FlyDubai accident Rostov-On-Don

highlydebased

Reports just in that a flydubai B738 has been involved in a fatal accident at Rostov-on-Don.

55 on board, all believed to have been killed

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/18/europe/russia-plane-crash/index.html


https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/a6-fdn/#922b3bd

URRR 190200Z 25011MPS 4600 1700SW SHRA BKN014 BKN032CB OVC100 06/04 Q0997 R22/290046 TEMPO 25017G25MPS 1000 SHRA BR SCT003 BKN020CB RMK QFE740/0987
URRR 190130Z 24012G18MPS 4400 1700SW SHRA BKN013 BKN032CB OVC100 06/04 Q0997 R22/290046 TEMPO 25017G25MPS 1000 SHRA BR SCT003 BKN020CB RMK QFE740/0987
URRR 190100Z 24014G22MPS 3800 -SHRA BKN014 BKN033CB OVC100 06/04 Q0997 R22/290046 TEMPO 25017G25MPS 1000 SHRA BR SCT003 BKN020CB RMK QFE740/0987
URRR 190030Z 24012G19MPS 6000 -SHRA SCT018 BKN036CB OVC100 06/04 Q0998 R22/290046 TEMPO 25017G25MPS 1000 SHRA BR SCT003 BKN020CB RMK QFE741/0988
URRR 190000Z 24010MPS 8000 -SHRA SCT017 BKN040CB OVC100 06/03 Q0998 WS R22 R22/290046 TEMPO 25015G20MPS 1000 SHRA BR SCT003 BKN020CB RMK QFE741/0988
URRR 182330Z 24012MPS 3900 -SHRA SCT019 BKN036CB OVC100 06/03 Q0999 WS R22 R22/290046 TEMPO 25015G20MPS 1000 SHRA BR SCT003 BKN020CB RMK QFE741/0989

jimbis

Apparently this is cctv footage of the impact.

https://twitter.com/reda_zeofficial/status/711035617862422528

homerjay2005

Does that video look like there was a small fire before they hit the ground?

May they rest in peace, terrible news

Tenger

jimbis wrote: »

Apparently this is cctv footage of the impact.

The cars give the impression that it hasnt been speeded up.....looks like a very steep angle of descent. Landing lights can look very amplified in the dark.
Reports say bad weather at the time. Reading elsewhere that they had been holding for close to 2 hours before this approach.

Wanderer78

Jebus that's rough. Rip

Arthur Daley

A steep angle of descent, You can say that again sure it just fell from the sky. God love them.

Shannon757

Jesus that's tough. RIP to all on board.

Negative_G

Terrible tragedy. The excessively steep angle of descent could spell a number of issues.

Aviation Herald has pictures of the crash site.

http://avherald.com/h?article=495997e2&opt=0

Wanderer78

thats a pretty damn scary end to life folks

BZ

Wanderer78 wrote: »

thats a pretty damn scary end to life folks

Watching the aircraft fall out of the sky like that I would have to think the aircraft stalled on the go around rolled right and the crew couldn't recover. Can't understand why they didn't look at diverting to an alternate instead of holding for the 2 hours.

Negative_G

I know the worst thing one can do after something like this is to speculate but after listening to the ATC feed it would appear wind sheer and/or microburst activity could be to factors.

I know microbursts are a rare phenomenon but with the facts that are available its a distinct possibility that this could be similar to Delta Flight 191 that went down in Dallas.

The crew had obviously prepared for a go around and advised the radar controller of their intentions should they abort.

Although the wind speed was strong it appeared to be fairly constant and only slightly off the runway heading. Had a microburst passed through I would expect to see this reflected in the METARs.

I would be interested to know at what altitude the go-around was initiated. Low speed and low energy do not go well with windshear activity.

Still doesn't explain the frightening ROD or angle which the aircraft approached the runway though.

Very sad.

martinsvi

what surprises me about that video footage is that we know that winds were high - 20 to 40kt, but trees in the video seem completely still. Perhaps there's a good explanation to that, maybe they are shielded by a building or something, but we have seen some fake footage surfacing quickly after accidents before so who knows..

flight radar shows decent speed all the way to the end, so probably didn't stall either. Fr24 recorded it climbing out and reaching 4000ft before going down, I don't think microbursts happen that high up, do they? I'm looking more towards something like a runaway trim or IRU problem.. but I'm always wrong about these things anyway so I hope we'll know soon enough what actually happened

billy few mates

Microbursts usually only become issues when you're closer to the ground with little altitude left to recover, that video shows the A/C plummeting to the ground from quite high up.
RIP to all those involved.

Cessna_Pilot

I won't speculate on the causes although windshear seems to be a potential major factor. Holding for two hours seems rather extreme too as the forecasts didn't seem to promise much improvement.
As a Boeing driver with many friends in the desert this hits quite close to home. Hopefully we can learn from the findings of this accident to prevent and mitigate similar ones in the future.

Long Time Lurker

Take a look at @flightradar24's Tweet: https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/711087904366456832?s=09

Negative_G

From the graph it would seem that they went around at or above 1000ft which would weigh against my previous post.

Has the CVFDR been found yet?

Long Time Lurker

Can't make out whether it's the distortion of the landing lights caused by the rain or if the aircraft was on fire before it impacted.

Take a look at @airlivenet's Tweet: https://twitter.com/airlivenet/status/711200298228965378?s=09

Tenger

Negative_G wrote: »

From the graph it would seem that they went around at or above 1000ft which would weigh against my previous post.

FlightRadar tweeted earlier that it was climbing out before it showing steep descent of 21000 ft per minute.
#FZ981 was climbing after a go-around when it suddenly started to fall with vertical speed of up to 21000 feet/min

They also tweeted approx 50 mins ago that FlyDubai confirmed that the CVR and FDR have been found:

bkehoe

Tenger wrote: »

FlightRadar tweeted earlier that it was climbing out before it showing steep descent of 21000 ft per minute.
#FZ981 was climbing after a go-around when it suddenly started to fall with vertical speed of up to 21000 feet/min

They also tweeted approx 50 mins ago that FlyDubai confirmed that the CVR and FDR have been found:

The raw ADSB data indicates that it was at FL040 (about 3500ft based on the QNH at the time) with a ground speed of about 180kts (indicating IAS of in the region of 220 - 230kts; exactly where it should have been after cleaning up the flaps after a successful go around). The positive V/S decreased and then became hugely negative very quickly and 10 seconds later the a/c impacted with the last ADSB packet being transmitted around 250FT AGL (when corrections for AD elevation and QNH applied to the ADSB packet) when a VS of approx 21,000fpm existed along with a GS of about 200kts. A -45 degree flight path angle would make sense from these figures and it looks like that from the video.
The sheer speed of the onset of the disaster would imply to me to be something structural rather than crew error and certainly doesn't look like a stall.

Stinicker

<SNIP> Because I can...no indiscretion at all by Stinicker
The DailyMail seems quick to jump to conclusions and blame the pilot, who was apparently (according to the DailyMail) on his final flight and moving here to Ireland to join Ryanair. Way too early to know what happened for sure. There will a full investigation done and we will have to wait until investigators can know more I guess. In one way it was sort of lucky in that the 737-800 could just as easily have been full with possibly 189+ people dead today rather than the 63 unfortunate souls RIP to them.

martinsvi

Stinicker wrote: »

<SNIP> Because I can...no indiscretion at all by Stinicker

The DailyMail seems quick to jump to conclusions and blame the pilot, who was apparently (according to the DailyMail) on his final flight and moving here to Ireland to join Ryanair. Way too early to know what happened for sure. There will a full investigation done and we will have to wait until investigators can know more I guess. In one way it was sort of lucky in that the 737-800 could just as easily have been full with possibly 189+ people dead today rather than the 63 unfortunate souls RIP to them.

I'm not even going to click that link, I believe you.. Where do these guys get off?? How f888 disrespectful can you get just to generate the clicks..

Jamie2k9

It's amazing the lack of coverage this story is getting across various news outlets.

Tenger

Stinicker wrote: »

The DailyMail seems quick to jump to conclusions and blame the pilot, who was apparently (according to the DailyMail) on his final flight and moving here to Ireland to join Ryanair. Way too early to know what happened for sure.....

Nothing to do with the incident and merely clickbait

eatmyshorts

BZ wrote: »

. Can't understand why they didn't look at diverting to an alternate instead of holding for the 2 hours.

Not unusual in parts of the world.
I've held for over 2 hours waiting for worse than forecasted fog to lift. Then did a go around due to an approach lights failure. Squeezed in on the other end of the runway.
Fog was forecasted, hence the extra fuel I carried, but not to the extent that occurred. RVR 50m when I checked in with approach.

Look at the timing of the flight. Midnight departure from dubai. And it's a turnaround. Do 3 of those in a row and you're a walking zombie.

Eg last week, I left home at 1900, did a turnaround flight and got home at 0830. Now do that several nights in a row... to Asia ... during monsoon... to a non radar airfield.. surrounded by mountains...with only a non precision approach...
No way im going to criticise anyone before the full facts are published.

The speculation on the media outlets and other websites is a disgrace. Amateurs firing from the hip with no actual knowledge of what they're talking about. It's an insult to us professionals.

Everyone of you who expect to fly across Europe for less than your taxi fare to the airport are complicit in this. Bear some responsibility.
Complaining about paying €100 to fly to the Canaries and back on your summer holiday in an $80 million jet at 80% the speed of sound, at 35,000 feet while complaining about paying €5 for a sandwich. Just think about it for a minute. What's your life worth to you?
For most people it's all about how cheap you got your flight for.
It's a conversation topic in the pub or work. Something to be proud about because you got a fare for less than your neighbour.

Just take a minute and think about it realistically.
You're bragging about putting your life on line for the cheapest price possible.
A wake up call is needed.

$A£€T¥... It's a joke.

Tombstoning in this industry needs to stop.
How many more need to die before airline "management" and the travelling public realise this?

billy few mates

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Not unusual in parts of the world.
I've held for over 2 hours waiting for worse than forecasted fog to lift. Then did a go around due to an approach lights failure. Squeezed in on the other end of the runway.
Fog was forecasted, hence the extra fuel I carried, but not to the extent that occurred. RVR 50m when I checked in with approach.

Look at the timing of the flight. Midnight departure from dubai. And it's a turnaround. Do 3 of those in a row and you're a walking zombie.

Eg last week, I left home at 1900, did a turnaround flight and got home at 0830. Now do that several nights in a row... to Asia ... during monsoon... to a non radar airfield.. surrounded by mountains...with only a non precision approach...
No way im going to criticise anyone before the full facts are published.

The speculation on the media outlets and other websites is a disgrace. Amateurs firing from the hip with no actual knowledge of what they're talking about. It's an insult to us professionals.

Everyone of you who expect to fly across Europe for less than your taxi fare to the airport are complicit in this. Bear some responsibility.
Complaining about paying €100 to fly to the Canaries and back on your summer holiday in an $80 million jet at 80% the speed of sound, at 35,000 feet while complaining about paying €5 for a sandwich. Just think about it for a minute. What's your life worth to you?
For most people it's all about how cheap you got your flight for.
It's a conversation topic in the pub or work. Something to be proud about because you got a fare for less than your neighbour.

Just take a minute and think about it realistically.
You're bragging about putting your life on line for the cheapest price possible.
A wake up call is needed.

$A£€T¥... It's a joke.

Tombstoning in this industry needs to stop.
How many more need to die before airline "management" and the travelling public realise this?

So you're blaming the passengers for this...?

Not just these passengers but all passengers in general...

homerjay2005

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

It's amazing the lack of coverage this story is getting across various news outlets.

Indeed it's shocking, it was 5th or 6th on the main news in sky at one point yesterday.

pepe the prawn

homerjay2005 wrote: »

Indeed it's shocking, it was 5th or 6th on the main news in sky at one point yesterday.

I was watching sky news yesterday morning around 8am when news of the crash was spreading around the world as it woke up. It was at the end of the news call just before the sports bits, I found it very inappropriate. If the crash had been in a more "neutral" or "allied" part of the world then it'd be on every top channel and every news channel right up as breaking news.

JCX BXC

Eatmyshorts, you seem to be implying that airlines like Ryanair (hence the canaries example) are unsafe?

ED E

Carnacalla wrote: »

Eatmyshorts, you seem to be implying that airlines like Ryanair (hence the canaries example) are unsafe?

He has a point. If joe public shops for the cheapest price, not best value or overall service the industry trends towards minimizing all costs. This gets you crappy baggage handling, ****ty airports and expensive sambos onboard. With regulation it shouldn't impact safety but in the real world its hard to believe it has zero effect.

By Reef on Sunday, Mar 20th 2016 12:05Z

"Some people have claimed in Russia the plane is not allowed to divert, but has to go back to its origin. Surely this can't be right? So JAL fly to DME, but if wx is too bad to land, they go back to NRT? Strongly doubt it."

My understanding, JAL crew would be laying over and as such the company would have all the legal requirements etc.. taken care of. However, foreign operators without permission cannot stay more than a few hours at that airport. Crew would be put in jail as they violate country laws (crazy I know). Without permission, they therefore have to fly out of Russia...home for some, another alternate in a different country for some. Ridiculous cold war mentality!

Is this true?

Irish Steve

The long term implications of this accident could be much more far reaching, due to the existing issues with the revocation by the Russian MAK of the 737 airworthiness certification, which was not accepted or actioned by the Russian authorities.

It's being discussed in Aviation Herald,

on Nov 5th 2015 the MAK suspended the airworthiness certification of all Boeing 737 family aircraft as result of the Tatarstan B735 crash in Kazan over concerns: "the cause of the crash was the malfunction of the pitch control system due to constructive deficiencies in the 737 elevator system". We recall, that Russia's CAA chose to ignore the legally binding revocation of the 737 airworthiness certificate and permit the 737s continue flying. The positions remained, MAK suspended the airworthiness certificate and never re-instated it, and the CAA did not take action based on this revocation and permitted the 737s to continue flying, see:

Simon Hradecky, "News: Russia suspends airworthiness certification for Boeing 737s, but does not prohibit operation of 737s" #, 05 Nov 2015 17:40

Link to the suspension report http://avherald.com/h?article=48ee3567&opt=0

Now, in a relatively short timescale, we have a difficult to explain accident with another 737 which has very similar overtones in some areas, I have to wonder if this could be a much more significant issue than is at first apparent.

Hopefully, the FDR and CVR will provide much needed clues as to exactly what went wrong.

JCX BXC

ED E wrote: »

He has a point. If joe public shops for the cheapest price, not best value or overall service the industry trends towards minimizing all costs. This gets you crappy baggage handling, ****ty airports and expensive sambos onboard. With regulation it shouldn't impact safety but in the real world its hard to believe it has zero effect.

Not really though, we live in a Democratic Union of countries, the market has to be free to a large extent. Why should the public fly expensive legacy airlines when they don't have to? Look at Air France, their safety record is hardly complimentary.

pm.

Do modern planes not use fly by wire ? In conditions like this would it not be best to allow the computer take over or would it be that the pilot ?

Rip to all on board.

martinsvi

pm. wrote: »

Do modern planes not use fly by wire ? In conditions like this would it not be best to allow the computer take over or would it be that the pilot ?

Rip to all on board.

the conventional way of flying a jet is that - if it's flown manually - there's a mechanical link that connects yoke/pedals directly to actuators/servo motors that then move the flight control surfaces. Whenever this jet is controlled by the autopilot, it's the flight management computer, that sends electrical signals to actuators to do the job

fly-by-wire is a concept where that mechanical link from pilots to actuators/servos is removed, meaning pilot inputs in yoke/stick go to FMC first, as a signal, an then it continues to actuator with some protections and corrections applied..

B737 is not fly-by-wire.. fly-by-wire can come in handy, when plane is flown by hand - manually, but, because we "kind-off" know that go-around was initiated at some 1500ft, I'm pretty sure, that plane was still under autopilot/fmc control when the go-around was initiated. The only thing is, on B737, when you press TOGA switch, the AP, as far as I understand, is disconnected

It doesn't matter really, if the flight radar data is right, whatever happened was absolutely out of norm and no computer would have saved the day.. you can't get a 21000 ft/m sink just by a simple pilot error - the G forces would be too great for pilots not to notice. So I guess the focus here probably is on mechanical side or external factors

Gaoth Laidir

I'm not sure what exactly the problem was with the weather. It was nothing out of the ordinary and the wind was almost straight down the runway and most certainly nowhere hurricane force, as claimed by some reporters. :rolleyes:

The crash occurred at around 00:50Z. The 03Z synop report showed that the highest gust from 00-02Z was 22 m/s (43 kts); that same gust that was reported in the 01Z metar. It got no worse than that.

AAXX 19031 34730 11436 82511 10059 20038 39886 49976 57010 60072 78082
8635/
333 20053 85711 91018 91122=

Indeed, the worst gust from the time of their first attempt at landing at around 22:40Z was just 18 m/s (35 kts), and from 23-00Z was just 14 m/s (27 kts).

AAXX 19001 34730 41557 82410 10061 20033 39896 49986 57023 78086 8535/
333 83622 91014 91118=

Visiblity (which, in the synop, is the MINIMUM visibility measured in any direction) was 7000 m at 00Z down to 3600 m at 03Z. Again, not a problem, you would think. Cloud base went from 2200 ft to 1100 ft. The metars showed a similar picture, with 3800 m visibility and BKN014 just 10 minutes after the crash.

Here are the decoded 3-hourly reports.

Soundings for the airport at both 00Z (below) and 03Z showed little windshear and a freezing level of around 1000 m (3300 ft). Satellite imagery showed some activity, but not of a severe convective nature.



I don't know what the limits are for that runway and maybe these conditions were outside them, but I would imagine we are looking at a cause outside of the weather.

jimbis

FDR has been read and seems to be of good quality up until the impact according to avhearald. Amazing considering the impact.
Voice recorder needs repair to see if the data is readable.

billy few mates

martinsvi wrote: »

the conventional way of flying a jet is that - if it's flown manually - there's a mechanical link that connects yoke/pedals directly to actuators/servo motors that then move the flight control surfaces. Whenever this jet is controlled by the autopilot, it's the flight management computer, that sends electrical signals to actuators to do the job

fly-by-wire is a concept where that mechanical link from pilots to actuators/servos is removed, meaning pilot inputs in yoke/stick go to FMC first, as a signal, an then it continues to actuator with some protections and corrections applied..

B737 is not fly-by-wire.. fly-by-wire can come in handy, when plane is flown by hand - manually, but, because we "kind-off" know that go-around was initiated at some 1500ft, I'm pretty sure, that plane was still under autopilot/fmc control when the go-around was initiated. The only thing is, on B737, when you press TOGA switch, the AP, as far as I understand, is disconnected

It doesn't matter really, if the flight radar data is right, whatever happened was absolutely out of norm and no computer would have saved the day.. you can't get a 21000 ft/m sink just by a simple pilot error - the G forces would be too great for pilots not to notice. So I guess the focus here probably is on mechanical side or external factors

As far as I recall the A/P will only disengage if you're in single channel in either CWS or CMD <2000ft Rad Alt. I'm pretty sure the weather was outside the limits for a dual channel auto approach so it's possible they had a single A/P engaged and lost the plot when it dropped out once they selected GA.
Anyone who's ever sat in the FD of a 737 on a GA will know how messy they can become at times, especially in the dark in rough weather....

Bsal

Some new CCTV footage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oCAKoFC-HA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a2MJQbc5Zg

Tenger

Carnacalla wrote: »

Eatmyshorts, you seem to be implying that airlines like Ryanair (hence the canaries example) are unsafe?

I didnt take that meaning at all.
His target was the airline mgmt culture that looks at minimum legal requirements for crew rest times and maximum block times for working hours. Combine that with an airline that does its best to fly its aircraft around the compass as often as possible to maximise revenue.
You very easily get a situation where you have aircraft being flown with very little time on the ground, with time pressure from mgmt, by flight crew who are operating to legal maximum hours, under difficult conditions. at night/or during the window of circadian low who have had disturbed or minimum rest over the previous 4-5 nights.

While no legal limit has been broken, they have all been approached.......mix them all together and you get a dangerous level of mental alertness where 100% is needed.

Its easy to point at LCC airlines as the culprits here, however all airlines are quilty of this.The Canaries merely is mentioned as we are an Irish board, and the discussion in the pub could be "I got to Lanzarote for 50 quid and didnt pay the f**ckers for a bag"

IngazZagni

https://www.rt.com/news/336514-flydubai-pilots-fatigue-crash/

A former flydubai pilot has come forward and described the gruelling schedule that pilots, especially those with low seniority are facing at the company. He even gave the schedule of the First Officer that showed him working 11 days with only one day off leading up to this fatal accident. The constant rotation of early and night duties would almost certainly contribute to fatigue levels. This is not to say that pilot error was the cause of this crash as we need to wait for the report but it is certainly something that is very alarming and needs to be addressed immediately.

eatmyshorts

Tenger wrote: »

I didnt take that meaning at all.
His target was the airline mgmt culture that looks at minimum legal requirements for crew rest times and maximum block times for working hours. Combine that with an airline that does its best to fly its aircraft around the compass as often as possible to maximise revenue.
You very easily get a situation where you have aircraft being flown with very little time on the ground, with time pressure from mgmt, by flight crew who are operating to legal maximum hours, under difficult conditions. at night/or during the window of circadian low who have had disturbed or minimum rest over the previous 4-5 nights.

While no legal limit has been broken, they have all been approached.......mix them all together and you get a dangerous level of mental alertness where 100% is needed.

Its easy to point at LCC airlines as the culprits here, however all airlines are quilty of this.The Canaries merely is mentioned as we are an Irish board, and the discussion in the pub could be "I got to Lanzarote for 50 quid and didnt pay the f**ckers for a bag"

Exactly.

Senecio

If the above is true shouldn't we be discussing the regulators? Airlines are a business and in order to maximise their profit they will always push the boundaries of what is legal. Surely the regulators would need to accept responsibility for what is essentially a legal, but potentially unsafe practise?

eatmyshorts

Senecio wrote: »

If the above is true shouldn't we be discussing the regulators? Airlines are a business and in order to maximise their profit they will always push the boundaries of what is legal. Surely the regulators would need to accept responsibility for what is essentially a legal, but potentially unsafe practise?

In theory yes, in practice the regulators are useless.
Last time the IAA started looking at FR, MOL just said he'd take all his aircraft off the Irish register and move them to Estonia. Everything went quiet. Money talks.

And then what about when the same person us the head of the airline, and the head of the regulator?

Tenger

Senecio wrote: »

If the above is true shouldn't we be discussing the regulators? Airlines are a business and in order to maximise their profit they will always push the boundaries of what is legal. Surely the regulators would need to accept responsibility for what is essentially a legal, but potentially unsafe practise?

What if the national regulator doesnt actually have their own set of airline crew regs and merely adhers to the EU limits.
A few years ago EI ran into the issue where their UK based pilots and cabin crew (LGW/BFS base) had more restrictive rostering rules than their RoI crew. IAA follow EU OPS, whereas the CAA in the UK have their own rules which are tighter that EU-OPS. (or was it JAAR Ops at the time?)
Currently EASA regulations have been introduced for the EU, which has raised the yearly permitted block hours from 900 to 1000.

An massive issue with the airline industry is that if the crew member feels they are unfit to fly then they must report this to their employer, who must report it to the regulator.
This situation is then investigated, and the employer will not look kindly upon the crew member for this investigation. Thus many crew members will come to work tired, sick, unwell just to finish their weeks work and make it to their off days in order to get some down time with no undue stress from the employer.

A mate was with BA mixed fleet a few years ago, they didnt have many routes at the time. One of the possible roster combo's was LHR-NRT-LHR, (pick up 0330 local time in Tokyo!) 2 days off in London, then LHR-DEN-LHR. Perfectly legal, but punishing for the body clock. And longhaul is less mentally stressfull than multiple short sectors around various countries in Europe/Asia/Mid-East.

eatmyshorts

Tenger wrote: »

A mate was with BA mixed fleet a few years ago, they didnt have many routes at the time. One of the possible roster combo's was LHR-NRT-LHR, (pick up 0330 local time in Tokyo!) 2 days off in London, then LHR-DEN-LHR. Perfectly legal, but punishing for the body clock. And longhaul is less mentally stressfull than multiple short sectors around various countries in Europe/Asia/Mid-East.

I'd consider that a normal easier roster for us!

Senecio

Appreciate the response from those more learned than me in the industry, but my point still stands. If these practises are potentially unsafe, they should be regulated out of existence. Airlines will not regulate themselves whilst they are operating within the current legislation.

eatmyshorts

Senecio wrote: »

Appreciate the response from those more learned than me in the industry, but my point still stands. If these practises are potentially unsafe, they should be regulated out of existence. Airlines will not regulate themselves whilst they are operating within the current legislation.

Yes, they should be regulated out! But the regulators are in the pockets of the airline industry, so nothings going to change until 500 people die in Europe in a crash.

Locker10a

eatmyshorts wrote: »

Yes, they should be regulated out! But the regulators are in the pockets of the airline industry, so nothings going to change until 500 people die in Europe in a crash.

100% agreed, this is totally 100% true
Flight time limitation are not seen by airlines as the limit, they are seen as the target !

eatmyshorts

Locker10a wrote: »

100% agreed, this is totally 100% true
Flight time limitation are not seen by airlines as the limit, they are seen as the target !

Correct. When the limits were set, that's what they were supposed to be... absolute limits.
Now, they're viewed as targets.
It's the equivalent of accelerating your car to the Rev red line on every gear change, on every start, every day, at every set of lights. Yeah, sure it's "within the limits".... but...

Tenger

Locker10a wrote: »

100% agreed, this is totally 100% true
Flight time limitation are not seen by airlines as the limit, they are seen as the target !

A few years back (2005-2008) I was above 870 hours each year, but I felt that I had a good lifestyle and most duties were longer sectors (all early shifts)
In the name of "efficiency" the company changed the shift planning system....since then I am still hitting 880-895 every year but my quality of life has gone down a lot. Less time between flights as the planning system tries to schedule duties with the legal minimum time between duties. So instead of 5 days of early shifts, all finishing at 2-3pm, I get a rolling pattern of lates to mids to early over the 5-6 days, or finishing late before days of then back in for early shifts.
Same overall limits, but different implementation have very different outcome for my health and moral. 900 Block hours in my opinion is not a problem, the minimum rest between flying and consecutive WOCL duty are an big problem.

eatmyshorts

I've over 110 hours of block (not duty, block) time this month.
Plus an uncredited groundschool day. No credit for sim, leave, groundschool etc. So if I've 10 days of leave in a month, I still do the same amount of work.
Thats equivalent to telling an office worker that they have to work every weekend in any month they have holidays. Just to make up the hours.
Oh, and 10 days is calendar days. Not 16 days if you are a Monday to Friday worker.

East... West... North... South... Less than 45 mins flight... More than 16 hours flight... 7 am start... 11pm start... 3am start... 7 days off.

smurfjed

But your crowd offers some of the cheapest fares around, so that's all the guy in the pub thinks about!