Lompasaeo,
I concur with you. Challenging the EASA FTL revisions based on the appearance (in that he looks like he sleeps on a park bench) of a key member of EASA in the drafting of the proposals detracts from the issue at hand. However, I can see the point in the comments on the issue, if someone has that little consideration toward appearance and presentation and consideration to detail, then that personality trait will likely reflect in thier professional undertakings.
For me, this whole issue is more than concerning.
We have a situation where decades of research and published data is available and has been brushed aside to draft these proposals. That is is neither logical, nor safe, nor responsible, nor progressive. It is regressive and divergent in terms of what more responsible agencies around are doing in order to combat fatigue and thus improve safety to those in the air and those on the ground.
Perhaps it took the issue of Colgan Air et al. for the issue to come to the forefront of public attention in the US. The question is does it take the deaths of our counterparts and deaths of passengers here in the EU for the regulator to heed what other agencies are doing/have done; what the flight crews are experiencing and expressing; what the published data and research supports; Indeed, what other EU agencies are doing in respect of fatigue in transportation; to heed the published FTL's already available in CAP371 ?
That is negligence. Out and out negligence and that reflects the way in which EASA is conducting itself, with arrogance, negligence and stupididty to the detriment of the safety of flight crews, passengers, aircraft, cargo and those on the ground.