There’s a lack of space, has been for years but it seems to be an unsolvable problem..there are various contingencies, such as parking at a large BA staff car park over at Hatton Cross and get a bus to/from T5 - not easy if you are returning to LHR late at night, get permission to use one of the T5 Hotel Car parks, or use one of the public (pay) car parks and then claim the cash back from the company. Bear in mind of course there’s the requirement not to spend too long getting to work........

The car park corrosion issue that Rex mentions is another long standing (> 10 year at least) problem.

And therein lies the rub. What BA are doing is not only gross invasion of privacy it also reinforces their attitude of pilots as people who cannot be trusted. If you’re in any doubt about this go have a look at the RIM entry for Nice. What is basically (for any other airline) a VOR with a visual turn onto final is turned into the biggest mountain out of a molehill you could ever find towards what is essentially a pretty straightforward place to get in and out of. Just look out the window and fly the thing. No wait, BA don’t trust you to do that so they write paragraph after paragraph of procedure simply to encourage you to leave the autopilot in. Talk about deskilling and over-complication.

reminds me of BA SH , briefing LH 3 times in a day . Also doing Landing Performance Calcs for the longest runway in the country for an A319

in LH a while back most crews used common sense and airmanship re Briefings. On a multi sector LH Trip, first sector comprehensive Brief, then on subsequent days preface said was “ Standard Brief ”” and with only salient points of present location mentioned if required. Otherwise your other crewmen might fall asleep with boredom!!
Re the present Nice ‘overkill’ approach brief. Used to see the same thing on Carnarsie 13L/R into JFK. Handling pilot battling with FLC, Hdg selections towards the final turn, with the A/P engaged. . Much easier after the VOR, look out the widow,foiiow the strobes, disconnect the automatics and fly the thing (B744) Although, I believe now BA SOPs do not authorise any ‘hand flying’ down route without A/T engaged.
EK nearly had a disaster there recently A 380, nobody looking outside lateral profile on A/P, forgot about vertical bit. ATC emergency call to go around when dangerously low.

Most airlines do this. Generally a reaction to someone f***ing up somewhere. Two airlines that I have flown for do exactly the same thing. I know of one major ME carrier that is equally as culpable. Aviation is continually dumbed down & this creates its own problems which are sometimes all too evident on the line. BA is no different in this department.

Anyway, thread drift I feel. The overall opinion that I get with regards to joining BA now as a DEP is ‘buyer beware.’ Although the numbers were less than a handful, a few guys have made it back or have joined my outfit after brief spells at BA (both SH & LH fleets). Something, that once upon a time, was completely unheard of. You didn’t leave BA once you were in! When I heard of this, it made me a little disappointed if I’m truly honest.

It’s a big company, just about any policy on anything at BA gets referred to the lawyers, and not just the big issues...

Re automation: If an aircraft goes off the end because of a handling stuff up such as being a bit fast on the approach the lawyers are concerned that somebody in Flight Ops will get dragged up in court to explain why the company didn’t make the use of Mr Boeing or Alphonse Airbus’s autothrottle/autothrust mandatory.

Similar with commuting...The theory goes that “legal” has hinted that BA itself might be held to blame if an individual uses BA facilitated staff travel to get to work and then is found by the authorities to have breached some aspect of the EASA regs when it comes to fatigue.. So Flight Ops looked hard at those who indulged in “extreme” commuting. However having got such a process in place it appears somebody now feels they now have no choice but to continue drilling down into the data and look in detail at the travel arrangements of absolutely anyone who arrives by way of staff travel into LHR/LGW at any point prior to report (I suspect they don’t feel there a similar need yet to look at those who drive or travel in by other airlines because BA don’t directly facilitate such travel...and as yet BA don’t have access to that data.)

Ultimately and has rightly been said you do get the impression that often the company think pilots are not to be trusted. I am sure those who say that there are worse outfits are correct but as I mentioned earlier BA can be a funny old outfit and it is completely process driven...Now in my experience most of us I think successfully work around or through that aspect of the operation, especially when away from Mission Control, but I’d agree with the comment that it is certainly “buyer beware”...

This doesn’t apply on the 744.

That (manual thrust in manual flight on the 744at BA) is of course true TC but isn’t that simply down to the potentially destabilising effect of the pitch/power couple, rather than some largesse on the part of the lawyers or a belief in the office that only the 744 has truely superior pilots....:ooh: :ooh: :8

I know the last individual I came into contact with (quite recently FWIW) who did that sort of commute with BA was very very diligent in making sure he was compliant with EASA/BA regs. Must have been darned tough on his home life but horses for courses I guess, plus a prt time contract.

Of course mixed fleet cabin crew combine short haul flying with operating the SIN/SYD/SIN 9 day trip, so whilst to/from Oz plus shorthaul sounds outlandish the company roster something along those lines... but you’ve obviously got to stick to the rules.

The problem will come for those not diligent enough is when an incident occurs which involves the CAA. They will go through everything.
Some Pilots think they can get away with it because BA can’t really police it

I would imagine for varying reasons (inability to regulate the room temperature - cough cough Hannover cough - or losing two hours sleep due to the awesome and scientifically proven new EASA regs) that amongst the first wave coming into Heathrow in the morning probably a good half of the time the pilots have not had 8 hours sleep or anywhere near and that’s on a good day. Are we also liable then? What do you think would happen if we all en masse turned around to BA and said, sorry guys not rested in accordance with OMA we’re not operating your aircraft back to Heathrow this morning; accident could happen you see, old chap. But it’s fine for BA to play judge, jury and executioner when the boot is on the other foot isn’t it? I’ve had commutes where I’ve arrived at Heathrow gone ten o clock at night for a 06:00 report (naughty me) but I’ve been far more rested than I have been coming back from Helsinki with a two hour time change and a 03:00 alarm call. I know if I had an incident on the latter duty I’d be pointing the finger squarely back at the authorities for trying to make out that adequate rest has been provided in that scenario and I’m pretty sure I’d win in a court of law (were I alive to see it). Double standards to say the least.

But we’ve had this conversation before.

Rex
Certainly very few long haul pilots can claim to have had 8 hours rest immediately prior to flying home. For example, on West coast USA trips, most people wake at about 3am or 4am local time, before reporting for the flight home somewhere between 3pm and 8pm local time. If they are lucky, they may have achieved 2 or 3 hours of sleep just prior to their wake up call.

However, I believe the rules require fully rested and acclimatised at time of report at base. To argue in court that you would not have achieved that downroute and so it is fine to do it before report at base is probably not winnable, because the rules are designed to take account of the lower likelihood of decent rest whilst in the different time zone. BA are probably cracking down on this because they are slowly recognising faitigue is becoming a serious issue, and they want to make sure they are fully covered in that court room should that fatigue related incident occur.