JAR FTL and augmented crew, how long can we go for.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
From: middle east
JAR FTL and augmented crew, how long can we go for.
JAR subpart Q (FTL) is coming into effect on July 16th of this year.
The augmented crew part has been left open by the European parliament for national authorities to decide on.
The airlines are putting a lot of pressure on their CAA's to go for the maximum max.
In the Netherlands there is talk of 18 to 22 hrs, is that safe?
What rest facility is sufficient to an augmented 3 pilots crew and how long is safe?
Most charter company's have no collective labor agreements, will those pilots pay the price.
I am just wondering how other CAA's and pilots unions are coping with this matter. July 16th is around the corner.
The augmented crew part has been left open by the European parliament for national authorities to decide on.
The airlines are putting a lot of pressure on their CAA's to go for the maximum max.
In the Netherlands there is talk of 18 to 22 hrs, is that safe?
What rest facility is sufficient to an augmented 3 pilots crew and how long is safe?
Most charter company's have no collective labor agreements, will those pilots pay the price.
I am just wondering how other CAA's and pilots unions are coping with this matter. July 16th is around the corner.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,643
Likes: 0
From: UK
Gulf
As you say the NAA's will decide on augmentation, in the case of the UK it's being left "as is" and i suspect that will be the case in most countries (unless you can give real specifics). In my humble view a look is required at the UK rule that allows a third pilot to be added to the crew to avoid "factoring" (which is different to augmenting). The 3rd Pilot does nothing at all, and most Long Haul Pilots I know deem it a waste of time. The other minor issue is UK rules allow in certain circumstances a non-acclimatised crew to have a longer FDP than a acclimatised crew!
As you say the NAA's will decide on augmentation, in the case of the UK it's being left "as is" and i suspect that will be the case in most countries (unless you can give real specifics). In my humble view a look is required at the UK rule that allows a third pilot to be added to the crew to avoid "factoring" (which is different to augmenting). The 3rd Pilot does nothing at all, and most Long Haul Pilots I know deem it a waste of time. The other minor issue is UK rules allow in certain circumstances a non-acclimatised crew to have a longer FDP than a acclimatised crew!
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
From: middle east
Mr. Angry, your nickname brings back memories from a long time ago.
I used to live in St. Neots UK for 4 months in 1984 flying for a dutch air advertising company. I think it was Steve Wright in the afternoon on BBC 3 that did Mr Angry back then, we had great laughs and never missed a single program.
Anyway, as far as the augmentation goes, if all NAA's do their own thing then what about competition. Charter and low-cost will look for a country to settle in with the longest possible duties trying to save money. That would be an undesirable situation and not the intention of the EU.
I used to live in St. Neots UK for 4 months in 1984 flying for a dutch air advertising company. I think it was Steve Wright in the afternoon on BBC 3 that did Mr Angry back then, we had great laughs and never missed a single program.
Anyway, as far as the augmentation goes, if all NAA's do their own thing then what about competition. Charter and low-cost will look for a country to settle in with the longest possible duties trying to save money. That would be an undesirable situation and not the intention of the EU.
Alba Gu Brath
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 745
Likes: 3
From: Merseyside
Gulf
It is another typical example of the European parliament meddling in areas that they know little about and then failing to deliver a definitve document. I always thought CAP371 had some 'grey' areas. Sub part Q is more grey than John Major ever was!
As MAFP says, it is very much down to NAA's to decide on the actual rules. However, there are a lot of scare stories around about what 'might' come out of it. Ultimately a big deciding factor will be the aircraft that a company operates. There is little point having the crew able to do 18-22 hours when the aircraft is out of steam after 14.
When it comes to talking about augmented crew there are various definitions. At a basic level it is where a 3rd pilot is carried on a normal 2 crew aircraft in order to alleviate the limitations of factorisation. There is no rest element involved. At the other end of the scale is the full replacement crew option where a dedicated and separate rest area is provided so that a crew member can take rest duringt he cruise phase of the flight. The rest area is traditionally not popular amongst the charter airlines. It takes up too much valuable space which could be dedicated to seating. Also, European charter airlines (normally) don't operate aircraft with the range to justify the separate rest areas.
At the end of the day there is going to be a period of familiarisation with the rules. IMHO most people will notice very little difference as NAA rules will ultimately be more limiting than Sub Part Q.
It is another typical example of the European parliament meddling in areas that they know little about and then failing to deliver a definitve document. I always thought CAP371 had some 'grey' areas. Sub part Q is more grey than John Major ever was!
As MAFP says, it is very much down to NAA's to decide on the actual rules. However, there are a lot of scare stories around about what 'might' come out of it. Ultimately a big deciding factor will be the aircraft that a company operates. There is little point having the crew able to do 18-22 hours when the aircraft is out of steam after 14.
When it comes to talking about augmented crew there are various definitions. At a basic level it is where a 3rd pilot is carried on a normal 2 crew aircraft in order to alleviate the limitations of factorisation. There is no rest element involved. At the other end of the scale is the full replacement crew option where a dedicated and separate rest area is provided so that a crew member can take rest duringt he cruise phase of the flight. The rest area is traditionally not popular amongst the charter airlines. It takes up too much valuable space which could be dedicated to seating. Also, European charter airlines (normally) don't operate aircraft with the range to justify the separate rest areas.
At the end of the day there is going to be a period of familiarisation with the rules. IMHO most people will notice very little difference as NAA rules will ultimately be more limiting than Sub Part Q.
