PAL crew not following SOP for rest time?

Old Feb 5, 2021, 9:32 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAS/FCO/JFK/LAX
Programs: DL DM/2MM, BA GGL/CCR,/GFL, A3 Gold, JBU Mosaic, ITA Executive, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 305
PAL crew not following SOP for rest time?

Two friends have reported to me, on separate MNL-LAX flights this past month, seeing an entire set of crew sitting in the semi-empty J arriving from MNL and changing from regular clothes to uniform right before arrival, ‘to operate the return flight’
While my friends were shocked about the fact that ‘they can’t even shower’ i pointed out that it would not be allowed
I wouldn’t even think of believing their stories if they weren’t one a very frequent flyer and the otherp a former airline employee...does anyone have info if this is allowed? I am sure it’s impossible
IkarosBOS is offline  
Old Feb 6, 2021, 1:44 am
  #2  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Programs: Qantas. Air NZ.
Posts: 15
During last year this was happening to avoid crew layovers and risking getting infected
DeckerOz is offline  
Old Feb 6, 2021, 8:22 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: asia miles
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by IkarosBOS
Two friends have reported to me, on separate MNL-LAX flights this past month, seeing an entire set of crew sitting in the semi-empty J arriving from MNL and changing from regular clothes to uniform right before arrival, ‘to operate the return flight’
While my friends were shocked about the fact that ‘they can’t even shower’ i pointed out that it would not be allowed
I wouldn’t even think of believing their stories if they weren’t one a very frequent flyer and the otherp a former airline employee...does anyone have info if this is allowed? I am sure it’s impossible
That's very possible with the current Covid problems. Fly with 2 crews, so they don't have to stay overseas.
blandy62 is offline  
Old Feb 7, 2021, 3:03 pm
  #4  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Why would this violate crew rest requirements?
Often1 is offline  
Old Feb 10, 2021, 12:47 am
  #5  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAS/FCO/JFK/LAX
Programs: DL DM/2MM, BA GGL/CCR,/GFL, A3 Gold, JBU Mosaic, ITA Executive, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 305
I admittedly don’t know the requirements in detail and I am sure there are provisions for emergent situations (not lasting one year, tho)
It would seem odd tho that crew flies for 15-16 hours straight as pax and without even refreshing at hotel sit at the helm of a 777 or 350 for another 14-16 hours
And, for the Fa, a tour of duty of 36-40 consecutive hrs?
A surgical residency, perhaps?
IkarosBOS is offline  
Old Feb 10, 2021, 1:40 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: asia miles
Posts: 398
Originally Posted by IkarosBOS
I admittedly don’t know the requirements in detail and I am sure there are provisions for emergent situations (not lasting one year, tho)
It would seem odd tho that crew flies for 15-16 hours straight as pax and without even refreshing at hotel sit at the helm of a 777 or 350 for another 14-16 hours
And, for the Fa, a tour of duty of 36-40 consecutive hrs?
A surgical residency, perhaps?
I think this a totally accepted practice. And it might become even more common with countries imposing quarantine on aircrews....
Often1 and nancypants like this.
blandy62 is offline  
Old Feb 10, 2021, 6:57 am
  #7  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Originally Posted by IkarosBOS
I admittedly don’t know the requirements in detail and I am sure there are provisions for emergent situations (not lasting one year, tho)
It would seem odd tho that crew flies for 15-16 hours straight as pax and without even refreshing at hotel sit at the helm of a 777 or 350 for another 14-16 hours
And, for the Fa, a tour of duty of 36-40 consecutive hrs?
A surgical residency, perhaps?
That is the key. You started a thread about something you were told by someone else about a topic where you do not know the rules.

What you are referring to, if it has been accurately portrayed by the friends, is entirely common and I cannot think of why any civil aviation authority would require a hotel as opposed to a bed on an aircraft.

Whether the work conditions are what one would desire is a different issue and that of course is a matter for the employees to deal with.
nancypants and blandy62 like this.
Often1 is offline  
Old Feb 15, 2021, 5:13 pm
  #8  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAS/FCO/JFK/LAX
Programs: DL DM/2MM, BA GGL/CCR,/GFL, A3 Gold, JBU Mosaic, ITA Executive, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 305
Originally Posted by Often1
That is the key. You started a thread about something you were told by someone else about a topic where you do not know the rules.

What you are referring to, if it has been accurately portrayed by the friends, is entirely common and I cannot think of why any civil aviation authority would require a hotel as opposed to a bed on an aircraft.

Whether the work conditions are what one would desire is a different issue and that of course is a matter for the employees to deal with.
Dear often1,
In your well deserved grandeur of being a flyertalk posting legend you seem to forget for a second that one of the reasons why people post and start a thread is because they do not exactly know the rules/facts and they ask information about something they heard but might not have experienced first hand.
So, the KEY, as you say (don’t worry, I have a somewhat logical mind as well, it’s not your exclusive) is I am asking a question in a dubitative form (hence the question mark) and if you want to help providing an answer provide that answer with and do not chastise people for opening a thread on something they don’t quite know.
On the specific matter, regulations or not I would feel less safe flying with a crew that didn’t even get a decent bed rest and has to work in those conditions and I fully sympathize with them getting that type of accomodation
On the matter of your answers, I promise you that I’ll never try to beat you in number of posts, all of 2 million of those posts which I am sure are perfectly informed and filled of your first hand information
B747-437B and DC9 like this.
IkarosBOS is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2021, 12:47 am
  #9  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Exile
Posts: 15,638
Originally Posted by Often1
I cannot think of why any civil aviation authority would require a hotel as opposed to a bed on an aircraft.
In this specific case, I cite CAAP CAR 8.11.1.4 (a) which explicitly states :

The Authority will consider all time spent on an aircraft as an assigned flight crew member or relief flight crew member, whether resting or performing tasks, to be duty aloft.

In response to the OP, while standard CAAP CARs would not permit this kind of operation, presumably PAL has obtained approval for a FRMS based FDTL system which could enable this kind of operation under specific conditions. In current pandemic circumstances, this is actually fairly common and is usually mitigated by additional rest periods both pre- and post- flight to compensate.
B747-437B is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2021, 12:51 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 4,149
Originally Posted by B747-437B
In this specific case, I cite CAAP CAR 8.11.1.4 (a) which explicitly states :

The Authority will consider all time spent on an aircraft as an assigned flight crew member or relief flight crew member, whether resting or performing tasks, to be duty aloft.

In response to the OP, while standard CAAP CARs would not permit this kind of operation, presumably PAL has obtained approval for a FRMS based FDTL system which could enable this kind of operation under specific conditions. In current pandemic circumstances, this is actually fairly common and is usually mitigated by additional rest periods both pre- and post- flight to compensate.
i suspect the defence is that they’re not an assigned flight crew member or a relief flight crew member on the deadheading leg
nancypants is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2021, 1:12 am
  #11  
DC9
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Programs: QF Platinum, HH Diamond
Posts: 388
Originally Posted by IkarosBOS
... I wouldn’t even think of believing their stories if they weren’t one a very frequent flyer and the otherp a former airline employee...does anyone have info if this is allowed? I am sure it’s impossible
Do you wonder why you come to FT to ask questions, when you look at some responses? 😟

While off-putting, the practice you described is probably not illegal.

Last edited by DC9; Feb 16, 2021 at 1:50 am
DC9 is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2021, 1:28 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Exile
Posts: 15,638
Originally Posted by nancypants
i suspect the defence is that they’re not an assigned flight crew member or a relief flight crew member on the deadheading leg
There is no need for a "defence" as there is no prima-facie evidence of a violation. It is perfectly acceptable to apply for and receive a variance from the standard limitations by implementing a FRMS (Fatigue Risk Management System) that addresses and mitigates the additional duty time of an extended operation.

Notwithstanding the above, 8.11.1.3(b)(4) explicitly denies that "defence"

Time spent in deadhead transportation, that an operator requires of a flight crew member and provides to transport the crew member to an airport... at which he/she is to serve on a flight as a crew member... is not considered part of a rest period.
SPN Lifer likes this.

Last edited by B747-437B; Feb 16, 2021 at 1:35 am
B747-437B is offline  
Old Feb 16, 2021, 1:37 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 4,149
Originally Posted by B747-437B
There is no need for a "defence" as there is no prima-facie evidence of a violation. It is perfectly acceptable to apply for and receive a variance from the standard limitations by implementing a FRMS (Fatigue Risk Management System) that addresses and mitigates the additional duty time of an extended operation.

Notwithstanding the above, 8.11.1.3(b)(4) explicitly denies that "defence"

Time spent in deadhead transportation, that an operator requires of a flight crew member and provides to transport the crew member to an airport... at which he/she is to serve on a flight as a crew member... is not considered part of a rest period.
🤣🤣 those crafty CAA types think of everything 😉
B747-437B likes this.
nancypants is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2021, 5:34 pm
  #14  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAS/FCO/JFK/LAX
Programs: DL DM/2MM, BA GGL/CCR,/GFL, A3 Gold, JBU Mosaic, ITA Executive, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 305
Originally Posted by DC9
Do you wonder why you come to FT to ask questions, when you look at some responses? 😟

While off-putting, the practice you described is probably not illegal.
i know, some people like to make you feel like you’re an idiot for asking a question but that’s part of the fun of the forum
DC9 likes this.
IkarosBOS is offline  
Old Feb 18, 2021, 5:36 pm
  #15  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAS/FCO/JFK/LAX
Programs: DL DM/2MM, BA GGL/CCR,/GFL, A3 Gold, JBU Mosaic, ITA Executive, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 305
Originally Posted by B747-437B
There is no need for a "defence" as there is no prima-facie evidence of a violation. It is perfectly acceptable to apply for and receive a variance from the standard limitations by implementing a FRMS (Fatigue Risk Management System) that addresses and mitigates the additional duty time of an extended operation.

Notwithstanding the above, 8.11.1.3(b)(4) explicitly denies that "defence"

Time spent in deadhead transportation, that an operator requires of a flight crew member and provides to transport the crew member to an airport... at which he/she is to serve on a flight as a crew member... is not considered part of a rest period.
I am glad it ain’t so obvious then
thanks for checking, this remains interesting
DC9, B747-437B and SPN Lifer like this.
IkarosBOS is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.