Middle East Many expats still flying in Knoteetingham. Regional issues can be discussed here.

EK207 Jfk

Old 7th Jan 2018, 18:40
  #421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: South of North
Posts: 656
UNSAFE rosters would be a better term.
Trader is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 19:03
  #422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: free Europe
Posts: 90
They are also illegal on several levels:

- at company level for reporting false check-in times. Do you think they changed the India nightturns into layovers for nothing after the WSJ article? Try fitting 544/545 etc into the regulations even with the new check in times (not saying they reflect the truth). That's a simple example.
- at company level for the farce of a Fatigue Management system. Try your rosters with a standard Western ruleset for Fatigue Management. At DHL they couldn't believe the difference that made on top of legal requirements.
- at company level for bullying Captains into discretion as a default

- at GCAA level for covering up the false check-in times
- at GCAA level for granting all the Annex exceptions
- at GCAA level for factoring the Augmenting Hours
- at GCAA level for disclosing confidential crew reports to the employer

- at Aeromedical level for following Employer wishes versus independent medical judgment
...

All of that is violating quite a few laws.

Last edited by in freedom; 7th Jan 2018 at 19:19.
in freedom is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 19:22
  #423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 901
I have a general question concerning FDTL.

Let's say rosters are legal in country A. Flight is going to country B.
There it would be not legal.

Which regs apply?

Thx
gearlever is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 19:55
  #424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Midlands
Posts: 160
Originally Posted by gearlever View Post
I have a general question concerning FDTL.

Let's say rosters are legal in country A. Flight is going to country B.
There it would be not legal.

Which regs apply?

Thx
It IS legal. Because country Bs CAA audited country As regs and made the decision to allow them to operate into country B.
Odins Raven is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2018, 20:54
  #425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 901
Thx Odins,

that makes sence.

Regards
gearlever is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 00:16
  #426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,405
Infreedom I think you need to check the details . Unfortunately rosters and rostering is legal . As it has been pointed out EK operate in accordance with gcaa ftl’s which are approved by CAA’s they operate into .
fatbus is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 00:35
  #427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: not in Dubai anymore
Age: 90
Posts: 712
Originally Posted by in freedom View Post
They are also illegal on several levels:

- at company level for reporting false check-in times. Do you think they changed the India nightturns into layovers for nothing after the WSJ article? Try fitting 544/545 etc into the regulations even with the new check in times (not saying they reflect the truth). That's a simple example.
- at company level for the farce of a Fatigue Management system. Try your rosters with a standard Western ruleset for Fatigue Management. At DHL they couldn't believe the difference that made on top of legal requirements.
- at company level for bullying Captains into discretion as a default

- at GCAA level for covering up the false check-in times
- at GCAA level for granting all the Annex exceptions
- at GCAA level for factoring the Augmenting Hours
- at GCAA level for disclosing confidential crew reports to the employer

- at Aeromedical level for following Employer wishes versus independent medical judgment
...

All of that is violating quite a few laws.
nobody bullied me into discretion, I am not saying they didn't try, walked off 3 flights, JFK, PEK and double DOH, nothing ever happened, not even a phone call.
GoreTex is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 00:40
  #428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: free Europe
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by fatbus View Post
Infreedom I think you need to check the details . Unfortunately rosters and rostering is legal . As it has been pointed out EK operate in accordance with gcaa ftls which are approved by CAAs they operate into .
Fatbus, please read my post in detail.

Where EK deviates from what's written, the company breaks the rules.

As far as the GCAA goes, they didn't disclose those practices before they received FAA IASA approval as a Class 1 country in 2003.
in freedom is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 01:45
  #429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,405
Mate you are so far off the mark !
You have stated nil factual data and I will add FAA was here doing an audit long after 2003 . 2003 was the initial approval to operat the 345 to jfk .

Last edited by fatbus; 8th Jan 2018 at 01:56.
fatbus is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 06:15
  #430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the back of a bus
Posts: 986
Ok I'll bite.

But what about when the head of one and the head of the other are the same guy??

Isn't that a massive conflict of interest anywhere else?

Yet most regulators don't $eem to have any problem$ with it. But maybe I'm just a cynic...
givemewings is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 06:29
  #431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,405
Have a look at the GCAA website board of directors . HH is a board member not the head of the GCAA.
fatbus is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 07:43
  #432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: free Europe
Posts: 90
There's a big difference between not getting caught versus acting legally. That's true for both the company and the GCAA.

On the topic of independent supervision: HH is a Board Member of the GCAA and Director of the Dubai CAA. That's like the CEO of Delta being the Head of the Georgia Aviation Authority and sitting on the Board of the FAA. If you read the ICAO and IASA rules around that you will find that it's not illegal but seen as a big concern.
in freedom is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 08:35
  #433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Austria
Posts: 351
Originally Posted by fatbus View Post
Mate you are so far off the mark !
You have stated nil factual data and I will add FAA was here doing an audit long after 2003 . 2003 was the initial approval to operat the 345 to jfk .
and you believe an audit will show all the problems? Especially at an Airline which is specialised in spinning and hiding the truth!?
Talparc is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 10:08
  #434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: free Europe
Posts: 90
The FAA IASA rules come in the following hierarchy:

IASA
--ICAO Doc. 9734
----Inspector Checklists


Take a closer look at ICAO Doc. 9734:

2.3.4.2 State responsibility
2.3.5 Operator responsibility
2.4.6 & 2.4.7 combined responsibility

2.4.9 SEPARATION requirement if State is both Regulatory Authority and Air Operator

3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.5 State Legislation
3.3.5.1 Air Operator Surveillance
3.4.2.4 again reference to separation requirement for State Oversight

3.4.2.6 State Inspections

3.5.1.4 Independence of Medical Staff
3.7.3.2, 3.7.3.3 c) Supervision of Flight Ops
3.7.3.9 Commencement of Service

3.8 Surveillance Obligations
3.9 Resolution of Safety Concerns

All good in the 'hood? I don't think so.
in freedom is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 11:44
  #435 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the back of a bus
Posts: 986
Would that mean the requirement to have sickness verified by a company doctor rather than any licensed doctor is illegal then?

In most countries the sick note us accepted so long as it is written by a licensed registered doctor.
givemewings is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 11:49
  #436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Earth, where else?
Posts: 225
Operating FO on the JFK seems to be re-enstated. Final warning letter iso dismissal.

Operating CA and Augmenting CA, still awaiting outcome of appeal.
EK380 is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2018, 14:34
  #437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,434
Is the final warning letter basically 'double secret probation' while you look for another job?

Are the crewmembers being punished for making a mistake or for not responding more quickly to the controller's low altitude alert?
Airbubba is online now  
Old 9th Jan 2018, 01:44
  #438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In the back of a bus
Posts: 986
FW letter also means loss of perks like no profit share, (like it mattered the last few years lol) and in some cases they may restrict or remove staff travel, it depends on the position of the employee and in some cases their manager but in general it means one more fcukup or you piss off the wrong person and you are donezo.

IIRC minimum one year but I seem to recall some had them for two. Suppose it depends on what the warning was for.
givemewings is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2018, 03:03
  #439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uae
Posts: 2,405
Thanks for that!
fatbus is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2018, 08:51
  #440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Burgherville
Posts: 47
Latest rumour is the augmenting CA is reinstated.
Saves the company a bucketful of money from being taken to court!
MacSheikh is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.