company keep saying they are going to do something about it (soundproofing comes to mind) however I personally haven't noticed any major improvement. (Toilets flushing, babies crying etc- on one recent flight we even had children banging on the walls and I got up three times to shut them up as the operating CC were busy doing the service)
I wondered why they chose this option and randomly browsing the other day came across this rather interesting Flightglobal article on the differences in A380 config between operators, an excerpt of which I quote here:
(Bolding mine)
So, the cargo is more important than the quality rest of the operating crew on a ULR flight? Is that what they're saying or am I missing something here???
I recall several Qantas crew saying that the putcome of QF72 near Learmonth would have been very very different had the CRC for the FD crew been at the aft of the aircraft and not where it is. Thoughts??
Full article: Double luxury - how the airlines are configuring their A380s
Pool, you bring up something which has been bothering me for some time now, concerning the CRC and the ability of the resting crew to access the cockpit in an emergency.
It seems the other airlines with A380 have all kept the manufacturer default location for the CRC however EK chose to move theirs to a less optimal, noisy, and inconvenient location. The reports have been going on for ages and the company keep saying they are going to do something about it (soundproofing comes to mind) however I personally haven't noticed any major improvement. (Toilets flushing, babies crying etc- on one recent flight we even had children banging on the walls and I got up three times to shut them up as the operating CC were busy doing the service)
I wondered why they chose this option and randomly browsing the other day came across this rather interesting Flightglobal article on the differences in A380 config between operators, an excerpt of which I quote here:
Only Emirates' "long-range" configured 489-seat A380s have a crew rest zone, which is at the rear of the main deck in the centre of aft economy cabin. The space freed at the front of the main deck by the elimination of the flightcrew rest zone has been used for three lavatories. Clark says the decision to put the cabin-crew rest on the main deck was basically to preserve cargo capacity. "There is not much volume on the bottom deck," he says, adding that cargo can account for up to 20% of the airline's overall income.
So, the cargo is more important than the quality rest of the operating crew on a ULR flight? Is that what they're saying or am I missing something here???
I recall several Qantas crew saying that the putcome of QF72 near Learmonth would have been very very different had the CRC for the FD crew been at the aft of the aircraft and not where it is. Thoughts??
Full article: Double luxury - how the airlines are configuring their A380s
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
givemewings
Trying to answer your questions.
Concerning the quality our CRCs provide in terms of rest quality - the company couldn't give a damn. They are not a bit concerned about our rest quality and subsequently safety. It's all about gaining space for either headroom for F passengers, or toilets. Nothing more or less.
The other safety aspect is basically virulent in the case where the commander rests and two FOs are on the flight deck. I don't doubt the ability of most FOs, but strictly legally it is only the commander who is responsible for the operation. If he can rest close to the cockpity, the issue is none, because he can be called up in due time, even in emergencies. At EK though, the distance of the location and the fact that panicking passengers can obstruct his way back to the cockpit hinders his capability of coming back on deck. He rest the sole responsible though.
(I guess this was the reference to the QF72 flight, although I am not sure, and potentially also to the AF447 accident).
This is a safety issue with some constellations on the flight deck. EK had an incident over the Himalayas that might have turned ugly with two FOs on the deck making a potentially fatal mistake. EK was lucky that day that the aircraft had no CRC and therefore the captain had to rest in F and had the possibility to access the cockpit very rapidly as he sensed the danger. On todays aircraft, with the CRC in the very remotest place on the aircraft, this incident would have been potentially fatal.
No lessons were drawn from this incident.
The other issue i dealt with above is distraction , a consequence of the location of the CRC and the lack of seating capabiliy of the supernumeraries outside the busy flight deck.
Trying to answer your questions.
Concerning the quality our CRCs provide in terms of rest quality - the company couldn't give a damn. They are not a bit concerned about our rest quality and subsequently safety. It's all about gaining space for either headroom for F passengers, or toilets. Nothing more or less.
The other safety aspect is basically virulent in the case where the commander rests and two FOs are on the flight deck. I don't doubt the ability of most FOs, but strictly legally it is only the commander who is responsible for the operation. If he can rest close to the cockpity, the issue is none, because he can be called up in due time, even in emergencies. At EK though, the distance of the location and the fact that panicking passengers can obstruct his way back to the cockpit hinders his capability of coming back on deck. He rest the sole responsible though.
(I guess this was the reference to the QF72 flight, although I am not sure, and potentially also to the AF447 accident).
This is a safety issue with some constellations on the flight deck. EK had an incident over the Himalayas that might have turned ugly with two FOs on the deck making a potentially fatal mistake. EK was lucky that day that the aircraft had no CRC and therefore the captain had to rest in F and had the possibility to access the cockpit very rapidly as he sensed the danger. On todays aircraft, with the CRC in the very remotest place on the aircraft, this incident would have been potentially fatal.
No lessons were drawn from this incident.
The other issue i dealt with above is distraction , a consequence of the location of the CRC and the lack of seating capabiliy of the supernumeraries outside the busy flight deck.
All pretty much as I thought then. Would be interesting to know where they would stand legally after an accident/hull loss could it be proven that the location of CRC hindered crew from getting back to the cockpit in an emergency.(as has been speculated about with AF) I guess the issue of distraction has already been answered by the event that is at the main subject of this thread...
Thanks for the insight, will let you guys get back to it now...
Thanks for the insight, will let you guys get back to it now...
