767 RFO trip ANC-ICN
 

How do we already have RFO flights with no "approved" crew rest facility on the 767??:confused: Trip 3136 30 Oct, 767

It's a part 91 repositioning flight that is normally done by instructors but I guess they are too busy right now.

There is no requirement for crew rest facilities on augmented flights up to 12 hours.

We biotched for years to get these ferry flights in the bid pack.....

Was told by the guy drafting the letter/FCIF that this was going to be operated as a revenue flight.

Setting the stage for the 76 to start flying Campinas in Jan.

Unless you operate under FAR 117, which is main reason they blocked it.

Not the way I read it but I am no expert. I wonder if our reclining jump seats reach 40 degrees.

http://www3.alpa.org/portals/alpa/co...nts.pdf#page18

117 actually looks uglier.

So, the bottom line is we can fly to Campinas in the 767, within our current contract limits?

Of course. We've been doing it for years with an MD-11 or MD-10-30. 3-person crew, less than 12 hours block. If they got lucky they had an -11 crew rest bird, if not they had a futon (I mean a vinyl mat on the floor).

There are Fedex MD-11s airborne as I type this flying 8 to 12 block hours with 3 pilots and no rest facility. Why is this even a question? :confused:

Back in the day we flew DC-10's up to 12 hours. And that was with your behind in your crew position.....

And 727 block over 8 with three legs.

DC-10 & B-727 have 3-person crews. What's your point? Different rules apply.

Next up, stories about walking 10 miles to school, on the snow, barefoot, uphill, both ways, and liking it. ;)






.

Technically, 2-person Crew plus 1 additional pilot.






.

You mean like an RFO? Or is that not a 3 man crew?

14.11 CFR

Crewmember. A person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time.

757/767 PHB does define the crew as a minimum of 2, no max.

Totally unsat. How am I supposed to get "rest" with people stepping all over me to use the john! Stiil a NO for me... My .02

Z

It's crazy. My friends and I have been warning that a lot of this stuff was coming. Nobody listened or even cared.

Why did we allow the 767 to come on board with the crappy cockpit setup and lack of sleeping provisions in the first place?

Why did we even allow crews to sleep on the floor in the MD11?

It's weird. In some instances, we get industry leading stuff and in other areas we're cavemen.

They're buying more 757s and the 757 is going to do more widebody flying. Hence, there's going to be less widebody positions going forward.

Have you ever even stepped foot on a 767? Doesn't sound like it! For one, on the MD, you are at least in a darkened area on the other side of the cockpit door. On the 76, you're up front, lights on, overhead speaker on, no futon, and no ability to at least get horizontal...:mad:

Actually there's room by the door to lay down, if you've got a futon or a camping pad. There's plenty of heat back there too. It's not any worse than the MD.... I've slept on both.....

I actually agree it sucks. The Campinas trip is going to have Jumpseaters and Couriers on it. It will be miserable. The point is what could we possible hope to accomplish with a contract? UPS has been doing this with the same configuration for 20 years. We got them to agree to more time off for augmented trips, if they want to fix it they have to fix the rest problem. Until then it is legal with the Feds and it is legal with the contract, whether this TA passes or not. Thinking we can tell the company which airplane to buy is nuts. Moving the head means they lose forward belly space due to plumbing. Why don't we demand no more night flying while we are it?

No, Leo, an RFO does not make it a 3-person Crew. If the airplane can fly with a 2-person Crew, an RFO is an extra crew member.

There are different rules. They are publicly available for you to read.






.

That will be up to the PIC, won't it?






.

I am confused at why someone would refer to a poster with a name other than what they have chosen. This is an anonymous forum, though some have chosen to use their names, others have not. It should be, however, the posters choice, should it not?:confused:

Yes, I have been on our 767. My reply you quoted was a response to someone asking if it could be done under our current contract. That answer is a simple "yes" for the reasons and examples I stated.

I didn't say I thought it was a good idea or even practical. It is, unfortunately, legal according to both the contract and FAR. There is also A LOT of precedent thanks to our buds at UPS and even pax airlines. Some pax operations used to give their pilots a non lay flat seat in first class, others a row of seats in coach. One of the charter operators I'm familiar with just expected the pilots to lay on the floor in the cockpit of an A320.

The MD-11 futon set-up might be marginally better than what you would have on the 767, but only slightly. You still have guys coming/going, hitting the head, making meals, etc. Temperature control was a roll of the dice and if you had jumpseaters or couriers, forget it. So, over the last 8 years, the amount of good sleep I got on that thing could probably be measured in minutes.

Short of negotiating something specific in the contract (once we vote down this TA which has nothing in that area ;)), I think anyone on the 767 should expect a futon, pillows and blankets. That's past practice. If there isn't, then you call flight coordination, ops or whoever and hold the flight until they show up. You put the futon back by the door, cuddle up with some earplugs and eye cover and do your best to sleep like everyone else not on the 777. Getting anything more than that would simply be based on good will from the company via an appeal citing safety from ALPA. As a minimum, maybe they'll retrofit a curtain that can close off the little hallway from the light of the flight deck.

This is all just fear of the unknown! Why don't you man up, grow a pair, and refuse to fly the 767 until it has bunks! Fear is not a good enough reason to vote to fly this steaming turd of an airplane!

(couldn't resist)

Also, maybe crews real concerned about everyone's rest may choose to go with headsets (no speakers), dark cockpit, hit the head before each break and lay in front of the jumpseats. Just a thought.

Yes there are and for the most part they are semantic. I have read them. Essentially the rules are the same for a three man crew and a crew of three men.

Of course just like on the triple.

It is Tony's passive aggressiveness. Don't let it bother you.

Agree totally.:D

Here is the bigger issue. NO oven so all the hot meals we order are COLD. No coffe pot so HOW many thermos jugs are going to order? No way to make hot water. The actually took the oven out of the airplane because it only going to be a domestic airplane?????
In SGN their solution was instant coffee.....Brilliant-NOT.

Its a real nice airplane back to the observer seat. Then it reminds me of an economy car with no frills....no oven, coffee maker, or rest facility, and the most basic blue water toilet. The lack of SATCOM is also a big disappointment for CPDLC ops. Cold meals just add to the disappointment. A hot meal at 30 W was always a welcome pick me up. MEM-SLC its not a big deal. MEM-ANC-ICN or MEM-VCP the limitations are going to be tiresome to the crew.

Looking at some of the micro-campers out there on the market, a solution that is both compact and comfortable seems very doable. I made the move the 767 left seat because it was obvious it was the future here, and it was in the FDA I wanted to try. That said, a few months on the line reminded me how darn nice the -11 really is, with ergonomic seats, an oven and coffee pot, a bunk, and a world class automation system. Other than that pesky tendency to occasionally bounce, break a gear, and roll on its back, its damn near perfect for traveling the world. I may yet go back but am afraid by the time I could hold what I wanted as a line the jet will be basically done, so I am learning to embrace VNAV and coming in and out of speed brake on a routine descent. But--I did buy two new sleeping bags and air mattresses to have on the PVG turn in case I get nailed with one of the dreaded 5-7 hour ATC delays. My short term plan with an RFO would be to block off the entry way, throw down a pad and bag, and keep the cockpit dark for the guy on the floor. That sucks. It absolutely is substandard for a industry leading company, and IMHO embarrassing. I enjoy the airplane on a 6-7 hour flight, but have not yet faced an RFO type flight.

i won't speculate what the forward can generates in revenue. I have a pretty good idea what a climate controlled sleep facility and a hot meal do to mitigate fatigue, enhance comfort, safety, and yes even motivation to come to work. It will be interesting to see if the trips that went senior on the -11 will go quite as senior on the 767. I know some won't believe it, but its not always about the money. I loved going to Europe and Brazil on the -11. I would not bid those trips on the 76 right now if I had the choice of that or a domestic day trip somewhere. Banging out 6-7 hours block a day going to LAS or SMF would be more fun than sleeping on a cold floor eating cold sandwiches and 9 hour old coffee, even if you were landing in Paris.

This is really surprising. All of our 767s have ovens and a hot water maker and SATCOM/CPDLC, albeit with the same lack of a true rest facility. I have heard that you guys are shopping around for a rest container, which is what we need to do at UPS after all these years.

The can crew rest facility is a pipe dream and from what i have been told is not going to happen (which is why fx was non-commital about it). Given it was just an SCA/LCA type that told me but his reasoning made sense. So we get 36 hours of before and after?

I recently heard it has been approved.

I hope we get this one with the big screen TV.

Aerocon Engineering Company - Engineering Services

It's ridiculous that we allowed permissive language such as "...will pursue FAA approval..." on this matter in the new TA. We never seem to learn our lesson.

As Yoda says: "Try not; do, or do not; there is no try."

They're still building the 767s. Is there anything we can do to get FedEx and Boeing to redesign these for long haul?

And why was the association so ignorant that these birds would be domestic only? Why was FDX so myopic to only order them in domestic configuration?

I jumpseated on my first 767 LDS last night. That hallway to the only door out of the airplane is very tight.

Heard From Boeing
 

Boeing actually desires some type of standardization between the KC-46 and the FDX 67 configuration...the USAF is certainly not placing the crapper in the cockpit (although their crew augmentation design is driven by other operational requirements and is not conducive to maximizing cargo capacity). That said, Boeing has approached FDX to reconsider the current FDX configuration in an effort to have efficiencies between the two designs.

From an experience with a previous airline (one with a more proactive Union), ALPA would have been involved in the configuration planning from the start and would have never allowed such a design to be implemented for the reasons folks mentioned previously. I do find it baffling, however, that some of the same complainants are not leveraging their opportunity to effect change with their vote on this TA, so I surmise the issue is not as pressing as the grumbling indicates.

Do go easy on the Kim Chee "extras" with your Bulgogi cold snack.

But still 18 months away