EK: Augmented flight crew
 

Hi guys,

when and how does EK put enlarged crews on their flights? Are all flights with more than a specific flight time operated by 3/4 pilots?
Do you fly with 2 Captains? Second Officers for cruise flight only? etc.

Thank you,

LW20

EK puts 'enlarged crews' on flights only after their BMI has been confirmed...:)

Emirates does not allow enlarged crew, the BMI limit is 25...

For the record, BMI limit is 30.........

LW20

To answer your question, 'augment' crew are used on flights in which a FDP can not be conducted using normal FDP rules. Perth, for example, which has a flight time of around 10 hours will have 3 crew, normally 1 Captain and 2 F/O's. Orlando, with a flight time of around 15 hours will have 4 crew, 2 Captains and 2 F/O's. A pairing of one Captain and one First Officer will be the 'operating' crew, doing the landing and take off, with rest periods split equally for the flight. The other pairing will be known as the augment crew and are provided for the in flight relief. On the return sector, the roles are reversed and the 'augment' crew now become the operating crew. A rest guide is provided but not always followed. Operating Captains are supposed to contact the crew if they intend changing the pattern of rest, some don't! The very longest of flights can have 2 separate breaks recommended for each crew whilst the majority will have one single rest period. The Company can in exceptional circumstances change the rank combination in the above examples.

We don't have 'Second Officers', only First Officers (2 stripes) or Senior First Officers (3 stripes). EK does not, at present, operate a 'cruise' pilot policy. Given the current and developing shortage, that policy may well change!

Hope this helps. :ok:

Harry

Ah, don't ruin a good story with facts...

For the record, 25 is where they start humming about your weight...

@ Harry:
Thank you for your explanation.

@ all other:

I apologize for my english! :{

LW20

For the record BMI 35 is the 'limit' where you will, I believe, be grounded...

My BMI has been over 25 since I was about 14 years old. Pointless and stupid policy by the GCAA as BMI is really only valid for people who do zero exercise in their life!

Major thread-creep again I know...

Harry's answer is right. The specific flights have different lengths - it's a matter of duty time and the time of day/night, plus other factors like rest pattern and time zones. The night time Osaka and Cape Town flights use them despite being about 10h30 and 9h30 respectively (and the Osaka outbound takes the same augmenter out despite being 9ish hrs in the day time). The FTL scheme gives a max FDP of 15hr for a three pilot crew and 22hr for four man, though I can't see how to extend the max FDP beyond 18hr with inflight rest (I'm missing something in my interpretation, it seems)

Unfortunately, not all of your augmenting hours will count towards the legal monthly/annual flight duty limits. This results in constant questionable exceedances of limits, resulting in a reasonably constant state of tiredness, which in-turn makes "OFF" Days more like "Recovery" Days. You will most likely once again, feel like a human, part way through your Annual Leave, should you be lucky enough to get your contractual days.

Back to the BMI thread drift, I'm just reading an article from a health magazine( God knows why?, I just picked it up in a stack of things to be thrown away) and they say Australian health authorities are now saying that BMI 25 or below is the aim.

I'm am starting to think this whole thing is out of control. Like BP levels and cholesterol levels, they all keep getting lowered, because look what we can do with drugs.

When I started flying, a BGL of under 6.0 was considered normal, now in Australia it's 5.4....im wondering if it's the....look what we can do with drugs...thing again?

How does GCAA FTL/FDTL rules compare to EASA or FAA. Some say GCAA rules are exactly same as EU.OPS, and others of the opinion GCAA is squeezing more out of their crew.

Hi sops

Stupid question BGL is that cholesterol. As for one whom likes his food and the odd glass of red and I must say can't seem too fit in the fitness in between recovery / off days and in a constant state of feeling like when is this going to end.

This is a slight thread drift. Ek was a career job now honestly I think it has a borderline limit of 10 yrs.

We all know the deal either accept or you walk. I don't see it changing anytime soon

The FTLs used to say two days off after a ULR. So when you came back from JFK and landed around 8pm you would have that day off PLUS two calendar days. The powers that be (we can change any rule we don't like) said the day you land in DXB counts as a rest day and we now only get one day off after the trip.
So we were on company time for 20 out of 24 hrs of the day but that counts as a day off? No wonder so many pilots are tired and feed up.

No that is wrong.

It's about how many local nights off you get after the trip not about the days off. If the ULR is followed by another ULR you need 3 local nights off if followed by a non ULR trip you need 2 local nights off.

So in your example, your first night after you arrive from JFK counts as a local night, then you have your day off and then another local night. That counts as 1 day off (2 local nights). On the second day after you arrive you can't start a duty before 6 am (otherwise you wont have that second local night).

So in the above example you have 34hrs off counting as 1 day off...

The new GCAA rules coming into effect states both two days off and three local nights, irrespective of the following duty.

Your Confused
 

Can you show me where that's written because I read it other wise.
What the new regulations state is that they should......
“Should” means that the application of a procedure or provision is recommended; ( OMA)
We are about to get screwed even more.

You mean like "landing flap SHOULD be selected by 1500 ft AAL" and everyone ****s themselves and write ASRs when it's selected at 1490.

I know very well the difference between should and shall. However in this case, if the OM-A says something different, at least we can demonstrate that it is against the "recommendation" of the GCAA.