Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Tkt96 wrote:The return flight is most certainly longer than the eastbound flight. Plus, depending on how early the return flight departs using the crews "body clock" which would still be on Eastern Time in the US, FAR 117 could required 3 pilots.
gon2fly wrote:At United, the pilot contract requires that if the relief pilot is required on one leg (say westbound out of Europe), then a relief pilot is required for the entire trip. Operationally, that third pilot is going to normally travel with the eastbound crew for the eastbound leg. Some airlines may just have that person deadhead, but United....and apparently Delta....have them work both legs.
N717TW wrote:Tkt96 wrote:The return flight is most certainly longer than the eastbound flight. Plus, depending on how early the return flight departs using the crews "body clock" which would still be on Eastern Time in the US, FAR 117 could required 3 pilots.
Interesting. The return clocks in around 7hr on average. DL wouldn't do a 13hr turn (same 3 pilots both ways), would they? As I think about it now, the F/As all walked past us in the immigration line but the DL pilots never did.
N717TW wrote:Tkt96 wrote:The return flight is most certainly longer than the eastbound flight. Plus, depending on how early the return flight departs using the crews "body clock" which would still be on Eastern Time in the US, FAR 117 could required 3 pilots.
Interesting. The return clocks in around 7hr on average. DL wouldn't do a 13hr turn (same 3 pilots both ways), would they? As I think about it now, the F/As all walked past us in the immigration line but the DL pilots never did.
planecane wrote:N717TW wrote:Tkt96 wrote:The return flight is most certainly longer than the eastbound flight. Plus, depending on how early the return flight departs using the crews "body clock" which would still be on Eastern Time in the US, FAR 117 could required 3 pilots.
Interesting. The return clocks in around 7hr on average. DL wouldn't do a 13hr turn (same 3 pilots both ways), would they? As I think about it now, the F/As all walked past us in the immigration line but the DL pilots never did.
I would assume the 3 pilots overnight in EDI and fly the return the following day.
787Driver wrote:Seems quite silly. In my airline we do 8 hour flights just two pilots. Most short haul pilots have longer working days, easily working up to 12 hours nonstop pretty much, doing multiple legs. I definitely prefer flying long haul to short haul myself.
ro1960 wrote:I heard that AF (which has powerful unions as everyone knows) has more relief pilots per long haul flight than required. Can anyone confirm?
Ig2 wrote:Have you thought about crew training?
Mayday111 wrote:Are the requirements for relief pilots the same for flights which exceed 12 hours? An example would be like Air India's flight from Bombay to Newark.
Tkt96 wrote:ro1960 wrote:I heard that AF (which has powerful unions as everyone knows) has more relief pilots per long haul flight than required. Can anyone confirm?
There are lots of situations that on paper don't require a relief pilot. That doesn't mean it's smart. Honestly is it really a good idea to depart at 10pm for an all night flight to Europe with 2 pilots? It's legal...but not smart. This is where the power of the union can pressure the company for an added layer of safety by requesting a 3rd pilots. Ive done those flights...the 3rd crew makes a huge difference.
jrkmsp wrote:I believe Delta’s pilot contract requires a relief pilot on all Trans-Atlantic flights, which is different from United and even some of its JV partners, like Virgin Atlantic.
Tkt96 wrote:Usually over 8 hours requires 3 pilots...the problem with these return flights is they leave so early that the on duty period is very restricted due to the crew still being on he N.Y. eastern US time zone. Some of these UK return flights might be under 8 hours but still not be legal for 2 pilots because the on duty time is around 10 hours for the flight. The crews are probably only legal for 9hrs 30 mins of duty because they are not acclimated to the new timezones.
For an international flight, flight crew duty starts 1.5 hours before the flight for flight planning and boarding and ends 30 minutes after the flight for debriefing and deplaning. Therefore a 7hr 50m flight would have a duty time of 9hr 50m.
Because the crew isn't acclimated o the UK time zone and are starting duty very early they are probably limited to 9hrs 30m duty time.
jayunited wrote:Tkt96 wrote:Usually over 8 hours requires 3 pilots...the problem with these return flights is they leave so early that the on duty period is very restricted due to the crew still being on he N.Y. eastern US time zone. Some of these UK return flights might be under 8 hours but still not be legal for 2 pilots because the on duty time is around 10 hours for the flight. The crews are probably only legal for 9hrs 30 mins of duty because they are not acclimated to the new timezones.
For an international flight, flight crew duty starts 1.5 hours before the flight for flight planning and boarding and ends 30 minutes after the flight for debriefing and deplaning. Therefore a 7hr 50m flight would have a duty time of 9hr 50m.
Because the crew isn't acclimated o the UK time zone and are starting duty very early they are probably limited to 9hrs 30m duty time.
How much time does a crew need to become acclimated?
I'm asking because if we are to use your duty time as a reference then flights like SFO-LHR-SFO or LAX-LHR-SFO would need 2 relief pilots and they only have one, the same as EWR-LHR-EWR. With a block time of just over 11 hours for flights like LHR-SFO if we were to include the duty start time that would put us in the 12plus hour range meaning we would need another relief pilot because the duty day is now over 12 hours.
I'm looking at some reports right now and I'm noticing most UA flight crews who fly U.S. to Europe are scheduled to be on the ground in Europe anywhere from 22 - 30 hours and it varies in some cases pilots flying to EWR have 30 total hours of ground time while on some route pilots flying to SFO only have 22 hours on the ground from scheduled arrival to their next scheduled departure. In some cases it looks like pilots flying from Europe to the West coast have less time to become acclimated than pilots who are flying from Europe to EWR and yet it is still a 3 person flight crew. Which is my reason for the question how much time is needed for crews to become acclimated?
Tkt96 wrote:Ig2 wrote:Have you thought about crew training?
Crew training on an unaugmented flight is 2 pilots. Check airmen and trainee.
Crew training on an augmented flight would be 4 pilots since the pilot getting training wouldn't be able to be in the cockpit alone with the relief pilot while the check airmen is on break. When the check airmen takes their break the trainee takes a break too. Then the other 2 qualified pilots are up front flying.
RetiredWeasel wrote:Tkt96 wrote:Ig2 wrote:Have you thought about crew training?
Crew training on an unaugmented flight is 2 pilots. Check airmen and trainee.
Crew training on an augmented flight would be 4 pilots since the pilot getting training wouldn't be able to be in the cockpit alone with the relief pilot while the check airmen is on break. When the check airmen takes their break the trainee takes a break too. Then the other 2 qualified pilots are up front flying.
What ever happened to 'Line checks' where the evaluator is sitting in the jump seat and gives the crew a line check..usually only one leg. Is that a rare occasion nowdays?
jayunited wrote:How much time does a crew need to become acclimated?
gwrudolph wrote:Mayday111 wrote:Are the requirements for relief pilots the same for flights which exceed 12 hours? An example would be like Air India's flight from Bombay to Newark.
Yes, ULHs usually pack four crew members. One captain and three FOs. USA to most of Asia and Oceana
Starlionblue wrote:Oops.
.
.
codc10 wrote:UA has some EWR-LHR 767 trips that operate unaugmented because the report time for the return leg is late enough, block time short enough and layover long enough that the legal duty period is sufficient to cover the trip, despite pilots not being acclimated to the time zone.
I know the 4pm LHR-EWR operates in this manner, and believe the 6pm does as well when operated by 767 (757 block time is longer and IIRC the r/t is therefore single-augmented).
These trips tend go the most junior of the 764 TATL flying because it is physically demanding... but it's legal, and in the contract. There is a concern that once 787s come to EWR their higher speed will mean shorter block times, and bring AMS, BRU, CDG within the scope of potential unaugmented TATL operations.
RetiredWeasel wrote:Tkt96 wrote:Ig2 wrote:Have you thought about crew training?
Crew training on an unaugmented flight is 2 pilots. Check airmen and trainee.
Crew training on an augmented flight would be 4 pilots since the pilot getting training wouldn't be able to be in the cockpit alone with the relief pilot while the check airmen is on break. When the check airmen takes their break the trainee takes a break too. Then the other 2 qualified pilots are up front flying.
What ever happened to 'Line checks' where the evaluator is sitting in the jump seat and gives the crew a line check..usually only one leg. Is that a rare occasion nowdays?
Tkt96 wrote:787Driver wrote:Seems quite silly. In my airline we do 8 hour flights just two pilots. Most short haul pilots have longer working days, easily working up to 12 hours nonstop pretty much, doing multiple legs. I definitely prefer flying long haul to short haul myself.
But the short haul pilots are acclimated to the time zone and not waking up on the other side of the Atlantic at 1 or 2 am body clock time...it makes a differnce.
Tkt96 wrote:ro1960 wrote:I heard that AF (which has powerful unions as everyone knows) has more relief pilots per long haul flight than required. Can anyone confirm?
There are lots of situations that on paper don't require a relief pilot. That doesn't mean it's smart. Honestly is it really a good idea to depart at 10pm for an all night flight to Europe with 2 pilots? It's legal...but not smart. This is where the power of the union can pressure the company for an added layer of safety by requesting a 3rd pilots. Ive done those flights...the 3rd crew makes a huge difference.
ro1960 wrote:I'm not questioning the utility of a relief pilots. I'm asking if it is true that if legal requirement is 3, AF has 4 for example.
gwrudolph wrote:Mayday111 wrote:Are the requirements for relief pilots the same for flights which exceed 12 hours? An example would be like Air India's flight from Bombay to Newark.
Yes, ULHs usually pack four crew members. One captain and three FOs. USA to most of Asia and Oceana
XAM2175 wrote:ro1960 wrote:I'm not questioning the utility of a relief pilots. I'm asking if it is true that if legal requirement is 3, AF has 4 for example.
Forgive me if I'm re-covering a point you've already grasped, but these things will always be decided by whichever set rules have the higher requirements - regulations applying to the carrier, the carrier's operational policy, and the carrier's contractual agreement with it's crew. AF must operate at a minimum to the rules set by French law, and will need to go beyond them if their standards or labour contracts require it, while a US-based carrier operating the exact same route at the exact same time with the exact same equipment must follow FAA regulations and their own work rules.
A recent example is EK's trimming of pilot numbers on certain routes - the pilots raised a stink about it, but at the end of the day UAE law permitted the reduced crew levels even though authorities in a number of the destination countries wouldn't allow their own carriers to do it.
Thus in addition to knowing the relevant rules you can only really judge whether or not the number of crew used is "excessive" if you also know the unique circumstances that may or may not affect the carrier.
ro1960 wrote:Thanks for the details which I am aware of. Yet no answer to my question as to the specifics at AF.
Redwood839 wrote:Most UA flights I've taken from EWR to the UK have a relief pilot, I think about a dozen times it's been a training pilot from what I've discussed with the crew. I think they're actually rather important specially towards the end of the flight when the crew might be tired. Sure, 6 hours isn't that long for a long haul, but imagine being in a confined space for 6 hours just going through way points, checking fuel, reading a book etc. I know they get some shut eye, but still.
On a flight back in March, we had a balked landing (written by the captain in his report) which led to a go around in which the PM didn't follow the instruction from the PF to get the gear and flaps up. In the report the relief pilot is the one that calls it out as they were losing speed, and the fact that we were on the wrong heading and set to the wrong speed on the A/T. This was his first ride in the 757 during his training.
ro1960 wrote:XAM2175 wrote:ro1960 wrote:I'm not questioning the utility of a relief pilots. I'm asking if it is true that if legal requirement is 3, AF has 4 for example.
Forgive me if I'm re-covering a point you've already grasped, but these things will always be decided by whichever set rules have the higher requirements - regulations applying to the carrier, the carrier's operational policy, and the carrier's contractual agreement with it's crew. AF must operate at a minimum to the rules set by French law, and will need to go beyond them if their standards or labour contracts require it, while a US-based carrier operating the exact same route at the exact same time with the exact same equipment must follow FAA regulations and their own work rules.
A recent example is EK's trimming of pilot numbers on certain routes - the pilots raised a stink about it, but at the end of the day UAE law permitted the reduced crew levels even though authorities in a number of the destination countries wouldn't allow their own carriers to do it.
Thus in addition to knowing the relevant rules you can only really judge whether or not the number of crew used is "excessive" if you also know the unique circumstances that may or may not affect the carrier.
Thanks for the details which I am aware of. Yet no answer to my question as to the specifics at AF. It is said that the extra pilot staffing is one of the reasons AF is not competitive on many markets.
Starlionblue wrote:ro1960 wrote:
Thanks for the details which I am aware of. Yet no answer to my question as to the specifics at AF. It is said that the extra pilot staffing is one of the reasons AF is not competitive on many markets.
"It is said"... By whom?
A statement about extra pilot staffing making AF not competitive sounds exactly like the kind of thing management brings up when they want concessions from unions. Not saying there isn't some truth there, but one extra pilot per sector seems unlikely to, by itself, make or break the economic viability of a route.
XAM2175 wrote:ro1960 wrote:Thanks for the details which I am aware of. Yet no answer to my question as to the specifics at AF.
You're welcome. Regrettably it seems that the people who actually do know both French law and AF's work rules are either holding out on your or haven't yet seen your question.
ro1960 wrote:Starlionblue wrote:ro1960 wrote:
Thanks for the details which I am aware of. Yet no answer to my question as to the specifics at AF. It is said that the extra pilot staffing is one of the reasons AF is not competitive on many markets.
"It is said"... By whom?
A statement about extra pilot staffing making AF not competitive sounds exactly like the kind of thing management brings up when they want concessions from unions. Not saying there isn't some truth there, but one extra pilot per sector seems unlikely to, by itself, make or break the economic viability of a route.
Whom is several flight attendants I have spoken with. AF pilots salaries are amongst the highest in Europe. If you add one pilot per long haul flight, I don't see how this has no impact on cost. Simple math.
Again, I am asking if this is true and founded. A simple question. Not a statement.