Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1568861)

Scambo,

For the EWR-CDG, I get:

FDP = 1:30 brief + 7:30 block = 9:00
Flight time = 6:50
Time available for breaks = 5:20 (:30 to TOC, back in your seat 1:00 before landing)
Time required for PF = 2:00
Time available to be split between PM and relief = 3:20
Time required for PM = 1:30 (this is met)
You can give both the PM and RP 1:40.

FDP midpoint is 4:30 before block-in, 4:20 before landing. The FP break must start NET 4:20 before landing. Take out 1 hour where everyone must be back in their seat. That leaves 3:20 between the earliest start of the PF break, and the end of the 3rd break.

If the FP complies with the "2:00 in the 2nd 1/2 of FDP" requirement, that leaves, at most, 1:20 for a 3rd break. Therefore, that pilot cannot be the PM, who requires 1:30.

Assuming you want to meet the requirements of the FAR for augmented crews, and the FOM, I think you have to move the FP to 3rd break for these shorter flights.

At 7:30 Flight Time, your FDP should be ~ 9:40 (1:30 briefing + :30 taxi-out + :10 taxi-in). At that point, you can give 2:00 to everyone. Your mid-point on the FDP is 4:50 before block-in, 4:40 before landing, so you have 3:30 between the mid-point, and TOD. So you can't give 2:00 to everyone as a single block.

So 7:30 FT is a milestone where you can treat everyone the same, but you still have to have the FP on 3rd break to meet all requirements.

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1568878)

Why would you post a picture of an A10, in afterburner?

A10's don't even have afterburners!

Oh...wait. ;^)

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1568865)

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/me...owmaggedon.jpg

So, how is Atlanta with 2inches of snow?

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1568883)

How do you "declare the flight unaugmented", and more importantly, why would you?

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1568897)

OK, I'll throw this out there as something to consider whenever you have a short flight time which will result in short breaks:

Tell the RP to go on break at 10,000'. i.e. about 5 minutes after takeoff, or when ever you hit 10K. Have the PM do the math on the flight plan and figure out the break schedule at top of climb. There is no rule that says the RP has to sit in the cockpit to top of climb, and no rule that says he has to waste his break time doing all the math. The PM can do both the FP and break times.

And our FOM only requires the landing pilot be back in their seat 45 min. out, correct? Call him 55 min out. Now you're only down 1hr. from the 7:30 block issue, leaving you 6:30 for breaks. You can cut it all the way to 7:00 and using my method, still have 2:00 each break.

OR...simply short the RP an hour (or what ever it takes to get the PF a 2:00 break) on the way over, and give it back to him on the way home....assuming he will be on your flight on the way home.

We normally swap RP's for the ride home, so it should be him getting more rest anyway, on the way home, and he'll have to do the math on that leg (unless he's the PF).

What say ye?

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1568901)

You posted the statement about under 8 hour flights.

Before everyone has another forum heart attack the company is very aware of the problems with crew rest. They have not put out guidance because they are in discussions with the FAA to mitigate this change. Hopefully they will be putting out a solution soon.

Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp (Post 1568900)

That's what happens when all the northerners go "I drove in this stuff all the time up north, I'm going to show them!"

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1568908)

I say:

1) You're right, it's 18,000' on the way up, 45 minutes on the way down.

2) This isn't my best day, and I'm feeling particularly stubborn > I'm sure we'll figure it all out, but for right now my analysis is that this part of the reg seems to have been designed by someone with a pet peeve, or a favorite method. I honestly don't see what the benefit is of pigeonholing the PF break after the 1st 1/2 > if we try to meet all restrictions, someone is going to get shorted > I need to consider your theory on having the relief get "payback" rest on the way home. That might some at the expense of the guys at the controls, which seems like the wrong way to go.

3) Ultimately, we all want everyone well-rested. In this case, the rule took some weird turns, and I think I'd rather have the rule modified. Shorting pilots, or trying to argue that we really don't need a third guy after all, both seem like terrible, terrible ideas.

Take care.