I emailed Brian Simpson and got the standard reply. I went to see him in his Warrington office last week. The man doesn't want to listen to anything that is put to him that questions his proposals, he talks over over you, tries to belittle any concerns by blaming both sides and claims that he has done the best he could under the circumstances. He even swears several times during the meeting, especially with regard to scientific evidence and BALPA (he's not the first to swear about them though!) This is what I posted on another thread after the meeting;
BALPA is trying it's best to raise it's concerns. I personally had an 'audience' with Brian Simpson MEP yesterday to discuss these matters and he 'was not for turning'. He disputes that his proposals are unsafe on the grounds that no scientist will state this fact and go public with it. The fact is that the most respected scientists in the field (ECASS, whom he dismisses) have deep concerns but are not prepared to enter into the political argument about it. This is fair enough as it is outside their modus operandi being completely impartial and reporting only what they conclude. They have put their concerns into print but Simpson dismisses this as, and I quote; " for every scientist that says the proposals are unsafe I have another disputing this." He believes that because BALPA commissioned QinetiQ to appraise his proposals they will come up with a result that fits BALPA's position as regards the proposals. He also states that the AEA (the airlines) commissioned experts come up with a view that fits their position. He is naive in this belief and unwilling, when challenged to give details of ANY scientific evidence that he took into account when formulating his proposals, other than stating that he has a pile 9" deep of scientific evidence on his desk that is contradictory and he has taken it into consideration. The fact is he is horse-trading politically to reach an 'harmonisation' position and is not looking at best practice when coming up with an FTL that primarily takes into account safety and then looks at the other issues.
The next stage is the Council of Ministers giving their opinion on these matters, as the vote in the European Parliament has already passed and they have not rejected the proposals. The Council of Ministers have the power to reject them, send them back for ammendment/ reassessment or to accept them. Simpson is of the belief that his proposals are the best thing since sliced bread because some ststes don't have any FTL currently and therefore these states have given him the nod. The fact is that these states have taken no studies of pilot fatigue into consideration whatsover and can hardly be considered if you are looking at best practice in harmonisation. I agreed with him that his proposals are a step forward for these states, but at what expense? The fact is that the nations who have lead the field in Europe with regard to best practice in FTL planning have all taken on board the fatigue studies of organisations such as QinetiQ in the UK and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. His proposals will set back the current 'best practice', which is not ideal (CAP371 in the UK) years. Pilots will be flying a/c with a performance detriment due to fatigue greater than someone who is just over the (fairly common European) drink drive limit. This is the danger.
Simpson says that member states can keep their FTL with his proposals forming an absolute maximum. He said, and I quote, if airlines exploit loopholes or less restrictive FTLs elsewhere in Europe "that's not my problem'. His brief is to formulate a framework for harmonisation, it appears at any cost.
The best way forward now is to canvass your local MP, make them aware of your safety concerns and push them to argue the case with the Transport Minister before he goes to Europe for the Council of Ministers vote in September (I believe). State what you want from that meeting which is that the proposals should be rejected on the grounds of safety and an indepedent scientific study should be commissioned to ascertain a primarily safe framework for harmonisation.
PP