And another BA 747 diversion
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
From: Chertsey, Surrey
Traveller5... I think you're missing the point about the reason the crew need rest - It's the law. There is nothing they, nor Operations, nor BA Management can do about it. The same laws apply to all airlines operating withing JAA and can be found within JAR-OPS. BA doesn't choose it's policy on crew rest, it's dictated by JAA and BA's op's policy is legally not allowed to be any less restrictive than those regulations.
With all due respect, I don't think anybody will be overly concerned whether you are impressed by a sleeping pilot or not. Do you need sleep? Would you want to try landing a 747 having just spent the last 24 hours in a completely different time zone to the one your body is used to? Do you think you could do that job without resting during a flight? Do you think you could do the job full stop? More to the point, why should they not rest, that is why they put 3 pilots on many long haul routes after all...
If the flight crew are fatigued (be it from the time zone change, the having to be awake and alert, in spite of the fact that the aircraft is in the cruise or the length of the duty) then the takeoffs/landings may NOT be safe in which case they are not doing what you say they are paid to do.
However, I think you forget that pilot's are there for your safety in all circumstances, not just normal take-off's and landing's. What happens if the flight encounters engine problems at any time? What happens if the aircraft has to do a last minute go-around? What happens in any abnormal situation? The flight crew need to be alert to prevent incidents occuring and it's not like flying Microsoft Flight Sim... It's easy to sit in your first class seat and criticise, but I guess there just isn't any pleasing some people.
If you don't want to see the flight crew resting, I suggest you sit in Economy in the future.
With all due respect, I don't think anybody will be overly concerned whether you are impressed by a sleeping pilot or not. Do you need sleep? Would you want to try landing a 747 having just spent the last 24 hours in a completely different time zone to the one your body is used to? Do you think you could do that job without resting during a flight? Do you think you could do the job full stop? More to the point, why should they not rest, that is why they put 3 pilots on many long haul routes after all...
as we FIRST passengers see pilots as paid to ensure safe take offs and landings.
However, I think you forget that pilot's are there for your safety in all circumstances, not just normal take-off's and landing's. What happens if the flight encounters engine problems at any time? What happens if the aircraft has to do a last minute go-around? What happens in any abnormal situation? The flight crew need to be alert to prevent incidents occuring and it's not like flying Microsoft Flight Sim... It's easy to sit in your first class seat and criticise, but I guess there just isn't any pleasing some people.
If you don't want to see the flight crew resting, I suggest you sit in Economy in the future.
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
From: UK
Oh dear, for someone who travels in First then I can only conclude that traveller5 inherited his wealth due to his utterly moronic comments.
Do you suppose flight time limitations were drafted by an over zealous pilot union seeking to make its members life more leisurely? In the UK FTLs were first introduced after a spate of fatigue related accidents. If you want something more recent take a look at the report of the AA MD80 crash at Little Rock in the 90s. Lots of fatalities in because the crew were exhausted and forgot to arm the spoilers. IIRC the Britannia crash at GRN was partly attributable to the crews tiredness as well.
No, you don't have a point. 20 hrs rest means the crew are not acclimatised. The LAW states that the maximum duty for two crew, non-acclimatised, for 2 sectors is 11 hours. This can be extended in extremis by three hours. MIA-LHR is about 9 hours before you add in an unplanned diversion. BOS-LHR is about 7 hours. The numbers aren't going to add up are they?
I can only assume you are too important to listen to the Captains initial PA and realise there are often more than two pilots on board. That'll be to comply with the CAAs FTLs again, which as I may have previously emphasised, is the law. If you want to go long distances non stop you're going to have to use more than two pilots. Its the way every major airline works, not just BA.
Not 'we', 'you'. Fortunately most of the passengers I speak to are not daft enough to think that absolutely nothing happens in flight once you get above 1000ft
Heavy Wake - Safety? Please give an example of a major incident due to cabin and flight crew lack of rest.
The facts: crew had 20hrs...... Can you maybe see my point? Are you suggesting that after having operated LHR-MIA followed by at least 12 hrs "rest", then to operate a MIA-BOS the pilots would have been exhausted
don't ring the flight crew, the captain's asleep
we FIRST passengers see pilots as paid to ensure safe take offs and landings.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
From: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
8hrs w/o drink
quote traveller5:"my last experience was on a SYD-BKK-LHR flight where on the BKK-LHR sector we were not offered food or drink for over 8 hrs and saw one crew member as they were all resting!"
quote Rainboe: "...where people can grumble about not enough diet Tonic on their flight!"
A little off the main topic, my apologies, but I just want to make the comment that an 8 hour flight without being offered anything to drink (as mentioned) is not only a lack of service. There is a good medical reason to get as much to drink as possible (and this excludes coffee, tea and alcoholics), which is dehydration during flight, subsequent increased viscosity of blood and danger of thrombus formation and pulmonary embolism (add to that too little leg space and excercise during flight as a factor).
Best
quote Rainboe: "...where people can grumble about not enough diet Tonic on their flight!"
A little off the main topic, my apologies, but I just want to make the comment that an 8 hour flight without being offered anything to drink (as mentioned) is not only a lack of service. There is a good medical reason to get as much to drink as possible (and this excludes coffee, tea and alcoholics), which is dehydration during flight, subsequent increased viscosity of blood and danger of thrombus formation and pulmonary embolism (add to that too little leg space and excercise during flight as a factor).
Best
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
From: Chertsey, Surrey
grimmrad: There's not much of a topic to leave behind, you're doing us all a favour by helping us off it! With regards to your comments, you're absolutely right. It is imperative to remain hydrated during a flight, this obviously goes for passengers and crew alike. I've always seen the crew pass through the cabin at a fairly reasonable frequency to distribute juice and water on a long haul flight. However, there are also a minimum number of crew required to remain 'not resting' and as such they will always be available in the galley areas should a passenger require a drink at any other time.
It is also recommended by British Airways (in the Highlife Magazine and on the Well Being broadcast on the IFE) that passengers do drink plenty of water and drink tea, coffee and alcohol only in moderation.
It is also recommended by British Airways (in the Highlife Magazine and on the Well Being broadcast on the IFE) that passengers do drink plenty of water and drink tea, coffee and alcohol only in moderation.
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 3,585
Likes: 0
From: UK
Tempting, but for the time being, no.
Just a gentle reminder about keeping a thread on track and avoiding thread creep.
Also a reminder about arguing the issues rather than the personality.
Would it be possible for somebody who knows, to actually post the definitive facts of the incident? Much of the heat on this thread seems to have been generated by conjecture and preconception...
If the crew were out of duty hours, then they had no option but to divert: Whether BA could have managed things better (or not) once the diversion became necessary is another matter.
Just a gentle reminder about keeping a thread on track and avoiding thread creep.
Also a reminder about arguing the issues rather than the personality.
Would it be possible for somebody who knows, to actually post the definitive facts of the incident? Much of the heat on this thread seems to have been generated by conjecture and preconception...
If the crew were out of duty hours, then they had no option but to divert: Whether BA could have managed things better (or not) once the diversion became necessary is another matter.
Last edited by TightSlot; 15th March 2005 at 07:52.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 324
Likes: 1
From: Hindhead, UK
Alterego
Not sure if you are trying to get a bite..........
but the 204 diverted due to crew FTL. When the aircraft parked the crew were within 5 minutes of going out of hours, having extended their duty by the max allowable 3 hours.
T'bug
Not sure if you are trying to get a bite..........
but the 204 diverted due to crew FTL. When the aircraft parked the crew were within 5 minutes of going out of hours, having extended their duty by the max allowable 3 hours.
T'bug
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 380
Likes: 1
From: uk
Dont blame the pilots as the cabin crew are the problem with their industrial limits out of the dark ages. The miami flight would not be a :long range: agreement so there is very little discretion that can be applied to their duty day. They are of course in bed for much of the flight,sod the service!.They would also be given shed loads of money for doing this diversion and ending up in an hotel in cardiff. So remember ,the pilots were not the limiting case here.
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
From: UK
For once I'm going to side with the cabin crew. Away from base they can actually work for a very long time under their scheduling agreement. They'll be hosed down with money for doing so, but in cases like this their industrial agreement goes further than scheme, and their scheme goes an hour further than ours. In this situation it is almost certain that flight crew hours would be up before cabin crew and the situation Thunderbug describes is most likely.
