commander discretion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don Coyote, OK mate please kindly answer me four following questions:
1. When is the flight considered to be dispatched?
2. Until when (what point) does the planning minima for destination; destination alternate and so on as well as fuel planning apply?
3. Would you plan your fuel requirement based on scheduled block time in the time table using performance hand book, in case there's no flight plan?
4. Are you as a commander responsible for adherence to FDP limitations?
Maybe we are speaking about different plannings. I speak about planning done by you as a commander after you have checked in during preparation for the actual flight. Whatever the company has planed before is irrelevant, since you, as commander, from the instant on you have checked in are responsible for absolutely everything happening on that flight, including adherence of the FDP limitations. More even you are obliged to adhere to it conscientious. Its very clear stipulated in the JAR OPS. I don't know how about you guys, but I do have a planning stage during preparation for the flight (checking planing minima, planned fuel, FDP, Notams,MEL list and so on) and in flight stage, starting from moving on its own power (depends on operators definition however). JAR OPS implies that as well, by the way, doesn't it? Anything happening during the planing stage falls into the planing. After the aircraft is considered dispatched in flight rules apply.
Cheers.
1. When is the flight considered to be dispatched?
2. Until when (what point) does the planning minima for destination; destination alternate and so on as well as fuel planning apply?
3. Would you plan your fuel requirement based on scheduled block time in the time table using performance hand book, in case there's no flight plan?
4. Are you as a commander responsible for adherence to FDP limitations?
Maybe we are speaking about different plannings. I speak about planning done by you as a commander after you have checked in during preparation for the actual flight. Whatever the company has planed before is irrelevant, since you, as commander, from the instant on you have checked in are responsible for absolutely everything happening on that flight, including adherence of the FDP limitations. More even you are obliged to adhere to it conscientious. Its very clear stipulated in the JAR OPS. I don't know how about you guys, but I do have a planning stage during preparation for the flight (checking planing minima, planned fuel, FDP, Notams,MEL list and so on) and in flight stage, starting from moving on its own power (depends on operators definition however). JAR OPS implies that as well, by the way, doesn't it? Anything happening during the planing stage falls into the planing. After the aircraft is considered dispatched in flight rules apply.
Cheers.
Last edited by popay; 26th Apr 2006 at 21:50.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Popay,
you seem to be torturing this to death in order to support an answer that you are simply refusing to accept despite you having asked the question ?
This has nothing whatsoever to do with aerodrome minima planning or fuel planning, and of course you as the commander are responsible for adhearance to FDP requirements. You use the word "limitations" to support the contention that there is no flexibility in the requirements, but as you know this is simply not the case.
As the commander you are within your right to refuse to excercise the use of your "commanders discretion" if you have reasons for doing that, however it is not prohibited for your company ( or its agents) to request that you apply your discretion, if on the day of the flight it may be required due to previously unforeseen circumstances such as headwinds etc.
You then argue that these flights can rarely be operated as planned and you have had it pointed out repeatedly that, then becomes an issue for the regulatory authority and should be brought to their attention if it hasn't already been by virtue of the numerous discretion reports that would have presumably been generated.
If what you say were the case then around the world gate agents would be telling the passengers "we cannot operate the flight today because the headwinds are actually stronger than the company thought they would be when it planned this flight". The reason that doesn't usually happen is because the flight time regulations have a number of "flexibilities" built into them. They have been covered already in this discussion but Commanders use of discretion is clearly one of them. It can be used prior to departure and to the limits specified subject to the criteria required. If you don't want to use it then that is a matter for you.
I am getting very lost by your arguement. As the commander you are responsible for adherence to all the planning rules. As commander you have the option to apply flexibility if you wish, where it is permitted (as in the use of commanders discretion to extend an FDP). You appear to want the regulations to state that "You are not permitted to dispatch on the day of the flight if due to actual circumstances on that day the flight does not fall within Scheduling FDP limits even though the previous planning schedule indicited it was possible". Unfortunetaly for you the regulations do not say this, the only get out clause you have is your refusal to apply discretion in a particular case. That is your choice you are the commander. The rules will not provide the concrete arguement you otherwise wish to fall back on.
Finally, despite your excellent use of English, it is obvious that this is not your first language. Even if it were there are many incongruities that can make literal interpretation difficult. Regulations such as this should avoid such shortcomings, however I think you are getting too hung up on the use of particular words in order to transpose them from one arguement to another, "planning" being one example.
you seem to be torturing this to death in order to support an answer that you are simply refusing to accept despite you having asked the question ?
This has nothing whatsoever to do with aerodrome minima planning or fuel planning, and of course you as the commander are responsible for adhearance to FDP requirements. You use the word "limitations" to support the contention that there is no flexibility in the requirements, but as you know this is simply not the case.
As the commander you are within your right to refuse to excercise the use of your "commanders discretion" if you have reasons for doing that, however it is not prohibited for your company ( or its agents) to request that you apply your discretion, if on the day of the flight it may be required due to previously unforeseen circumstances such as headwinds etc.
You then argue that these flights can rarely be operated as planned and you have had it pointed out repeatedly that, then becomes an issue for the regulatory authority and should be brought to their attention if it hasn't already been by virtue of the numerous discretion reports that would have presumably been generated.
If what you say were the case then around the world gate agents would be telling the passengers "we cannot operate the flight today because the headwinds are actually stronger than the company thought they would be when it planned this flight". The reason that doesn't usually happen is because the flight time regulations have a number of "flexibilities" built into them. They have been covered already in this discussion but Commanders use of discretion is clearly one of them. It can be used prior to departure and to the limits specified subject to the criteria required. If you don't want to use it then that is a matter for you.
I am getting very lost by your arguement. As the commander you are responsible for adherence to all the planning rules. As commander you have the option to apply flexibility if you wish, where it is permitted (as in the use of commanders discretion to extend an FDP). You appear to want the regulations to state that "You are not permitted to dispatch on the day of the flight if due to actual circumstances on that day the flight does not fall within Scheduling FDP limits even though the previous planning schedule indicited it was possible". Unfortunetaly for you the regulations do not say this, the only get out clause you have is your refusal to apply discretion in a particular case. That is your choice you are the commander. The rules will not provide the concrete arguement you otherwise wish to fall back on.
Finally, despite your excellent use of English, it is obvious that this is not your first language. Even if it were there are many incongruities that can make literal interpretation difficult. Regulations such as this should avoid such shortcomings, however I think you are getting too hung up on the use of particular words in order to transpose them from one arguement to another, "planning" being one example.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub, well no point of arguing if you don't see a point, I suppose. Neither do I support devil's advocacy, nor do I like polemic. If you want to have some credibility, I suggest, you give me some reference such as CAA publications or comments from reputable source. I never said the commander cant exercise his/her discretion, far from that. He/she surely can. The question is: will he possibly face charges from CAA, in case CAA doesn't see it the same way he/she does? Perhaps this question should be addressed to the lawyers. Once again, I'll be more than happy to buy your point of view, provided you can prove it. Its just not enough to declare the things it should be backed up by reference. Methinks you would agree that a normal planning implies the flight time to be within the block time at least and not the other way around. Your allegations about possible misinterpretations because of deficiencies in English understanding, well its up to you. Different countries, different rules. I know at least one European country implying charges on commander in case of unjustified discretion usage.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: England
Age: 61
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
popay
1. The flight is considered to be dispatched when the aircraft is moved either under its own power or by pushback by a tug.
2. The fuel planning minima applies until the aircraft has dispatched. Once dispatched if there are problems with fuel you go back and refuel. If in flight and a fuel check reveals that the fuel on board does not meet the planning minima then it is permissable to carry out an inflight re-plan subject to conditions laid out in your ops manual. The same is true of weather minima.
3. If I had no computer fuel plan I would use the performance tables and using the current available wind charts apply a sensible (generous) factor to arrive at a suitable flight time and fuel load.
4. Yes, but my roster has to be published in accordance with FDP limitations as well.
You may be getting confused. The commanders discretion is applied on what actually happens not on what was PLANNED to happen. The planned to happen is what is on your roster, you turn up and then decide whether to use discretion based on what actually happens. You may have to use discretion due to stronger winds makeing the flight time longer than the schedule or a technical delay or a delayed inbound flight due to him suffering from stronger winds. The "PLANNED" expression used in relation to commanders discretion is completely different to the pre-flight PLANNING that you refer to in your later posts.
With regards to your comment about a captain facing charges; the commanders discretion has a maximum limit of 3 hours (with certain provisos) so if a captain planned to go over 3 hours then he could find himself in trouble He also has to take into account what the crew have been doing in their previous duties before he can decide to use discretion. If he disregarded tiring duties they have done and still went into discretion then he may also find himself in trouble with the authorities.
1. The flight is considered to be dispatched when the aircraft is moved either under its own power or by pushback by a tug.
2. The fuel planning minima applies until the aircraft has dispatched. Once dispatched if there are problems with fuel you go back and refuel. If in flight and a fuel check reveals that the fuel on board does not meet the planning minima then it is permissable to carry out an inflight re-plan subject to conditions laid out in your ops manual. The same is true of weather minima.
3. If I had no computer fuel plan I would use the performance tables and using the current available wind charts apply a sensible (generous) factor to arrive at a suitable flight time and fuel load.
4. Yes, but my roster has to be published in accordance with FDP limitations as well.
You may be getting confused. The commanders discretion is applied on what actually happens not on what was PLANNED to happen. The planned to happen is what is on your roster, you turn up and then decide whether to use discretion based on what actually happens. You may have to use discretion due to stronger winds makeing the flight time longer than the schedule or a technical delay or a delayed inbound flight due to him suffering from stronger winds. The "PLANNED" expression used in relation to commanders discretion is completely different to the pre-flight PLANNING that you refer to in your later posts.
With regards to your comment about a captain facing charges; the commanders discretion has a maximum limit of 3 hours (with certain provisos) so if a captain planned to go over 3 hours then he could find himself in trouble He also has to take into account what the crew have been doing in their previous duties before he can decide to use discretion. If he disregarded tiring duties they have done and still went into discretion then he may also find himself in trouble with the authorities.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D.C. fair enough.
This is what I found on the CAA web side http://search2.openobjects.com/kbrok...18&mt=1&qt=ftl
or the text version:
4.5 Commander’s Discretion
Q. In what circumstances can exercising Commander’s Discretion be requested?
A. Whilst there are a number of myths surrounding the exercise of Commander’s Discretion, it is purely a safety-based decision contingent upon events on the day. Where there is disruption to an operation through unplanned and unforeseen circumstances an operator may request a commander to consider an extension to the normal FDP, to allow recovery of operational plans, if he is satisfied it is safe to do so. On the day there is no restriction on departing from home base, in the knowledge that the exercise of discretion is likely to be required to extend the FDP, provided the extension is within the specified limitations. In determining the circumstances of other crew members, any crew member who considers himself likely to be suffering from fatigue at the end of the proposed FDP, such that the safety of the flight or passengers may be compromised, should not be required to operate. The commander, in completing the Discretion Report, should note the factors on which the decision was based.
Hm, it's a general description only.
No word about planned. To be fair I've checked subsequent flights and they have been under 12:45, therefore planed within max FDP.
I guess, I'll have to agree with you guys under one condition though, namely the block time (schedule time) does reflect real times.
Anyhow thanks for your time and patience.
Cheers.
This is what I found on the CAA web side http://search2.openobjects.com/kbrok...18&mt=1&qt=ftl
or the text version:
4.5 Commander’s Discretion
Q. In what circumstances can exercising Commander’s Discretion be requested?
A. Whilst there are a number of myths surrounding the exercise of Commander’s Discretion, it is purely a safety-based decision contingent upon events on the day. Where there is disruption to an operation through unplanned and unforeseen circumstances an operator may request a commander to consider an extension to the normal FDP, to allow recovery of operational plans, if he is satisfied it is safe to do so. On the day there is no restriction on departing from home base, in the knowledge that the exercise of discretion is likely to be required to extend the FDP, provided the extension is within the specified limitations. In determining the circumstances of other crew members, any crew member who considers himself likely to be suffering from fatigue at the end of the proposed FDP, such that the safety of the flight or passengers may be compromised, should not be required to operate. The commander, in completing the Discretion Report, should note the factors on which the decision was based.
Hm, it's a general description only.
No word about planned. To be fair I've checked subsequent flights and they have been under 12:45, therefore planed within max FDP.I guess, I'll have to agree with you guys under one condition though, namely the block time (schedule time) does reflect real times.
Anyhow thanks for your time and patience.
Cheers.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: England
Age: 61
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said before it was probably a confusion on the different uses of the word planned.
The schedules are planned over 6 months ahead and as a compromise use something like 75% probability winds They also have to allow for taxi time etc. This will mean that on the actual day of the flight there is a 25% chance that the flight may take longer than the published schedule.
Some less reputable airlines may ignore this and make the flight times fit a suitable FDP when there is little chance of the flight being completed without the use of discretion. In the UK the CAA are supposed to monitor for excessive use of discretion on any particular route and then have the power to get the airline to produce a more realistic schedule. Thats the theory any way.
All the best
Don
The schedules are planned over 6 months ahead and as a compromise use something like 75% probability winds They also have to allow for taxi time etc. This will mean that on the actual day of the flight there is a 25% chance that the flight may take longer than the published schedule.
Some less reputable airlines may ignore this and make the flight times fit a suitable FDP when there is little chance of the flight being completed without the use of discretion. In the UK the CAA are supposed to monitor for excessive use of discretion on any particular route and then have the power to get the airline to produce a more realistic schedule. Thats the theory any way.
All the best
Don
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to an interesting discussion!
My belife in reading CAP371 is the decision to use discretion can only be made:
1. By the commander, after 'consulting' the other crew members.
2. Needs to be made at the point it is required.
Taking the original case, the 'company' could insist that the flight is commenced and ,if at the point during the flight that discretion is required, is not considered appropiate by the Captain, then a diversion made.
The CAA are happy for you to depart and it could be the fact that due to 'unforssen circumstances' the flight is actually completed within the normal FDP. I have seen this serveral times over the last years that a bit better wind and a few short-cuts keep in within the limits.
The CAA will have a serious issue if you use discretion <20% of operations of a route and would then audit the whole planning process. So I doubt there are many cases were there is a different motive and if there was the CAA would probably find it.
This is normally the biggest issue on the agenda of any CAA FTL audit and therefore one of the most focus of crewing depts.
There is a bigger issue that the aircraft can complete longer sectors than the FDP and often the use of inflight rest is a joke as the aircraft is not equiped for adequet rest. CAP371 allows rest in a seat which again is a joke - but how can an operator justify $1m spend on something that may happen 1 or 2 times a year (especially on an unplanned basis)?
My belife in reading CAP371 is the decision to use discretion can only be made:
1. By the commander, after 'consulting' the other crew members.
2. Needs to be made at the point it is required.
Taking the original case, the 'company' could insist that the flight is commenced and ,if at the point during the flight that discretion is required, is not considered appropiate by the Captain, then a diversion made.
The CAA are happy for you to depart and it could be the fact that due to 'unforssen circumstances' the flight is actually completed within the normal FDP. I have seen this serveral times over the last years that a bit better wind and a few short-cuts keep in within the limits.
The CAA will have a serious issue if you use discretion <20% of operations of a route and would then audit the whole planning process. So I doubt there are many cases were there is a different motive and if there was the CAA would probably find it.
This is normally the biggest issue on the agenda of any CAA FTL audit and therefore one of the most focus of crewing depts.
There is a bigger issue that the aircraft can complete longer sectors than the FDP and often the use of inflight rest is a joke as the aircraft is not equiped for adequet rest. CAP371 allows rest in a seat which again is a joke - but how can an operator justify $1m spend on something that may happen 1 or 2 times a year (especially on an unplanned basis)?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi there, just read the new EU FTL and thought that might be of interest for all of us.
4. Operational Robustness
4.1. Planned schedules must allow for flights to be completed within the maximum permitted flight duty period. To assist in achieving this, operators will take action to change a schedule or crewing arrangements at the latest where the actual operation exceeds the maximum FDP on more than 33% of the flights in that schedule during a scheduled seasonal period.
Unforeseen circumstances in actual flight operations - commander's discretion
1. Taking into account the need for careful control of these instances implied underneath, during the actual flight operation, which starts at the reporting time, the limits on flight duty, duty and rest periods prescribed in this Subpart may be modified in the event of unforeseen circumstances. Any such modifications must be acceptable to the commander after consultation with all other crew members and must, in all circumstances, comply with the following: etc…..
Cheers.
4. Operational Robustness
4.1. Planned schedules must allow for flights to be completed within the maximum permitted flight duty period. To assist in achieving this, operators will take action to change a schedule or crewing arrangements at the latest where the actual operation exceeds the maximum FDP on more than 33% of the flights in that schedule during a scheduled seasonal period.
Unforeseen circumstances in actual flight operations - commander's discretion
1. Taking into account the need for careful control of these instances implied underneath, during the actual flight operation, which starts at the reporting time, the limits on flight duty, duty and rest periods prescribed in this Subpart may be modified in the event of unforeseen circumstances. Any such modifications must be acceptable to the commander after consultation with all other crew members and must, in all circumstances, comply with the following: etc…..
Cheers.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
popay
Yes, an improvement on CAP371 where exceedances often depend on which CAA team turn up!. Your Nav department should be able to offer average time surely based on historical data. These all singing systems they use can churn that sort of info out!
Incidentally Swedish, it would be expected that the Inter Airline audits would pick up this issue before the CAA did. A record of all discretion reports and trends should feature on someones tasks
Yes, an improvement on CAP371 where exceedances often depend on which CAA team turn up!. Your Nav department should be able to offer average time surely based on historical data. These all singing systems they use can churn that sort of info out!
Incidentally Swedish, it would be expected that the Inter Airline audits would pick up this issue before the CAA did. A record of all discretion reports and trends should feature on someones tasks
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the 'usual suspects' battle it out, i'm amazed the posting from ON MARK BOB didn't get more coverage.
I'm afraid Sir, that you are wrong and have been lucky to have not heard further from the regulatory authority.If there was a serious threat to yours or the lives of your pax, such as terrorist attack or tsunami warning, then you would have been justified in exceeding 3 hours. You are correct in that the original duty was not planned as a 3 sector day and that the security alert was unforseen. THAT is why as Commanders we have the right to use discretion to cover such situations, but in any event, should NOT exceed the absolute 3 hours. Regardless of how many sectors were planned, your actual FDP limitations are now governed by the actual number of sectors you do.
Regards
BYMONEK
I'm afraid Sir, that you are wrong and have been lucky to have not heard further from the regulatory authority.If there was a serious threat to yours or the lives of your pax, such as terrorist attack or tsunami warning, then you would have been justified in exceeding 3 hours. You are correct in that the original duty was not planned as a 3 sector day and that the security alert was unforseen. THAT is why as Commanders we have the right to use discretion to cover such situations, but in any event, should NOT exceed the absolute 3 hours. Regardless of how many sectors were planned, your actual FDP limitations are now governed by the actual number of sectors you do.
Regards
BYMONEK
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: expat
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ambiguous wording...
Poor legislation that leaves itself open to misinterpretation. The root of the problem is the lack of a legal definition of the word "planned" in the context of commanders discretion.
How things turned out in court would depend which lawyer had the best debating skills.
How things turned out in court would depend which lawyer had the best debating skills.
