Come on guys,
This is bigger than a 'them and us' argument, and as for CAA bashing this issue is bigger than that also. They have expressed their concerns about Brian Simpson's proposals to the Council of Members as have all 18 members of the European Cockpit Association and IFALPA. The concerns are not along protectionist lines or market share or any other such measure. They are concerned primarily with SAFETY and about the 'one case fits all' approach to a FTL scheme for Europe based on no scientific evidence of the effects of fatigue in airline pilots.
Simpson has the rather naive belief that setting the limits he suggests with the 'opt out' clause for individual member state authorities will be perfectly acceptable. The proposed EU regulation allows pilots to remain at the controls of aircraft whilst significantly above level 5 on the Samn-Perelli sleepiness scale as used by QinetiQ (formerly DERA)- leading experts in the field of sleep study and the effects of fatigue on the human body. (Level 5 equates to 'Moderate to severe fatigue' based on in-flight studies and where flying duty is permissible but not recommended)
ECASS - The European Committee for Aircrew Scheduling and Safety, is critical of the proposals. They conclude 'we would certainly consider it likely that this would lead to a significant reduction of airline safety operations. We would therefore recommend that this document (Simpson's proposal) is redrafted to reflect the scientific position more closely.'
I would urge you to read the ETSC (European Transport Safety Council) paper
here prepared for the meeting 19/02/03 to discuss the role of the EU FTL legislation in reducing cumulative fatigue in civil aviation. It highlights the safety concerns too and demonstrates some of the flaws in the current proposals.
I have personally emailed all my Euro MPs to highlight my fears of these proposals being adopted and the inevitable safety detriment. One of these is Brian Simpson himself. This is his reply;
Dear Mr xxxx,
Thank you for your email. I am aware that the British Airline Pilots Association have publicly stated that the European Parliament's report on EU opps which contains flight duty time would force British pilots to work longer hours.
This is untrue.
The parliamentary report on this matter merely sets up a legal framework covering the whole of Europe in which a ceiling of maximum hours is set.
Member States such as the United Kingdom can still set flight and duty times for pilots at levels which they feel are appropriate to them and trade unions can negotiate with airlines flight and duty times for their pilots, providing that they do not exceed the maximum limits laid down. Therefore the present legal maximums set in the UK can continue, should the UK authorities so wish, and the present industrial agreements can be maintained.
An added bonus for a Europe wide regulation would be not only to set maximum limits in those countries were none exist at this moment but for the first time give legal recognition throughout Europe for cabin crew personnel. It should also be noted that the maximum flight and duty times contained within the Parliament's proposal is based on the present JAA rules which are operating in most member states at the moment.
In conclusion, I would remind you that the trade unions and airlines have been in negotiations on this issue for 15 years. Even when the Parliament was asked by the Commission to legislate in this area, its rapporteur gave the social partners a further two years to reach an agreement.
When this agreement failed (because the pilots alone would not agree) the Parliament felt it should go ahead and legislate, taking into account the views of all sides in reaching its decision.
I hope this clarifies the situation for you.
Yours sincerely
Brian Simpson MEP
European Parliament
13G209
rue Wiertz
1047 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: 0032 2 284 5293
This was my reply;
Dear Mr Simpson,
I would like to offer some further comments in response to your reply regarding your proposals to alter the FTL scheme Europe wide.
I feel the reply given, although factually correct appears, if I may be so bold, a little niave. I will respond in order.
1 You state that the proposals will not force British pilots to work longer hours which is a concern of BALPA. Yes, I am sure that under the proposals member state aviation authorities will be allowed to continue to work to stricter, more limiting schemes. But, and this is where the viewpoint appears rather simplistic, if one state has a much more lax limit (the proposal) than the UK CAA CAP371 do you not think that UK airlines will seek to exploit this? Indeed if one airline does exploit it others may be forced to follow suit in order to remain competitive. This is exactly the kind of loop hole that your proposals will encourage, to the detriment of safety. Look to commercial shipping for evidence of lesser standards under flags of convenience. I do not believe that the UK CAA will be able to hold out under intense pressure from the airlines to increase the Flight Time Limitations to that of any Europe wide JAR OPS limit. The evidence is already there that the airlines, due to commercial pressures strive to roster to the limits laid down in law. CAP 371 was introduced to be a maximum limit and was not designed as a roster framework tool, which many airlines use it as. I have only a short time in the industry but after September 11th 2001 I was placed on contract with one of the UK's leading charter airlines who rostered me to the limits of CAP371 during summer 02 and I was fatigued by the end of it suffering from repeat bouts of conjunctivis due to a depressed immune system. The better uk airlines have Flight Duty Agreements that are more restrictive than CAP371 and offer better rostering practices and increased quality of life for their pilots, but primarily increased safety. The schemes have nearly all been negotiated by BALPA working with the employers. I fear these schemes could also be at risk if airlines are allowed to 'up sticks' and move their operation to a more 'convenient' member state.
2 You point out that an added bonus of the Europe wide regulation would be not only to set maximum limits in those countries were none exist at this moment but for the first time give legal recognition throughout Europe for cabin crew personnel. I agree that setting maximum limits in those countries where non exist presently is a good thing. But, surely this should not lead to the situation described in my first point where the largest aviation business outside the US (The UK) is allowed to 'flag out' to the detriment of safety in search of increased profitability? Do you not think that the limits for any scheme should be arrived at by scientific evidence about the human physiology and fatigue from an independent expert body such as QinetiQ? I must stress again that I would be more than happy to work under any FTL which had been devised under expert guidance which maintained safety levels by preventing fatigue. Your proposals will not ensure this, infact the opposite is true. If your proposals have been arrived at through independent scientific consultation please supply me with the references.
The fact that without exception all 18 pilot organisations representing 31,000 professional airline pilots in Europe condemn the proposals as unsafe speaks volumes to me and should strike a chord with you and your parliamentary colleagues. These are the people who currently work in the industry and understand the toll that repeated changing shift patterns and time zone changes have on their performance. These are the professionals whose primary concern is safety, your safety, the public's safety and their own safety, every time they go to work. You simply must listen to their concerns and not be responsible, even if inadvertently, for a decline in these safety standards. We rely on you to legislate to prevent inappropriate commercial gain at the expense of safety. Recognition of cabin crew throughout Europe is an important issue, again one which needs addressing, but it is too small a benefit to persuade me that these proposals should be adopted. I suggest you think again for a more convincing selling point for your ideas.
3 The fact that it has taken so long to reach agreement on this issue proves just what a difficult area it is to 'harmonise'. I take your word that it was the 'pilots' alone who would not agree, but perhaps they are the only ones trying to uphold the safety standards which this industry is rightly proud of. Just because something has taken a long time is no reason to pass ill advised legislation. If you truly are taking into account the views of both sides perhaps you could explain why no scientific evidence is being used to formulate the scheme, as requested by the 'pilots'?
I refer you to the ETSC paper prepared for the "Meeting to discuss the role of EU FTL legislation in reducing cumulative fatigue in civil aviation" in Brussels 19/02/03 by T. Akerstedt, R. Mollard, A. Samel, M. Simons and M. Spencer. This paper, and I quote, says 'It is therefore regretted that the propsal is so limited in its scope.' I have to agree this is harmonisation and a retrograde step at the expense of safety. I urge you to reconsider these proposals.
I thank you all once again for listening to my arguments and urge you to look deeply into the safety issues related to these proposals and come to the only conclusion that befits such proposals.
Yours sincerely
xxxx
And
Immelman you are also incorrect in stating that Euro MPs
will neither understand or care what we are talking about
Here are the replies that I have received so far;
Dear xxxx
Thanks for your email about this matter. I am on the Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism Committee so I will be able to vote in accordance with your wishes at the appropriate time.
Regards
Den Dover Conservative MEP for North West England
And;
Dear Mr xxxx
Thank you for your letter concerning airline pilot flying hours.
My colleague, Brian Simpson MEP, is following the report through parliament and I will certainly discuss your concerns with him. I will also discuss the proposals with my other North West colleagues.
Thank you for highlighting this issue and rightly pointing out the seriousness of it.
Yours sincerely,
Terry Wynn MEP
So there you have it. It IS serious and they WILL listen if you take the time to tell them your concerns. But it's no good just me doing it, the more people who do it the better as the more 'letters' they get about a subject the more they start to realise it is a SERIOUS set of concerns they are facing.
Best FTL practice should be what we are aiming for across Europe, to maintain and enhance safety, not some ill thought out proposal to give cabin crew recognition (Simpsons goal) at the expence of overall flight safety. CC recognition is a separate issue, and justified, but not the best selling point for me.
Think hard and take action or this industry's safety record is going to be set back years. Tell your MEPs that you are willing to work under any FTL that is scientifically proven to be best practice. Tell them to reject the proposals unless they are redrafted after scientific consultation.
PP